English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

11 answers

the problem is that technology has shrank this world to a point where isolation will get more people killed. With the begining of the technology boom in WWII just look at how many people died by waiting so long. If we had cut the head off before their foothold in poland and france it would have been far less bloody. The technology now shows that if you let someone get that big a foothole the devistation will be catostorphic.

the other problem is the world has gotten so pc you cant take care of problems until you have a concreate case which by my statments above show that is impossible. Therefore we are in for a lot of trouble.

2006-11-20 06:33:35 · answer #1 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 2 0

Good question'

I at one time believed Isolationism was what we needed. Now, I believe aggressive policy using our allies and the UN is the best course of action.

We as a world, as a country, can not sit back and watch the terror; nuclear threat grow. We must strike back. The world has sit by watching the Terrorist's rain in a new age culminating with the 9/11 attacks. Al Queda and its splinter factions have been known about since the late 80's, not until they made an unprovoked attack on American soil did we really start to wage a campaign against them.

As for Nuclear proliferation that is a messed up policy: India can have it, DPRK and IRAN can not. If we want to keep proliferation in check I believe all countries should be able to draw from the interest or none at all.

I also, see America as the world leader, in all foreign policies of the world. Which is good. As usually we have several good allies backing our suggested actions: i.e: France, Poland, Britain, Germany, and to a lesser extent the U.A.E. in the middle east.

Thanks

2006-11-20 06:36:12 · answer #2 · answered by devilduck74 3 · 2 1

We need to be a neutral Isolationist country.

We need to stop sticking our nose into other nations business and take care of our own people. Yes Saddam was a mean evil dictator, how does that make it our responsibility to destabilize the entire region by eliminating a government and creating chaos.

We have never been neutral in any conflict even when we were claiming that we were.

For example:
WW1 we claimed neutrality and yet we were selling arms to the allies, so the German U-boats started sinking our arms transport vessels such as the Lusitania.

WW2 we claim neutrality but cut off oil and fuel supplies to the Japanese instigating the attack on pearl.

2006-11-20 06:51:37 · answer #3 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 1 1

I like the idea that Bush never left America before becoming president.

Not being influenced by ever reading a book about the world or experiencing it first hand is the best possible position for America.

So my vote goes to Team Bush

Go big Red Go

2006-11-21 06:10:05 · answer #4 · answered by 43 3 · 1 0

I am really starting to think isolationist. The world does nothing but complain about "evil" America, but they either have their hands out for our money, or they expect us to solve the world's problems. Well, some of the world's problems, at least. Look how many people criticize us for getting involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then look at how many of the SAME people are complaining that we're not doing enough for Darfur. Let 'em work it out on their own, and use American money for Americans.

2006-11-20 06:30:30 · answer #5 · answered by Jadis 6 · 3 2

A sharply more active diplomatic corps, a strong military, and an adherence to a policy of open minds will make our Foreign Policy become more effective.

2006-11-20 06:32:18 · answer #6 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 3 1

After stopping the slaughter in Iraq and defending our selfs against being targeted by Iraq ground batteries and then the dumb @#$ liberals saying the war was illegal to defeat the war from within. I say this Total Isolationism starting and including Sudan if the world is going to freak when stop crimes againist humanity I say screw em and let their child die defending them not ours.

2006-11-20 06:43:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

We need to base our foreign policy on the theme of: "What have you done for us lately?"

2006-11-20 06:36:12 · answer #8 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 2 0

I don't which is best but I know which has been proven worse, isolationism lead to WW2 and more isolationism today will lead to more terrorist attacks on American Soil. America needs to be proactive and Kill the people who want to kill Americans before they can.

2006-11-20 06:29:26 · answer #9 · answered by TEXAS TREY 3 · 4 1

Openness, respect and diplomacy.

2006-11-20 06:37:09 · answer #10 · answered by oksana_rossi 3 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers