Why should USA NOT be more isolationist?

[Felonious Monk]

I read this today, where the good citizens of Fallujah that we just liberated held a protest in the streets with schoolboys...and AK-47's shooting at U.S.G.I.'s. Probably knowing the black eye it would give the U.S. when we fired back.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85443,00.html

This, along with a humorous email of a "presidential speech rough draft" I received got me to thinking:

If our generosity and courage to oppose the forces of oppression in the world are this deeply resented, what would the pros and cons be of REALLY saying "Screw 'em all", and becoming more isolationist in our dealing with the rest of the ungrateful, Americidal world?

Pros/Cons? Thoughts?

 

[Waitone]

Our problem is our understanding of a situation is determined by what our media chooses to reveal to us. All too often various outlets expose their own particular agenda. That's why, particularly WRT to middle east, I will listen to a story then create in my own mind the converse story.

Example
--Story--Iranian mullahs incited a crowd recently to demand the US get out of Iraq right now.
--Converse--24 million Iraqi's did not tell the US to get out of Iraq right now.

Example
--Story--US troops fire on residents of Fallujah. . . .
--Converse--All over Iraq US troops did not fire at Iraqi citizens. Instead US troops were busy distributing food rations, repairing water supplies, cleaning out sewers, turning on electrical power. Else where in a pick up game of soccor, a rag tag group of Iraqi's kicked the US Marine's butts. A rematch is scheduled after Marines receive instructions in how to play soccor.

Back to you, Tom.

Reality and reports of the reality are two different items.

 

[Felonious Monk]

Waitone--
That's not a bad tactic in general, but this was on Foxnews.com, and they usually don't put an Anti-USA spin on things...

I guess if there is a majority who appreciate us, it would be one thing. With the French providing intel to the Iraqi's as was brought to light yesterday, NOT supporting us in our efforts to liberate the Iraqi people, ditto the Russians who supported Iraq but not U.S., it's just disheartening that MY tax dollars go for social programs in those countries to prop up their moldy economies...

You get my drift.
I'm pretty disillusioned at America being the world's benevolent Daddy Warbucks.

 

[BigG]

I think the biggest problem in our future is another European war. As their economies continue to implode, unless the good ol USA props up their (basically useless) @$$es, they will begin either another series of conquests of the rest of the poorly run countries of Africa, Asia, SA, and eventually they will get enough economic clout to influence the US economy which they will be eager to do to our detriment. So, even though they are far from our friends, the West Euros need to be kept in their place. Money in the form of largesse has a way of corrupting them and keeping them neutralized far cheaper than expending lives putting them down militarily.

 

[UnknownSailor]

In my NSHO, it is far better to fight our enemies over there, instead of here. Events in New York have made this graphically obvious, me thinks.

 

[Ladybug]

I've wondered the same thing lately... the problem is, those who hate us will hate us no matter we do. If we pull out of world affairs and say "screw em" to everyone, we get accused to being selfish. People will protest because the US didn't interfere when genocide was commited, or when a deadly disease outbreak occurred, etc. If we DO interfere, we get accused to being the world's policeman. So, I think the solution is what we've been doing - always trying to stay on the moral highground, and allowing history to prove us right. After WWII, when all the atrocitites of the Holocaust came out, we realized that we could simply not stand by and let things go so far, which was the beginning of our more involved role in the world. And rightfully so, I think.