Your Opinon - Would we be Better Off?

[David Octavius]

Lets say the US pursued an isolationist policy during the twentieth century and only went to war when we were attacked. So save for WWI when Germany bombed civilian American vessels and WWII because of Pearl Harbor, we didn't have another war - no Korean war, No Vietnam or Gulf War. Nor attempted to influence foreign politics - no overthrow of the Shah of Iran, or installing Pinochet etc..do you think we would be more secure and still be as prosperous?

In the 19th century we were isolationist - we didn't even participate in the Napoleonic wars which was arguably a world war and we seemed to be fine, how do you explain that?

Finally, if your a free market advocate who believes the more prosperous we are, the greater the freedom - how do you reconcile that if you believe that government intervention - like being friends with the Saudi's - allowed us to be more prosperous than with out it? Putting aside the matra that government should not interfere with the market and focusing on belief that being more prosperous leads to greater freedom would mean that without government foreign intervention we would be less free because we would be less prosperous to pursue our own ends.

[7960]

Better? Worse? Nobody has no idea.

We'd be different, that's for sure. But it's beyond impossible to say if we'd be better or worse off.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

Better? Worse? Nobody has no idea.

We'd be different, that's for sure. But it's beyond impossible to say if we'd be better or worse off.

I think we tend to remember the bad and ignore/forget about the good. It would be a different world, whether we'd be better or worse off isn't able to be determined.

[Ardentfrost]

I'm against being an isolationist because that means we resist globalization. However, I am for being non-interventionist... if that's what you're talking about.

[Thorgrim]

Because FDR wasn't liberal enough, and insisted on a balanced budget during the great depression, only war deficit spending could have kicked the economy into high gear...

In 1900 we had a military less powerful than Bulgaria's (yes, laugh, it's true) and economic powerhouses of Europe dominated

Now we dwarf the world in both, and everyone can especially appreciete the latter

In my opinion, we'd be a larger version of Canada...which is not the kind of world i'd like to live in...not to mention all the risks of Kaisers, Fascists or Communists running the world

[ballz2wallz]

How would we be better off? Isolationism might have worked a century or two ago when our economy essentially depended on ourselves, but with the world economy as it is today, we'd be totally screwed.

[Stylerod]

Yeah, I can't answer either. Korea helped slow the tide of communism and Vietnam may also have. If we hadn't stepped in there and stayed in Germany after WW2 a lot of the world may have turned communist and that would have been a really, really bad thing. For us and for them.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Yeah, I can't answer either. Korea helped slow the tide of communism and Vietnam may also have. If we hadn't stepped in there and stayed in Germany after WW2 a lot of the world may have turned communist and that would have been a really, really bad thing. For us and for them.

I was thinking about this same subject the other day.

Why would it have been bad? Communism has failed.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I was thinking about this same subject the other day.

Why would it have been bad? Communism has failed.

Can you say that it would have failed if we didn't oppose it?

That's why this topic is worthless...nobody knows or even could know how things would be different if we were isolationist.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

Can you say that it would have failed if we didn't oppose it?

That's why this topic is worthless...nobody knows or even could know how things would be different if we were isolationist.

Good point.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 7960

Can you say that it would have failed if we didn't oppose it?

Communism didn't fail because the US opposed it. Communism failed because it didn't work. We only happen to be an example of what the alternative is, and people prefer it. Even if we weren't around, people would eventually have come to the realization that Communism is a failure.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Communism didn't fail because the US opposed it. Communism failed because it didn't work. We only happen to be an example of what the alternative is, and people prefer it. Even if we weren't around, people would eventually have come to the realization that Communism is a failure.

Then why are there still communist countries?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

Then why are there still communist countries?

In the process of failing.

Any successful communist countries? China a failing fast, it's only a matter of time before they have a major revolt. North Korea, who used to be feared by South Korea, now has no chance of making an attack on anyone, not to mention everyone in that country besides Kim himself is horribly poor.

There are others, but none of them are worth a damn.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Yeah, I can't answer either. Korea helped slow the tide of communism and Vietnam may also have. If we hadn't stepped in there and stayed in Germany after WW2 a lot of the world may have turned communist and that would have been a really, really bad thing. For us and for them.

Communism failed and will continue to fail because it DOES NOT WORK - not because our righteous military defeated Communists anywhere.

[lew]

Originally Posted by 7960

Then why are there still communist countries?

Because people are stupid. And they think it will work, even though it has a Zero % success rate.


Just like here, people think Socialism "lite" or Fascism "lite" will work here fine, but it is doomed to fail.

[goldenponderbob]

What if we were to rephraze it as; "Stalinizm, a combination of dictatorship, thuggery and socialism, failed, but socialism, based on Marxist ecomonics has never been more popular"?

Including perhaps the next world leader, come 1/21/09!

Is there anyone here old enough to remember when the KKK, back in the early 60's, tried to put a new face on itself, a makeover of sorts, and even hired PR firms to try and make people forget it's less than stella history?

Needless to say the "new lovable KKK plan" didn't work! .

There still wolves around passing themselves off as lovable sheep!

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by 7960

Then why are there still communist countries?

Capitalism works because of internal competition while there is little competition intermally in Communism they use the US as competition to stir their people with hate for us to get them to work hard and produce.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by lew

Because people are stupid. And they think it will work, even though it has a Zero % success rate.


Just like here, people think Socialism "lite" or Fascism "lite" will work here fine, but it is doomed to fail.

We aready are socialism light. We are now just deciding on what mixture of socialism and capitalism is best.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 7960

Then why are there still communist countries?

People prefer not to learn from past mistakes.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by 7960

Can you say that it would have failed if we didn't oppose it?

That's why this topic is worthless...nobody knows or even could know how things would be different if we were isolationist.

Thats why the topic of the thread is OPINION - as in, what do you think? This no different than OPINIONS about how to win the "war" on terror or win in Iraq - this is a online forum site after all.

And as for "this topic is worthless" opinion, what does that say about the person who thinks that yet still posts in the thread anyway?

isn't able to be determined.

As for the cop out of "no way to know", umm no, if you believe as some do that communism was doomed to fail because it is a flawed ideology then you believe (ie your OPINION) that we didn't have to be in the Korean or Vietnam war at all. And a person can believe that political intervention - like the overthrow of the Sha - didn't have to happen and that we would be more secure had we not been so involved in the ME for decades.