News If the US withdrew from entangling alliances

[SW VandeCarr]

If the US withdrew from "entangling alliances"

Suppose the US decided it was in it's best interests to withdraw, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from all its military positions outside of its national territory; moreover, to terminate all treaties and obligations to defend any territory except its own? The cry "Yankee go home!" (in some form or other) has been unremitting since 1946. Now the mood I sense in the US is 'yeah, that sounds like a great idea'. The pressure could become overwhelming in a few years, given increasing budget deficits, a falling standard of living and a great need for internal investment in infrastructure and services. The US could still maintain "normal" and balanced relations with nearly all the nations of the world, do business, maintain its membership in international organizations, but eschew any foreign military commitments. A lot of people say they want that, both inside and outside the US.

What if it happened? I'd like to hear ideas about the future "history", if such a decision were taken, of the subsequent decade or so. Would the world be a better place or a worse place?

EDIT: No "It won't happen" posts please. Assume it will happen and give your best prediction.

 

[Char. Limit]

It won't happen.




Sorry, I had to.

Now, if this were to happen, firstly, unemployment would go up... All those military bases give jobs, you know! (Probably not, though) Secondly, the world would love us for a few years before getting mad at our businesses for staying and Americanizing their culture. Third... South Korea would fall, and you don't want that, do you?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

It won't happen.

Sorry, I had to.

Now, if this were to happen, firstly, unemployment would go up... All those military bases give jobs, you know! (Probably not, though) Secondly, the world would love us for a few years before getting mad at our businesses for staying and Americanizing their culture. Third... South Korea would fall, and you don't want that, do you?

Would the world be a better or worse place overall in your opinion?

Why can't wealthy and developed South Korea defend itself against the poor and undeveloped North? I do think the US should join with other nuclear powers to retaliate against the first use of nukes. There are less then 35,000 US troops in the South and they are not generally well liked by the South Korean population. I could go into some detail about that but I'll pass for now.. The same for Okinawa and even Japan proper. The US was asked to leave the Philippines and virtually all military forces did leave.

By the way, I did not say the US would never use its forces to defend other countries. I just said it would not be obligated to do so under any treaties or prior agreements.

As for military bases, Clinton closed over one hundred military bases and facilities in the US.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think you'll need to be much more specific in presenting this worldview.

For example, would the US still be trading with the rest of the world? Would this trade move by sea? Would the US still have a navy to protect this trade? Would this navy have overseas bases or would it have to run out from Norfolk or San Diego every time there is an issue?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think you'll need to be much more specific in presenting this worldview.

For example, would the US still be trading with the rest of the world? Would this trade move by sea? Would the US still have a navy to protect this trade? Would this navy have overseas bases or would it have to run out from Norfolk or San Diego every time there is an issue?

The fundamental question is whether the US should continue to be the effective sole guarantor of the world's security; protecting trade lanes, upholding human rights everywhere, punishing bad actors. Moreover, can the US afford to do this? No one country can solve all the world's problems. The US has spent anywhere from a quarter to more than a third of its annual budget on defense since 1946. Was there any reason for the US (other than its membership in NATO) to get involved in the Balkans in the 1990s? That was a European problem. Why couldn't the wealthy EU (which has a larger GDP and population than the US) deal with one small rogue state?

The EU spends a much smaller fraction of its collective budgets on defense than the US, and invests heavily in its infrastructure and services (which promote a healthier and better educated population). The mind set: We hate the big bad USA; its 'culture', its attitude, its stupid form of government, its stupid people, its erratic foreign policy. But they'll (stupidly) save our butts if need be, so why worry? Let the US deal with Iran. Several European leaders do support a greater national and EU contribution to world security, but the populations by and large aren't interested. I travel quite a bit in Europe and speak French, German and Spanish. I know what I'm talking about. In European academic circles, the US (and Israel) is the world's problem, not the world's savior.

The worldview I'm describing is not something I necessarily support. I see it as likely, if not inevitable. The US is already rapidly moving toward high tech solutions for its security needs. It will continue to maintain a strong navy which has traditionally been its main pillar of defense since its founding. What the American people seem to object to the most is American land based military activities. US possessions in the Pacific extend as far as Guam and leasing a few other remote bases to protect American trade would not be inconsistent to what I described. I'm saying American people are fed up and want to end expensive entangling alliances. They want better schools, better roads and transportation, better health care and other services, secure jobs and a better life.

 

[mheslep]

The fundamental question is whether the US should continue to be the effective sole guarantor of the world's security; protecting trade lanes, upholding human rights everywhere, punishing bad actors. Moreover, can the US afford to do this? No one country can solve all the world's problems. The US has spent anywhere from a quarter to more than a third of its annual budget on defense since 1946. Was there any reason for the US (other than its membership in NATO) to get involved in the Balkans in the 1990s? That was a European problem. Why couldn't the wealthy EU (which has a larger GDP and population than the US) deal with one small rogue state?

The EU spends a much smaller fraction of its collective budgets on defense than the US, and invests heavily in its infrastructure and services (which promote a healthier and better educated population). The mind set: We hate the big bad USA; its 'culture', its attitude, its stupid form of government, its stupid people, its erratic foreign policy. But they'll (stupidly) save our butts if need be, so why worry? Let the US deal with Iran. Several European leaders do support a greater national and EU contribution to world security, but the populations by and large aren't interested. I travel quite a bit in Europe and speak French, German and Spanish. I know what I'm talking about. In European academic circles, the US (and Israel) is the world's problem, not the world's savior. ...

I think either you won't get much in the way of a useful response, or the thread will spiral off, unless you do some of the work on answering your hypothetical. Most of this post and the OP were stating what you didn't like about the current situation. But of course few to none want large military budgets or deployed troops for their own sake. I see little on working out the consequences of the hypothetical, and then whether or not you'd accept those consequences.

To start, what would have happened if the US did nothing, or had no presence in
The Balkans?
Kuwait/Iraq in 91?
Taiwan?
Afghanistan?
Korea?
If the present and near future is too speculative, I suggest a historical analysis where we have more detail and attempt to answer the same question about Korea in the 50's, US troops in Germany all through the cold war, or an absent US in WWII?

 

[dotman]

The fundamental question is whether the US should continue to be the effective sole guarantor of the world's security; protecting trade lanes, upholding human rights everywhere, punishing bad actors.

The US is not operating to guarantee the world's safety; it is operating to guarantee its own safety.

The US was not drawn into either of its two latest conflicts due to 'entangling alliances'. It initiated them on its own.

Finally, you can't say no 'it won't happen posts', and then later say you see it as inevitable. Because, frankly, it won't happen. The US extends itself overseas to prevent threats from reaching its home soil.

 

[Char. Limit]

Actually, the US is operating to guarantee the safety of Big Business, but that's another story.

You replied to my hypothesis saying that the US would join with other nuclear powers, the EXACT thing that you asked me what would happen if they DIDN'T do.

Japan would probably help SKorea, but if as you ORIGINALLY stated, the US was TRULY isolationist, NKorea with their nukes, aided by China, would overrun SKorea. Probably Japan too.

Second, I'm not experienced enough to hypothesize, so I won't. And yes, "hypothesize" is spelled with a z.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The US is not operating to guarantee the world's safety; it is operating to guarantee its own safety

As I said in the first post, ",,,if the US decided it was in its best interest..." Why don't many other nations, particularly in Europe, worry about their safety? Perhaps because they believe the US will always step in, as you apparently believe.

The US was not drawn into either of its two latest conflicts due to 'entangling alliances'. It initiated them on its own.

You're correct if your talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. They were big mistakes IMHO. Americans are increasingly coming to that view. The pressure to withdraw from Afghanistan forced Obama to give a vague 18 month time line. International terrorism doesn't need Afghanistan. They could operate from many places. The 911 attacks were largely the work of a cell in Frankfurt, Germany.

Finally, you can't say no 'it won't happen posts', and then later say you see it as inevitable. Because, frankly, it won't happen. The US extends itself overseas to prevent threats from reaching its home soil.

I said 'likely if not inevitable'. Why can't I ask for posters to give their view if it did happen.
It could be as simple as saying the world would be a better place or a worst place. As far as the reasons the US "extends itself", that's old thinking. It's what got the US involved in Vietnam.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think either you won't get much in the way of a useful response, or the thread will spiral off, unless you do some of the work on answering your hypothetical.

I can't read the future and say exactly what the US would do. What can say is that a I sense a trend toward military isolationism and protectionism coming from the left, not the right. This coincides with similar trends in Europe. This is the reverse of what we saw in the 1930's with isolationism and protectionism from right (the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930). The left is now in power in the US.

Most of this post and the OP were stating what you didn't like about the current situation. But of course few to none want large military budgets or deployed troops for their own sake. I see little on working out the consequences of the hypothetical, and then whether or not you'd accept those consequences.

To start, what would have happened if the US did nothing, or had no presence in
The Balkans?
Kuwait/Iraq in 91?
Taiwan?
Afghanistan?
Korea?
If the present and near future is too speculative, I suggest a historical analysis where we have more detail and attempt to answer the same question about Korea in the 50's, US troops in Germany all through the cold war, or an absent US in WWII?

That's the past. Japan and S Korea are strong states which should be capable of defending themselves against likely enemies. Even if they aren't, the US is overcommited and not may be able to help.

Why is the US the only nation that Taiwan can look to for defense? Other nations consider Taiwan as part China (so does the US officially) and would not intervene if China attacked the island.

As for Kuwait, the Balkans, Korea (1950), they would have been worse off now if the US didn't intervene, but would the US have been worse off? Probably not much.

The US was attacked by Japan in WWII and Germany declared war on the US on Dec 11, 1941 (Italy on Dec 10). The US had no choice there. Likewise, the US invasion of Afghanistan was a response to a direct attack on the homeland.

Had Germany and Japan "won" in their respective theaters absent the US (it's likely that many German forces would have been tied down in Russia and Japanese forces in China), it would not have put the US in immediate danger assuming the US had built up its forces (as they did beginning 1939) and especially if the US had been first to build a nuclear bomb. In the ensuing Cold War it would have been Germany and Japan vs the US and Canada with the US assisting unconquered China and Russia. Obviously other scenarios are possible including the total destruction of America.

EDIT: Sorry, I missed the US troops in Germany issue during the Cold War. In fact Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces considerably outnumbered NATO forces in Germany. If the Soviets wanted to ram through to the Atlantic, they probably could have done it, given a conventional war. It was the nuclear threat that kept the peace. If the US wasn't present, all of Europe would have been under Moscow's thumb. France and Britain would not have used their nukes. The US would still have had an ocean in front of it and a nuclear deterrent behind it, which they would have used if need be. To be perfectly blunt, the US would have had a lot less competition for its products in world markets with Europe chained to Soviet communism.

 

[wildman]

Actually it is tricky. The Saudis sale oil in dollars probably because we protect them (that would be my guess). How long will they take dollars for their oil if we abandon them? Then what will become of our dollar?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You replied to my hypothesis saying that the US would join with other nuclear powers, the EXACT thing that you asked me what would happen if they DIDN'T do.

I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean an isolationist US wouldn't enter into an understanding regarding first use of nuclear weapons, you're mistaken. An isolationist US would consider this a direct to its security and I assume would be willing to enter into this kind of agreement; perhaps even lead the effort precisely because it wouldn't be willing to use conventional forces in the case of first use of nukes.

Japan would probably help SKorea, but if as you ORIGINALLY stated, the US was TRULY isolationist, NKorea with their nukes, .aided by China, would overrun SKorea. Probably Japan too.

.

If the US went isolationist, Japan would get nukes very quickly and would not easily fall to to China. As for South Korea, Japan might intervene. But if the South can't defend itself against the North in a conventional war, perhaps it should fall.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Actually it is tricky. The Saudis sale oil in dollars probably because we protect them (that would be my guess). How long will they take dollars for their oil if we abandon them? Then what will become of our dollar?

It would probably go up. Japan's yen is very strong and Japan is isolationist in the military sense, which is how we're using the term here.

EDIT: Who is the US protecting the Saudis from? Anyway, an isolationist America would not be relying on oil from the Mideast. The US has recently discovered huge natural gas reserves. Canada and Brazil has oil to sell. Besides a left of center isolationist government would be very active in promoting carbon neutral alternative energy sources and conservation.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Massive unemployment. Considering how many people work for the US military or are employed some way by the US military, that is what you would get.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Massive unemployment. Considering how many people work for the US military or are employed some way by the US military, that is what you would get.

Clinton cut defense budgets and closed many bases without increasing unemployment. In a militarily isolationist US, an adequate defense would still be maintained. In fact, the total uniformed personnel count in the US military is much less today than in the Cold War. Military R&D would be well funded because an isolationist US would have no military allies. Finally, jobs lost in the defense sector would more than be replaced by jobs in other sectors by a left of center government.

 

[Al68]

Actually, the US is operating to guarantee the safety of Big Business, but that's another story.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking when the towers fell: Oh no, just look at how much profit will be lost by big business.

I suppose every other reason for our government to protect our liberty is irrelevant.

 

[Al68]

Clinton cut defense budgets and closed many bases without increasing unemployment. In a militarily isolationist US, an adequate defense would still be maintained. In fact, the total uniformed personnel count in the US military now is much less today than in the Cold War. Military R&D would be well funded because an isolationist US would have no military allies. Finally, jobs lost in the defense sector would more than be replaced by jobs in other sectors by a quasi-socialist government.

Or we would just get the (private sector) jobs back that were lost to pay for the military to begin with, which logically would greatly outnumber any jobs created by government taxing and spending to create jobs.

 

[mheslep]

...To be perfectly blunt, the US would have had a lot less competition for its products in world markets with Europe chained to Soviet communism.

That is not a blunt statement, it is inane. Where were the markets for US exports after WWII?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

That is not a blunt statement, it is inane. Where were the markets for US exports after WWII?

Go back and read my reply mheslep. Wrong context or bad historical knowledge. You're referring to the part of my post regarding the US role in Germany during the Cold War. By that time the US was running a trade deficit with Europe. It was years after WWII. Europe was competing in the US market against US manufactures. Much of the tension between the US and Europe regarding US nuclear weapons came to a head in the early 1980s. If the European antinukes, antiwar movement had their way, the US would have had to withdraw. The US would not have had its troops facing the numerically superior Warsaw Pact without a nuclear deterrent. Without US troops or a nuclear deterrent, Western Europe could well have been overrun.

Again, I'm following your what-if questions. What's inane was the position of the anti-US peace movement in Europe at that time, Again the US was the bad guy, not the Soviet Union.

My point was that a Soviet controlled Europe would have been worse for Europe than for the US. Do you disagree?

EDIT: I also said that France and Britain would not have used their nuclear weapons. This is because they did not have the advantage of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). That is, they could not have inflicted enough damage on the USSR to deter a conventional ground offensive and their first use of nuclear weapons would have only resulted in the total destruction of their homelands. As was the phrase at that time, "Better red than dead."

 

[mheslep]

Go back and read my reply mheslep. Wrong context or bad historical knowledge. You're referring to the part of my post regarding the US role in Germany during the Cold War. By that time the US was running a trade deficit with Europe. It was years after WWII. Europe was competing in the US market against US manufactures.

Yes, and Europe was buying billions of dollars of US exports, making us both better off. That's the nature of trade. Suggesting that the US would be better off if Europe was overrun and "chained to Soviet communism" because "the US would have had a lot less competition for its products in world markets" makes no sense in any time period since WWII. The US would have been deprived of a very big slice of the world market that would not have existed under Soviet control.

Much of the tension between the US and Europe regarding US nuclear weapons came to a head in the early 1980s. If the European antinukes, antiwar movement had their way, the US would have had to withdraw. The US would not have had its troops facing the numerically superior Warsaw Pact without a nuclear deterrent. Without US troops or a nuclear deterrent, Western Europe could well have been overrun.

On point and and I agree that was a likely outcome. Next step: Is that an acceptable outcome for the US and your worldview? It is not for my view.

My point was that a Soviet controlled Europe would have been worse for Europe than the US. Do you disagree?

A soviet controlled W. Europe would be bad for both. The point of your OP is to determine what military posture is better for the US.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Yes, and Europe was buying billions of dollars of US exports, making us both better off. That's the nature of trade. Suggesting that the US would be better off if Europe was overrun and "chained to Soviet communism" because "the US would have had a lot less competition for its products in world markets" makes no sense in any time period since WWII. The US would have been deprived of a very big slice of the world market that would not have existed under Soviet control.

My point was that any expansion of Soviet power was considered disastrous by US policy makers at that time. I'm saying that it would have been bad for the US, but much worse for Europe. How long can the US go with "allies" that cost the US money, expect the US to do all the heavy lifting, treat the US like the enemy and take stances that would seem to be against their own best interest. The US was spending over 100 billion dollars in 1982 on it's European military presence. It was about this time that the US current account trade numbers first went negative.

http://www.internetional.se/toft/usdeficit01.htm See Current Account

Fast forward to today. The present governments of the UK, France and Germany seem to get it regarding the potential danger posed by Iran, but their electorates don't. Iran already has missiles that can reach Europe, and few now doubt that Iran is developing a nuclear capability. But the prevailing view among the population (admittedly gleaned from reading the European press and watching European TV, talking to people and just getting a personal sense of the situation) is 'let the US or Israel take care of it if it needs to be done, but don't bother us.' That's the moderate view. The left view is 'the US/Israel' better well lay off Iran or we'll attack everything American/Israeli in the country'. (Don't eat at McDonald's anywhere in Western Europe and don't be Jewish.)

Obama expects NATO to ante up with more troops in Afghanistan. I think he's going to be disappointed. It's politically impossible for almost any Western European government to commit more than a trifling number troops, and then only for non-combat roles. When Obama realizes this, I think that it will be the beginning of the US shift toward military isolationism. The pressure will come from the well organized left of the Democratic party and from a broad swath of American society, not just left wingers.

Re: Soviet control of Western Europe.

On point and and I agree that was a likely outcome. Next step: Is that an acceptable outcome for the US and your worldview? It is not for my view.

.

It's not a good outcome, but if the antiwar left forced the US out, what choice would it have had?

A soviet controlled W. Europe would be bad for both. The point of your OP is to determine what military posture is better for the US.

The best posture would be to have good allies who agree on common goals and the best way to achieve them. That's ideal. The next best posture is to have a civilized way of ironing out differences as to strategy and tactics. However, it you can't agree on goals, you don't have an alliance. In the view I've expressed, given the current state of the world and the US economy, the US would avoid all military commitments for some period of time, but be free to act in its own interests if its home territory came under a direct threat which is obvious to the public. National security depends most of all on investment in the homeland IMHO.

 

[lisab]

I think you're correct, SW, I've sensed this growing feeling here in the US. People are tired of sending troops (and lots of money) to war, and not just peaceniks feel this way.

That feeling is coupled with an increasing "buy American" sentiment as well. The seeds of this movement were sown when we saw so much of our manufacturing move to Asia, and it has really grown since the recession hit.

Also, environmentalists encourage people to "buy local" to reduce the embedded energy in the products we buy (e.g., here in the Seattle area people are more likely to buy homegrown apples than bananas, because it takes less fuel to get them here).

Whatever the motivation, there is definitely a feeling of hunkering down, keeping dollars as close to home as possible. I don't sense any desire in people here, on the left or the right, to become further "entangled."

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think you're correct, SW, I've sensed this growing feeling here in the US. People are tired of sending troops (and lots of money) to war, and not just peaceniks feel this way.

That feeling is coupled with an increasing "buy American" sentiment as well. The seeds of this movement were sown when we saw so much of our manufacturing move to Asia, and it has really grown since the recession hit.

Also, environmentalists encourage people to "buy local" to reduce the embedded energy in the products we buy (e.g., here in the Seattle area people are more likely to buy homegrown apples than bananas, because it takes less fuel to get them here).

Whatever the motivation, there is definitely a feeling of hunkering down, keeping dollars as close to home as possible. I don't sense any desire in people here, on the left or the right, to become further "entangled."

Yes, I sense that too. It transcends ideology. It's raw, deeply felt and growing. When I see run down inner city schools or closed libraries, or talk to teachers who lost their jobs due to budget cuts it makes me sick. The answer is 'we can't afford it'. However the US can afford to build schools and libraries in Iraq and Afghanistan, some which have been used to inform students about the evil American infidels that are blowing up mosques. I can understand the motives behind it, and building schools is better than blowing them up (collateral damage of course). However, 'winning hearts and minds' (Where have I heard that before?) can make an explosive political cocktail when mixed with the reality of life in America in 2009. Things are tough in many countries but only one is still spending hundreds of billions of dollars in two wars. These two wars were not due to foreign entanglements, but that makes little difference to an increasingly angry and disillusioned public.

Obama is trying to have guns and butter with printed money. He has no real choice. He can't just walk away from the two Bush wars (One justified IMHO, but totally mismanaged, the other totally unjustified and totally mismanaged until 2008). Obama came out of the left, but the office tempers ideals. However I do believe this president will avoid the perils of an interventionist foreign policy, otherwise he will lose his base.

 

[turbo]

Many of the "entangling alliances" were constructed as businesses saw enormous profits to be gained from small domestic bribes. Banana Republic is not just a trade name. How many people have lost their lives and their freedoms so that big US fruit companies could make fortunes on their misery?

Puppet governments and dictators have been the norm in places where US business interests have enough influence to dictate foreign policy. As long as the puppet creeps claim to be "anti-communist" or "anti-socialist" they have enjoyed the full support of the business-bought politicians in our government. It is high time that we US citizens demand that our government quit demonizing every government or elected representative (Chavez comes to mind) that does not kowtow to the interests of US businesses. US media is extremely timid in this regard. Where is the integrity of the media?

 

[Char. Limit]

Thank you, Turbo, for explaining one of my opinions better than I ever could. That's exactly what I was talking about with my "Big Business" comment.

 

[mheslep]

Obama expects NATO to ante up with more troops in Afghanistan. I think he's going to be disappointed. ...

Europe did commit another 5000 troops with the recent overall increase. Not much, but earlier the number was zero or even talk of a draw down. The European increase came while the US was considering Gen McCrystal's request, so perhaps credit is due to Obama in delaying, forcing the European's hand.

 

[Nebula815]

Yes, I sense that too. It transcends ideology. It's raw, deeply felt and growing. When I see run down inner city schools or closed libraries, or talk to teachers who lost their jobs due to budget cuts it makes me sick.

Run-down inner-city schools are not the fault of lack of money, they are the fault of a self-serving education bureaucracy that spends the money primarily on itself as opposed to the teachers and students and which is hell-bent on maintaining its monopoly over education by resisting any forms of competition ranging from vouchers to charter schools as much as it can.

I can understand people not wanting us to get involved in anything that is a waste, but to take an isolationist stand I think would be disastrous long-term. Like it or not, the world has lots of people out there that want to kill us and destroy our way of life. We are in a war against Islamic terrorism.

Saying we should ignore nations like Iran because we are "tired" of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is just not going to work. A nation like Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuke, and furthermore, it directly affects us if they get a nuke and/or if Israel decides to attack them for getting said nuke.

Iran is also unique in that the democracy created in Iraq is inspiring the Iranian people to revolt against their own government. If we support these people properly we might be able to see this Iranian regime toppled via a revolution. Iraq itself is a fragile, but functioning democracy, and we have an ample opportunity to help it grow and become a stable and strong ally in the region, which could go a long way towards beginning to democratize the Middle East, especially if Iran could change too.

Afghanistan is another quagmire that we can't per se just leave. Just leaving it could lead to another 9/11 as terrorists would fester there and grow and also it could lead to Pakistan falling to radical Islamists, and Pakistan is nuclear-armed.

 

[Nebula815]

I think you're correct, SW, I've sensed this growing feeling here in the US. People are tired of sending troops (and lots of money) to war, and not just peaceniks feel this way.

That feeling is coupled with an increasing "buy American" sentiment as well. The seeds of this movement were sown when we saw so much of our manufacturing move to Asia, and it has really grown since the recession hit.

Also, environmentalists encourage people to "buy local" to reduce the embedded energy in the products we buy (e.g., here in the Seattle area people are more likely to buy homegrown apples than bananas, because it takes less fuel to get them here).

Whatever the motivation, there is definitely a feeling of hunkering down, keeping dollars as close to home as possible. I don't sense any desire in people here, on the left or the right, to become further "entangled."

Politicians also kow-tow to the influences of these foreign governments as well, as they hire lobbying firms to lobby the politicians.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Saying we should ignore nations like Iran because we are "tired" of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is just not going to work. A nation like Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuke, and furthermore, it directly affects us if they get a nuke and/or if Israel decides to attack them for getting said nuke.

Where did I day we should ignore Iran? I used Iran as a present day example of Europe soughing off it's international responsibilities even when the potential danger to it is greater than it is to the US, which is somehow is always supposed to take care of things. It's often said, it's the government, not the people. Well, in Europe it is the people. Living in the warm cocoon of government largess, they simply don't want to face reality. I consistently said the US must respond, preferably with other nuclear states, to any first use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation is the biggest clear and present danger to humanity. Global warming is a close second but it's not as if disaster will suddenly erupt out of the blue sky.

I'm against preemptive military action against Iran by the US or Israel, especially since a national uprising seems to be in the making. However, if Iran actually tests a bomb, Israel may well strike on its own and incur the usual international wrath.

Iran is also unique in that the democracy created in Iraq is inspiring the Iranian people to revolt against their own government. If we support these people properly we might be able to see this Iranian regime toppled via a revolution.

You may be right, but I think the Iranian people are just fed up with being forced to live in the seventh century in many ways.

Afghanistan is another quagmire that we can't per se just leave. Just leaving it could lead to another 9/11 as terrorists would fester there and grow and also it could lead to Pakistan falling to radical Islamists, and Pakistan is nuclear-armed.

As I said, Afghanistan is not necessary for international terrorism. They could base themselves in many places. The recent incident in Detroit was apparently run out of Yemen. Al Qaeda took credit for it yesterday. The US is entitled to fight international terrorism any way it can (within the bounds of international law). I also believe that nations that harbor terrorists must take effective action against them or permit other nations to do so if they can't. There should be no safe havens. Such action should be discrete, highly specific and avoid collateral deaths. Massive military intervention is wasteful and wrongheaded IMHO, although I do think the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was justified and would have been considered successful if Bin Laden and his lieutenants had been captured or killed.

 

[Nebula815]

Where did I day we should ignore Iran? I used Iran as a present day example of Europe soughing off it's international responsibilities even when the potential danger to it is greater than it is to the US, which is somehow is always supposed to take care of things. It's often said, it's the government, not the people. Well, in Europe it is the people. Living in the warm cocoon of government largess, they simply don't want to face reality. I consistently said the US must respond, preferably with other nuclear states, to any first use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation is the biggest clear and present danger to humanity. Global warming is a close second but it's not as if disaster will suddenly erupt out of the blue sky.

No no, I'm not saying you held the position we should be isolationist, I just mean the contention that the drift of the Untied States as a country is towards this, I think would be bad.

I'm against preemptive military action against Iran by the US or Israel, especially since a national uprising seems to be in the making. However, if Iran actually tests a bomb, Israel may well strike on its own and incur the usual international wrath.

Yes, the dangerous part is that it would/could throw the global economy into a downward spiral as Iran could do things like increase terror attacks from cells or close off the Strait of Hormuz, which would cut off much of the world's oil supply for a bit. The U.S. military could re-open it, but it would take some time and the resulting shock to the global economy would likely be very bad.

As I said, Afghanistan is not necessary for international terrorism. They could base themselves in many places. The recent incident in Detroit was apparently run out of Yemen.

I agree, but it was our ignoring of Afghanistan throughout the 1990s that helped lead to 9/11. Afghanistan is an ideal place to hideout and train terrorists. Also, we do want to risk Pakistan falling either.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Actually, the US is operating to guarantee the safety of Big Business, but that's another story.

That's the history, but I'm talking about a new paradigm. Big business is the number one enemy in the the eyes of many Americans right now.The kind of left of center non interventionist (with the exceptions I indicated: first use of nukes, clear and present danger to the homeland) government I see would not be the slave of big business, foreign or domestic. If such a government betrayed the people's confidence, I foresee a an even more leftist government. I've already posted in this forum on the outrages of the bond rating agencies. We can also add Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, AIG, etc. Many EU countries and Brazil are examples of countries that are economically successful under leftist but democratic regimes . Business provides jobs and prosperity. They're entitled to earn reasonable profits but they must operate within a structure that serves the people.

 

[Nebula815]

Some non-interventionist views are also ultra-right-wing, for example the Ron Paul libertarians.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Some non-interventionist views are also ultra-right-wing, for example the Ron Paul libertarians.

There's a difference between libertarians and traditional right wingers. Libertarians agree with the modern left in terms of non intervention and personal freedoms. They too are suspicious of big business and financial markets. However, they are also anti-tax and against big government. At one time I was a libertarian. However, I don't think the anti-tax idea works. Government should be the size the people want it to be and taxes, fairly distributed and wisely spent, are the price of civilization. 2009 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of a tall rather odd looking American who had some weird idea about government "...of the people, by the people and for the people."

 

[Galteeth]

The honest answer: Who knows? You're talking about one heck of a non-linear system.

The reasoning behind such things should not be based on what might conceivably happen but on principles of government and to some extent practical immediate effects.

 

[mugaliens]

Government should be the size the people want it to be and taxes, fairly distributed and wisely spent, are the price of civilization.

Governments will always find ways of being twice as large as people want it to be, and taxes are rarely distributed fairly or spent wisely.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Governments will always find ways of being twice as large as people want it to be, and taxes are rarely distributed fairly or spent wisely.

You're such a pessimist. Government of, by, and for the people requires that people fulfill their civic responsibilities, Having denounced the attitudes of many Europeans toward the US, I will say that the governments of the EU have delivered the goods to their constituents all too well because the people demanded it. For the most part in Western Europe: free health care cradle to the grave, free education though public universities, paid maternity leave up to 12 months, strict laws on corporate governance, 30 days paid vacation plus holidays, paid sick leave, generous unemployment benefits, excellent high speed rail transport and highways built to last eighty years before repaving. scientific facilities that now surpass the best in the US such as the Large Hadron Collider, modern port facilities that put the US facilities to shame, better cell phone and internet service with a denser broadband network, much less identity theft because of better security. Power outages are rare because the power lines are almost entirely underground. The food is generally of a better quality and the cities are cleaner and safer. I could on, but you get the point.

A lot of this is possible because EU members don't spend a third or more of their annual budgets on defense. There's pockets of poverty in the suburban rings around some big cities such as Paris, Rome and some industrial cities in Germany and there's rural poverty as you get into southern Italy and SE Europe but nothing like the poverty of many of the inner cities of the US or the rural poverty in much of the southern US and on Indian reservations..

Europeans do pay higher taxes than Americans, especially in Scandinavia, but they get what they pay for, and they generally live well, with much less stress than Americans experience IMHO, having lived on both sides of the Atlantic. I don't think the US should be a carbon copy of Europe nor do I think the good life in Europe is sustainable. They must pay more for defense and the US less. The American people can have a better life and reduce the ridiculous gap between rich and poor. The people just have to demand it and make their government work more for them and less for unappreciative "allies" who will obviously take a free ride if they can.

 

[Char. Limit]

First, there is absolutely nothing wrong in being a pessimist. Indeed, I prefer it to optimism.

Second, if the people rise up, the government will just use that massive defense budget to force them down, in the name of government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

 

[mheslep]

You're such a pessimist.

History puts reality on MugAliens side on this one. He's certainly paraphrasing US founders:

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground

[...]For the most part in Western Europe: free health care cradle to the grave, free education though public universities, paid maternity leave up to 12 months, strict laws on corporate governance, 30 days paid vacation plus holidays, paid sick leave, generous unemployment benefits, excellent high speed rail transport and highways built to last eighty years before repaving.

None of that is 'free', nor does health coverage mean one necessarily gets good 'health care', nor did all the people that were forced to pay for it 'demand it', nor was it there 'civic duty' to do so. Maybe you could ask those effected by decades of 10-12% EU unemployment how they feel about employment benefits.

scientific facilities that now surpass the best in the US such as the Large Hadron Collider,

That's an instance; there are apparently some excellent facilities in Europe. But every single researcher/scholar with which I am acquainted and has experience in both Europe and the US feels there is no comparison in the resources and opportunities available in their field between the US and Europe: postdocs, grants, facilites in both industry and government. This is true even if they much prefer European life styles.

Power outages are rare because the power lines are almost entirely underground.

That's misinformation; it is neither the reason for most power outages nor is true that even a small percentage of existing HV power lines are below ground in Europe; you are confusing existing transmission with the recent trend in buring HVDC lines.

The food is generally of a better quality and the cities are cleaner and safer. I could on, but you get the point.

Spent any time in Milan? How'd you like the air there? Try to get through Naples rail stations for a few weeks without at least an attempt at being ripped off. Spent any time sampling New Orleans cuisine? Compare that to Frankfurt. The point I get is that you're aping some stereotype, commonly held by someone familiar with this or that spot in the vastness of the US, and after flying through a couple of airports and watching some Hollywood, they smugly assume they've got it all in their pocket.

A lot of this is possible because EU members don't spend a third or more of their annual budgets on defense. There's pockets of poverty in the suburban rings around some big cities such as Paris, Rome and some industrial cities in Germany and there's rural poverty as you get into southern Italy and SE Europe but nothing like the poverty of many of the inner cities of the US or the rural poverty in much of the southern US.

What's the source for this? Hollywood?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

First, there is absolutely nothing wrong in being a pessimist. Indeed, I prefer it to optimism.

Second, if the people rise up, the government will just use that massive defense budget to force them down, in the name of government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

You're reasoning doesn't make sense.The people don't have to "rise up" and how does the budget deficit force the people down? By the way, American people are now the effective owners of many of these "rich" corporations. The people do need to exercise the rights and power they have under the constitution. Organize and break the power of the special interests. I believe Obama is for the people but he's temporarily trapped in circumstances left by the Bush administration. A top down, bottom up approach can squeeze the special interests out. They do it in Canada, they do it in Europe, why not in the US? It doesn't have be perfect. Every country has some corruption (except maybe Iceland).

The place to start is to stop spending on wars and interventions to save the world, and force other countries to pull their weight: the EU, Japan, S Korea and even the rising economies of Latin America. If one country (S Korea) has to go down to make the point, so be it. Also, the rich must pay more in taxes. Why have an income cap on FICA contributions? Presently its around $110,000. Let it be open ended. Simplify the tax code, close loopholes, and increase the rates on the top income brackets. Reward companies that keep jobs in the US and punish those who export jobs. Buy American. Organize consumer cooperatives that will buy American if the quality is there. Use that leverage to make American products more competitive. Do you know that the US is importing solar panels and wind turbines? One of the great resources of America is its wind and solar power potential. Developing these can provide many jobs. Why is the US importing the the necessary technology??

If you're negative attitude is indicative of American attitudes (which I doubt, but I do hear a lot whiners) then maybe America should go down the tubes.

 

[Char. Limit]

No, my "negative attitude" is not common among the blind optimists known as Americans...

 

[SW VandeCarr]

History puts reality on MugAliens side on this one. He's certainly paraphrasing US founders:

Jefferson is entitled to his opinions. He also thought that America should remain a nation of small farmers and generally disliked cities.

https://www.amazon.com/review/RPRGZ2FI8SL6V&tag=pfamazon01-20

None of that is 'free', nor does health coverage mean one necessarily gets good 'health care', nor did all the people that were forced to pay for it 'demand it', nor was it there 'civic duty' to do so. Maybe you could ask those effected by decades of 10-12% EU unemployment how they feel about employment benefit.

The majority of the people decided they wanted a welfare state They got it and they never voted it out. If they wanted the government to shine their shoes, I guess they have the right to demand it. Do the majority of Americans want an interventionist America? The last election seems to say no.

That's an instance; there are apparently some excellent facilities in Europe. But every single researcher/scholar with and has experience in both Europe and the US feels there is no comparison in the resources and opportunities available in their field between the US and Europe: postdocs, grants, facilites in both industry and government. This is true even if they much prefer European life styles.

That's good. I hope these activities can continue to be funded at high levels, but that may not be possible if America doesn't get control of its deficits.,

That's misinformation; it is neither the reason for most power outages nor is true that even a small percentage of existing HV power lines are below ground in Europe; you are confusing existing transmission with the recent trend in buring HVDC lines.

I'll concede the point although it has little to do with main topic. I was thinking more of the local transmission lines in residential areas.

Ever been in Milan? How'd you like the air there? Try to get through Naples rail stations for a few weeks without at least an attempt at being ripped off.

I never said Europe was crime or pollution free. However, Western Europeans can get a good university education without going deep into debt and they won't go bankrupt if they get sick.

Spent any time sampling New Orleans cuisine? Compare that to Frankfurt.

That's comparing some of America's best with some of Europe's worst,

The point I get is that you're aping some stereotype, commonly held by someone familiar with this or that spot in the vastness of the US, and after flying through a couple of airports and watching some Hollywood, they smugly assume they've got it all in their pocket.

What's the source for this? Hollywood?

I live in the US now and have lived in Canada and Europe. I spend a lot of time traveling both overseas and in the US. I've been in every state and most every city of any size as well this country's beautiful rural expanses. I'm retired and volunteer a lot. I see the good things and the bad things. I does make me sick to see the state of urban decay and the virtual ghost towns of improvised rural areas. Ever been to Detroit? Ever been to the Mississippi delta? Ever been to the Pine Ridge or Navajo reservations? I assume you are American. What you just said indicates you haven;t seen enough of your country. It's a great country and its people deserve better. No American should face bankruptcy because they got sick. No American should die or be maimed for life in a war where you can't even define what "victory" is.

 

[vertices]

However, Western Europeans can get a good university education without gong deep into debt and they won't go bankrupt if they get sick.

I find itincredible that people don't have a right to live in the richest country in the world.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I find itincredible that people don't have a right to live in the richest country in the world.

I'm sorry. Could you explain that a little more? I don't understand what you mean. I'm thinking you mean people don't have a right to medical care in the richest country in the world. If so, I agree with you in principle. However US law does require that anyone seeking care in a hospital emergency department must at least be evaluated and treated (or appropriately transferred) if emergency treatment is warranted regardless of their ability to pay.

 

[Nebula815]

A lot of this is possible because EU members don't spend a third or more of their annual budgets on defense. There's pockets of poverty in the suburban rings around some big cities such as Paris, Rome and some industrial cities in Germany and there's rural poverty as you get into southern Italy and SE Europe but nothing like the poverty of many of the inner cities of the US or the rural poverty in much of the southern US and on Indian reservations..

The poverty in the inner cities of the U.S. has nothing to do with the U.S. way of doing things, it is because the inner cities and the big cities overall are run by ultra-Left politicians and bureaucrats.

New York City went bankrupt in the mid-1970s trying to fight poverty (they now have a welfare state within a welfare state). For decades, our cities, and our states, have been social engineering laboratories for these policies, and they show they do not work.

Indian reservations are, or were much the same, the people had no incentive to work due to being completely funded by the government.

Europeans do pay higher taxes than Americans, especially in Scandinavia, but they get what they pay for,

Not really. Their universities do not match American universities and their healthcare systems in general do not match the American healthcare system.

The American people can have a better life and reduce the ridiculous gap between rich and poor.

What exactly is wrong with a gap between the poor and the rich? America is not a society based on everyone having an equal outcome. Further, who cares what the gap is as long as the general standard of living for everyone continues going up?

Our "poor" are not exactly what most of the world that live on a dollar a day or less would define as "poor." For example, obesity is oftentimes a problem amongst the "poor" here in america.

The people do need to exercise the rights and power they have under the constitution. Organize and break the power of the special interests.

Not that simple, and the special interests (Big Business anyhow) gain much of their power from regulations and increased government specifically created to "help" the people (when government seeks to regulate industry, industry will seek to "regulate" government).

I believe Obama is for the people but he's temporarily trapped in circumstances left by the Bush administration. A top down, bottom up approach can squeeze the special interests out. They do it in Canada, they do it in Europe, why not in the US? It doesn't have be perfect. Every country has some corruption (except maybe Iceland).

What makes you think the special itnerests are not entrenched in Europe or Canada? The only way the special interests lose influence over government is when government stops seeking to influence the special interests.

The place to start is to stop spending on wars and interventions to save the world, and force other countries to pull their weight: the EU, Japan, S Korea and even the rising economies of Latin America. If one country (S Korea) has to go down to make the point, so be it.

I highly doubt that will happen, because the U.S. will always be the strongest and the other countries will figure they can get away with spending less.

Also, the rich must pay more in taxes.

Why? And how do you define "rich?" Because much of what is defined as "rich" are really just people earning in the higher income brackets, upper-middle-class, but not at all rich. And many of these are people who have worked many years of their life as middle-class, who are now in their peak income earning years, and are thus earning in the high income brackets, and thus are "rich" according to certain politicians.

As it is, about 40% of the population pay no federal income tax, and in some states up to 50% of the tax base is paid by the highest-earning 1%.

Why have an income cap on FICA contributions? Presently its around $110,000. Let it be open ended.

Because the idea of Social Security is that you pay into it what you get out of it. If you get rid of the cap, then a millionaire who pays into it for some years has to be paid out those same millions.

Of course then people will scream about why is a millionaire being paid millions from Social Security, when he doesn't "need" that much (nevermind the whole idea was get paid out what you pay into it).

So there's a cap. Yes you could end the cap so everyone pays and instead have a cap set where anyone earning above it does not receive SS even though they paid into it. Of course then SS becomes a de-facto welfare and entitlement program.

SS had a surplus for a while, but then Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, decided to open up SS to rob it for their pet projects (it is for this reason I believe any new massive entitlement that even did manage to pay for itself would still end up in deficit because the government would find ways to rob it).

As it is, SS is a Ponzi-scheme, as what is paid in now is used to pay the current SS recipients.

Simplify the tax code, close loopholes, and increase the rates on the top income brackets.

The top brackets, in fact all the brackets, need their rates decreased, not increased.

Reward companies that keep jobs in the US and punish those who export jobs.

How do you punish a company that exports jobs? And why shouldn't it be allowed to export jobs? The company's job is to make a profit for the owners. If it can get the same work done with better quality at 1/3 the price in another country, nothing wrong with that. We know free-trade works.

 

[Nebula815]

I find itincredible that people don't have a right to live in the richest country in the world.

No one can have a "right" to healthcare, as it is a service, but all Americans are given healthcare if they go to a hospital, whether they have it or not, in an emergency I believe.

 

[vertices]

No one can have a "right" to healthcare, as it is a service, but all Americans are given healthcare if they go to a hospital, whether they have it or not, in an emergency I believe.

Should it be though? What if you have a tumor of some sort - your life is in the hands of some person who is only interested in securing his/her bonus for the year.. by finding ways of denying you the care you need. How undignifying.

In the UK, if we are ill we get treated. This is how it should be - healthcare shouldn't be a priveledge. Why should your access to heathcare depend on your ability to pay? That flies in the face of everything that's just and fair.

 

[Nebula815]

Should it be though? What if you have a tumor of some sort - your life is in the hands of some person who is only interested in securing his/her bonus for the year..

With a proper free market, you will have the health insurance for if you get a tumor. As it is, we do not have a proper free-market for health insurance in the U.S. right now. People cannot buy health insurance across state lines and the states, which regulate the health insurance companies, mandate that they cover a lot of things that can artificially drive up the price (like hair loss treatment, marriage counseling, etc...for example).

There are a lot of things that drive up the costs of health insurance in America that shouldn't. That said, some say we could also probably have a system of government insurance to cover catostrophic things, and leave the rest of stuff to the market insurance and payment out of pocket.

In the UK, if we are ill we get treated. This is how it should be - healthcare shouldn't be a priveledge. Why should your access to heathcare depend on your ability to pay?

In the UK, if you are ill, you can be put on waiting lists and/or denied care because the system lacks the $$$ and resources to provide for everyone. There are battles occurring in the UK over this right now about who will get the funding for what.

Your care depends on your ability to pay because healthcare is a service. Anything that is a service cannot be a right. Rights are abstract things. Housing, healthcare, education, food, etc...are services, and the more you pay, the better you can get. That's just a law of economics.

However, with a free market, as technology progresses, much healthcare that was previously only available to those with lots of $$$, becomes available to the middle-class and even poor.

That flies in the face of everything that's just and fair.

"Justice" and "fairness" are arbitrary words that can mean completely different things to different people.

 

[vertices]

Some points

1)A government run system runs very well, as I can attest, in the UK. Ofcourse you get the odd story of NICE (the body which assesses a course of medication/treatment in terms of its costs and benefits) not allowing a patient to be given some super expensive medication, but this is very rare and the aforementioned costs are very carefully weighed up in terms of the extra quality of life the medicine would give relative to the monetary costs.

2)Don't you think something is very wrong, when all the major health indicators in Cuba far exceed those in the US (eg. infant mortality, deaths from heart disease, cancer, etc.)

3)It would logically follow from what you've just said, that firefighters and policemen/women should only be available to those who can pay for their services.

"Justice" and "fairness" are arbitrary words that can mean completely different things to different people.

Not so - these are universal principles. Christianity, like all religions, is a bit f*cked up imho but there are some, let's be charitable, good things in the Bible. The following is one of them, and is I would say, a moral truism: "Do to others what you would have them do to you".

Everyone deserves to be treated fairly, equally, with dignity and respect. Fighting with the insurance people about preexisting conditions or what not, to save your life is just wrong.

 

[Nebula815]

Some points

1)A government run system runs very well, as I can attest, in the UK. Ofcourse you get the odd story of NICE (the body which assesses a course of medication/treatment in terms of its costs and benefits) not allowing a patient to be given some super expensive medication, but this is very rare and the aforementioned costs are very carefully weighed up in terms of the extra quality of life the medicine would give relative to the monetary costs.

A government-run system can run well, but it also has its share of problems. A free-market system works incredibly well as well.

2)Don't you think something is very wrong, when all the major health indicators in Cuba far exceed those in the US (eg. infant mortality, deaths from heart disease, cancer, etc.)

They don't. Who do you think is providing those statistics? The Cuban government. That would be like the Soviet Union claiming it had better healthcare than the United States. Have you ever looked at the standard of living of the average Cuban?

3)It would logically follow from what you've just said, that firefighters and policemen/women should only be available to those who can pay for their services.

No it doesn't, because fire services and police services, which are still services BTW, are things that affect everyone universally. If your home catches fire, it can set the whole city on fire if not put out.

A better analogy would be should we have universal home insurance. Instead of private sector home owner's insurance, have the government cover it. So if your home catches fire, it's insured. I'd rather stick with the private sector.

If you catch a strain of a deadly disease that is a literal public health threat, they will quarantine your home.

BTW, the police are not to protect you per se, they are there to enforce the law, which is a job of government.

If we wanted privatized fire and police services, companies would compete with each other to get contracts from local governments to provide those services to specific areas. They would still be being taxpayer-funded nonetheless ultimately.

Not so - these are universal principles. Christianity, like all religions, is a bit f*cked up imho but there are some, let's be charitable, good things in the Bible. The following is one of them, and is I would say, a moral truism: "Do to others what you would have them do to you".

Everyone deserves to be treated fairly, equally, with dignity and respect. Fighting with the insurance people about preexisting conditions or what not, to save your life is just wrong.

You're missing the point. Terms like "equality," "fairness," "justice," etc...can mean completely different things. In America for example, equality is important in that we are all to be equal under the law. We are not all to be equal in that there is supposed to be some equal outcome.

Being charitable is great, but that can be tough when your money is taken from you by force in the name of "fairness" and "social justice" and so forth.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

2)Don't you think something is very wrong, when all the major health indicators in Cuba far exceed those in the US (eg. infant mortality, deaths from heart disease, cancer, etc.)

We do not know this. As Nebula points out the statistics are provided by the Cuban government. The International Red Cross is not allowed regular access to Cuba, and Cuba has side stepped this by making its own national red cross organization.

From what I have read here and there (unfortunately there are not really any reliable sources that I know of) in Cuba the tourist areas are nice and the people are relatively happy and well taken care of, but outside these areas the quality of life drops dramatically.