World Leader or Isolationist?

Question

What is your opinion, should America continue to be involved in world security and foreign affairs as much as it is now, and be an active world leader, or should Americans adopt an isolationist policy and leave the rest of the world to its own devices?

Answer 1

The US HAD an isolationist policy before we were dragged into WWII. I don't think our isolation in the 1930's bought us much happiness or kept us out of what was going on in the world.

Some would say our reluctance made our eventual enemies BOLDER and created a bigger mess to eventually clean up.

I think we should directly deal with threats to our security. The UN can be utilized for "policing" the other troubled spots.

Answer 2

I'm not a history professor but I don't believe an isolationist policy has ever been beneficial for any nation. It makes you vulnerable to not be involved in the rest of the world in at least some way.

I recall Japan having that type of policy and when they were finally introduced to the advanced technology of other nations, they realized how far behind they'd fallen and how vulnerable they were. It was then that they began to study and copy technologies and then improve to the point where they are now a dominant player.

Answer 3

There is a bigger agenda than what your question poses. Have you ever heard of the"ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT"? George Bush Sr. used this in many of his speeches. Get on Amazon.com and try to get a copy of the book "EN ROUTE to GLOBAL OCCUPATION" by Gary H. Kah. You may have to get a copy from a used book site if it is still out of print. This book was a real eye-opener for me and I think if you'll read it you understand where were headed.

Answer 4

WWW.VOTETOIMPEACH.ORG!!
Just stay the same only sane and not invading places we arent wanted! Bombing innocent peple, creating the next generation of terrrorists!

Answer 5

no we should become serious about national security and lock the borders down and fix our domestic situations