Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: United States: engagement or non-intervensionism?

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member DS-09's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Dublin
    Posts
    1,881

    United States: engagement or non-intervensionism?

    Should the United States keep its post-war role as the upkeeper of the world order, and will this be of benefit to the world? Or would it be better for the United States to withdraw militarily from the world and return to its pre-war non-interventionist foreign policy (similar to Britain's splendid isolation), considering that large nations such as Russia are re-asserting themselves on the world stage (also considering Russia has a nuclear arsenal of anywhere between 5,000-14,000 active weapons)
    Also what about Taiwan? What if China invades this island and the United States provides a war guarantee (similar to Britain's guarantee to Belgium before World War I) - this would mean that among two of the most powerful nations on earth could face a nuclear collision over the issue (more frightening would be a Sino-Russian pact). Should America withdraw its troops from the world, and avoid the faith of other powers in times past? Should America return to the foreign policy of its founding fathers, and that which the nation followed throughout the 19th century- or should the United States stick it out in world affairs, even if there are dangers from China and Russia.
    So what do you think? Interventionist or non-interventionist United States. It will also be interesting to see how things unfold under the new administration if Washington. Another interesting thought is, would such a scenario effect globalisation and world trade? Btw whatever your views, please be reasonable about them. Thanks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uclear_weapons

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...nterventionism

    [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Coming-War-China-Collision/dp/1403968411"]Amazon.com: America's Coming War with China: A Collision Course over Taiwan: Ted Galen Carpenter: Books[/ame]

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle420364.ece
    Last edited by DS-09; 21st May 2009 at 03:49 PM.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    1,769

    Whatever position would be good or bad, I don't think they'll actually have a choice about it any more, they're just too broke.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,014

    They will hold up their positions around the world to defend their geographically assets.
    If they pull out China will fill the gaps.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member DS-09's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Dublin
    Posts
    1,881

    Fair point. Also it would be interesting to see whether China turns in on itself again and withdraws from the world (as in centuries past). A lot of people think that the threat of a total war involving nuclear weapons ended with the Cold war- they could be eerily wrong. Also Russia seems to be re-asserting itself, and even getting confrontational in Central Asia in regards to the Caucus pipeline, and is growing hot-tempered over the accession of nations bordering Russia been admitted into NATO

Similar Threads

  1. Sanctions against the United States
    By taylorwemyss in forum Foreign Affairs
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 24th January 2009, 07:00 PM
  2. Is the United States a Socialist Republic?
    By taylorwemyss in forum Economy
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 22nd September 2008, 02:26 AM
  3. Should Ireland be in the USA or United States of Europe
    By mairteenpak in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 9th June 2008, 04:20 PM
  4. Treaty between The United States and The United Kingdom
    By Seabird in forum Foreign Affairs
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 18th March 2006, 12:28 PM