“I think you are echoing a common sentiment, typically referred to as isolationism, which goes something like this:

Meddling with other countries affairs is bound to breed discontentment. This discontent can boil over causing the formation of organizations intent on harming our country. Therefore, it’s best to not meddle in other country’s affairs.

Much like Humanism, isolationism is a hopelessly naïve view of the world. Let’s look at it some different reasons why.”

You provide a definition of what you are referring to when you say ‘isolationism’, and then you proceed to yammer about something else for a while, before attacking that position. Your attack attempts to build an argument that “the best way to deal with US hatred is to regime change nations that oppress their people.” - a clearly ‘meddling’ solution.

This isn’t rocket science. I’m unclear as to why you are apparently trying to retreat from/disavow your argument against the ‘meddling is bad’ position (by claiming that I am being unfair in attributing it to you), unless you merely realized that it was indefensible and are trying to avoid losing face by throwing unsubstantiated accusations of failure in my direction.

I don’t think you are honestly ignorant enough to actually believe that the US had no involvement there. You are trying to argue against this position, if I am unmistaken:

“Meddling with other countries affairs is bound to breed discontentment.”

You imply instead that if a country meddles it will instead cause a decrease of terrorism directed against said country. This would presumably also carry with it the idea that failure to meddle emboldens terrorism against the country that fails to meddle. If this is the case, why isn’t Costa Rica (a mostly nonmeddling state) a victim of more international terrorism than countries that currently have policies of meddling, such as the US and Israel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Costa_Rica

My point is that the United States should not embargo and sanction the hell out of nations whose ideologies we do not agree with until we decide to take military action to change the oppressive regime. By isolating these nations, we cut their citizens off from the free exchange of ideas that helped to spread democracy in the first place. We allow these dictators to continue their shabby treatment of their people, and allow them to blame their problems on the US, as we are not their to defend ourselves. Economic sanctions only worsen the problem as they cause these countries to deteriorate, and they now have these sanctions placed by America to blame for it.

Isolationism has never been my goal. Quite the opposite. I wish to bring these wayward nations into the economic fold. Look at China, once staunch communists, it has now become impossible for them to remain so as the free global market becomes ever more tantalizing and rewarding. However, look at Cuba and North Korea (and Saddam’s Iraq), both countries cut off from the outside world, their populaces ignorant of what is really going on, and they remain communists because they don’t see a better way. Also, it is much easier this way for their leaders to stay in power. I’m guessing if they had more oppressive regimes they would spawn anti-US terrorists.

And now to Saudi Arabia–birthplace of 15 of the 19 hijackers. Oil accounts for 90 percent of their total exports, meaning their populace as a whole is not terribly involved in the global economy. Their government is set up to receive a great deal of this money and has created a welfare state. They do not in any real sense COMPETE in the global economy, they are just lucky to be living on top of the largest oil reserves in the world. Government funded schools teach Islam, the country is governed by Shari’a law, unemployment is at 12%, and i’m guessing people don’t learn much about democracy considering it’s a monarchy. So their is this oil funded, human rights abusing regime that produces terrorists as a by-product, and guess which country buys the most oil?

I want to see America involved in varied and positive ways in other countries’ economies. It is those ties that keep countries from going to war, it is those ties that allow people from different nations to put aside their differences for mutual benefit. It is most important to build those ties in nations that we do not have them with, so that we can be a positive force in those countries and vice versa. And while we are involved in those countries, those people might learn a little about democracy. And as we have seen across the globe, once people learn about democracy, it isn’t long before they want it. And that’s all it takes. It is not in line with the principles of democracy to shove it down people’s throats. They have to want it. All I am saying is that we need to be in a position to give these people information on democracy when they are ready (which they just might be if they are living under oppressive regimes).

In sum: keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.