America was doing quite well with its isolationist policy of not getting involved outside the U.S except in south America (Manifest destiny) post WW1. Of course that was shattered when FDR provoked the Japanese with oil embargos- lifeline of the economy. Since WWII Americans have been sacrifced for pointless causes that did not affect American citizens directly.

What do you think?

If you want to know a war we shouldn't have gotten into, take a gander at WWI. Horrible mistake we made. Not only that, but the resolution to the war set the stage for WWII.

I don't think America can be completely isolationist/reactionary. However, I don't think we need to sacrifice our soldiers to keep the peace in all parts of the world. By that I mean that I disagree with Clinton's policy of trying to stop civil wars. If two groups in the same country hate each other, you have to let them fight it out until one is the clear victor. Otherwise, they are just going go continue fighting when you leave.

I have a different idea when it comes to promoting democracy and freedom. While I don't think we should run around trying to topple dictatorships (we coudln't get them all anyway), I do think we should support people when they fight for democracy. I think Uzbekistan is a good example of this. In that instance, a good way to support the overthrow of that government is to stop giving it money. Further measures can be debated.

In summary, and as usual, I think a stance inbetween the two extremes is in order. We shouldn't be isolationist, but we should get over-zealous either.

The United States should not be isolationist. It should however, be interested with one thing. Fiercely protecting AMERICAN interests abroad.

Altruism is the last thing we need.