This is going to sound very petulant, but I saw a photo on Drudge last week that rubbed me the wrong way. It showed a sign in a South Korean store that read, “Americans are not welcome.”
Okay. Why don’t we leave? If the people say they don’t want us there, why shouldn’t we go away? Of course if we pulled all of our military resources out of South Korea then North Korea will no doubt come sweeping down like the Mongol hoards of old. But so what? Communism is dying and there are only a few holdouts left. I can’t remember the last consumer item I bought that said “Made in Korea”. Most of my stuff comes from Japan or Taiwan. Do we really need more Kias? And besides, we can probably get stuff cheaper if the Koreas were united. What? North Korea is going to become the next USSR?
Why not put it to a vote? Every country whose people are saying, “U.S. Out of Here!” should hold a referendum. If the people of those countries vote (either by a simple majority or by a two-thirds majority, for example) then we pull out. If they’re worse off than they were when we were there, then it’s their own fault. If they’re better off without us, then leaving is the Right Thing to Do. And if they want us to stay, then we’ll stay as long as we are welcome.
Suppose we pull out of the Middle East? Gas will get more expensive. But that will spur the U.S. into exploring better and cleaner technologies to make up the energy deficit. Isn’t burning less oil a good thing? If we leave the Middle East and we have to make do with less oil, wouldn’t we increase telecommuting? This would take people off of the roads so that the people who are on the roads don’t use so much fuel and time sitting still. Increased use of telecommunications would lead to better systems. People would have more time to live instead of having to sit in a steel box for a couple of hours per day.
And think of the good will we’ll have with other nations. Terrorism? One of Al Qaeda’s biggest beefs is that we’re in Saudi Arabia. Let’s take away their raison d’être.
I’m not saying that we should be isolationists. I’m saying that we should treat other countries in the way we would like to be treated.
Yes, this is petulant and simplistic. But I wonder how people who keep telling us to get out would react if we took them at their word?
Damn it if that wasn’t what I was thinking, watching those protests on TV a couple of days ago. If the South Koreans don’t want the Americans there, fine America, pull out. After all the cold war is over, nothing world shattering happened in Vietnam after 75 and the Cold War is over.
This is so dumb on so many levels I don’t know where to begin. The OP sounds like a spoiled child with hurt feelings. America has more serious interests around the world and cannot afford such silliness.
To begin with you are assuming all Koreans, or even a majority of Koreans feel that way which makes no sense. The demonstrators are but a small minority. The USA does not deal with individual Koreans, it deals with the Korean government (which supposedly represents the Korean people as a whole) and if the Korean government has come to an agreement for the US to be there, then the US does not need to be concerned with what a minority think. Just like it would be stupid for Saudi Arabia to get pissed off because a few Americans demonstrated agains them and so the Saudis say, screw them, we won’t sell them any more oil. Small demonstrations are not the representation of a country and do not take the place of diplomatic relations between countries.
But there’s the main issue that bugs me and which I have seen in so many threads which is the idea that the USA can afford isolationism and it just goes to show the immense ignorance of the average American. There is just NO way in the world that the USA can possibly gain anything from isolationist policies. That would be extremely damaging and would mean a huge loss of world influence. Americans just do not realize to what extent the world economy is interdependent. Just look at what happened when the Pacific ports closed down recently: it was beginning to paralize factories and it was beginning to have major impact on the economy. And that was for just a few days. The president had to use emergency powers to get the people back to work.
America depends to a huge extent on imports and on exports and there is just no way in the world that the USA can be self sufficient and isolated. America depends on foreign capital for its investments, it depends on sales abroad for its profits and it depends on importing raw materials, components and finished goods.
Getting into a fit because a few Koreans demonstrated against the US is just kind of silly. Or do you find it reasonable that countries break off diplomatic ties each time a few of their citizens, making use of their freedom of expression, demonstrate against the other country? If that were the case we would have a state of permanent war of everybody against everybody.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said it was petulant?
No, I said “Why not put it to a vote?” and “If the people of those countries vote (either by a simple majority or by a two-thirds majority, for example)…”
I guess you skipped over the part where I said “I’m not saying that we should be isolationists.”? Nowhere did I say we should stop trading with these countries.
I also didn’t say anything about breaking off diplomatic ties.
Please be so kind as to read the OP before deciding it’s dumb.
Johnny, you back with us, dude? Man, that tornado just picked up the whole dang house with you in it and plopped you down, we thought you was a goner. Glad to see you’re okay, but it looks like you got quite a bang on the head.
Say, did you have some kind of weird dream or something, while you were out? Like, did you maybe dream that all the farmhands were driving these itty-bitty electric cars because Americans had decided that gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks were so declasse and had decided to switch over to non-polluting, environmentally-friendly cars? Reason I ask is, you were mumbling, a bit… “alternative propulsion, Zeke, alternative propulsion…”
Sorry, I didn’t mean it to sound like that. I guess I was answering more to general sentiments which I have seen expressed several times on the board than to the OP specifically.
At any rate, the USA has no authority to organize any referendum or elections in Korea, it only deals with the Korean government, as it should.
You say, “Yes, this is petulant and simplistic”. Well, we agree.
Okay, I was a bit snotty with sailor. My point is this: If the majority of people want the U.S. Military out of their country, shouldn’t we accept the desire of the majority?
sailor: I see you beat me to the reply. Of course the U.S has no authority to organise referenda. But if those countries do vote on the subject, shouldn’t we abide by their decisions?
It’s an interesting thought, isn’t it? The US yanks its forces out of every country where the general population wants us to leave, only to have those nations screaming for us to return when their economy implodes or civil war breaks out or a neighbor invades. That’s a lot more expensive proposition in the long run, I think. Though who knows? The US has kept the lid on so many skirmishes for so long that if they were allowed to blow up, they might not be as horrific as the small, smoldering, skirmishes we have now. Then again, the overall cost might be higher.
A sudden pullout would be absolutely disasterous, in any case. If the US suddenly yanked its forces out of the Middle East and shifted its oil buying practices so that the bulk of our oil came from places other than the Middle East, all within the span of a few months, it’d so wreck their economies that the region would probably implode, so any environment gains we might make in the US from switching to other sources of energy, would be more than offset by the damage done as the oil fields erupted in flames.
>> if those countries do vote on the subject, shouldn’t we abide by their decisions?
Ok, I agree. I am pretty sure the Irakis do not want the US army on their soil. Can we respect that? Or do we need to invade them in order to organize a referendum on the matter?
Well, because 1) Many citizens of the countries the U.S. deals with don’t have the luxury of voting, and 2) The U.S. does not have the right to tell these countries that they must hold referenda on this issue.
Sailor got it right. If you’re dealing with a Democracy, you’re dealing with the elected representatives of the people. That’s who you should be concerned with. If they make deals their people don’t like, they’ll get voted out of power. It’s silly for the U.S. to worry about protests in these countries.
But the main point you’re missing is that the U.S. isn’t there just because it’s trying to be a buddy to the South Koreans. It’s their to protects its own interests. Having North Korea invade South Korea would be a terrible thing not just for the South Koreans, but for the world economy and for the prospects of peace.
If the U.S. had followed your suggestion and ignored the Middle East in 1990, Saddam would have taken Kuwait and kept it. You mentioned the only repercussion as being ‘more expensive oil’, but that would be the least of our worries. An emboldened Saddam might have also moved into Saudi Arabia. And today we’d be looking at a ruthless dictator who controlled the vast majority of middle-eastern oil, who had nuclear weapons, long range missiles, and a huge economy from oil sales that he could use to build a giant military.
Eventually, the U.S. would be forced to oppose him, and then you’d be looking at a massive, probably nuclear war instead of a modest gulf conflict.
At the very least, Israel would be forced to defend itself against a very strong enemy, and the possibility of nuclear war in that conflict would be very high.
DDG: I’m one of those SUV drivers. I’m lucky if I average 23 mpg in my Cherokee (although 20-22 mpg is common for me). I’ve also been known to fly aircraft, and I was thinking about the increased cost of doing that as well (and a Cessna 172 gets maybe 10 or 12 mpg). On the other hand, we have enormous agrigultural capacity. I’m sure we can come up with alternative fuels or combine ethanol with our own petroleum. Bill Maher said in an NPR interview last week that if everyone in the U.S. increased their gas mileage by three mpg, then we would not have to import any oil. He didn’t provide a cite, and it’s impossible for everyone to buy more efficient cars; but you can see that there is room for improvement.
As you (probably) know, I run The CJ2A Page. In setting up the page I saw many ads that touted the CJ2A’s economy. (Fuel efficiency is low by modern standards, but good back in 1945.) I don’t think that farmers are adverse to using less fuel. Of course their equipment will burn much more fuel than a family car, and that can’t be helped. But at least they can deduct equipment and operating costs as business expenses. However, to be honest, while I did consider farmers when I was putting up the OP, I don’t have an answer.
You have no business claiming that Korean loudmouths are a minority and then claiming American loudmouths represent the “average.” It’s simply unfounded to assume the “average American” (whatever that is) is immensely ignorant.
In generall, though, I find anyone who speaks of the “average” citizen is implying they consider themselves above average. That may be true (since the SDMB is filled with above-average people anyway) but unless you’ve got some survey results showing that the “average American” would be perfectly happy living without inexpensive imported goods, you might want to use more logic and less rhetoric.
By the way, Americans should blow off the Koreans and buy more goods from their largest trading partner; the Canadians.
I’m not saying we should be uninvolved. I’m saying that we should not stay where we are not wanted. Maybe that’s why people like Canadians so much; you don’t have as great a military presence in other countries. (Not a snub, BTW, in case it sounds like it.) We should certainly be ready to help other nations when called upon to do so, but should we stay around after we have done the job? Should the Soviet Union have stayed in East Germany or Afghanistan?
>> You have no business claiming that Korean loudmouths are a minority and then claiming American loudmouths represent the “average.”
True. Replace “average American” with “those Americans who believe isolationism is a viable or desirable option”.
>> unless you’ve got some survey results showing that the “average American” would be perfectly happy living without inexpensive imported goods, you might want to use more logic and less rhetoric.
You continue to fail to grasp that it is not a matter of buying a few cheap shirts, it is a matter that the entire US economy depends on foreign trade to a huge extent. Not only does the USA buy a lot of stuff abroad, it also sells a lot of stuff abroad. The USA cannot survive as it is without foreign trade.
>> By the way, Americans should blow off the Koreans and buy more goods from their largest trading partner; the Canadians.
Oh? You mean Canada actually produces something for other countries to buy? I cannot imagine what Canada might produce. maple syrup?
Just to reiterate: I’m not talking about isolationism. I think we should continue trading with other countries. But I’m not sure that we should maintain a military presence in a country against the will of the majority of the people in that country.
Since South Korea these days is pretty democratic, I’d say the OP’s conditions with respect to Korea have essentially already been met. I don’t know that the Republic of Korea is in the habit of deciding vital foreign policy issues by national referendum–the United States certainly isn’t–but if the Go Home Americans Party wins enough seats in the National Assembly and/or puts their man in the Korean equivalent of the White House, then the government of Korea can, acting in accordance with what one would have to presume to be the will of the majority of the Korean people under those circumstances, tell us to leave, and we’d leave.
Similar considerations apply to American troops stationed in Japan or European nations. I really doubt any of our defense treaties don’t contain clauses that say if the other country wants us to leave we leave (except for that Guantanamo Bay thing). In democratic allies of the U.S., it’s frankly none of our business telling fellow democracies how to conduct their governments. Like I said, we don’t conduct national plebiscites on treaties; the President negotiates them and the Senate ratifies them.
So, it seems to me that the only thing left to debate is whether or not the U.S. should station troops in countries with the consent of internationally recognized but undemocratic governments, where what the people actually want is who knows what, because the local strongman or potentate isn’t in the habit of asking them for their opinion.
Should a self-proclaimed champion of democracy like the U.S. ever form alliances with undemocratic nations? As the Cold War was winding down, our alliance with the Korean dictators became an alliance with a genuine Republic of Korea; and we pulled out of the Philippines and the Filipinos tossed Ferdinand and Imelda. But now we’ve got troops in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and Qatar and who knows where all. Now that we have a new Cold War-style “War on Terrorism” going, I very much doubt that we will adopt any such “no alliances with dictators” policy any time soon, however much it might tempt the idealist in me.
sailor, while true, your statement is insufficient to explain why the U.S. should maintain troops overseas. I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but you can replace USA in that statement with any country in western Europe, Japan, China, and even South Korea itself. Yet very few of these countries have any troops overseas, and of the few that do, most of their troops are in countries that aren’t, ahem, vital to the world economy (I don’t think a French pull-out of the Central African Republic nor a British withdrawal from Sierra Leone will cause Wall Street to crash).
So why is it that the USA is the nation that guarantees German access to foreign trade?
I don’t think that “the USA is the only nation that can guarantee world trade” is a sufficient answer. While that is currently true, it is only true by the choice of (most) of the other nations I mentioned, and those nations could relatively quickly (say 10 years) reverse that choice, at least to the extent of being able to protect weak nations vital to world trade (such as in the Middle East) from any foreseeable threat.
