# A Jewish president? Why it won't work... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2002, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255 "2002-12-17T04:42:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/101 "2002-12-18T20:24:58Z")
Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, whatever. I don’t care what the person’s religious orientation is. If he/she respects the constitution and doesn’t put his/her religion before the good of the country, that’s what matters. Rex…You are so completely wrong. Understand this, terrorists won’t give up if we stick our collective head in the sand. They’ll just demandi more and more and, by your thinking we’ll have to give it to them, because “maybe this time they’ll stop.” They won’t stop. They’ll just keep on attacking until we give them control of our government. Perhaps you’re right that some of the rank and file members of terrorists groups, seeing the U.S. withdraw from the international community, _would_ feel their work was done. **That doesn’t matter.** It’s the leaders of the groups who will keep inciting the “soldiers” to perpetrate more and more acts of violence and any who question what they’re doing, well, I wouldn’t give them much chance of convincing the leaders of that and walking away. By the way, WW2 was perhaps the **last** war in which there **was** a clear _right_ side. It was not the one that engaged in ethnic genocide. A genocide that might not have gone so far had the U.S. not tried to stay out of the events in Europe as long as we did. Isolationism just doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/102 "2002-12-19T01:59:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*Allow me to enlighten you–on September 11, 2001, a group of rank-and-file holy warriors used suicide bombings as a blow against U.S. degeneracy that was half a world away from their homes–and in doing so took 3,000 other people with them. > \*\* The _action_ they took was in a distant land, but the _problem_ that motivated them was local. America was a local enemy, by virtue of our presence in Saudi Arabia and alliance with Israel. Their attack was not against U.S. degeneracy that took place half a world away, it was against U.S. degeneracy that had taken place in their own backyard. Perhaps you think my solution won’t go far enough in removing ourselves from the problem, but I think it does, and it’s worth a chance at least. We must both _be_ totally neutral in the Mideast and _appear_ totally neutral in the Mideast. As to those who’ve criticized the OP in relation to my recent posts…I still think the election of Lieberman would hurt that appearance of neutrality that we must adopt. Our choice of President always affects our image in the world. If we had refused to elect Bush in part because Europe thinks he’s a crazy cowboy, would you have called that “giving in”? Surely many people _did_ make their decision on who to vote for based in part of how that choice would be perceived in the world, how it would affect our foriegn policy options. To recognize that Lieberman would be a problematic choice, perhaps a very dangerous choice, and weigh that factor when deciding our vote, I think is no different than what we always do. It’s just that this time around the weight we give to that factor, in Lieberman’s case, is much stronger IMO. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/103 "2002-12-19T02:08:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by photopat \* > \*\* > By the way, WW2 was perhaps the **last** war in which there **was** a clear _right_ side. It was not the one that engaged in ethnic genocide. A genocide that might not have gone so far had the U.S. not tried to stay out of the events in Europe as long as we did. Isolationism just doesn’t work. \*\* (So the side that killed 20 million of it’s own people was the right side and the side that killed 6-10 million people was the wrong side? Since the USSR and the German National Socialists were both mass-murderers, the word “right” never enters my vocabulary when talking about them. Maybe U.S. interventionism saved some people from being murdered in Germany, but it also allowed millions more to die in Stalinist purges, so again where do you find a “right” in that?) ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/104 "2002-12-19T03:00:35Z")
> [@](#): > > If we had refused to elect Bush in part because Europe thinks he’s a crazy cowboy, would you have called that “giving in”? Yep. > [@](#): > > Surely many people did make their decision on who to vote for based in part of how that choice would be perceived in the world, how it would affect our foriegn policy options. You sure must travel in some high exalted intellectual circles, buddy. Round these here parts, folks vote their pocketbooks, period, and to hell with what the Yurpeeans and the Ay-rabs and the Heathen Chinese think. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/105 "2002-12-19T03:05:08Z")
doesn’t “We must… be totally neutral in the Mideast” simply translate into “Juden, raus”? (Or whatever the Arabic equivalent is.) What constitutes “total” neutrality? Obviously we stop selling arms to Israel, but moreover, we must cut off all support for Israel, must leave them utterly without any resources other than that which they can supply internally (or get from their Arab allies, of whom they have none). Israel’s enemies would claim that THEY ask for nothing from the U.S. in the way of support, so doing ANYTHING for Israel would constitute the same exact level of complicity they’re currently accusing the U.S. of now. Rex Dart, either you’ve bought into the terrorists’ self-serving perversion of logic, or you are supplying it yourself. I would support Joe Lieberman wearing a tallith and peyess on the campaign trail before considering your whole line of thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/106 "2002-12-19T04:07:53Z")
And to be totally neutral in the Mideast (not to mention isolationist), wouldn’t that also mean that we’d have to stop doing business with them–with all of them? Because it would be impossible to spend exactly the same amount of money on each nation’s goods, so it wouldn’t be possible to be neutral. So, thanks to our isolationism, the Israeli economy would be short about 10 billion dollars. And BTW, that’s not 10 billion dollars worth of military aid–that’s for things like clothing, videotapes, software, pasta, Starbucks coffee, carpeting… > **[The U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement: Israel Keeps Up Barriers, U.S....](https://www.wrmea.org/000-june/the-u.s.-israel-free-trade-agreement-israel-keeps-up-barriers-u.s.-companies-lose-sales.html)** > > For more than 39 years, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has been essential reading for the nation’s most sophisticated populace. Our readers rely on us for the most comprehensive, analytical coverage of news from the Middle East, Muslim... > [@](#): > > Thanks partly to such Israeli trade practices, the U.S. trade balance with Israel is chronically in deficit, a deficit that is constantly growing. Last year it was $2.2 billion, up from $1.7 billion the year before. Total U.S. exports to Israel in 1999 were $7.7 billion, up 10.3 percent from 1998. The U.S. imported $9.9 billion worth of goods in 1999, up 14.4 percent from 1998. [http://www.aiccse.org/Newsletters/julaugsep\_enewsletter2.htm](http://www.aiccse.org/Newsletters/julaugsep_enewsletter2.htm) > [@](#): > > Georgia exports to Israel totaled over $96.5 million in 2000, and figures of May year-to-date 2001 showed an increase of almost 50% over the same period in 2000. Major product areas included tobacco, carpeting, paper and wood, electronics, machinery, and pharmaceuticals. So I guess Georgia-Pacific can just find some other customers, and the Israelis can just find some other source for lumber, huh? And we’d have to stop buying oil from OPEC nations. [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html) > [@](#): > > The United States averaged total gross oil (crude and products) imports of an estimated 11.2 MMBD during the first nine months of 2002, representing around 57% of total U.S. oil demand. Around two-fifths of this oil came from OPEC nations, with Persian Gulf sources accounting for about one-fifth of total U.S. oil imports. Overall, the top suppliers of oil to the United States during the first nine months of 2002 were Canada (1.9 MMBD), Saudi Arabia (1.5 MMBD), Mexico (1.5 MMBD), and Venezuela (1.4 MMBD). I’m sure all the OPEC nations would thank us for withdrawing our evil Yankee dollars from their economy, too. And two-fifths of our imported oil comes from OPEC. We’re gonna be short a few million barrels of oil–where would you suggest we get it from? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/107 "2002-12-19T04:33:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RexDart \* > \*\*(So the side that killed 20 million of it’s own people was the right side and the side that killed 6-10 million people was the wrong side? Since the USSR and the German National Socialists were both mass-murderers, the word “right” never enters my vocabulary when talking about them. Maybe U.S. interventionism saved some people from being murdered in Germany, but it also allowed millions more to die in Stalinist purges, so again where do you find a “right” in that?) \*\* Hmm. I’m about to show my complete ignorance of WWII history, but I’m not 100% sure why fighting with the Allies in WWII was tantamount to approving, or abetted, Stalin’s purges, or why the USSR suddenly becomes the whole of Allied interests in the entire episode. I mean, I sort of get the idea that it’s a little too late for trying to cut off all U.S. interests everywhere else in the world. It may’ve been possible at one point, but it’s gone so far that there doesn’t seem to be any turning back now. We’re interested in the rest of the world, and moreover, there’s so much expectation from our fellow nations, **even, in some cases, our enemies** , that the U.S. “lend a hand” occasionally that I’m not sure it’s possible. And what about private companies? Under the **RexDart** vision, would American corporations be forbidden from doing business abroad? Even barring the purely economic concerns, as soon as a U.S. owned factory opens overseas, doesn’t that create fairly compelling U.S. interest in that nation? Of course, I may be just confused and naive… Pardon me if this is so. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/108 "2002-12-19T04:35:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*And two-fifths of our imported oil comes from OPEC. We’re gonna be short a few million barrels of oil–where would you suggest we get it from? \*\* Windmills, of course! ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/109 "2002-12-19T04:48:59Z")
Throughout the 19th century we were neutral and traded with everyone. They weren’t inconsistent then, why are they now? If somebody wants to prevent us from trading with them, then that’s their wish and we have to respect that. Lifting all embargos and rescinding any sort of “most-favored” status, treating all nations we trade with as equals, that’s how I’d advocate doing it. A factory in a foreign nation that is owned by a corporation based in the U.S. doesn’t create a U.S. interest. It’s not as if the U.S. government owns that factory, it’s just a corporation based in the U.S. Citizens abroad have to submit to the laws of the country wherein they reside, same goes for factories. If that latter is not presently the case, due to some special-favors sort of treaty, then we should offer to release the foreign nation from that treaty. We would _have_ to release them, under my principles, if the treaty involved any foreign aid (which I would cut anywhere and everywhere, because it plays favorites) or even the smallest hint of military alliance or other involvement. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/110 "2002-12-19T05:00:06Z")
Throughout the 19th century we were neutral and traded with everyone. They weren’t inconsistent then, why are they now? If somebody wants to prevent us from trading with them, then that’s their wish and we have to respect that. Lifting all embargos and rescinding any sort of “most-favored” status, treating all nations we trade with as equals, that’s how I’d advocate doing it. A factory in a foreign nation that is owned by a corporation based in the U.S. doesn’t create a U.S. interest. It’s not as if the U.S. government owns that factory, it’s just a corporation based in the U.S. Citizens abroad have to submit to the laws of the country wherein they reside, same goes for factories. If that latter is not presently the case, due to some special-favors sort of treaty, then we should offer to release the foreign nation from that treaty. We would _have_ to release them, under my principles, if the treaty involved any foreign aid (which I would cut anywhere and everywhere, because it plays favorites) or even the smallest hint of military alliance or other involvement. I don’t think we’d have to stop trading with Israel to be neutral, just withdraw any and all financial/military aid and renounce any mutual-defense pact we might have with them. I suppose I could handle eliminating trade with them altogether for a time, as a temporary measure, if I thought it was really necessary. Frankly, if a non-action ( **not** giving a nation money, or **not** coming to defense militarily) will possibly save American lives, then the American government should not be concerned about what happens elsewhere. If Israel gets swept into the sea by a tide of Islamic warriors, it’s not like we did it ourselves, we just refused to pick sides. As people, we might be concerned about loss of life elsewhere, but the American government has a special purpose – to protect the lives and liberties of the _American_ people. Just like the Israeli government’s purpose is to protect its people, the Saudi government’s purpose is to protect its people, etc. If the U.S. trades American lives for Israeli lives, others than soldiers who consent to that risk, then it’s not living up to its part of the bargain with its citizens. If we can cut the alliance, establish neutrality, but manage to hold onto the trade, then what’s the harm? ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/111 "2002-12-19T05:23:59Z")
**Rex** So far, the only serious reason you have come up with is because you said so… Your concern for others is sweet, but mislead. Peace at any cost usually costs more than war ever would. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/112 "2002-12-19T05:35:42Z")
Title 1 Also, as an American I would willingly die for my country and, of course, my loved ones. I joined the military and would reenlist again in a heartbeat if it meant one of my loved ones didn’t have to. But it’s not that I expect they don’t have to. I expect them to fight for the same things I fight for. If I was to die in their service and they were to roll over and make my death a waste, well I would not take that kindly. And you may say we do not have a right to demand things like that from anyone but ourselves. I disagree. I say that my willing sacrifice and the sacrifices of my blood that died in the service of this country, and the sacrifices of their loved ones gives me every right. Remember, millions upon millions have already sacrificed for you and everyone else here. And a sacrifice is only that if it is appreciated for what it is. Other than that it is all a waste. And throwing even a part of it away just because your scared is contemptible. And many dopers already explained in detail what we would be throwing away. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/113 "2002-12-19T06:03:46Z")
You can’t have factories in foreign nations without having some sort of political and economic treaties with those nations, to protect the rights of the factory owners. Otherwise the factory owner would be S.O.L. if the foreign government decided to nationalize (“steal”) his factory. And it does happen. [http://www.africana.com/Articles/tt\_499.htm](http://www.africana.com/Articles/tt_499.htm) > [@](#): > > In addition, [Idi Amin] nationalized all British holdings in the country - some 85 firms - after the former colonial power severed diplomatic ties. > [@](#): > > **Lifting all embargos and rescinding any sort of “most-favored” status, treating all nations we trade with as equals, that’s how I’d advocate doing it.** “Isolationism” does not mean “trade with everyone equally”. “Isolationism” means trading with nobody at all. You said yourself, back on Page 1… > [@](#): > > **Withdraw into total neutrality, total isolationism, make as few enemies as possible, and cross our damned fingers hoping** You have not thought this thing through. You have not realistically weighed, in an adult manner, the possibilities and the consequences. > **[Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/)** > > The dictionary by Merriam-Webster is America's most trusted online dictionary for English word definitions, meanings, and pronunciation. #wordsmatter > [@](#): > > Main Entry: iso·la·tion·ism > Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m > Function: noun > Date: 1922 > : a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=isolate\*1+0](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=isolate*1+0) > [@](#): > > isolationism > noun > DISAPPROVING > Isolationism is the political principle or practice of showing interest only in your own country and not being involved in international activities. [http://www.dingwall.bc.ca/history/main.php3?cat=terminology&listing=Isolationism](http://www.dingwall.bc.ca/history/main.php3?cat=terminology&listing=Isolationism) > [@](#): > > This trend of abstaining from world affairs would carry on throughout the 1920s, with America not participating in the League of Nations or the Locarno Pact; however, the pattern was broken on occasion with America’s participation in the Washington Conference of 1921 and the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. Nevertheless, once the depression broke out in the 1930s, the feeling of isolationism was only made stronger. At this time, isolationism creeps into economic policy: **tariffs rise even higher, war debts are defaulted and international loans are banned.** [bolding mine] Total isolationism means no alliances, either political or economic. It means no business would be done with other nations, at all. Nations can’t do business with other nations without treaties ensuring that everyone understands what the rules are. It would mean suspending NAFTA and all the other trade agreements the U.S. has with other countries. No business would be done with Canada, or Mexico. Even before NAFTA, there was the the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement. The United States can’t sell wheat to Russia without an alliance of some kind. International trade doesn’t work like that. The U.S. wheat producers and Russian wheat buyers don’t meet at the border and trade gold for wheat–it’s paid for with complex international financial transactions, which require international treaties of cooperation to make sure everyone’s on the same page. This is how trade with Russia works. [http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/PressReleases/november2002/russia\_111902.html](http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/PressReleases/november2002/russia_111902.html) > [@](#): > > In a press conference today with Russian Deputy Minister Medvedkov, Shirzad announced the signing of an amendment to the U.S.-Russia Comprehensive Agreement on Steel that allows steel producers to fully utilize the slab quota provided for under the United States 201 safeguard measure enacted by President Bush in March 2002 . > > \< snip \> > > “With a better understanding of how our trade laws operate, and the pivotal role they play in the multilateral trading system, we hope to maximize the opportunity for trade between our two nations,” said Shirzad. (Go Shirzad! I’ve got a guy named RexDart I’d like you to talk to…) If you eliminate things like the U.S.-Russia Comprehensive Agreement, then neither side has any guarantees that they’re gonna get paid, or that their goods will even be delivered. Total isolationism would mean withdrawing from all of the political alliances the U.S. has around the world. It would mean withdrawing from the United Nations and by extension from the World Court, dropping out of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, quitting NATO. All these groups might be able to keep chugging along without Uncle Sam prodding them, but it’s much more likely that American isolationism would send the rest of the world straight back to the Bad Old Days of the 19th Century. And there must be hundreds of smaller treaties, like this one. [http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic\_text/smbuss/patents/treaties.htm](http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/smbuss/patents/treaties.htm) > [@](#): > > There is a treaty relating to patents which is adhered to by 140 countries, including the United States, and is known as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. It provides that each country guarantees to the citizens of the other countries the same rights in patent and trademark matters that it gives to its own citizens. The treaty also provides for the right of priority in the case of patents, trademarks and industrial designs (design patents). This right means that, on the basis of a regular first application filed in one of the member countries, the applicant may, within a certain period of time, apply for protection in all the other member countries. You wanna suspend that? Because you think if we suspend that, the terrorists will be appeased and won’t detonate a nuke in an American city? That’s nuts. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/114 "2002-12-19T06:26:17Z")
> [@](#): > > If Israel gets swept into the sea by a tide of Islamic warriors, it’s not like we did it ourselves, we just refused to pick sides. I just feel that I should point out this bit from **Rex** ’s post. I think it sums up nicely his general attitude and philosophy regarding this whole issue. I happen to disagree very strongly, however. **Rex** , do you really believe that non-action is somehow different from action? When you don’t do one thing, you do something else. There is no such thing as non-action. ---
**Author:** ![Sdrawkcab](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sdrawkcab](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sdrawkcab)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/115 "2002-12-19T07:37:17Z")
It should also be pointed out to Rex that what’s he’s asking to return to is the 19th Century… where America was a weak, vulernable nation with a not-so-stellar economy. America is an economic powerhouse because of our economic dealing around the world, which are only possible because of our political dealings around the world. Cut out the political alliances, you decapitate our economy, and cause a Depression that would likely end up being worldwide. Thus giving rise to even more extremists like the ones you want to defang. This happened before. It helped start World War II. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/116 "2002-12-19T08:35:24Z")
I’ve been lurking in this thread but didn’t post as I was **certain** I was being whooshed in some very subtle way and would be revealed as an idiot for taking the OP seriously. However, as other people seem to be taking it seriously, I guess I will too. Being in Riyadh, I regularly deal with Islamic fundy types; long scraggly beards, short thobes, generally unwashed and ignorant, and **amazingly** arrogant about having a lock on the “true faith.” [sup]TM[/sup] Do you truly think that giving in to an extortionist makes them go away? Rolling over as you recommend simply encourages them to try for larger gains in the future. These guys do not recognise such terms as “impartiality” or “neutrality.” You are either with them or against them. They do not want our neutrality toward Israel, they want our assistance in destroying them. Is that clear enough? If you really wish to appease terrorists, people that would happily slaughter your family and friends, then why not convert? That’s what they want, after all. Speaking personally, I wouldn’t have the stomach for it. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/117 "2002-12-19T08:53:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eonwe \* > \*\* > **Rex** , do you really believe that non-action is somehow different from action? When you don’t do one thing, you do something else. There is no such thing as non-action. \*\* I believe there are no involuntary positive obligations. That is to say that any obligation requiring an affirmative action must be taken on by choice. All other obligations are merely negative. Take the rights to life, liberty and property which were considered fundamental by the founding fathers. I am obliged not to kill you, not to steal from you, not to imprison you…I am not obliged to preserve your life, nor to give you my property, nor to free you from imprisonment. These are the distinctions I draw. This can be a sticking point with some people. The _law_ certainly realizes a difference between a malfeasance and a nonfeasance. My view on the matter is that one may talk of the moral or ethical. At law, you are held liable for your actions to others, they can sue you over them. You are **not** held liable for your non-actions, unless you placed yourself in position whereby they relied on a promise of action and you then declined (i.e., hop down that manhole and fix the pipe, I’ll pull you out…haha, fooled you sucker!" I’m not saying you should avoid taking actions to help others, I’m saying nobody is _obligated_ to do so. Killing a man = immoral. Watching a man die, through no action of your own, and refusing to save him = no moral component. If you claim non-action can lead to moral culpability, then you get bogged down in an absolute quagmire of minute detail and absurd conclusions. Clearly you would not suggest people are responsible for failing to prevent a wrong they didn’t know about? So you have to know about it. What if you stick your head in the sand to avoid knowing about it? And clearly you don’t suggest they are responsible even if they didn’t possess the means to prevent it? So you must have the means. Two wrongs at once, of equal nastiness, you only have ability to prevent one, how do you choose? How much risk need you accept yourself, and how is it balanced? Which of your personal desires outweigh your failure to act? Any of them or none of them? Can I sleep once and awhile, go out on a date, or do I spend my entire available time preventing wrongs that I’m aware of and have the means to prevent? Much better to simply find that omissions do not raise a moral component, but acts do. Withdrawing from Israel is not an act, it is the cessation of an act that has been ongoing for years (our affirmative support for that nation.) If you are beating a man with your fists, then stop doing so, is stopping an “act”? Surely not, for each blow was an “act” and you are no longer landing blows on him. You have stopped, and are no longer acting upon him. This is an omission, not an act, and therefore you are not responsible for the consequence of your failure to further pummel him. You are only responsible for the consequences stemming from your hitting him. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/118 "2002-12-19T09:04:12Z")
Well, **DDG** , I guess I was unclear on the terminology. What I was looking for is neutrality, but not economic isolationism. However, I do not feel we need economic treaties. First of all, it is not the business of governments to own commodities, and therefore not their business to sell them or buy them. Private entities should buy and sell and manufacture in foreign nations at their own risk. They do anyways. Do you think any agreement between Batista and the U.S. lasted 5 seconds after Castro and his eunuch brother rolled into Havana? Absolutely not, that’s what got Jesse Helms’ panties all in a bunch. That said, I’m not as broad about the treaties, though I think many should be abandoned. All mutual-defense pacts, either between individual nations or with larger entities should be abandoned. That would include any mutual-defense alliances we have with inidividual nations, and NATO. The UN I’m not sure about, because it doesn’t really oblige any member state to go to war, so perhaps we wouldn’t have to drop out of it. We should probably get off the Security Council so we won’t be seen as setting any policy. Trade treaties? I think we should outlaw trading of military technology between ourselves and any other nation, but that’s the only necessary change, and it’s purely internal. NAFTA? Hard to see how that impacts terrorism. I’d go case-by-case, see if a treaty impacts our image and neutrality in a way that could incite threats of terrorism, and act accordingly. If someday down the road it would be useful to renounce NAFTA, I’d be allright with it. All it really does is prevent the member-states from instituting certain tariffs. We could simply abstain from instituting those tariffs of our own free will, the only loss would be the assurance that the other nations would not raise theirs. It can be dealt with. My only blanket prohibition is of mutual-defense pacts. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/119 "2002-12-19T10:52:14Z")
You know, I’ve been following Rex around for a bit, and there’s something I don’t really understand why does he think that the US abandoning my country would be_good_ for the Arabs? Doesn’t he understand that theonly thing standing between the Palestinians and mass expulsion is the Israel-US alliance? Perhaps he thinks that desperate, friendless people are actually _nicer_. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255/120 "2002-12-19T12:37:42Z")
> [@](#): > > You know, I’ve been following Rex around for a bit, and there’s something I don’t really understand why does he think that the US abandoning my country would begood for the Arabs? Doesn’t he understand that theonly thing standing between the Palestinians and mass expulsion is the Israel-US alliance? Far as I can tell ( and **Rex** can correct me if I’m wrong ), he doesn’t care, except perhaps philosophically. He seems to be an isolationist _par excellence_ - Anything that occurs outside U.S. borders is none of the U.S.'s business. Internally consistent, I guess. But a ( apologies ) bankrupt and naive worldview IMO. - Tamerlane [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-president-why-it-wont-work/143255.md?page=7)