The Instigator
conservativemike08
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
midgetjoe
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

The United States should adopt a stricter isolationist stance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,442 times Debate No: 269
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (16)

 

conservativemike08

Pro

The United States is too worried what the rest of the world thinks of it. The U.N. or another country denounces us and our government does its best not to wet it's pants. Since when does the United States cower before other nations or wait for permission to act. I understand that the UN was created with good intentions but it has become an easy exscuse not to act. The United States cannot sit idly by waiting for permission to defend itself preemtively if need be. Everyone says the Iraq war has been completely unjustified but we have help those people immensely. But the UN said no don't do it. The United States can no longer rely on the UN or the rest of the world. If another country wants to aid the United States then we will accept their help and be there to help if the situation warrants our help. When the Iraq war is over we need to bring every single troop home, begin to guard our borders as we should be doing. Only a small portion of the military should be freed to pursue bin Laden, with more on hand if the situation agains warrants it. Israel is the only country that we would openly make ourselves open to their disposal at any time. If the world feels that the United States is too much of a policeman and is trying to force our policies on others, then we will see how long they last when we are no longer there.
midgetjoe

Con

I agree that we should have less of a presence abroad, but i would argue that isolationism is the WRONG way to go. Isolationism involves not interacting with ANYBODY, no trading, no alliances, no nothing. I would argue that we need a noninterventionist forign policy.

1. We trade with people but do NOT use military force unless we are directly attacked.

2. We remove ALL our troops from other countries, except to get Bin Ladin

3. We remove ourselves from ALL trade agreements (WTO, WHO, UN, NAFTA, Etc.) and open up free trade with EVERYONE.

4. We allow our citizens to trade with whoever and whatever they want.

5. When our citizens leave the country we make it clear to them that we are no longer protecting their safety and will not send the marines after them should they get in trouble.....we may however negotiate.

6. our military should be minimized, we have the greatest military in the world, there is no need to have it huge, keep only what we need for R&D, Border protection, and enough troops for a quick counter attack.

7. we need to get out of Iraq now

8. we don't make alliances with ANYONE...Isreal has nuclear weopans, a borderline terrorist government, and are technically a british problem (they created them, let them protect them). We don't need to sacrifice our standings with the entire arab world to help someone perfectly capable of helping themselves, it's none of our business and it hurts us.

Isolationism would ruin this country, Interventionism IS ruining it, we need non-interventionism.
Debate Round No. 1
conservativemike08

Pro

Well played friend and I actually agree with much of what you say. However, free trade could not be beneficial. It is too much of a security risk. We could actually reduce trade altogether by providing incentives for large corparations to bring their factories back to the states which would boost the economy without needing outside help. America didn't always need China or Japan to make our products. Some self instituted trade agreements would be ideal. We also have a huge area to drill for oil if we needed to. Israel isn't a British problem either. Of all our allies they would be the only one I would want to keep. The reason for this is political as well religious, and that's all I'll say about that. Anything that has to do with bringing together the countries of the world and attempting to govern them we should have no part of. It seems these days that so many countries are willing to sacrifice sovereignty for the illusion that world will achieve a total peace. As far as our citizens, if they are attacked, captured, or harmed and they did not commit a common crime then we go get them. When Iran had those American hostages he stated, "The bombing starts in five minutes" and they were freed very quickly. Common crimes include theft, murder, etc. It does not include not being a muslim or anything like that. My whole point is America needs to begin to rely on herself again. We are a self made country and we seem to have forgotten that.
midgetjoe

Con

I think that bringing back corporations is more of an economic issue than a forign policy one...they only reason they moved was because our govenment was putting to many restrictions on them (EOE, Minimum wage, unions) everything was regulated to the point of not being able to do anything....because of all this it drove prices up everywhere and therefore made it much more feasible to move to China.

Free trade is EXTREMELY important within the USA, outside I would say put a tax on all goods being brought into the country from another.. I wouldn't tax US citizens if they were bringing in cheaper stuff, because they're Americans looking to make a deal. I would not tax exports, that way it gives forign countries no reason to put tarrifs on us. Of course subsidies should be abolished in order to make it work.

Basically:

1. No Subsidies

2. Tax all imports the rate that the forign government is subsidizing that industry.

3. Work on REAL free trade agreements, they should be almost one sentence....we won't tax you or subsidize us, if you don't tax us our subsidize yourselves.....pretty simple.

It's a complicated problem, one which i might not be the best person to explain it to you, but trust me i've seen it proven that free trade can work....but on to the more important stuff:

Isreal? Why keep it? The government is borderline terrorist, they invade countries randomly, they shouldn't technically own that land.....the british stole it from the arabs. And every day that we support them the arabs like us less, they're also perfectly capable of wiping out the whole mideast if they wanted to, and sometimes it looks like they're about to.. The arabs are very much our natural allies (they're very into limited government and free trade, see abu dahbai and the UAE) instead we tend to support the fasicst europeans who are leading us into their pit of slavery.

As for the citizens thing, it's a very tricky issue.....the obvious side of course is the one you mentioned....save our citizens because we are Americans...It sounds good but you have to look at the other side as well:

1. Those citizens left this country of their own free will, they knew the risks, it was their desicion

2. Should we go after them, we are risking the lives of Brave American soldiers and taxpayers money, just because Billy Bob wanted to go to russia...

3. We are also endangering our national security because everytime we send troops over there we run the risk of ticking someone off.

4. our government has enough trouble as it is without having to send the cavalry to every corner of the globe looking out for idiots who were stupid enough to go there in the first place...we have no jurisdiction there and that's how wars start.

Now pay very close attention to #1....because there ARE exceptions to this.... For instance if a US citizen was flying from New york to London, and the plane was hijacked to Iran...then maybe. If they were kidnapped on US soil....than definantly. If they were sent BY the government (ie soldiers, Agents, diplomats) then YES. But the ussual way should be for the US to make it as easy as posisble for the victims families or friends to arrange bail or ransom, without getting involved.....IE diplomacy, and of course don't forget all the embassy's that's their job.
Debate Round No. 2
conservativemike08

Pro

Well let's clear up Israel first off. That land has been Israels forever. There has always been a population of Jews living there. The jews themselves were displaced and that is when you start to see a strong arab prescence. Also to be quite frank with you, God gave that land to the Jews. It even says that in the Koran. Israel is just doing exactly what we do and that is defend itself. There are so many different conflicts and situations where you COULD say that America is borderline terroristic and invasive of other countries. To say that the land was stolen is ridiculous. Our relations are hurt with other middle eastern countries because we don't live under a 13th century society the degrades women and allows for no freedoms. Recall the recent news of the British school teacher who held a democratic type vote to decide a name of a teddy bear and when the name Muhammed was chosen, see was jailed and the public wanted her execution. Think of the filmmaker from the Netherlands who made a 5 min or 10 min short film about the ill effects of Islam in his country. Local muslims beheaded him. They are not our natural allies and they stand against everything we value. Granted there might be some more progressive muslim and middle eastern communities but they are few and far between.

Free Trade is good in theory, but again we should begin to rely on our own ingenuity. The current energy crisis makes us so dependent on the rest of the world that all they would have to do to bring us to our knees is halt the supply of oil. I hope that when you refer to free trade you are not referring to NAFTA, because that smacks of less sovereignty. There are nessecities that we would required to import, and there are things that we have that we could defiantely makes some arrangements to export to other countries. There is not much though that we couldn't provide for ourselves. We need to bring those large corporations back and reach a mutual agreement with them so that both the government and the company can be happy. I don't know about where you are but I live in kentucky and we had several factories go overseas and there are still people without jobs. While yes this is kind of dealing with the economy, if we brought our jobs home or created new jobs to begin manufacturing products that Americans need on American soil the need for extensive trade would be minimal.

With going to save our citizens it's not a matter of oh you are over there now and you belong to them, but a matter of our duty to the citizens who make up our country. To not go when they are threatened says to our citizens, most whom would support a rescue that the government doesn't care about them, and then to the country responsible that we are weak and they can push us around.
That's the stance Jimmy Carter took. He would wag his finger and call the party responsible bad men and always stay on the defensive. No I am afraid that strong militaristic aggressiveness is what this country needs. It shows that we mean business, that we won't wait for something bad to happen first (like Israel might I remind you), and most importantly it shows that our citizens safety is first and foremost over things like money and trade agreements. Do you know that if any of the presidents preceding Reagan going back to the start of the Cold War had dropped the whole Policy of Containment and began a massive military build up like Reagan did the cold war might have ended sooner? Similarly if Reagan had continued the same dead end policy and stayed on the defensive we very well could still be in the Cold War today.

In closing I would like to say that you have made some excellent points and feel free to invite me to debate at any time. Thank you for your time and courtesy.
midgetjoe

Con

Isreal:

the land has been JEWISH for a long time, not isreali. And that's not even true either it has switched hands between arabs and jews for the majority of known history. And looking back it has been Arab for the majority of that. The problem with your argument is that your confusing Christians, Jews, and Isreal. let me define what i mean:

In the Bible God gave the land to the JEWS, however back then the Jews were his chosen people. That has changed....the Jews today are not the same as the Jews back then. Technically God gave the land to his chosen people.....which would be the Christian's nowadays. ISREAL, is neither God's chosen people nor a religion, it is a country run by criminals, crooks and politicians. it is not fighting for jews, or God, it is fighitng for itself. The British were nice enough to give these people a whole country on land the British didn't even own (you gotta love those british), and these people decided to make sure they kept it. Naturally the people displaced would want it back.

Now back to God giving it to his people. He gave it to the jews in the Bible, i believe that was the end of God's involvement in that sense, The Jews had it, if they lost it it was their fault, not God's.

And even IF Isreal had 100% perfect claims on jeruselum that is still no excuse for the US government to enforce it. it should be private organizations fighting for it, the US government should not take a side.

And yes i could, and will say taht America is borderline terrorist in a lot of the things we do, it's sad the state our country has gotten too. That's why i always find it ironic that our leaders brand other people as terrorists and then inprison them with no trial and torture them.

America survived for 150 years without the arabs careing how we live, trust me, i've been over there, they don't care. Are there extremists? yes of course there's always extremists, but can you blame the US for everything the KKK does? the majority are ticked because we have been taking out leaders, bombing them, and telling them how to run their lives for the past 50 years....in fact that's one of the reasons Osama Bin Ladin said he bombed us for.....because we had troops in Saudi arabia.

Free trade
Well isolationism is basically cutting ourselves off from the outside world. if you still want to import and export, than it's not isolationism. No i'm not refering to NAFTA, NAFTA is as bad as the UN. I'm talking about real free trade. Basically meaning our citizens are free to trade with whoever and where ever they want, free of tax....heck tax the forign people, but no taxes on Americans trading overseas. I don't think the government should pay the companies to come back....it's not their responsibility. However since the reason the companies moved in the first place was due to the governments increasingly strict restraints on everything from energy consumption, to unions, to labor laws...The government should abolish the programs that coused them to move rather than add more programs to counter the programs already in place.

As to the citizens thing, this isn't a make or break issue. Mostly because should a forign country kidnap our citizens there is probably already enough reasons to go to war anyway. The one problem i'm having with your point of view is that should that be the policy Americans would be more likely to go to extremly dangerous places and just expect the governmetn to bail them out....basically just carelessly taking advantage of the system.

Also the military build up did not end the cold war, the US already had plenty of weopans, as did Russia, Russia was perfectly capable of building up themselves. What stopped it was Reagan's dimplomacy, and a russian leader who listened.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Also, kudos to conservativemike for recognizing that NAFTA is not free trade. Free trade implies no loss of sovereignty. Protectionism, however, takes away the sovereignty of individuals.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Although I should be not so hard on conservativemike. I prefer isolationists to world-govermentalist / imperialist neocons.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
midgetjoe, you are the first person here who has made a debate that I agree with 100%. Your points were well structured, and answered the points made by your opponent.

As a side note, I am very deeply troubled by the re-emergence of this anti-capitalist Right. "Anti-capitalist" isn't even correct, the truth is that their economic thinking is PRE-capitalist. They favor mercantilism, which was refuted and shown to be a sure path to failure even before socialism. The economic philosophy espoused by conservativemike08 is what Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations to combat.
Posted by conservativemike08 9 years ago
conservativemike08
Well God gave it to the jews for all time becuase they will in the need have to build a third temple to fufill prophecy. The land still belongs to the Jews...this is a whole different debate though. Also I never said to be a total isolationist country, only to become a stricter one, that's why there are examples of exports and imports. Thirdly, my whole point is the US is to dependent on the rest of the world now. The Muslims do care. Their own scripture speaks of killing infidels, or people who are not muslim, Look at the what happened to John Walker. You know it's not as peaceful as it seems. Thanks for the debate.
Posted by dullurd 9 years ago
dullurd
"We could actually reduce trade altogether by providing incentives for large corparations to bring their factories back to the states which would boost the economy without needing outside help. America didn't always need China or Japan to make our products."

I had to vote con after I read that. Not to be obnoxious, but you should take some economics classes. Yes, it used to be that more products were made here, but there's a good reason why things changed: we specialized. That's the beauty of trade; no longer does each country have to be a 'jack of all trades, master of none.' We can get the best products of every sort due to free trade. If we became isolationist, we'd be paying a lot more for shittier products, and under your suggestion, taxpayers would need to bear the burden of incentivising our crappy industries as well.
Posted by conservativemike08 9 years ago
conservativemike08
By he I mean Ronald Reagan. I forgot to mention his name.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Csavage472 9 years ago
Csavage472
conservativemike08midgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jathan 9 years ago
jathan
conservativemike08midgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JoeDSileo 9 years ago
JoeDSileo
conservativemike08midgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
conservativemike08midgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jackattack 9 years ago
jackattack
conservativemike08midgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by TheGreatDebate 9 years ago
TheGreatDebate
conservativemike08midgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
conservativemike08midgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by conservativemike08 9 years ago
conservativemike08
conservativemike08midgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
conservativemike08midgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
conservativemike08midgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03