what if the u.s. became isolationist....just withdrew from all world politics

[sphincter]

thanks to judge wapner....a great idea for a thread...
pull everything back for one year...or for good.......pull out of s.korea....out of europe...stop all aid.........pull totally out of the middle east.....take history back a year or so....put saddam back in power....let israel and palestine know that we no longer are involved in any way....no aid to israel...no protection for kuwait or saudi arabia...


just issue a blanket statement to the rest of the world...."THE U.S. IS NO LONGER INVOLVED....DO AS YOU WISH....THE U.S. HAS NO PART IN ANY INETRNATIONAL ISSUES....JUST LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE"...shut down the borders with mexico and canada....no foreign student visas......

obviously trade and other such issues would go on....but,put a moratorium on american influence politically and militarily.....

what would happen?....please weigh in guys....i think it`s an intersting topic....and try and be objective,if at all possible....

 

[JudgeWapner]

Sphinc,not sure either but would be interesting.

 

[Brazil4Worldcup2002]

Sure. But they would also have to withdraw support for Israel which would be a great thing.

 

[sphincter]

would there be an israel?.....or would they be annihilated by the fundamentalist horde....surely without u.s. aid israel couldn`t survive surrounded on all sides by mortal enemies......would there even be a south korea?.....would that be a good thing?.....would germany have been united?....would the u.s.s.r. still exist as it once was?...

if, hypothetically, the u.s.retroactively had taken this isolationist stance,would kuwait and saudi arabia belong to iraq?...

would these things be good for the world?....would they alleviate the terror problem?

would pakistan and india feel free to let loose over kashmir?

how would the world be different?....would it be a better,safer place?

 

[Oceans11]

Israel would go bankrupt without US support.

They would nuke the whole area before they went down tho.

Pakistans Junta would collapse and probaly be replaced with a fundamentalist outfit.
They would have nukes too, so India would invade.

And N Korea would nuke S Korea, just for a laff.

Hmmmm
Maybe a culture based on squishy burgers and fizzy pop has its uses.

The bottom line.
The world is too small for isolationism now, you're stuck with us, and us with you.

 

[sphincter]

eek......some good stuff......appreciate the feedback....

 

[WildBill]

A couple of nuclear wars, retalitory trade wars, economy of the world would fall apart....it would be disaster. I am sure its well recognized that this can't be allowed to happen, it would set the world back to pre WWI days. Fact is countries like India don't go after Pakistan and North Korea doesn't attack South Korea because the US is either there or will be there. Taiwan would long have been part of China, Israel probably could hold up somewhat but it would be a carnage for both sides...I mean the list of things could go on and on. Most of the all the world depends on the US for economic growth and the markets they provide. After all the reason why the world has invested so much in the US leading to the trade inbalance isn't so much they like US currency more, its that they are buying the perceived security of our rules, our laws, our market oversight forces. People complain about what has happened in the US markets last 10 years just need to go live elsewhere to see that self-dealing and funny numbers are a time honored tradition in about 95% of the world.

 

[outandup]

USA is.

"Walter Williams is my hero" outandup 2002

 

I'd love it. No foriegn monetary aid. No foriegn military aid. No foriegn humanitarian aid. Let's withdraw from the United Nations, NATO, NAFTA, and any other agreement or membership that dries up the financial and military resources of this country. The first thing that would happen is the rapid proliferation of nukes. Sold by N. Korea, former Soviet republics, or any other capable rogue nation looking to make a buck. I don't view this as a complete gloom-and-doom scenario that some would. Nukes on every corner as a deterrent. That's why I don't think Isreal would fall as quickly as some have suggested. Financially Israel would be screwed. No way it can support it's country and military from within. The same could be said for S. Korea. Let's leave 'em with a few nukes to keep the tunnel dwellers from the North from starting any shit. Sure, sooner or later one of these idiotic "leaders" will decide to lob one. But hell, that can happen at any moment already. C'mon let's give it a shot. A trial period, as Judge suggested. One or two years. Enough time for the rest of the world to decide whether or not they dislike us as much as they say they do. At the end of that period, we'll resume humanitarian aid only. We will offer up our military only if requested by a truly democratic country. And only if that country's citizens have voted in a referrendum to allow U.S. troups. And finally, only if that country provides at least 50% of the running costs (based on resources) of maintaining that presence. No doubt 3rd world nations would suffer the most. A few coups here and there would certainly happen. A few former dictators would certainly reappear. It can be said that the ones that argue most against the U.S. presence around the globe, and stand to gain the most are those same dictators and thier regimes. Must be wonderful for those who agree with them. And can I get an over/under on how long it would take France to fall to the first country that said boo? You can't set the number low enough. I'm all over the under. Sorry, couldn't resist taking one little shot.

 

[DreamMaker]

or...US isolationism would leave open areas to emerging world powers. I wouldn't be surprised in seeing a much more active China, for instance.

Whenever one pulls out there's a couple of others ready to step in.

 

[sphincter]

if the middle east were left to their own devices and went extremely radical fundamentalist(i understand"the middle east" is a gross generalization,but you know what i mean)and decided to boycott the u.s. oil-wise,would we be able to get enough from the canada`s and the venezuela`s?

wouldn`t our asses be in a sling?

 

[DreamMaker]

dunno...as long as we are prepared to pay more to drive around I think it could be worth give it a shot.

 

[Brazil4Worldcup2002]

i think you guys are being too melodramatic here thinking the world would be so much worse off without the US and how nukes would be set off everywhere. I just have one point, its pure speculation whether nukes would be set off everywhere but I have one fact, the US is the only country to have used nukes. Furthermore, and i wonder where Israel, france, and Britain got their nukes from. So who made the world more dangerous?

 

A2, What was the result of the US using the a-bomb? Would'nt that have been the END of WWII? How did kicking the Japs out of most of Southeast Asia make the world more dangerous? Aside from an occasional suicide coward, when is the last time someone tried to invade Isreal, France or Britain since they have had nukes? Saddam, Osama, the Taliban, Radovic all looking for work or dead. Yep, the U.S. is a real terror to the world.

 

[Brazil4Worldcup2002]

sure, under the circumstances the US was justified in using the nuke.....dunno about the second one though.

last time someone tried to invade israel was in 1967, '7 day war'

 

[sphincter]

if not for israel,saddam would have had nukes in the gulf war.....and if not for the destruction of the french built nuclear reactor,those would have probably been nukes thudding into israel,not scuds....then,things would have really gotten interesting....

israel probably has a nuclear aresenal....and have not used it....i`m not entirely sure the same could be said for some of the radical fundamentalist regimes if they had access to such an arsenal.....granted,it`s just conjecture....

 

[exilarch]

The rulers of this planet will never allow the US to go isolationist.The trend is toward globalization,and what the people want is of no consequence to these rulers.

 

[radiofreecostarica]

out,

i don't think that anyone here is or has argued that the US is NOT important in world affairs. It is precisely because of its importance that a keen eye should be kept on its actions.

 

[sphincter]

"the rulers" of the world?.......if the u.s. chose to withdraw from the world stage,i`d think many nations would jump for joy......as was said previously,russia and china would almost immediately assume the mantel of so-called world leadership...wouldn`t that be interesting

the entire muslim world would be ecstatic that all u.s. support for israel would be a memory...

"judas" france would be closer to assuming some sort of role of importance with the u.s. gone(it would be really interesting to see devious france licking the asses of china and russia ...maybe playing one against the other to their own ends)....

this would be a boon to many countries....

the world market might be another story....

would the anti-american cabal(russia,china,france,the middle east)plot together to further undermine the u.s.?.....

my main question would be...."would the u.s.` withdrawal from the world stage basically end the terrorism issue in america?"

 

[sphincter]

nato chief,"anti-americanism dangerous"......



Continued anti-Americanism could result in the US disengaging from the rest of the world with "dangerous" consequences, Nato General Secretary Lord Robertson has warned.

He was commenting on the threat to world order posed by the continuing rift between Europe and the US in the wake of the Iraq war.

Relations between America and France reached an all time low following French President Jacques Chirac's outspoken criticism of the US-led conflict.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he was concerned about "trite anti-Americanism" in the UK, arguing it had "become fashionable".

It's a sort of racialist view that the USA is wrong in principle and wrong in practice


Lord Robertson and Mr Straw were speaking in "Which Way are We Facing", a BBC Radio 4 programme examining the British public's attitudes to the US and to Europe.

The programme, to be broadcast at 1900GMT on Monday, also looks at how much British anti-Americanism there is.

'Generic attack'

Lord Robertson, a former UK defence secretary, said: "Anti-Americanism I see not as a criticism of individual policies or even an individual president. It's a sort of racialist view that the USA is wrong in principle and wrong in practice.

"It is a generic attack on America and American standards and American values and approaches.

"I'm very worried about anti-Americanism because I think it is deeply corrosive to a relationship that is critically important for the overall security of the world.



"These attitudes are deeply worrying, deeply corrosive and have to be tackled head on. If they're not, then the future is bleak indeed.

"If they continue to be criticised in that unreasoning and emotive way then I see disengagement being the outcome and that being much more dangerous to all of us than American involvement or interventionism."

Mr Straw echoed this concern and reminded people of the "immense" contribution made by the US "for the good".

'Obsession'

"I am worried about trite anti-Americanism in this country," he told the programme.

"I think that people get obsessed about the United States because of its immense wealth and power. I think it's just become fashionable, this kind of anti-Americanism, and it's a convenient parody.

"If you look at the United States of course there are things that we would not necessarily approve of, but if you look at the US's contribution to where we are today, it has been immense and for the good.

"First of all they did literally save Europe from the most terrible tyranny in the Second World War but in addition if you look at IT, you look at biotech, the things that these days keep us going, make our lives happier and healthier, it's to America that we owe a huge amount.

"People need to remember that."