Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Welcome to P&N where being attacked and referred to as a "lefty" or "Neocon" is standard operating procedures.
I sometimes I wonder if the US would be better off in the long run without its large geographic sphere of influence. How much of the US resources does the US spend on being a superpower?
Think how these resources could be used in the US instead spending money maintaining its sphere of influence. Taxes could be lowered!!
Sadly, that is true to a certain extent. There is a reason we've been able to maintain our economic dominance over such an extended period. It happens to be that we push and threaten other countries to do what we want or they'll face consequences. Most of the time the consequences are behind the scenes, or economic or political in nature, but sometimes we use our military. It's just how we do things, I'm not saying it's right. We're in so far deep now though that it's extremely difficult to untangle ourselves from this scenario we've created.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Ok let?s look at these points one by one.
1. Our support of Israel. Let?s say we didn?t support Israel in its wars against the Arab states. That means the Arab states win and who knows what happens the Jews living in Israel at the time. Holocaust part 2?
But this really a straw man, because the real reason for 9-11 is #2.
2. Our troops in Saudi Arabia, homeland to Osama and to Islam. 9-11 was WAY more about this than our support for Israel.
Now, why were our troops in Saudi Arabia? Because the Saudis asked us to be there in order to protect them from Saddam.
Now let?s go back in history and pretend that the US has this isolationist view the OP wants. Saddam invaded Kuwait. What does the world do without our military leadership? The UN passes a bunch of resolutions calling for Saddam to leave Kuwait, Saddam ignores them. Then what? Europe can?t do a thing to stop Saddam, most of their militaries can?t project power beyond their own boarders. So Saddam just takes over Kuwait, the price of gas jumps a buck a gallon, and there is nothing the world can do about.
Now what happens next? Does Saddam want the Saudi oil fields as well? Who is going to stop him if he does? Remember Saddam saw himself as a modern day Hitler, even wrote his own book.
Without our ?interfering? what would the middle east look like right now?
Gee is that not the same reason Japan attacked us in WW 2? Because our embargo affected their war machine and its ability to function.
Also, do you think Hitler saw the killing of 6 million Jews as an "internal affair"?
No it just isnt possible period. If you want to see isolationism in its finest form look at N.Korea.
Wanna bet who has a higher standard of living between the United States and N.Korea?
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Not doing to bad you say huh?
Let?s look at some facts.
1. North Korea: per capita GDP $1,800
2. South Korea: per capita GDP $20,900
There is no better example of the toll communism takes on a society then the numbers listed above. Take a country and split it in half, one side communist one side capitalist and look at the results. South Korea has one of the most advance and strongest economies in the world, meanwhile the people of North Korea are one bad crop away from starvation.
Vietnam: $3,025. Better than North Korea, but still 123 in the world, and this is after 15 years of 7-8% annual growth. When you say ?they are not doing too bad? what would you call bad?
Stop with the North Korea comparisons. Nobody is advocating we worship Bush as a god, threaten our neighbors, or become a totalitarian regime. That comparison is not valid.
With that said, ProfJohn's examples of what would have happened without American intervention are also misguided. One could go back even further and say without American intervention Saddam would have never been in power. Iran would have never become a radical Islamic state. There are so many "What ifs" that if you bring one up I can easily counter it with another, and you with another, and so on until we're making up completely ridiculous scenarios for how world history would have played out if this, that, and the other happened.
The only thing that can be debated at this point is wether a gradual return to a modern-style of isolationism would be effective and a better policy for the United States.
With that said, ProfJohn's examples of what would have happened without American intervention are also misguided. One could go back even further and say without American intervention Saddam would have never been in power. Iran would have never become a radical Islamic state. There are so many "What ifs" that if you bring one up I can easily counter it with another, and you with another, and so on until we're making up completely ridiculous scenarios for how world history would have played out if this, that, and the other happened.
The only thing that can be debated at this point is wether a gradual return to a modern-style of isolationism would be effective and a better policy for the United States.
Eh? N.korea is isolationist. Why is that an invalid comparison?
What is a "modern" style of isolationism? That sounds an awful like Chavez's 21st century style socialism. In other words the same beast with a newer nicer sounding name but the same disasterous results.
btw i am arguing against economic isolationism. Militarily i can agree we could cut back. The question of course is how tied to our liberal open markets is our military power and the need to use it?
When China went isolationist, the Europeans came knocking and overcame her. When Japan went isolationalist, America came knocking and told her to change or else. When America went isolationist, our allies got into serious trouble and we had to bail them out. The point is not about being isolationalist, it should be about aligning our foreign policy with our morals and dogmas. In the end, there will be far less double standards.
I suppose by modern isolationism I mean military isolationism with free trade. I understand participating in the world economy is necessary and do not advocate isolating ourselves in the fashion of North Korea, and I still say your comparison is invalid because a North Korea that cut itself off from the world but was democratic would be much different than the North Korea we know.
I doubt a democratic N. Korea will have gone isolationist in the first place. Which brings up another point. How does a govt go isolationist without an authortarian regime? A democratic style govt will have people who want the benefits of free trade and will vote in the right people to make this happen.
First of all I made no claims about North Korea, but still stick to my stance that it isn't my responsibility to provide all North Koreans with a chicken in every pot.
Vietnam was essentially destroyed over the course of a decade. That region of the world isn't exactly swimming in gold, and they are finally getting their feet back on the ground and becoming one of the more rapidly developing countries in Southeast Asia. Ironically this is only after they implemented capitalist policies to rebuild their economy reforms that seem to have been implemented despite of, rather than because of, our intervention there.
I am not advocating protectionism. I support free trade and understand its benefits. You are also immediately assuming that an isolationist America is by default an authoritarian America, when what we are really discussing is whether or not that policy would benefit our country as it runs currently.
Let me repeat: free trade with limited to no foreign military commitments, and limited to no intervention in foreign military or government affairs. That does not equal isolationism in the North Korean sense.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
It would only be a better policy if we are willing to isolate ourselves economically.
In 2005 we imported nearly $2 trillion worth of goods and exported $1,2 trillion worth of goods.
Implement your policies and what happens when China invaded and take over Taiwan, because we no longer support them militarily?
What happens when Iran decides to close the Straits of Hormuz? Who is going to reopen them? What happens over there is really of no concern to us if you don?t mind pay $5 a gallon for gas.
If we brought home every American soldier and only spend enough money to secure our boarders what would be benefit be? Cut defense spending by $200 billion maybe? Save the lives of a 1000 Americans a year dying in Iraq.
And what would be the long term cost? A stagnant economy when parts of the world we help keep peaceful now fall into chaos?
Are you willing to trade your life style for that type of savings?
And before you go on about 3000 dead in Iraq over nearly four years please remember that 3000 people die from SECONDHAND smoke per YEAR. As many as 400,000 die from smoking related causes. Another 43,200 die on the highway each year.
The point is that as bad as the deaths in Iraq are, compared to the size of our country they hardly noticeable. If you really wanted to save lives you could save a lot more by making tobacco illegal, or outlawing abortion etc.
Tuktuk: Please explain what the goal of your idea is? How are we to benefit from this plan of yours? That might help us explain where you are coming from.
I assume if China invaded Taiwan, that Taiwan would become Chinese.
As far as the Straits of Hormuz go, who says Iran would be our enemy if we were to pull back our troops? It seems to me their main concern with us is our military interventions. If there was a blockade you can be sure it would influence the rest of the world and the Europeans would step up to intervene.
Like I said, I understand Iraq should not be overblown in this debate. Iraq is a terrible mess but it is only the most recent of decades of military blunders.
Personally (and I know this doesn't apply to the country as a whole), I do not need a giant SUV and $5/gallon gasoline wouldn't directly affect me too much as far as driving habits go. I understand it would have implications on the rest of the economy, but given time to recover the economy would be just as stable as other nations with high gasoline prices.
I mean you are invisioning these doomsday scenarios but New Zealand, Switzerland, Norway, etc. seem to be doing just fine. Another superpower would fill the void, likely the EU.
And military isolationism and economic isolationism do not need to go hand in hand. Isolating ourselves economically would be foolish and I really don't know what you were going for with your first statement.. if you could expand on that.
As far as the Straits of Hormuz go, who says Iran would be our enemy if we were to pull back our troops? It seems to me their main concern with us is our military interventions. If there was a blockade you can be sure it would influence the rest of the world and the Europeans would step up to intervene.
Like I said, I understand Iraq should not be overblown in this debate. Iraq is a terrible mess but it is only the most recent of decades of military blunders.
Personally (and I know this doesn't apply to the country as a whole), I do not need a giant SUV and $5/gallon gasoline wouldn't directly affect me too much as far as driving habits go. I understand it would have implications on the rest of the economy, but given time to recover the economy would be just as stable as other nations with high gasoline prices.
I mean you are invisioning these doomsday scenarios but New Zealand, Switzerland, Norway, etc. seem to be doing just fine. Another superpower would fill the void, likely the EU.
And military isolationism and economic isolationism do not need to go hand in hand. Isolating ourselves economically would be foolish and I really don't know what you were going for with your first statement.. if you could expand on that.
Thanks for your stirring addition to this thread. How am I wrong? I'm not saying the attackers were justified, I'm simply saying the attackers came to us because of our foreign policy. Good luck telling me I'm wrong on that one.
Very interesting viewpoint. Of course I think the biggest problem that the Iraq war has brought is not the loss of our troops, but the loss of stability of Iraq and all the people over there getting killed. Of course Saddam was supposed to have killed 300,000, which is far more than what are getting killed now... Ata any rate, I think someone needs to make a "let's ban tobacco" thread and see what people think about that.
AnitaPeterson
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 6,022
- 561
- 126
Isolationism would not work unless there is a major shift in mentality and economic practices.
The sad truth is that, over the last 60 years, the largest source of jobs in the U.S. has become the defence industry... a large number of people deals with defence-related contracts.
The commodities resulting therefrom need to be expended... and since it's counterproductive to use them inside the borders (for obvious reasons!), they need to be exported/expended outside... in the world at large.
Also, look at historical data. Every time an empire has ceased to grow, stagnation and decay inevitably followed... most leaders are not ready to do that yet, so they're still trying to expand ("fulfill a historical destiny" or some variation thereof)....
The sad truth is that, over the last 60 years, the largest source of jobs in the U.S. has become the defence industry... a large number of people deals with defence-related contracts.
The commodities resulting therefrom need to be expended... and since it's counterproductive to use them inside the borders (for obvious reasons!), they need to be exported/expended outside... in the world at large.
Also, look at historical data. Every time an empire has ceased to grow, stagnation and decay inevitably followed... most leaders are not ready to do that yet, so they're still trying to expand ("fulfill a historical destiny" or some variation thereof)....
What we need is not empire, nor isolationism - what we need is a new priority for peace, by strengthening international systems and keeping any one nation from having an interest in 'dominating the world', just as the states must not go to war with one another to gain advantage.
As things are, war is inevitable because it's in the interests of the powerful as a tool for increasing their power.
As things are, war is inevitable because it's in the interests of the powerful as a tool for increasing their power.
MAW1082
Senior member
- Jun 17, 2003
- 510
- 7
- 81
Ok, lets say that after WWII we didn't intervene in Middle Eastern affairs and 'give' the Jews their own homeland. The lives of how many Jews and Palestinians would have been spared?
Now, why did Saudi Arabia feel that they needed protection from Saddam? Oh yeah, because the United States funded Saddam's weapons programs because he was anti-Iranian.
Furthermore, Saudi Arabia was also created from Western Intervention. The British are the ones who gained independence from the Ottoman Empire for the Saudis. If the British did not intervene in that struggle, who knows what the region might look like today.
You can't use the Middle East as an argument against Isolationism because the Middle East is the most f'ed up place on earth because so many outside powers have intervened there. After WWI, when the British divided up the area to lessen the influence of certain ethno-political groups, the writing was on the wall. The political regions created (ie Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc) were all created so that there wouldn't be any political regions dominated by one ethnic group. Iraq is the perfect example.
Wow, I'm almost startled by your honesty. I believe you are exactly right about how we operate. Many people around the world share this view. This is why we as a nation are reviled in much of the world and, in the last few years, aren't even very well liked in strong ally nations.
No ones like a bully. Especially a bully that smiles at you and shakes your hand while pushing you over and then expects to be thanked for it.
Life for a bully is all well and good until a bigger, badder kid moves onto the block. Let's just hope that doesn't happen or they may choose to 'liberate' us.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter