The New America

[Movementarian]

American politics had nothing to do with those conflicts happening, nor should they have. It isn't our responsibility to protect everyone else because we happen to be strong. You may personally feel that way, in which case, donate money to whatever cause you see fit. To tell our military tasked with protecting us to fight somebody elses war is wrong.

Humanitarian aid doesn't work, by the way. Even if it did though, it is still not acceptable for the government to tax money from our people and send it abroad. It doesn't make us safe, it never has, and it never will. If it did keep people from hating us we wouldn't be getting attacked, metaphorically and literally, by people from all over the world. All it manages to achieve is making Americans poorer and subsequently justifies more government welfare. The only beneficiaries are the rich warlords and corrupt governments that take the money.

There is a difference between stopping an attack from happening and pushing our way of life on other people. It is not our job to spread democracy. Our country became the democratic republic that it is because WE made that decision for ourselves. You can't force a philosophy on a group of people if they don't want it. If they do, let them achieve it for themselves. Its unbelievably arrogant and stupid to tell the rest of the world what to think or do. Even President Bush, prior to election that is, commented that its bad foreign policy to do this.

That being said, that is not an isolationist point of view. Isolationism is what Japan did before the United States forced them to deal with outsiders. Isolationism does not include free trade, and I certainly would never advocate for anything but free trade. It also doesn't mean that the United States must never be involved with other countries again. It simply means we use our military to exclusively defend us and that we don't give our money away.

Perhaps a better term for US policy between World War I and II in non-interventionism which is a form of isolationism, just as our republic is a form of democracy. When you said "American politics had nothing to do with those conflifts happening", you are completely right. We had nothing to do with them starting, but we had to pay the consequesnes for other nation's actions. That is entirely unacceptable and is a direct result of isolationism or non-interventionism.

The stated goals of US Foreign Policy are:
1. Protecting the safety and freedom of all American citizens, both within the United States and abroad;
2. Protecting allied nations of the United States from attack or invasion and creating mutually beneficial international defense arrangements and partnerships to ensure this;
3. Promotion of peace, freedom (most notably of speech and enterprise), and democracy in all regions of the world;
4. Furthering free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic barriers, and furthering capitalism in order to foster economic growth, improve living conditions everywhere, and promote the sale and mobility of U.S. products to international consumers who desire them; and
5. Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need.

Humanitarian aid does work, it just doesn't have an immediate result. It is true that some aid does not make it to the people who need it, but that doesn't mean we should stop giving it. It means we should have a more involved role in how it is used.

It is not the role of the Federal Government to ensure that everyone is housed and fed. Even if we were to adopt a more socialist (European socialist, not USSR socialist) style of government, welfare is a State matter. To ask the Federal Government to esablish a nationwide welfare policy would be insane, not to mention the potential abuses that would invariably take place.

[Paul Hartwig]

I would not characterise my responses as a rant, however I see where I may have been a bit confusing.

I am proposing that the lack of US involvement in world affairs leading up to the World Wars allowed things get so out control. I am also stating that it is better for the US to have a say in what goes on as opposed to suffering the consequenses, as we did prior to both World Wars.

I hope I have allieviated your confusion in my responses.

Ah ok got it. Thanks.