America's Isolationist Policies: From Washington to Bush - A Critical Analysis

[Integral0]

Wilson's mistake, Bush's . . . ?

George Washington, a founder of the United States of America, set forth in his farewell address that the 13 colonies should not take part in any squabbles that involved the colonies participation in political wars with other nations (not in its hemisphere). Hence, this policy (although not fully displayed here) was Washington's Isolationist policy. The United States of America followed this policy stringently till the end of World War I when the United States under Wilson came to the aid of Europe to halt the war machine. The United States under Roosevelt again tried to adhere to this policy when World War II broke out in Europe but again was forced into the war due to Germany's Uboats and due to Pearl Harbor.

In my personal opinion, I believe the losses at D-Day especially could of been spared if the United States of America came into the war earlier. Although we can not change the past, many would agree with my opinion.

In reference to my point, I believe our President George Bush did the right thing in getting involved in the middle east. For history has shown that staying neutral during wars leaves more pain than goodness.

What do you think?

 

[Shahil]

In reference to my point, I believe our President George Bush did the right thing in getting involved in the middle east. For history has shown that staying neutral during wars leaves more pain than goodness.
What do you think?

You've missed out a VERY important and VERY vital point:

THERE WAS NO WAR!

Is that so hard to understand. If Mr. Bush didn't get involved, guess what. there wouldn't be any casualties or anything coz the war wouldn't have existed. period!

 

[member 5645]

You've missed out a VERY important and VERY vital point:

THERE WAS NO WAR!

Is that so hard to understand. If Mr. Bush didn't get involved, guess what. there wouldn't be any casualties or anything coz the war wouldn't have existed. period!

No casulties? PErhaps no casulties of this human defined timeline that you consider to be a separate event.
Saddam would have still been killing his people.
People would still be dying from sanctions. (which in all practicality is wha the antiwar crowd was calling for a continuation of)
Saddam would still be pursuing WMD (see david kaye report)

Now, you seem to forget that the first gulf war never ended - it was simply an armistice based upon Saddam meeting conditions in a set amount of time. Over twenty times that amount of time passed without compliance. Technically, and practically, this second invasion was nothing more than a continuation of the first.


Arguing that there would be not deaths is like arguing that there are no deaths in Sudan because they are all internal, instead of happening due to an external force.
The Sudanese government is currently killing it's own people. If we got involved, there is not doubt civilians would die in the fighting. But they are going to die, with no end in sight, right now.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

.In my personal opinion, I believe the losses at D-Day especially could of been spared if the United States of America came into the war earlier. Although we can not change the past, many would agree with my opinion.

And if the Europeans would have confronted Hitler and his thugs before they mobilized instead of pursuing a policy of appeasement, the war in Europe may have been averted altogether.

 

[kawikdx225]

Here is how I see it.

Pretend you are locked in a room with a single control panel in front of you. On the panel there are two buttons, one is red and one is blue.
Just then you hear a computerized voice over the loudspeaker that says the following:

If the red button is pushed 5 random people somewhere in the world will die.
If the blue button is pushed 15 random people somewhere in the world will die.
If neither button is pushed within 5 seconds then all 20 people will die.

Most republicans would push the red button knowing that killing 5 is better than killing 15 or 20. Afterwards they would be called murders by the Left but that's OK because they were faced with a tough situation and made the right decision.

Most democrats would not want to be responsible for pushing either button and as they scratch their head trying to come up with an alternate solution the time passes and all 20 are dead. Afterwards they say "We didn't kill anyone that stupid machine killed them."

 

[Integral0]

You've missed out a VERY important and VERY vital point:

THERE WAS NO WAR!

Is that so hard to understand. If Mr. Bush didn't get involved, guess what. there wouldn't be any casualties or anything coz the war wouldn't have existed. period!

...um yes, there is a war . . . its called the Holy War and its been raging for thousands of years. Not to mention the War on Terrorism.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Oh, brother...

 

[motai]

America's isolationist policies originally set out by Washington was put aside when America became a world power. Alliances such as NATO and SEATO are proof of America's entangling permanent alliances with other nations.

Even though America seems to have good intentions with all of this recent turmoil (Iraq, terrorism), its really doing more harm than good.