Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would vote NO, without any cutesy "reasons".
All the interventions we have tried since WWII have pretty much been failures, nothing but drains of money and lives.
It has been proven time and again, many of the people we have tried to help do not want and can not cope with either a republican form of government or a democracy, and we do not want to embrace the way they live.
So, we should leave them alone, to work out their problems as best they can.
I wouldn't say they have all been failures. Our actions in Western Europe, from the Marshall Plan to the Berlin airlift to stationing troops in Germany, probably prevented the takeover of Europe by the Soviets. Our involvement in the Korean War prevented the takeover of South Korea by communists. The first Gulf War showed that we were prepared to use force to maintain the flow of oil. These are all successes, but you might argue whether the benefits were worth the costs.
I voted D so no, but there have been a few interventions I agree with, but I am against the majority. The world isn't black and white and unlike 500 years ago, what happens in a different country can have an impact in our lives. I am for strong defense pacts like NATO or having defense pacts with likeminded countries such as Canada, Mexico, S Korea, Australia, New Zealand. But I believe our military overseas should be reduced.
I wouldn't say they have all been failures. Our actions in Western Europe, from the Marshall Plan to the Berlin airlift to stationing troops in Germany, probably prevented the takeover of Europe by the Soviets. Our involvement in the Korean War prevented the takeover of South Korea by communists. The first Gulf War showed that we were prepared to use force to maintain the flow of oil. These are all successes, but you might argue whether the benefits were worth the costs.
Well, maybe, but the actions taken in Europe immediately following WWII could very easily be lumped in with WWII. the "Cold War" dragged on for years...
Korea must be considered a failure, due to the fact that officially the war isn't over. No peace has ever been signed, just a cease fire.
Vietnam was a fiasco.
The wars in the Middle East are still under way, despite the promises of a person who shall remain nameless that they would be stopped and the troops brought home. We are still waiting for the end of those wars, and the end to our losses of life. Yes, and the money that it is costing us that we just don't have!
WE do not NEED that oil!
Complete 100% isolationism does not work either. Why go from one extreme to the other? On encountering problems, the pendulum could swing back again - and has before.
A more realistic strategy might be to encourage stability and a balance of power.
Not meddling doesn't have to mean isolation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
