I will make my plea for "real change" from our government. Formerly, before the Spanish-American war, our foreign policy was substantially isolationist. Many argue that our nation can not realistically return to such isolationism. OK. I will accept that. My plea is that we begin to transition smoothly from our current hyper engaged foreign policy to a stasis point of foreign policy which is mid-way between our current hyper engagement and our former isolationism. That would be "real change." That would require change from both Democrats and Republicans.
What could we do? We could remove troops from the DMZ and elsewhere in South Korea. Not overnight -- see above "transition smoothly" language. How about removing troops from Germany? Other places?
Basically, I feel we (me, through my tax payments) are paying to make the world safe for business. Let business pay its own way. Additionally, we are giving a free ride -- or a discounted ride -- to many other nations that would have to invest substantially more in their national security than presently or suffer some unpleasant risks. With respect to our national security, I would argue that our meddling so thoroughgoingly as we currently do creates more security problems for us than if we dialed it back 50%.
Of course, this isn't going to happen. Vested interests that have bought both Democratic and Republican parties would lose by this change. But it would be change and I think change for the better for our nation and most of its citizens. What do you think?
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
RE: Real change
Quote:
Basically, I feel we (me, through my tax payments) are paying to make the world safe for business. Let business pay its own way. Additionally, we are giving a free ride -- or a discounted ride -- to many other nations that would have to invest substantially more in their national security than presently or suffer some unpleasant risks. With respect to our national security, I would argue that our meddling so thoroughgoingly as we currently do creates more security problems for us than if we dialed it back 50%.
Interesting observation. I had never really thought about it in this light. I am somewhat ignorant in our dealing in these matters, but are the commodities, that said countries are providing for us, a necessity that could not be obtained on our own soil? Could private businesses be able to provide these commodities securely enough to insure stability? I know I"™m speaking in real broad terms, and each commodity would be a relative issue. You just got me thinking.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Isolationism is a very flawed philosophy, just as much as over-intervention, I believe.
Had be kept an isolationist stance, then WWII wouldn't have been a pretty picture. I don't think Roosevelt was a very good President, however I do believe that Republicans had no business being in the White House in 1940-1944, or before that, because of their ignorance, which kept them from being able to see how critical it was to have strong allies to stand off against the Germans.
If the Republicans had their way in Congress, we wouldn't have sent equipment toEngland, the Battle of Britain might have gone to the Nazis, and we'd have fought a long war with Imperial ***an we'd been unprepared for, and the Soviets wouldn't have been able to kick the Nazis completely out of their territory, and North Africa, well forget about it! It've been completely taken over by Italy and Germany, with the Middle East being invaded to seize oil reserves, and by the 1970s, the Third Reich would be the world's No 1 oil producer. How does that picture look to you? Not very promising.
I'll give credit to Roosevelt, he realized we couldn't deal with Germany by ourselves, or later. It was then, or never, and that's why he pushed hard to help Churchill fight the Luftwaffe; and stave off "Operation Sea Lion," and also, to later give aid to the Soviets.
International intervention on the behalf of powerful US companies a US tradition. The "banana wars" were a series of US invasions ofcountries in the Carribean, Central Americaand the northern part of South America in the years 1903-1933. The invasions and occupations of those countries were on behalf of US fruit and sugar companies.
The electedPrime Ministerof Iran, Mossadegh, was overthrown with the help of theCIA: Oil driven, of course. This put the putrid Shah in power. Opposition to the Shah eventually lead to his overthrow and the estalishment of a crazy Islamic government in Iran.
President Allende of Chile was overthrown with CIA assistance. Nixon thought that Allende would nationalize Anaconda Copper Co. andKennecott Copper Co. ITT had a stake in he game. A really fine humanitarian named Pinochet took power when Allende was overthrown. Pinochet had tens of thousands ofChileans arrested, tortured and murdered.
In nearly every instance where the UShas meddled in the overthrow of an elected government,the person put in place after the coupis a maniacal despot.
Isolationism is a very flawed philosophy, just as much as over-intervention, I believe.
Younggun308: Not to put too find a point on it, I didn't advocate isolationism above. I advocated dialing back our interventionism. My measure of successful foreign policy, as I suggested above, would be substantially our security within the confines of the US. I do not accept the proposition that we as a nation are our brothers's keeper and obligated to right all wrongs and free all oppressed peoples. That objective frankly is not embodied in our constitution and is not a feasible objective.
Another point which was inherent in my arguments above -- but perhaps I did not articulate them explictly enough, which I will now remedy -- was that excessive interventionism can actually decrease our national security. This is possible in two ways. One is "blow back." Our foreign interventions end up blowing back upon ourselves in some way, such as training muslem fighters to resist the Russians in Afghanistan using this very training against us in Iraq and now also in Afghanistan. Our foreign interventions may actually have the effect of creating ennemies for us and creating conflicts. The good will of nations around the world towards the United States can be an aide to our security; the ill will of nations around the world towards the United States can be a detriment to our security. The second way interventionism can decrease our national security is by creating such an economic burden on our nation that other activities starve or the economy is ruined by deficit spending. These are not new ideas, and I'm not going to pretend that I'm some sort of bright bulb for reconsituting them and putting them into this thread.
Again, I'm not suggesting we adopt isolationism. Also, as stated above, I'm not suggesting we make a step change overnight. I suggest that we incrementally change and slide our commitments back alongthe continuumbetween interventionalism and isolationism. As I suggested, one such place could be the DMZ between S Korea and N Korea. The US has been there so long that many citizens of the South now resent the US presence. I say let them take care of their business on their own. They are now a wealthy and robustly developed country with an advanced military machine. The North is weak and ready to collapse, frankly, at any time. I suspect, though I'm not privvy to the obscure and secret facts, that the North -- far from being in any real position to attack and threaten the South -- is tottering on the verge of collapse and only sustains itself, barely, in power by rattling its sword and making empty threats towards the South. So, with due notice, pull our troops out and leave S. Korea. After this, look to another area and do the same. Okinowa, ***an, maybe?
Real change
