I was just wondering if America had maintained a policy of neutrality  and stayed out of other countries' affairs, would we be in a better position? would we still be a superpower? would our economy be as good? would we still have as many liberties as we do?  I would just like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

James

Quoted: I was just wondering if America had maintained a policy of neutrality  and stayed out of other countries' affairs, would we be in a better position? would we still be a superpower? would our economy be as good? would we still have as many liberties as we do?  I would just like to hear your thoughts on the subject. James

Depends.  

If we had stayed out of World War I, nothing much different would have happened.  Germany would still have lost and we wouldn't have lost a whole lot of men.

We were essentially a superpower by the 1890s.    If we had stayed out of the Phillipines and Cuba in 1898, nothing much would have been different.

WW2 doesn't count because we were attacked.  It was in our direct interest to fight.

Korea - What did that solve?

Vietnam - What did that solve?

As far as giving monetary aid to shithole countries, I see no point to it. Their respective governments usually piss it away anyhow.

Quoted: I was just wondering if America had maintained a policy of neutrality  and stayed out of other countries' affairs, would we be in a better position? would we still be a superpower? would our economy be as good? would we still have as many liberties as we do?   I would just like to hear your thoughts on the subject. James

No to all of the above. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that's ever been done, or that these actions directly resulted in what we have, but if we were strictly isolationist we'd have been taken over long ago. Having no ally anywhere in the world would leave everyone free to conspire together against us.

One-on-one, the only country I'd worry about is China.  The whole world against us,

Quoted: Quoted: I was just wondering if America had maintained a policy of neutrality  and stayed out of other countries' affairs, would we be in a better position? would we still be a superpower? would our economy be as good? would we still have as many liberties as we do?   I would just like to hear your thoughts on the subject. James No to all of the above. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that's ever been done, or that these actions directly resulted in what we have, but if we were strictly isolationist we'd have been taken over long ago. Having no ally anywhere in the world would leave everyone free to conspire together against us. One-on-one, the only country I'd worry about is China.  The whole world against us,

Isolationism and neutrality are not the same thing.

Would isolationism work today?

We would be better off had we heeded President Washington's advice against permanent alliances and the faults they bring.  In particular the inculcation of favoritism, leading to a blind following of the interests of other countries on an ongoing basis.  

I agree with 1 Andy2 in  his listing of wars, our involvement and results.  I would go further with WW I as an example of what goes wrong by not following the advice I referenced.  If Germany had lost, the result would have been the same and we would have kept some good men.  Had Germnay won, it would not have been a negative for us, either.  I don't think it would amount to a hill of beans if Imperial Germany controlled the area from central Russia to the Channel.  First, they would not be able to hold it forever; second, it would have kept a lot of crazy people from starting things in, say, the Balkans; third, Hitler would have been in prison and stayed in prison.  I doubt very much the Kaiser would have done what Hitler did.  

WW I is the most important war, not only in the 20th but also into the 21st century.  Ironically, as the "war to end all wars" it spawned others, instead.  WW II (Eurpoean) was a direct result: indeed, some would call WWII a continuation of WW I separated by a 20 year cease fire.  Though I think it's more complex than that (A certain Treaty), I would not debate against it because it isn't wrong, either.  The wars in the Balkans, small (though significant, if you were in them) conflicts in Greece, almost anything in the Middle East, including (and, especially) Gulf I are direct results of WWI.

We were attacked by Japan partially as a result of things dating back to 1907 (though I like TR, he also did a few things which didn't do us any good in the future), and partially as a result of our intentions to enter a war in the Pacific.  I will even set aside, though I do not believe they were insignificant, the issues we had with Japan in the 1930s; that they amounted to "provocations" may be correct within the context of the times, but they still do not justify coming to hit Pearl.   However, in August, 1941, President Roosevelt met with Winston Churchill on board H.M.S. Prince of Wales.  In that meeting they discussed and reached agreement in principle under what conditions the US would enter a war on the side of the British in the Pacific. The Japanese may have been accused of many things, but stupidity wasn't one of them.  When they found this out, the plans got rolling.

The Korean war was a result partially of WWI and it's derivative in WW II, as well as the treaty negotiated by TR between Japan Russia, and involving Korea (for which he got the Nobel Prize).

The Vietnam problem resulted from WW II, the weakening of the French after the fighting they were in the middle of, and WWI, which was the cause of all that, plus WWI allowed Communism to arise as a State.  Yes, I know, not pure communism.  Take the theory elsewhere and sell it.  It was the excuse that was used, and the impetus used by the power hungry to get the masses to follow them, thinking they would get something for nothing.  Communism became sufficiently organized that it became exportable, and eventually  infected China, Vietnam, among others.  France lost there because of their weakness, and Eisenhower's finally being sick of them.  Almost a glimmer of President Washington's warning and prescription.

Actually, maybe I was wrong about it not mattering if Germany won in WW  I.  Possibly Communism would have been a bunch of separatede "movements" rather than coalescing into a state, as in Russia.  Nevertheless, what happened, happened.  WWI gave rise to all the mess in the 20th century, and our guys still are dying today as a result of WWI.  Because of what? An aliance?  An idea of adventurism?

Neutrality does not mean isolationism, either.  We can deal fairly with others, but not get entangled with them.

We would absolutely be better off in every way IMO if we did not fight wars of choice, of aggression, or of coercion.

All wars are costly, not only economically but we also lose many of the best and bravest of our people, when we choose to fight a war it also carries with it moral, political, social and diplomatic costs.

In every instance in US history, when we've initiated hostilities in foreign lands, and even in our own civil war, there has been enormous political cost to be weighed against any benefit, and the benefits have been pretty mean.

I think we would be better off not being the world's policeman.

If we had let a secular Saddam have taken over the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia & Kuwait, we might have avoided 9-11.

I thought this thread was gonna be about woman's suffrage.

Yeah, we need to be the protector of the weak and the innocent.

Not the provider, but the protector.

TXL

schwindj, good question and a tough one.

A lot of things have changed over history as "The world got smaller"
with our various advancements.

There are a multitude of subtleties that make it hard for a definitive answer.

Short answer...

I couldn't say


GM

Well, Socialism (or Stalinism) would probably be very alive in Europe had Stalin overran it.

if we had not entered WWI, it is very possible that Germany would not have surrendered, but instead would have negotiated an armistice under far more favorable terms than the Treaty of Versailles -- thus avoiding the instability of the Weimar Republic and the conditions that helped the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.

Quoted: if we had not entered WWI, it is very possible that Germany would not have surrendered, but instead would have negotiated an armistice under far more favorable terms than the Treaty of Versailles -- thus avoiding the instability of the Weimar Republic and the conditions that helped the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.

this dude paid WAY more attention in history than I did.

TXL

Quoted: Well, Socialism (or Stalinism) would probably be very alive in Europe had Stalin overran it.

Socialism IS alive and well in Europe, today.

Quoted: if we had not entered WWI, it is very possible that Germany would not have surrendered, but instead would have negotiated an armistice under far more favorable terms than the Treaty of Versailles -- thus avoiding the instability of the Weimar Republic and the conditions that helped the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.

And perhaps then, even though Russia would have been communist, it would not have been able to conquer Eastern Europe under the guise of liberating it from Nazi Germany.
Europe alone may have been enough to keep Soviet Russia in check, as it is doubtful they would have grown as powerful if they WWII did not happen.

Quoted: Quoted: if we had not entered WWI, it is very possible that Germany would not have surrendered, but instead would have negotiated an armistice under far more favorable terms than the Treaty of Versailles -- thus avoiding the instability of the Weimar Republic and the conditions that helped the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. this dude paid WAY more attention in history than I did. TXL

Hey, chicks dig me!  See?

Quoted: I was just wondering if America had maintained a policy of neutrality  and stayed out of other countries' affairs, would we be in a better position? would we still be a superpower? would our economy be as good? would we still have as many liberties as we do?  I would just like to hear your thoughts on the subject. James

If we were a neutralist nation, most of the world would currently be under the sway of the Soviet Union.  

ETA:  And I just wasted post 17,000 on this thread...  

Quoted: Quoted: I was just wondering if America had maintained a policy of neutrality  and stayed out of other countries' affairs, would we be in a better position? would we still be a superpower? would our economy be as good? would we still have as many liberties as we do?   I would just like to hear your thoughts on the subject. James +1 No to all of the above. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that's ever been done, or that these actions directly resulted in what we have, but if we were strictly isolationist we'd have been taken over long ago. Having no ally anywhere in the world would leave everyone free to conspire together against us. One-on-one, the only country I'd worry about is China.  The whole world against us,

Quoted: Hey, chicks dig me!  See? www.funnykareltje.nl/images/nerds.jpg

damnit now the thread is going to get locked!


anyway, if america had stayed isolated, some other country would have filled the power void the US has filled for the past 60+ years.  the world would not have continued on its merry way just as it has.  the USSR would probably be in the dominant position even today

if we picked our own cotton?  What was the question?  Sorry I just woke up...

Good questions... There really is now way to tell what might have happened since our activities changed the behavior of those around us as well as ourselves.    My guess is that IF we didn't step out on the world stage, someone else would have.   I think this would certainly lead to big problems for the USA (if it had not already done by late last century).  

Quoted: We would be better off had we heeded President Washington's advice against permanent alliances and the faults they bring.  In particular the inculcation of favoritism, leading to a blind following of the interests of other countries on an ongoing basis.   <snip> Neutrality does not mean isolationism, either.  We can deal fairly with others, but not get entangled with them.

I'll agree with these statements, but not the entire position.

Eternal entanglements and ongoing alliances with other nations are unnecessary and may eventually show themselves to be disasterous to the United States. I'm thinking specifically of the UN and NATO. In my opinion, it would have been entirely possible and not contradictory to the principles of our founding fathers to have forged temporary alliances with Europe to defeat the Germans in WWI and WWII without having to create permenant organizations like NATO and the UN.

NATO did not win the Cold War, the United States did. It was our military strength, our nuclear arsenal and our military spending which forced the Rooskies into hock. NATO did not enable us to build the arsenals and military might which brought the Soviet Union to it's knees, and the UN never did anything productive to establish peace anywhere. Both organizations have been nothing more than millstones around our neck, and the UN has become a definate threat to the sovergienty of the United States. President Washington's words are proving to be very prophetic.

As for Korea and Vietnam, I believe that both wars could still have been fought by the United States without compromising our neutrality (no, I'm not crazy). You see, both wars were fought on the principle of containing Soviet expansion and encroachment. We fought in Korea and Vietnam under the priciple of nipping communist expansion in the bud before it could threaten the United States in our own hemisphere. We were acting in our own best interest in defense of the United States using the prudent military strategy of fighting the enemy before he has a chance to threaten you directly. This was the same reason that we went to war with Germany in WWI and WWII.

It would have been better for the United States to fight the wars that we needed to fight, and forge the alliances necessary to fight those wars but allow the alliances to go dormant during times of peace than to create international organizations which threaten our sovergienty as much as the enemies that we forged them to combat.

Is that a run on sentence?

If it weren't for our foreign entanglements, I wouldn't be able to shop at Wal-Mart.  

Quoted: If it weren't for our foreign entanglements, I wouldn't be able to shop at Wal-Mart.

Free market trade and political/military alliances are two completely different things. You can have one without the other.

Well it certainly worked for Switzerland so I don't see why not... as long as the government remembers to issues every home an Sig 550 of course.

Quoted: Well it certainly worked for Switzerland so I don't see why not... as long as the government remembers to issues every home an Sig 550 of course.

It only worked for Switzerland because the rest of the world confronted the Nazis and the Commies FOR them.

makes no difference. all is part of gods plan to get israel set up in the middle beast in order to bring about the apocalypse (apocalypto?).

1. wwi britain atagonizes turks. turks join german side.
2. balfour states desire to form jewish homeland somewhere (finally is middle beast)
3. america joins allied effort, helps allies win war
3. turks loose middle beast at end of wwi
3. britain gains control of middle beast
4. wwII germany decides to kill all jews it can get its hands on
5. america joins allies, assures defeat of germans.
6. germans loose, allies win, jews return to palestine, israel formed
7. 1948. israel recognized by UN
.. america main supporter of israel.. see bush's most recent comments
.. gulf war i
.. osama attacks us
.. us attacks a-stan
.. gulf war II
.. iran gets nukes?
.. iran allies with china and/or russia?
.. world runs short of oil...
.. iran conflict?
.. ww III? over middle beast oil?
..

aniways.. wont matter after 2012..

Quoted: Well, Socialism (or Stalinism) would probably be very alive in Europe had Stalin overran it.

Socialism IS very alive in Europe. If we stayed out of WW2, Hitler would have beaten Russia... and Europe, Russia, Asia would now be known as "Super Aryan Vikingland" or some other gay name like that.

Quoted: Quoted: Well it certainly worked for Switzerland so I don't see why not... as long as the government remembers to issues every home an Sig 550 of course. It only worked for Switzerland because the rest of the world confronted the Nazis and the Commies FOR them.

I think that's entirely true. Switzerland is bordered by France, Germany, Austria and Italy. The Swiss were surrounded by Nazis and Hitler had invaded almost every other country in Western Europe. But the Swiss he left alone, even after the Germans had basically pacified the French, the Austrians and everyone else. I don't doubt that the fact of Switzerland's militia system played a part in that strategy. Hitler and his General knew that the Swiss were more trouble than they could handle and the Swiss were left alone.

Quoted: Quoted: Well it certainly worked for Switzerland so I don't see why not... as long as the government remembers to issues every home an Sig 550 of course. It only worked for Switzerland because the rest of the world confronted the Nazis and the Commies FOR them.

I don't remember many Swiss ending up in mass graves, infact I remember alot of nazi gold ending up in Swiss banks... could just as easily have been American banks... just sayin. Try looking up Time Magazine's man of the year 1938, you will be suprised. I see alot of threads on here tough talking about killing illegal immigrants and such... well in 1930s germany, Jews and Gypsies were the "illegals". Think about that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well it certainly worked for Switzerland so I don't see why not... as long as the government remembers to issues every home an Sig 550 of course. It only worked for Switzerland because the rest of the world confronted the Nazis and the Commies FOR them. I don't remember many Swiss ending up in mass graves, infact I remember alot of nazi gold ending up in Swiss banks... could just as easily have been American banks... just sayin. Try looking up Time Magazine's man of the year 1938, you will be suprised. I see alot of threads on here tough talking about killing illegal immigrants and such... well in 1930s germany, Jews and Gypsies were the "illegals". Think about that.

Nazi gold wound up in Swiss banks because Switzerland was "neutral."  If it had wound up in American banks I would be ashamed to be an American.
Dante Aligheri said it best:  The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, remain neutral.

Isolationism would probably improve our world image, our economy, and probably even our education level - just to name a few things.


However, we would've lost the Cold War instantly. And, that my friends, would mean no more America the Free.

Winning the Cold War was essential. The Soviets weren't going to stop unless someone made them.

Personally I am not entirely sold on the Soviets being able to take over the rest of the world.

They had enough trouble reining in their European client states and countries that became communist with Soviet help have proven to be thorns if not enemies like Mao's China.

Quoted: I think we would be better off not being the world's policeman.

+1

From a speech by then Secretary Of State John Quincy Adams:

"America has abstained from interference in the concerns of others,even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition.The fundamental maxims of her policy would change from liberty to force."

Quoted: Personally I am not entirely sold on the Soviets being able to take over the rest of the world.

They would have had an easy time of it if we hadn't been supplying and funding NATO.

Quoted: Quoted: Personally I am not entirely sold on the Soviets being able to take over the rest of the world. They would have had an easy time of it if we hadn't been supplying and funding NATO.

And us being a general PIA whenever there was an attempt to spread communism to other countries.

Korea - What did that solve? Vietnam - What did that solve?

South Korea is still a free cuntry and a trading partner.

The cold war, including Vietnam, bankrupted the Soviet Union and knocked Communism back a few decades.

They call it Socialism now, but it's the same poison. Socialism can't survive without Capitalist countries to leech off of.

Would America have been better off if the Vikings had expanded their settlements (instead of abandoning them long before Columbus ever set sail), and the continent instead had been colonized by Scandinavians, instead of Spaniards, Frenchies and later a bunch of puritanical brits and dutchies???

Quoted: One-on-one, the only country I'd worry about is China.  The whole world against us,

Pretty much the whole world IS against us.

With all due respect to everyone's opinions here, had America stayed nuetral in every way, ALL of Europe and England/Ireland/Scotland would have been communist.  Stalin would not have stopped.  Simple fact.  There's no possible way to argue against it.  No other country would have been able to stop him.  Even Hitler and Germany wouldn't have been able to.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip> James <snip> Isolationism and neutrality are not the same thing.

I understand that, but I'm saying that to stay neutral we'd have to become isolationist, whether by our choice or by the rest of the world, because of our refusals to help.

Quoted: Would America have been better off if the Vikings had expanded their settlements (instead of abandoning them long before Columbus ever set sail), and the continent instead had been colonized by Scandinavians, instead of Spaniards, Frenchies and later a bunch of puritanical brits and dutchies???

I'm still pissed off at England sending all the fun-loving criminals to Australia and sticking us with the Puritans.  Hundreds of years later, we're still suffering the aftereffects.

Quoted: Socialism IS very alive in Europe. If we stayed out of WW2, Hitler would have beaten Russia... and Europe, Russia, Asia would now be known as "Super Aryan Vikingland" or some other gay name like that.

Hey, I kind of like that, would be a great way to get chicks when you're abroad:

- Hello handsome man. where you from?
- I'm from Vikingland
- Oooooooh *giggles*

Quoted: Quoted: Would America have been better off if the Vikings had expanded their settlements (instead of abandoning them long before Columbus ever set sail), and the continent instead had been colonized by Scandinavians, instead of Spaniards, Frenchies and later a bunch of puritanical brits and dutchies??? I'm still pissed off at England sending all the fun-loving criminals to Australia and sticking us with the Puritans.  Hundreds of years later, we're still suffering the aftereffects.

Actually, Georgia got a lot of criminals.

And the Puritans came over on their own accord, they were not 'sent' over.

And the Puritans were not that bad, compared to liberals.

France would have collapsed in 1918 without American help.  Germany would certainly have been a much more powerful state with the emasculation of the French and Russians.  England and France greatly benefited from American support even before war was declared.

Quoted: if we had not entered WWI, it is very possible that Germany would not have surrendered, but instead would have negotiated an armistice under far more favorable terms than the Treaty of Versailles -- thus avoiding the instability of the Weimar Republic and the conditions that helped the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.

Germany would have won WW1 without US intervention. Germany surrendered on foriegn soil, the Luedendorf offensive had been successful in March 1918, it was the millions of Americans that poured into France that pushed Germany over the edge.

If Germany had won WW1, the Kaiser was looking to seize Cuba, Puerto Rico and we probably would have been in a shooting war with Mexico

Quoted: Quoted: if we had not entered WWI, it is very possible that Germany would not have surrendered, but instead would have negotiated an armistice under far more favorable terms than the Treaty of Versailles -- thus avoiding the instability of the Weimar Republic and the conditions that helped the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Germany would have won WW1 without US intervention. Germany surrendered on foriegn soil, the Luedendorf offensive had been successful in March 1918, it was the millions of Americans that poured into France that pushed Germany over the edge. If Germany had won WW1, the Kaiser was looking to seize Cuba, Puerto Rico and we probably would have been in a shooting war with Mexico

Don't worry, we're almost there anyway down on the border......

No, we would not be better off. Sooner or later other peoples problems would come knocking on our dor.

stayed out of affairs? Does that mean war or pissing money away for AIDS relief for countries full of ignorant animals?

I think without the major wars we would be worse off, that includes Vietnam, Korea and Iraq. But if you mean by giving aid to countries that don't know what to do with it, like African counties, I think we would be much better off.