2007-02-15 16:44:01 · 5 answers · asked by The Goods 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Neither. Both would hurt this country and my standard of living.
2007-02-15 16:47:40 · answer #1 · answered by Michael E 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Given my preference, I would close the borders and become isolationist. I'm afraid that isn't viable today, in a world where extremists plot to tear us down. I don't think it's possible to have a strong and active national security while at the same time being isolationist, unless all work to quell plots is done undercover and through secretive measures (like in the days of the CIA and KGB cloak and dagger.) George Washington said that the country would be strongest if we continued in the ways of his strict isolationism. The world has grown smaller in a way he would have never foreseen, but it was good advice.
2007-02-16 00:53:39 · answer #2 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say isolationist. Listen to the words of the Founders -- the rest of the world is too engulfed in chaos for us to have anything to do with it except trade. Politics are out, economic aid is out, everything but trading for what we need.
I still support the Iraq war, as being isolated doesn't mean we need to sit back and wait for the bad guys to blow us up before we eliminate the threat.
2007-02-16 15:27:42 · answer #3 · answered by Richard S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm to the point where I would like to say "screw you" to the rest of the world and just live in our own little country not caring about the woes of the world but that will never happen, but its a nice thought.
2007-02-16 00:48:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
fortress America : isolationism all the way!!...they say we wont survive that way...thats bull! if this grand and mighty Union puts it mind to something, it can accomplish anything, even a prosperous isolationism.
2007-02-16 00:59:26 · answer #5 · answered by rihannsu 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋