What if?

Good idea, never happen.

Au

I can certainly understand your frustration but has isolationism ever been a good idea?

You said:

"I am fed up with watching our wealth and nation treasure [our youth ] squandered".

That would seem to be a fair statement but let me just put couple of things into perspective. First our youth:

During the American civil war we lost 600,000 good men in uniform on both sides----think what this country might have accomplished had we not lost those men----I don't want to argue the merits or the cause of that war---- just the dead men-----second the economics:

The US has a 10 Trillion dollar economy----the $87 billion wanted to continue the war in Iraq is less than ONE percent of our economic output.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Just 'cuz we can afford it doesn't mean it's not a waste of money.

On the other hand...

Without a police, things quickly turn to sh!t. Witness what happens when credible authority is removed from a country such as Iraq.
If there must be one force to be that police, I'd rather they be on 'our' side... And, unfortunately, that would have to be 'us'.

SealPoet
What if means that Iraq would never have happened. In addition 9/11 would not have occurred since there would have been no reason for it's happening.

perception
Isolationism is a problem however, so is being the worlds unwelcome and unappreciated policeman. Which is exactly what we have been since the second world war. Why should the American taxpayer bear the needs of the world. We have done our bit now lit is time for the EU and others to do theirs.

Au,

We'd have less money to spend domestically. For many reasons our role as policeman is used with dual purpose. It's also a role of protecting our assests and income.

The notion that we are simply playing cop is absurd, we are watching out for our interests and securing our prosperity just as much as we are playing the "good guys".

Were we to stop there would be immediate and long term economic repercussions.

In short, regardless of what it's used for our military is keeping us rich.

Craven

Damn---when you're correct you are very right :wink:

craven
Indeed we have to protect our interests. However how enriching was our involvement in Viet Nam, Beirut, Somalia, Kosovo and possibly even Korea. We have a military presence in dozens of nations. Can the US be isolationist? Of course not we also do not have to be the worlds policeman.

Au,

It's not really just in the actions. It's also in the military-industrial complex.

If we aren't going to be waging war all the time the need for such an overpriced military would be even more conspicuously absent.

Sales of weaponry and investment in our military are a big part of the economy.

We could reduce our "defense" spending to 20% of what we currently spend and we'd still be invulnerable to a hostile military (not militia, all the spending in the world doesn't help much with that).

But if we were to do so we'd lose a stable and profitable segment of our economy's driving force.

But if you are saying that we should reduce the "eleemosynary" actions while keeping the military's size and furthermore continuing to protect our economic interests then I think you are advocating something taht would last only a few years.

We wouldn't be able to justify the military size domestically, our actions abroad would, without the "eleemosynary" actions, be viewed as even more imperialistic and we'd not be able to slip by a few of the "protecting our interests" causes as "playing cop" ones.

It's often not clear cut, I firmly believe that many of the actions serve the dual purpose.

You may note that we seem quite concerned about Iraqi suffering and completely disconcerned with African suffering.

It's a metter of self-interest and not just "playing cop".

Craven
I thought I was about to add a word to my vocabulary. What is "eleemosynary."

You will note that the post started with a "What If" Could it happen? Not a chance. Could we or should we stay out of fights that do not concern us I believe we should.



Concern about Iraqi suffering, who is concerned about Iraqi suffering. That pretense only came about when the reasons for the attack proved to be unfounded.
Regarding Africa. Let the Colonial powers that raped it be responsible.
I should add as far as Africa is concerned many of the problems on that continent have been brought about by the corruption of the governments and tribal fighting. No amount of assistance will help under those circumstances.
NOTE. Hobitbob that is not racist it is fact.

Eleemosynary is charitable.

I have a question, at this stage of the game, what doesn't concern us?

Contagion is becoming more of a factor.

I personally feel that our failures to intervene in sub saharan africa is morally criminal!

Craven
What doesn't concern us.

At the moment we are in a trap of our own making.

However,should a crisis arise unless it directly effect the US we should avoid it like the plague.

Y'know , I love the term "central front in the war on terrorism." That's sorta like the alamo being the central front in that war. In other words, surrounded with no way out.

I find that perception has a good grasp of Economics. His comment comparing the 87 Billion to our GDP is well taken. However, the GDP is now closer to 11 Trillion.

I am always amused by the hysterical Democratic reaction to deficits.

The fact of the matter is that our deficit was higher than our entire GDP in 1945- The last year of World War II.

By 1974, the deficit was somewhere in the range of 30% of the GDP.


Why the change?

The GDP grew faster than the debt.