culture data repository
home | articles | recommendations | culture list | iain banks
latest article A Review of _The Player of Games_ by blumsha | latest recommendation ooh ooh look! by Bascule
LOG IN
username

password | forgot this?


SEARCH


CATEGORIES
Afterlife (1)
Art (9)
Artificial Intelligence (2)
Artificial Life (2)
Bioethics (2)
Biology (7)
Genetics
Mutation (1)
Molecular Biology (2)
Books (1)
Book Reviews (51)
Iain Banks (12)
Culture, The (9)
Computers (4)
Games (13)
HTML (1)
Internet (3)
Software
Open Source (1)
Consciousness (5)
Copyright (1)
Culture List (4)
Listees (21)
Questionnaires (73)
Cyberspace (1)
Economics (6)
Education (1)
Entertainment (3)
Fiction (13)
Food (6)
Future (12)
Gadgets (2)
Game Theory (1)
Intellectual Property (1)
Law (4)
Literature (1)
Mathematics (1)
Media (1)
Medicine (1)
Miscellanea (3)
Movies
Movie Reviews (67)
Music (1)
Music Reviews (19)
Outer Space (4)
Philosophy (11)
Ethics (10)
Physics (6)
Astrophysics (1)
Particles (6)
Quantum Theory (5)
Relativity (3)
Special Relativity (1)
VBHT (19)
Politics (4)
Science Fiction (4)
Television (4)
Travel (5)
Isolationism v. Global policing

what are the benefits and what sides proponents are right in my point of view

ARTICLE INFO
category Politics
added 2003 august 08
author bigred22
comments 5
Global terrorism is a huge threat to the U.S. and those that support the U.S. Isolationism is an even bigger threat. Many people in the Muslim world are against America; some hate it so much they are willing to kill Americans any way they can. The world is a dangerous place for the Americans of the 21st century; political discord at home only increases that danger. The U.S. risks spiraling into a period of darkness and despair caused by mistakes made in the late 20th and early 21st century. The Vietnam War inspired a heightened antiwar attitude in the U.S. This was presented as an attempt to prevent American boys dying overseas, but was really a facade for rebelling against society. This pacifist attitude amplified by a liberal government in the 1990's at the end of the cold war lead to a weak military policy. Pulling U.S. troops out of Somalia in 1993 sent a message to the rest of the world: “Americans are wimps that can be defeated by a mob of armed gangsters!” The impact of the message was not understood at home. The squeamishness of American leaders and the public was the direct result of poor military policy since Vietnam. Lets face it Americans do not want their children shipped home in body bags and this reluctance was exacerbated by a liberal government unwilling to bloody their hands so they could avoid a political disater. When the 2000 election resulted in a Republican government things seemed to be looking up. Then came September the 11th; a day which like Pearl harbor sparked the fuel of patriotism in all of us. A wave of nationalism followed the patriotism as people reacted to the some 3,000 deaths. The war on terror has been a huge success, but the squeamish attitude has not gone away even in the face of 3,000 Americans dying. When seven troops were killed in Afghanistan, it made front page news for days and justification for the military action was questioned. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding in the way Americans view the global situation. This squeamishness can limit the effectiveness of our President to order the armed forces into action against our enemies in defense of our country. Further Presidential action to fight terror and to contain our enemies will be controversial. These actions will clash with pacifist and isolationist views of those who would rather to see U.S. soldiers unemployed than acting as policemen. This movement could very well gain momentum if weapons of mass destruction are never found in Iraq. This is a shortsighted view taken by people who cannot understand what would have happened if Sadaam ever got such weapons and used them on us. If this view predominates, the liberals could once again gain power and interventionists could lose favor amongst Americans. Now onto the potential for a period of darkness and despair I was talking about earlier. Isolationism in the years following World War One allowed evil doers to come into political power. An isolationist outlook today could lead to similar difficulties. Also, while isolationism may look like a good idea in the short term, it could lead to an explosion of terror attacks on the U.S. Withdrawing from the world cannot help the problem of global terrorism. The most recent attacks in Saudi Arabia show that even with U.S. forces withdrawing from the country to respond to the concern of US the troops being there, the terror attacks continue. History is the greatest teacher. We have the example from Europe in the period before World War Two. Because of an unwillingness to confront agressors with power and might Adolf Hitler came to power and came to dominate Europe. The subsequent war was much more costly in terms of lives, resources and lost opportunities because it was put off. Remember the past and don’t let that happen to such a great country as America!


5 COMMENTS
Interesting but... 2003 august 12 at 05:43 Eccles
Some thoughts:

"The war on terror has been a huge success" - I think that still has to be proven.

You seem to suggest interventionism will prevent terror groups establishing themselves yet surely it was US intervention that brought power to such people as bin Laden and Saddam not to mention the support for Saudi Arabia.

I think you've over simplified the reason for Hitler coming to power and the start of WW2.

paradox 2003 august 13 at 09:34 Telford88
It strikes me that many of the causes of the rise of (particularly Islamic) opposition to the US is caused not by any policy of Isolationism by policies of (in the eyes of many islamic states) political interference and cultural imperialism and military occupation.

It also strikes me that many of your jingoistic half-thoughts don't really stand up to any kind of close scrutiny. Take two things that you know/beleive (at least at an emotional level) to be true... then look closely to check that they are compatible with each other -- if they are not compatible then one of them must be wrong surely?

Which of the following do not fit together:

Bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein were known to be enemies... (no love lost there at all in fact).

Iraq was related to the 9/11 attack.

Bin Laden is responsible for the attack.

Bin Laden recruits many followers by pointing out the sacriligious presence in Saudi Arabia of an american infidel army base.

US Isolationism strengthens the case for terrorists and will lead to an increase in terrorist attacks.

US should formally occupy an Arab-Islamic state to redcuce the threat of terrorism.

It seems to me that the basic and extremely sad fact is that the harder you push terrorists, the more you feed their resolve and their ranks. A jingoistic doublethink attitude when discussing the issues or presenting a point of view does nothing to edify the debate.

The often-drawn comparison between the current terrorist situation and the inter-war years is tenuous to say the least and tbh is a cheap gimmick -- IMO eccles was being exceedingly polite.

Did someone mention meta-war?

return comments 2003 august 19 at 20:56 bigred22
to the first comment about me over simplifying hitlers rise to powe: i used what facts concerning the subject were useful in my op ed piece. Indeed hitlir did rise to power because of many other reasons, but the war weary europe decided not on an interventionist war but rather to sit it out and see what happenes. Secondly i agree that my artical is extreme to say the least, but i belive even if intervention cause more terror attacks in the long run it will stop them

more return comments 2003 august 19 at 21:05 bigred22
Bin Laden and Saddam didn't have personal ties Al queda(Bin laden's group) and Ansar Al Islam(saddam's group) did Iraq funded Al-queda generoulsy so they were a factor in the september the 11th attacks. As pointed out in my artical...even with US troops gone from saudi arabia the attacks continue because the damage has been done. by the way seeing as i am only 15 what the heck is a meta-war?

Meta War 2003 august 29 at 04:49 Telford88
"what is a meta war?" LOL! Ask Brendan - he'll explain it to you.... Something about a war fighting about the type of war that is acceptable: "I don't like the way that you fight so I'm going to declare war on you..." Bren is far more eloquent (and IIRC the phrase is his invention)...

add comment

MOST COMMENTED | a big pile of poo (23) | The new meme - War-Chucking (9) | Culture Mailing List has moved (6) | Isolationism v. Global policing (5) | Culture list FAQ (5) | Is Horza a git? (5) | Autobiography (4) | Broken Angels - Richard Morgan (4) | Avalon (2000) (4) | They’re Getting Better At It All The Time (4) | see more
MOST PROLIFIC | Rich (72) | brendan (38) | dan (36) | Lal (29) | Martin (25) | Brad DeLong (25) | Adrian (23) | emptyjames (17) | Rik (16) | The Bear (15) | Eccles (12) | heif (8) | oletheros (8) | Gryffyd (7) | cdr (6) | fionna (6) | Open Conspiracy Node 37 (5) | amanda (5) | Jo (4) | Evan (4) | see more
RANDOM ARTICLE activate! | FEEDBACK cdr@theculture.org | POLITICAL COMPASS accuracy 50.52% | THE CDR IS © 2003 the Culture