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.
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.
(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?)
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Perhaps he thinks that desperate, friendless people are actually nicer.
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.
