3 ms·
"On one hand I don't believe we should be completely isolationist" Agreed. But we (USA) should be non-interventionists. Isolationism is when you cut off econom
by cpursley 13y ago
"On one hand I don't believe we should be completely isolationist"
Agreed. But we (USA) should be non-interventionists. Isolationism is when you cut off economic ties and restrict travel in and out (think North Korea). Non-interventionism is when you stay out of other nation's political affairs (politics, war, economics).
- brazzy 13y agoAnd then something like Rwanda happens and everyone (quite rightly) asks why there was no intervention when everyone could see what was happening. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And simple answers to complex questions come with their own problems.
- userulluipeste 13y agoIt matters what kind of intervention are you getting into. You can step yourself up as a mediator and act to prevent the conflict escalation and to reduce the damages, or you can just hand weapons to one (or even to both) of the involved opposite camps that will most surely not prevent the conflict escalation or reduce any damages. ...but now, which option is more profitable?
- dangoldin 13y agoI think non-interventionism gets harder and harder to achieve as the world gets more connected. Even if the government becomes non-interventionist you still have private companies and individuals intervening. I think it's hard to separate the two.