A question to the Americans?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 12:12 PM by whaaa
reply to post by woodwardjnr



I find it astonishing that now that a Democrat is in office; it's no more global policeman, yah go isolationism from the Right; but when the left brought up the same thing during the GOP administration, the lefties were called "cut and run" terrorist sympathizers, traitors and worse.

We have a word for that.....

however as tjack said



Maybe isolationism would be a bit too far, but I'd be happy with a greater dose of mind-our-own-businessism.

I doubt it's possible though, the globalization genie has been out of the bottle for years.




reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 12:16 PM by dolphinfan
reply to post by woodwardjnr


I for one would prefer a more isolationist foreign policy. The US is currently in a no-win position in the world and has been for probably 60 years. Geopolitical problems are difficult to resolve and with any difficult problem, when you are engaged in its resolution, neither side is going to get exactly what they want and as a consequence, neither party nor their ancilliary supporters are going to look favorably at the US throughout this process.

The world has become too reliant on the US to fix the world's problems. It is quite easy for folks to suggest that it is not the role of the US to become engaged in the resolution of "problems" like North Korea, the Middle East, Iran, Africa, etc.. However the US is castigated for a lack of action on all of these fronts or castigated for the action taken -- by both sides.

From my perspective, we should not engage in foreign entanglements unless they place a serious threat to OUR national security. I do believe that there is a role for treaties and that we should support our allies, but that support should primarily come in the form of economic sanctions and should only come after the public solicitation of support from an ally. Our support should never be taken with a preemptive step.

We have no need for military positioned overseas in times of peace. We have no business having troops in South Korea, one of the richest nations on earth and one in which a significant percentage of the populations don't want us there. Our troops are there for one reason. Those countrys rely on the economic impact of the military. While the nature warfare will never negate troops on the ground, modern weapons should provide us with a different defense posture with respect to bodies in "forward" positions. Clearly the long-range abilities of the US military is greater than when these troops were positioned, yet we still retain significant numbers of troops in Europe and the rest of the world.

I would also not be a signatory of these various global agreements. Law of the Seas, World Criminal Court, Climate Accords, etc. None of it. Also as it pertains to major humanitarian uses, I do think we should be supportive to the extent that we can and feel a need to be. Sending money is and of itself not an answer, it is a feel good measure. What have the $Billions the world has sent to Darfur done for the people of Darfur? Nothing. Yes, the situation there is terrible, but unless the world wants to put a million men on the ground and essentially turn it into a global protectorate, nothing can be done. Sorry, but thems the breaks. Human beings are savage and have been since the cavemen. The fact that we have 200 channels on TV, MRIs, XBoxes and all other manner of slick technology will not change the fact that we are in fact still savages if left to our own devices. The US nor any other country or alliance of countrys should not be expected to change something which they can not -- human nature.

I could go on. Bottom-line from my perspective is that we should turn inward. Let the world sort its own problems out.


reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 12:18 PM by doctornamtab
I believe America can become a positive force in the time of globalization. The genie is out of the bottle and we can't cram him back in. But we can make him work in our favor.

The defense budget for the US is more than the rest of the world all put together. And thats just whats on the books. There is also a lot of dirty money changing hands under the table. This is why American politicians declare war on terrorist and war on drugs-two unwinnable thus very very profitable wars. Also they are not even wars on specific countries but wars against an idea - terrorism and drug use.

After the fall of the USSR America found itself leader of the pack. They've since abused the pack mercilessly. American led debt puts entire countries into slavery and globalization actually worsens their lives since it makes them dependent on the system, not themselves.

America should also be dependent on itself. We grow a majority of food for the world and spend countless billions hurting people for reasons that aren't even clear.

The only thing that can save America and the world from globalist debt and moral defeat is an organized tax protest. The 30,000 troops we're needlessly sending into war at a time when most Americans are struggling financially is a perfect catalyst to unite the left and right against the rich. Whichever side of the aisle your political views lie, theres no doubt you are disillusioned, upset and looking for an answer. Tax protest, to me, is the only solution.


reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 12:22 PM by argentus
I am an American citizen (natural-born even........ NEVERmind) but living abroad. YES! I'd like to see the U.S. pull in its resources, abandon those military outposts, strictly control its borders and support its own in-country production and goods, along with a severe duty/taxation on imported goods. Hopefully, that wouldn't cause China to call in the U.S. debt that they own. Develop America's own resources, which isn't to say that the U.S. wouldn't trade with any other countries, but that incentives would strongly support in-house goods.

Of course, along with that comes pulling back all of the funding that is spread across the globe. Most of us don't have a clue the colossal amount of money that is shuffled from the U.S. to points around the globe, and that's just the OFFICIAL duckets.

I think it's a sorry thing that the U.S. is so poorly looked upon by most of the rest of the world; I think we brought it on ourselves, at least partially. I think there were good intentions behind much of the American influence and aid, but somewhere along the line, the will of the people was deep-sixed, and never looked for again.

Look, it can't work both ways. The U.S. becomes quasi-isolationist, directs those resources and money toward their own, including territories, and that requires putting on metaphorical blinders to the rest of the world. It's all fine and well to characterize the U.S. (as some do) as the primary evil in the world; sadly, if isolationism becomes the order of the day, the true evils will come clamoring out of the woodwork.

I think the globe is in for a profound belt-tightening, and for those nations that HAVE no belts to tighten, or rather their impoverished people, that doesn't bode well. Not to imply that the U.S. responds to all those cases, because that simply isn't true. The U.S., naturally, has had its own best interests in mind most of the time.

So, pull on back, bring our men and women home, snug down the borders, and shoot down/sink anything that doesn't respond within 25 nm of our own waters. YOYO, right? You're on your own. I really believe that the above would please most of the world, at least initially.


reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 12:35 PM by dolphinfan
reply to post by argentus


I completely agree with you. Throughout human history wars have been waged for purely economic reasons and regimes overthrown for them. Why is it now that the elites on both sides of the political spectrum are concerned that the economic issues will create unrest in the underdeveloped world? While that might be a humanitarian matter, it clearly is not a geopolitical one. To the extent that leaders get removed or wars start due to resource scarcity, why does the developed world feel that we need to get engaged and that engagement led by the US? Perhaps these leaders should be over thrown. Perhaps the country being taken over is not a viable independant state? Perhaps every ethnic region in the world can't stand alone and needs to be integrated with a neighbor to become viable and that neighbor is not totally open to their ethnicity? That is and has been the evolution of nation states from the beginning of time. It is folly to suggest that countrys, great countrys who have developed through armed internal conflict would feel that it is their responsibility to DENY that evolution to other nations. Why do we suggest to ourselves that we can influence that evolution in a way that is better than it naturally would? The US and the rest of the developed world needs to get off their high horse.


reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 12:38 PM by doctornamtab
reply to post by dolphinfan


I dont think human beings are inherently savage. I think they're misled and purposely misinformed. War and other atrocities happen when there is competition for scarce resources, like water in Darfur or oil in the Middle East. Its the scarcity that brings the evil out of people. When the grocery store is full and stocked people are nice, but when food starts to run out people get protective of their own.

If America acted more like a provider than a debtor or war monger the rest of the world would have no choice but to accept our willingness to help. Instead, we create scarcity through war, debt and making self sufficient communities and countries dependent on the global money system.

Human beings aren't born evil. They learn it. How can we expect people to not be selfish when we have an economic system that forces us to be selfish for our very survival? This is the learned evil I'm speaking about and globalization spreads it across the world. If left to our own devices and allowed to cultivate abundance, people are rather pleasant.

If America became a provider instead of a debtor and war monger the rest of the world would learn to be rather pleasant as well.


reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 01:18 PM by SphinxMontreal
Who says the American Government no longer practices isolationism? This is done on a selective basic of course.

Remember the Rwanda genocide of 1994, which the Clinton administration did absolutely nothing to attempt to stop?

www.thenation.com...

Or how about the atrocities in Darfur, where the Bush administration turned a blind eye?

www.thenation.com...

But then again, what do you expect from a Government which repeatedly buries its head in the sand when human rights are at stake? All of these foreign policy decisions are driven by whether or not the USA has anything to gain economically. Human rights and spreading democracy are just lies which are used to get the gullible masses on side with their policies.



reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 01:27 PM by Sir Solomon
After perusing my (I assume) fellow American's thoughts on isolationism, I find that the predominant thinking is best described by Spykman's geopolitical theory with a dash of Mahan for good measure.

Spykman is the guy you can thank for the last 60 years of US geopolitical policy. He was the first to suggest at the end of World War II that the US should take Britain's place as ruler of the seas and intervene in affairs when it is necessary to do so in order to protect US interests (vague word and has been abused a lot).

The importance of the seas is not even talked about anymore. The United States can freely go into any part of the world either peacefully or by force and project power into regions. This is both a blessing and a curse. By having control of the merchant sea lanes, America can direct global economic activity towards itself. The downside is that because of this, it must intervene more and more in affairs which are "vital to American interest."

Personally I feel that there is no alternative. Isolationism would ruin the global economy because no other nation has the ability to rule the waves and protect shipping like the US does now. Even if we step down to a regional power structure for sea-lane protection, there are vast areas that are devoid of blue-water navy power (Africa and South America, for instance).

That is of course if you want to keep the status quo. Any move towards isolationist policy would create a period of time that can best be described as a shock and the status quo lifestyle of now would be dramatically cut.

Here are two big examples of some whoopsiedaisies isolationism would cause:

Oil---US demand in 2006 was 20.6 million barrels per day. Production was 8.3 million barrels per day. Deficit: 12.3 million bbls/day (only cut down to about 8 million if we keep current import levels with Canada and Mexico). Can't increase that production overnight, nor likely sustain it for very long...then there is the refining capacity to discuss....

Rare Earth Minerals---Currently 100% of the US supply of these minerals come from one country: China. This is due to the fact that the environmental laws are very much relaxed there. Currently the US is trying to open a couple of mines to relieve this, but your neighborhood environmentalists in California block it every couple months with another injunction. No isolationism possible there. And if you don't know what they are used to make...the short answer is anything with complicated integrated circuits (i.e. computers)

So to sum up:

Would I like to see some steps away from being the global policeman? Yes. No one country should be that. We should have a series of "Global Neighborhood Watches" not the Global Constable.

Do I think its practical or in the best interest in keeping the status quo? Not a chance.

Would I be willing to take a cut of living style in order to become more self-dependent as a nation? Probably. The plan to do so would have to be very good though, so if it were made by the current generations of poli-chickens then no.


reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 01:56 PM by doctornamtab
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Originally posted by doctornamtab
If America became a provider instead of a debtor and war monger the rest of the world would learn to be rather pleasant as well.


No they wouldnt.

It doesnt take much to intercept whatever is being "provided" and use it to control a group of people.

Women are everywhere and a dime a dozen yet pimps still prosper and ho's get beat. Governments are no different and there will always be pimps out there finding ways to convert splendor and abundance into starvation and death.


Pimps and hoes prosper because there is a scarcity of women willing to have sex with undesirable men. Or a scarcity of women willing to perform strange sexual fetishes. Pimps take advantage of this scarcity the same way any capitalist exploits a scarcity. Research DeBeers Diamonds for another example of this.

You are right to say that control of a people comes from control of the resources. But to accompany the food we could provide Africa would be seeds so the Africans can become self sufficient instead of dependent on a global system of trade for their survival. This would lessen the control of the powerful by allowing people to access food without having to work some crap ass job.

Besides the citizens are only controlled when they agree to it. Leaders have no power without our consent, including the consent to control resources and make us work to get them.

"...there will always be pimps out there finding ways to convert splendor and abundance into starvation and death"

Besides with a view of human nature like yours why bother to even get up in the morning let alone change the face of the world? To view man as naturally evil is to give in to and actually promote the powerful by accepting their evil acts as biologically natural.

Besides, with a military budget bigger than the rest of the world combined itd be pretty easy to protect the provisions we send to poor countries. Its only a matter of wanting to.


reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 02:11 PM by badgerprints
reply to post by whaaa


Now the left is a bunch of imperialist warhawks. Go figure.

Says a lot about people who's partizanship only allows for one side of the story.

Then there are those who actually would like to take power away from the left and the right and put it in the center where the intelligent people still live.

I'd be glad to isolate for a while. I'd also like to get rid of the radical, partizan hyenas that we've got in office on both sides of the aisle.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

If America became a provider instead of a debtor and war monger the rest of the world would learn to be rather pleasant as well.


Why?

Nobody else seems too keen on providing much. America seems to be the biggest provider on the planet and the rest of the world seems to think they are entitled to free money because our criminal government just keeps handing it out. Everything America 'gives' ends up being used against us, misappropriated or is not acknowledged until somebody else wants more.

I hear how all of these other countries are better, smarter, more intelligent, more powerful, more enlightened than America but they never seem to do much but talk about it. They curse us for meddling and then in the same breath say America should be doing something about some other problem.

We should take a nice long break from all of this crap. Especially anything that takes a tax dollar anywhere outside of the US.

How about we just shut off the tap and let them find free cash elsewhere.


[edit on 3-12-2009 by badgerprints]


reply posted on 3-12-2009 @ 03:12 PM by doctornamtab
reply to post by badgerprints


There is a big difference between "meddling" and all out war taking place in two separate countries for very little reason. The aid America provides other countries is for America's benefit. That's why the rest of the world dislikes us. Its because we've even taken a selfish capitalistic approach to giving. If its not going to return profits to us, its not worth spending money on in the first place.

Thats why millions go hungry and why America picks and chooses which countries it "helps" ie-sending troops and building bases or bringing them into the economic fold through massive debt. These are the only two factors in American foreign policy-war and money.

Perhaps if we changed our reasons for providing foreign "aid" it might improve our standing in the world and reduce terrorism by stopping the cycle of violence instead of perpetuating it.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism
  Posted 12 days ago with 79 member flags
Hippy Do-Gooders have Destroyed the World
  Posted 13 days ago with 23 member flags
Facts About Socialism
  Posted 4 days ago with 23 member flags
Are Liberals REALLY More Intelligent Than Conservatives?
  Posted 9 days ago with 18 member flags
Why conservatives . . . . . suck!
  Posted 2 days ago with 16 member flags
The "Occupy are Socialists," Megathread
  Posted 13 days ago with 8 member flags
Unpopular Opinions: Say NO to Human Rights
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags
This is what needs to happen: REVOLUTION!
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags