Would a non interventionist U.S. foreign policy be good for the world?

[BigLutz]

So I am not the biggest fan of Ron Paul, in fact I believe his foreign policy of being non interventionist/isolationist is one that would absolutely destroy the world. But on the other hand a local radio show host got me thinking. The U.S. by and large plays a massive part in how the world is today, but with all of our generosity and willing to police the world. We are seen as warmongers, evil people who go around act as we wish and do what we want. With out any gratitude what so ever.

So what if America, say under Ron Paul or some one else said "Screw you guys, I am going home". That would mean:

* The end of foreign aid, including but not limited to food aid in starving countries, and aid to help stop the spread of AIDS in Africa.

* The pull back of all troops in the world, from patrolling the DMZ, to helping the Afghanistan government from falling to the Taliban.

* The ending of our involvement with the U.N. not only kicking them out of New York, but also pulling back financial and military aid from the U.N. meaning that they would lose 22% of its funding, the most any nation funds the agency by nearly double. This would immediately shut down many UN relief efforts and projects. Also with out U.S. military support the U.N. would be limited in peace keeping activities. In fact it is foreseeable this action would turn the U.N. into another League of Nations.

* The end of all relief aid to any country, if a earthquake or tsunami strikes a country, the U.S. will not help. No money, no medical ships, absolutely nothing.

* The end of all foreign policies that target other countries. This will include the ending of blocking any funds or trade from Iran as they try to build a nuclear bomb, the ending of blocking any funds or trade from tyrants that are trying to kill their people, the ending of any type of pressure on countries that discriminate against women, religion, or sexuality.

I am sure there would be more consequences of such a policy, but I am curious to Americans out there if we should adopt such a policy to make the world see how ungrateful they have been. And to the rest of the world, does this policy sound like one you would support?

 

[Hox]

I've said time and time again, that regardless of whether interventionism is your "thang" the U.S. pulling out of world affairs would be absolutely catastrophic. There are countries that still only exist today because of U.S. military pressure. If we become isolationist, what's to stop North Korea from going for South Korea's throat? It's a given that China would quickly try to swallow up Taiwan. OPEC would be free to jack up oil prices, or block off the straights of Hormuz. I can't see Israel lasting very long, considering we provide a huge amount of military funding to them. In addition to BigLutz's notes on the U.N., the U.S. also provides a whopping 60% of NATO's military might. The largest military alliance in the world all the sudden becomes a lot less intimidating without the U.S. apart of it. Speaking of NATO, who knows how long the genocide in the balkans would have went on if it weren't for the U.S. led NATO operation meant to stop it. Who's going to step up to the plate if the U.S. backs down, anyway? Western Europe? AHAHAHA. Yeah, right.

Too many people are hung up on their "Hey, fuck America" attitudes they're too stupid to realize this isn't even an issue of the U.S. being a big bad bully or enflamed nationalism. It's a matter of facts. x, y, and z will inevitably happen if America removes itself from world affairs.

 

[Liberty Defender]

It would be the best foreign policy we've had in decades.

 

[Hox]

It helps to actually touch on points that have been made to spur actual discussion as opposed to simply asserting a purported truth.

But that's just me.

 

[Zevn]

While a lot of what the US does is unsavory, the fact of the matter is: If we left it alone it would be worse.

I don't personally agree with all of the tactics that are used, but for the most part the US does a lot to maintain stability in some areas of the world.

What I'm sure a lot of people don't realize(not saying this condescendingly) is that the pressure of potential US intervention stops a lot of smaller conflicts.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Ha, that's definately not a good reason to adopt a non-interventionist policy. The data all provides excellent reasons not to be non-interventionist, but the twist at the end about punishing the world for not saying 'thank you' sounds like the language of a controlling codependant. I'll be the first one to admit I don't know enough about the global scene, but I've always said our foreign policy is like a global version of codependant disorder. First we want to rescue other countries, then we lash out when we can't control them, especially when not all of them hail us as the heroes we wanted to be.

You've got to expect that when you give such overwhelming assistance to people who can't repay you or aren't at your level of development, you won't get anything that is self-affirming back, especially on a global scale from nations of all different cultures, attitudes, and aspirations. I'm pretty sure the growing trend of non-interventionism is not just from simple ingratitude or 'fevered nationalism'. Individual countries feel uncomfortable with the massive consolidation of power that America and NATO have. I would, if I were them. Especially with the repeated military exercises since 9/11, any small country that just doesn't like the U.S. for one reason or another, even due to cultural exclusivity, has a real reason to be nervous that a country that can end their existance, and believes it could have the moral mandate to do so, is currently so agitated and involved in so many countries. On an individual level, peers on the same level are often uncomfortable and eventually very resentful of being in financial reliance or otherwise to each other, even if it seems irrational because they are the takers. I think it's the same way on a global scale if you replace individuals with countries and/or cultures.

All in all, no I don't believe we should be completely non-interventionist. I don't think the trend toward non-interventionalism and the support for Ron Paul is because people want to stop it altogether; there's probably a specific one or two interventions everyone uses as a pet peeve. (There are A LOT to choose from nowadays.) So I think if we just slowed down a little and really exercised more inhibition into how often we intervene, it would do a load of good.

 

[Liberty Defender]

I refuse to be brainwashed by the Zionist media into thinking that we need to engage in neocon preemptive wars of aggression around the globe in our to serve our national security interests.

 

[Hox]

You should probably hide your money under your bed then, considering the banks are all ran by Jews and what not.

 

[cantab]

BigLutz, you're making a classic straw man argument.

 

[Liberty Defender]

You should probably hide your money under your bed then, considering the banks are all ran by Jews and what not.

Are you antisemitic? That's a terrible thing to say.

 

[waffle_x_v]

I don't understand why all of you are giving "end of the world" kind of attitude regarding nonintervention. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any proof that things would get worse as a result of the US going into a state of isolation?

 

[SugarFreeJazz]

I don't understand why all of you are giving "end of the world" kind of attitude regarding nonintervention. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any proof that things would get worse as a result of the US going into a state of isolation?

Non-interventionism and isolationism are two different political theories. Non-interventionism is when a nation retains trade and commerce and few allies, whereas isolationism is when a nation has no connection to the outside world. So to answer your question, the US going into a state of isolationism would be catastrophic, but whether or not it would be the same for non-interventionism is still up for debate.

All of the proof we need is located in our history books.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

It would be absolutely disastrous.

 

[Zevn]

Are you antisemitic? That's a terrible thing to say.

You're the one who said: "..I refuse to be brainwashed by the Zoinist media.."

The first thought that came to me was that you couldn't possibly be serious.

Then I remembered people think trolling is clever. That or you think typifying paranoid zealots is funny.

 

[SugarFreeJazz]

You're the one who said: "..I refuse to be brainwashed by the Zoinist media.."

The first thought that came to me was that you couldn't possibly be serious.

Then I remembered people think trolling is clever.

Zionism is the belief that there should be a sovereign Jewish state. You can be anti-Zionist and not be antisemitic.

Just ignore his posts until they contribute to the thread.

 

[deoxysdude94]

If we didn't intervene with other countries, we'd be doing a lot better in many aspects, such as debt. I think we should intervene if there is a natural disaster. For example, let's say an earthquake happens in some other country, and it's devastated. In that case, we should help them. Other than that and trade, we should stick to ourselves.

 

[Zevn]

It's a fundamental part of their belief system. While what you suggest is certainly possible, there is a major pitfall. I personally don't get the whole sacred land deal, but it's very important to their culture.

Yes, even though I know I shouldn't respond to posts like that, I have a gnawing desire to.

It would be interesting to see the US become isolationist for twenty years, and see what happens to the rest of the world. Actually, I don't think we're intervening enough with Syria at the moment.

 

[SugarFreeJazz]

It would be absolutely disastrous.

Couldn't that also be dependent on how quickly the US moves into non-interventionism and at the extent of which they do it?

It's a fundamental part of their belief system. While what you suggest is certainly possible, there is a major pitfall. I personally don't get the whole sacred land deal, but it's very important to their culture.

There are actually many Jews who oppose Zionism because it conflicts with some of the essential principles of the Torah.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just thought i'd point it out.

 

[Malanu]

It would be the best foreign policy we've had in decades.

Although vague, We do stick our nose into to many windows. By doing so we actually prolong the conflicts sometimes... (middle east I'm looking at you). If we are going to fight for someone we should finish the job, leave the bad guys a smoking broken ruin, and be done with it.

As far as disaster relief goes... It's nice to be the savior but our economy can no longer sustain us helping anyone who asks. It's time to apply triage thinking. If a country is to far gone, We help if it after we help those who can get on their feet with minimal help first. Or if they have paid back any loans that may be outstanding.

The position may be harsh, but who would we be able to help if we fall due to being over stretched?

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

By doing so we actually prolong the conflicts sometimes... (middle east I'm looking at you).

Implying the middle east would be all flowers and hugs if left to their own devices.