Re: What are the Mod\'s doing to slorc51?
To speak for the "other" side, based on history, isolationist policies have typically resulted in more harm than good in the long run and are more impractical--nigh on impossible--than ever in the present world.
Perhaps the greatest lesson the 20th century history holds regarding US isolationist policies is the period following WW I. Congress refused to ratify US membership in Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations, the US shuttered its borders, and, in general, looked solely after its own issues.
That is, up until a discontented world came calling, and WW II arrived on the doorstep.
Those who follow the credo "somebody has to be on the bottom, but I'm just glad it's not me" apparently fail to see the historical dynamic between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots"--better to aid the barbarians and help improve their lot than have them clamoring at the gate.
Consider the state of affairs in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Union's disintegration: a huge nuclear arsenal spread across numerous emerging self proclaimed "sovereign" states, each with their own ideas as to what to do with their "newfound" military might. Rest assured, the US government was keenly interested in providing all manner of "aid" to ensure a happy outcome.
The same goes for the more recent nuclear p*ssing contest between India and Pakistan, and the Pakistani's support of US activities in Afghanistan.
And, on the topic of the Muslim world, I venture to say that the primary motivating force of the rank and file of the jihad is identical to that of the disinherited and disenfranchised rabble which carried the Nazi party to power in 1930s Germany: the envy/jealosy/hatred that those with little or nothing hold for those perceived to have most or all. Had the US government not abandoned the Afghani rebels after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan--just like the US withdrew from European affairs after WW I--the resultant rise to power of the Taliban--like that of the Nazis in Germany--could very well have been averted.
The biggest factor in the present world is, of course, the global nature of modern economics. If any of the markets in Asia, or Europe, or the Americas stumble, so do the others--national boundaries are far less well defined economically as they are geographically. As TJ pointed out, the Chinese are placing huge demands upon the world's oil resources in order to fuel their warp-speed economic growth--economic growth which benefits the economies of many nations, including the US. However, the US, and other nations, have their own petroleum reguirements--requirements, like those of the Chinese, that cannot be met by the resources within their own borders. The sh*t has got to get found, bottled, and divvied up, and preferably in such a way that everybody goes home happy.
In the end, ignoring the rest of the world doesn't make it go away--it just means forfeiting any potential influence over it and virtually ensuring a nasty surprise at some point down the road.
PS--As for the UN, not to throw my dog into that fight, but--rightly or wrongly--the US has historically used the UN alternatively as both a pawn and a doormat in its own political manueverings and, in the process, made a mockery of the UN's very purpose; it's hardly surprising to see more than a little animosity in return.
Granted, the US was a (arguably the) driving force behind the formation and early development of the UN; however, it was ostensibly created as an independant organization, and an eventual reckoning with it's "parent" is inevitable.