Don't like the U.S. empire? How about as a neoisolationist

I think it might be happening now. It looks as though the centre of the world is going to shift from the US to China and India.

I voted "no".

Why are these the only offered choices?

I think the jury is still far from decided on India and China. In any event, that's not really the topic.

Would it be better if the U.S. largely left the world to it's own devices and went back to it's historic foriegn policy of trade and little else?

Trouble is, trade these days isn't goods... it's idea's, services, innovation, culture. The USA cannot be isolationist - it's run by big business and business wants to be global.

Business and trade are transcending nation state boundaries. Governments are slowly being turned into semi-independent business regulators.

Nationality and nationalism are increasingly irrelevant. US uber-patriotism and extremist muslim terrorism are the flailings of dying leviathans.

Trouble is, trade these days isn't goods... it's idea's, services, innovation, culture. The USA cannot be isolationist - it's run by big business and business wants to be global.

Business and trade are transcending nation state boundaries. Governments are slowly being turned into semi-independent business regulators.

Nationality and nationalism are increasingly irrelevant. US uber-patriotism and extremist muslim terrorism are the flailings of dying leviathans.

Well I never said no trade. What I said is that we should start acting like a republic instead of an empire. Leaving NATO, Seato, etc. while refusing to bail out the euro's every few decades or provode disproportionate share of rescue as per the tsunami are what should end. It would save the U.S. money while it weakens our trade competitors. In other words, let's act only in our own self-interest as others do... after all, look at the anti-americanism caused by our attempts to help others.

I'm simply saying it's been a big waste and that it is more trouble than it's worth. Let the Korean, Japanese, Australians and Euro's fend for themselves, after all, what have any of them ever done for us but complain, steal from us and then stab us in the back.

For instance, there would be no Republic of Korea without the U.S.. We fought to preserve it, our garrison protects it, our forbearance allows them to trade with us at terms very advantageous to Korea.
Our reward, the present Korean government was elected on an overtly anti-american platform, many business in Korea have no Americans allowed signs on their doors, the cheat us in terms of trade and intellectual property disputes and undercut us at the UN (as per North Korea, internet control, Iraq, etc.). So I ask you, why should we have any troops stationed there? Why do we negotiate with N. Korea? It's crazy.
\

Wow Yankee, you got some issues.

Yeah, you're right, a Republic is preferable to an empire - I guess when the wall fell down the US felt it was the only big fish in the pond and it all seemed so easy.

Foreign aid by developed nations is rarely 'no strings attached'? It's a trade promotion tool. Which companies got the Iraq reconstruction contracts? The Japanese are famous for using aid as a trade promoter in SE Asia and the Pacific Islands.

Anti Americanism isn't caused by helping others, it's caused by the bad, injust and hypocritical acts the US has done. I can give you examples of these, just like I can give you examples of the good things the US has done.

Australia stabbed you in the back? Wow, we thought we were the 51st state - our leader is morphing into GWB, such is his admiration....

There is a republic of Korea because the US was sh*t-scared of the 'rise of communism' post WWII and later the supposed domino effect, that led to the Vietnam war - I'm sure you don't think US involvement in Vietnam was in anyone's interest except the US's.

Why wouldn't you negotiate with NK, what's the alternative? Bomb them? Or just leave them to their own (nuclear) devices?

We're a community of nations and like any community there's frictions, politics, leaders, followers, weak and strong. With great power comes great responsibility.

The US could be a phenomenal power for good (think Marshall Plan) but currently, well, sometimes I get the feeling foreign policy is drawn up immediately after a drug-crazed Rambo film festival.

It's a small world, with precious few good citizens.

Dear Hingehead, you are verbose, but unfortunately very uninformed. Surely you know that only a small part of U.S. foriegn aid is what is labelled in the Federal Budget as foreign aid? The fact is 80% of all charitable giving world wide is done by U.S. citizens, foundations and corporations? Surely you know much U.S. military spending is in reality foreign aid. For instance, the U.S. 7th fleet provided fully 70% of direct Tsunami relief during the year following the disaster. How about the fact the AIDS drugs given away or sold at drastically reduced prices are heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. How about the fact that all of the 650,000 foreign university students in the U.S. at any time are subsidized to some extent. None of these are listed as foriegn aid.

Not to mention American scientific and technical advances like the Internet, Cell phones, Biotechnology, Genetics, etc. without which it is agreed the planet as it exist could not exist.

As for your reference to the Vietnam War, surely you are not so stupid that you fail to understand that the defeat of Marxism was in the planet's best interest?

As for your claims about anti-americanism, as Jean-
Francois Revel has said, "It remains essential... that the superpower's excesses, actual or potential sshould be subject to our vigilant criticism... But this vigilance and this insistence haven't the slightest chance of being taken seriously by the United States if our criticisms and demands are not pertinent and rational.

...And so American confused enemies and allies alike, valuing animosity over influence, condemn themselves to impotence- and thus, in effect, strenghten the country they claim to fear."

I'll put it differently, there is an old American saying which I think the U.S. should begin to apply to the rest of the world and it's idiotic, childish tantrums, "Never try and teach pigs to sing. You'll waste your time, and aggravate the pigs."

Pigs never realise they are pigs.

You should read Tom Friedman's 'The World Is Flat'

What part did the Vietnam war play in defeating Marxism? Unless the US was on the side of the Marxists (it was a defeat remember? - Oh, sorry, I'm the uninformed one). Capitalism defeated communism - no need for bombs or civillian deaths or collateral damage. The Soviets went broke trying to compete in the arms race.

Snippets from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22032.pdf


Suffice to say, even if your 80% of charitable giving figure were true (source, please) it would still not make the US the biggest per capita overseas aid donor in the world.

I could go on, but I'm bored.

Yankeecat,

Are you proposing that the US should stop sending money abroad and use it to cure the social ills we have in the US? Will ALL children be allowed the same eduaction that the wealthy provide for their children? Will you suggest that there be sensitivity training provided to police officers and civil servents, allowing everyone to be treated the same by government employees. Would you promote equal legal representation without considering a persons socio-economic status. Would you suggest that the US spend the money to provide equal health care to all of it's citizens? Would you advocate reclamation of land that is contaminated, allowing for possible reforestation? Would you work for equal opportunity for ALL US citizens?

Would you suggest that the US government actually be a true republic? Would you do away with paid lobbiests? Would you do away with political action committees (PACs)? Would you allow all political candidates to have equal campaign funding, no matter what the party or how big it is? Would you have totally fair and honest elections?

If so I applaud you. However, you mentioned that trade wouldn't be involved in your form of isolationism. If you travel anywhere in the world, you can probably find a McDonald's, KFC and other US franchise food. US corporations are doing more with Commercial Imperialism than the Japanese. Wal-Mart is now the world's largest retailer. Heck, I called a US computer program company's customer support and ended up talking to someone in Dehli, India. Outsourcing is now a way of life for US coroprations. So much for isolationism. It's more insidious that war, in my opinion.

You may have issues with how the US spends it's money... foreign aid or private charities. However, being arrogant and insulting others that dis agree won't win you any friends...US citizens or not. Please be so kind as to make your points without taking other people's opinions as personal attacks. Not evferyone will agree with you, but this is a forum for exchange of ideas, information and beliefs. No one individual has all of the correct answers.

I have to retract that last statement. I do have all of the correct answers. You just have to ask the right questions. OK?

The role the U.S. war in Vietnam played in defeating communism was that it delayed the spread of communism until the internal corruption and logical incomsistencies of communism destroyed it (communism).

What I do not understand about all these comments is why those so opposed to America's current role in the world are also opposed to America changing it's behavior.

Very odd...

What?

New Pew research poll
Here is a new poll about this subject...

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=263

Hingehead, you post is ludicrous. You used part of a study from an unknown source, which is exactly how this lie gets propagated.

If your bored, it's because with your obviously very limited intellect you fail to understand either the data or the issues.

P.S. Friedmans' book has been savaged as two dimensional and prone to making sweeping generalizations based on false assumptions.

Wiyaka, what I am suggesting is that the U.S. stop wasting it's time and money tilting at windmills. We should trade but we should trade only as it suits our economy, not for any other reason.

We should engage in foriegn defense treaties when there is a clear and present reason for us to do so. A treaty with Great Britain is useful... A treaty to defend an increasingly weak and anti-american europe is ludicrous.