PDA

View Full Version : What If We Up and Stopped Policing the World?



Pieces Hit
2/9/2006, 12:32 PM
WHAT IF the U.S. and all American companies pulled out of every country and we just closed our borders entirely and didn't aid, defend, or trade with anyone?

Would that make the dirka dirka's happy? Would we just get nuked sooner?

What??

White House Boy
2/9/2006, 12:38 PM
Would we just get nuked sooner?


Yeah. Pretty much.

oumartin
2/9/2006, 12:43 PM
my preference would be to bring em all home and shore up the boarders and live peacefully and let the rest of the world figure it out on their own.

SoonerProphet
2/9/2006, 12:44 PM
Ooh, complex question. Areas that have shades of gray and room for debate. I don't see this thread going over well.

Free trade, yes. Defend and aid, no.

Partial Qualifier
2/9/2006, 12:54 PM
IF by "stopped policing the world" you included "stop propping up israel", I think you're onto something.

Harry Beanbag
2/9/2006, 12:56 PM
I think we tried that a couple of different times in the first half of the 20th century. Results weren't so good.

IronSooner
2/9/2006, 12:58 PM
Half of the rest of the world would starve to death. They'd throw rocks at us, but their weak arms wouldn't get them very far. At the behest of China and Russia, the middle east would become the next superpower and Israel probably would fall eventually, likely with 2 or 3 of them surviving that battle. The rest of the world would be bored from the lack of music and movies exported by the US and sales of jaw harps and harmonicas would skyrocket.

TexasLidig8r
2/9/2006, 01:34 PM
Could anyone seriously explain why the hell are we in NATO still?

oumartin
2/9/2006, 01:35 PM
Could anyone seriously explain why the hell are we in NATO still?

Texas lawyers!

White House Boy
2/9/2006, 01:39 PM
Texas lawyers!
D'OH!!! :D

Flagstaffsooner
2/9/2006, 01:40 PM
Could anyone seriously explain why the hell are we in NATO still?Same reason Baylor is in the Big XII, texass politics.:texan: :P

mdklatt
2/9/2006, 01:54 PM
WHAT IF the U.S. and all American companies pulled out of every country and we just closed our borders entirely and didn't aid, defend, or trade with anyone?


Does this mean we'd all have to drive crappy American cars? We'd have Xboxes but no PS2s. And no televisions to hook the Xboxes up to. I think the globalization boat sailed long ago.

Pieces Hit
2/9/2006, 02:02 PM
Heck, I cain't even git an Xbox.

White House Boy
2/9/2006, 02:03 PM
Does this mean we'd all have to drive crappy American cars?

Hardly crappy, imho:
http://ginebra.motor.msn.es/images/downloads/chrysler300c_1024x7.jpg
http://www.autoextremist.com/NAIAS2005/Pontiac/Solstice.jpg

Tear Down This Wall
2/9/2006, 02:07 PM
Pretty much what Iron said. We give out so much in monetary aid alone, it'd be a disaster. There'd be a nuclear war in the Middle East because the Baalist/Muslims would try for the umpteenth time to gang up on Isreal. The Isrealis would be forced to nuke.

China would invade Taiwan and aid North Korea in invading South Korea. The leaders of the European Union would sit around calling for meeting, conferences, and dialogs while Russia morphed back into the Soviet Union. Any choice of nutcase leader would attempt to arm Cuba a la the Soviets in 1962.

The dictators in the China and the newborn Soviet would again send their minions into Africa and South and Central America to foment revolutions there and arm their crackpot leaders.

Basically, if we stepped out, we'd be reliving the late 1930's and late 1970's when Roosevelt and Carter were asleep at the wheel. A president like Ronald Reagan and one strong leader in the EU, like another Margaret Thatcher would have to step up again and save everything...again.

fadada1
2/9/2006, 02:07 PM
it would be fun to see for a while. but think of it, see how upset new orleans was when the gov't ignored them??? even though the chocolate mayor was warned well in advance.

i say we take care of our own before we start ignoring others.

think of the state indonesia would be in after the tsunami had we not sent aid.

think of where we'd be (or maybe france and england... ok, just england) had we not bailed them out 60 years ago.

think of all the bitching and moaning that would be going on.

OklahomaTuba
2/9/2006, 02:12 PM
WHAT IF the U.S. and all American companies pulled out of every country and we just closed our borders entirely and didn't aid, defend, or trade with anyone?

Would that make the dirka dirka's happy? Would we just get nuked sooner?

What??

Well, do you like driving a car, having a job, keeping your family warm during the winter, being able to fly on a plane, use plastic products, listen to CDs, use a computer or anything else even remotely based on a derivative of a hydrocarbon?

OklahomaTuba
2/9/2006, 02:13 PM
my preference would be to bring em all home and shore up the boarders and live peacefully and let the rest of the world figure it out on their own.Yeah, cause isolationism really worked well in the 1930s. Imagine what it would do to a global economy!

mdklatt
2/9/2006, 02:16 PM
Hardly crappy, imho:


It's hard for a car to break down when it's part of a static display. I bet they're still depreciating like crazy, though. ;)

Tear Down This Wall
2/9/2006, 02:17 PM
fadada is right. We send billions and billions in aid to these countries every year and all they do is bitch that we don't send enough. Face it, much of the world is basically our welfare recipients. Their government are too stupid and underhanded to actually do anything themselves.

Hell, just look at the U.N. Food-for-Oil scandal. That's just a freaking microcosm of the dirtiness that would be going on if we stepped out. Although, believe me, if the world would just police itself and feed itself, it would be nice to step out.

oumartin
2/9/2006, 02:18 PM
not saying it would work but everyone wants to gripe about America until they need a handout.

White House Boy
2/9/2006, 02:19 PM
I bet they're still depreciating like crazy, though. ;)

Very true, but don't they all? ;)

Pieces Hit
2/9/2006, 02:20 PM
I has heard that they is far enough oil in the US to keep us going until our magic carpets arrive if we would just farm it.

OklahomaTuba
2/9/2006, 02:26 PM
fadada is right. We send billions and billions in aid to these countries every year and all they do is bitch that we don't send enough. Face it, much of the world is basically our welfare recipients. Their government are too stupid and underhanded to actually do anything themselves.

Hell, just look at the U.N. Food-for-Oil scandal. That's just a freaking microcosm of the dirtiness that would be going on if we stepped out. Although, believe me, if the world would just police itself and feed itself, it would be nice to step out.

I think the US is destined to be the leader in the world. Its like the huddled masses greatest revenge on the old world....turning the rest of the world into part of the American dream.

Pieces Hit
2/9/2006, 02:31 PM
I'm just very disgusted we can't help our own but every hick town on the globe gets a free ride on the good ol American gravy train.

SanDiegoSoonerGal
2/9/2006, 02:36 PM
WHAT IF the U.S. and all American companies pulled out of every country and we just closed our borders entirely and didn't aid, defend, or trade with anyone?

Would that make the dirka dirka's happy? Would we just get nuked sooner?

What??

We can't stop trading with the rest of the world. Practically everything we buy is made overseas, particularly China. Where would we get our stuff?

fadada1
2/9/2006, 02:38 PM
I'm just very disgusted we can't help our own but every hick town on the globe gets a free ride on the good ol American gravy train.
YUP.

heck, even those filthy canadians have a national heath care system.:D

fadada1
2/9/2006, 02:39 PM
We can't stop trading with the rest of the world. Practically everything we buy is made overseas, particularly China. Where would we get our stuff?
say goodbye to yer iPOD, sister!!!!!

White House Boy
2/9/2006, 02:45 PM
We can't stop trading with the rest of the world. Practically everything we buy is made overseas, particularly China. Where would we get our stuff?
Where did we get most of our stuff prior to the 1970s?

SanDiegoSoonerGal
2/9/2006, 03:02 PM
Where did we get most of our stuff prior to the 1970s?

I believe we made most of it ourselves.

n8v_ndn
2/9/2006, 03:03 PM
Heck, I cain't even git an Xbox.

Just wait for a Guns-for-XBOXs promotion get your hands on one or several :texan:

White House Boy
2/9/2006, 03:03 PM
I believe we made most of it ourselves.
Therein lies the answer.

SanDiegoSoonerGal
2/9/2006, 03:11 PM
Therein lies the answer.

You think all the companies that have exported manufacturing jobs overseas so they can pay workers a fraction of what they have to pay them here would happily return and charitably give up their profits in the name of ... what?

1stTimeCaller
2/9/2006, 03:16 PM
you think 98% of these companies are getting rich by selling to the Vietnamese? Nope, it's selling to Americans.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/9/2006, 03:18 PM
Basically, if we stepped out, we'd be reliving the late 1930's and late 1970's when Roosevelt and Carter were asleep at the wheel. A president like Ronald Reagan and one strong leader in the EU, like another Margaret Thatcher would have to step up again and save everything...again.How DARE you pick on that greatest hero of the American left, that great originator of the modern US welfare state(with a big boost from the infamous LBJ later on), that wondrous provider of government jobs to stimulate the economy, FDR HISSELF! You oughta be 'shamed.:D

White House Boy
2/9/2006, 03:31 PM
You think all the companies that have exported manufacturing jobs overseas so they can pay workers a fraction of what they have to pay them here would happily return and charitably give up their profits in the name of ... what?

No I don't. But if we HAD to, we could do it, imo. Sure there would be major adjustments that would have to be made, but it's amazing what a group of like minded people working for a common cause can accomplish.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/9/2006, 03:33 PM
The question: We would have to quickly find some more domestic oil production, and reverse the impediments to drilling.

mdklatt
2/9/2006, 03:33 PM
No I don't. But if we HAD to, we could do it, imo. Sure there would be major adjustments that would have to be made, but it's amazing what a group of like minded people working for a common cause can accomplish.

What would we do for energy?

Mjcpr
2/9/2006, 03:35 PM
What would we do for energy?

I always try to get a little more sleep. If that doesn't work, extra coffee.

SanDiegoSoonerGal
2/9/2006, 03:36 PM
you think 98% of these companies are getting rich by selling to the Vietnamese? Nope, it's selling to Americans.

For now, yes. But this is what I fear. This guy explains it more clearly than I'm capable of, so I'm just going to quote him:

America may gain access to cheaper products through outsourcing, but it also comes with attendant problems, including a downward pressure on wages. Laid-off manufacturing laborers are largely switching into lower-paying jobs in the service industry. Where they once made an average of $51,000 annually, they now make $16,000 in leisure and hospitality, $33,000 in health care, or $39,000 in construction (Seattle Times, op. cit). In 2004, average employee compensation in the U.S. fell for the first time in 14 years.

If America does not manufacture and sell goods, then money only leaves the country. The U.S. now imports twice as much as it exports. This has resulted in a trade deficit that has ballooned to an unprecedented $800 billion on an annualized basis. Unfortunately, this trend shows no signs of abating. U.S. exports are declining versus imports all across the board. Even agriculture posted a deficit this past year for the first time in living memory.

Every time an American manufacturer closes and then reopens elsewhere, the foreign country gains American technology. Not having to spend resources developing technology, foreigners can focus on improving or beating it.
...
What does the decline in manufacturing mean for the average American?

First, America as a whole will eventually become poorer, so be prepared to downgrade your standard of living. As progressively more manufacturers move abroad, the flow of money out of the country will exceed the benefits of cheap imports. At some point, America’s trade deficit will overwhelm us. If this trend continues, eventually Americans will not be producing enough to pay for the standard of living that post-World War ii America has become used to.


Full Article (www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1955)

I hope he's wrong. And if he's right, I have no idea what the answer is. But the whole thing scares me nonetheless.

Scott D
2/9/2006, 03:38 PM
I think the US is destined to be the leader in the world. Its like the huddled masses greatest revenge on the old world....turning the rest of the world into part of the American dream.

this post disturbs me greatly.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/9/2006, 03:44 PM
It's a competitive challenge to all of us. It's hardest on the unions, who have been keeping prices artificially high through collective bargaining with threats of strikes. Change is inevitable as more countries develop better education and are able to compete with the US.

White House Boy
2/9/2006, 04:06 PM
What would we do for energy?

B12 shots work great.

Tear Down This Wall
2/9/2006, 04:10 PM
We can't stop trading with the rest of the world. Practically everything we buy is made overseas, particularly China. Where would we get our stuff?

Fort Worth's own...Radio Shack! :D

SanDiegoSoonerGal
2/9/2006, 04:18 PM
Fort Worth's own...Radio Shack! :D

We have 1296 matches for china in Product manuals (www.radioshack.com/search/manualResults.jsp?kw=china)

:P

SicEmBaylor
2/9/2006, 05:31 PM
There are a number of reasons why these United States finds itself, either rightly or wrongly, in the position of policing the world. For starters, it isn't just a cliche to say the world is getting smaller. These United States could afford to be more isolationist when we were more self sufficent and less culturally dominant. Yet we are a people who have always had expansionist tendencies that have manifested in a variety of different ways. After a major period of expansion these United States have always sought to turn back to temporary isolationsim.

For example, after we became a continental power via the Louisiana Purchase, War of 1812, and the Mexican war we once again went through a phase of temporary isolationism. After aquiring a number of colonial possessions proceeding the Spanish-American war the desire to once again receede was overwhelming until the first World War. And yet once again during the 20s and 30s we attempted to disengage from the rest of the world. The real last gasp of isolationism as a national movement was between '39-'41 when there was a major attempt to keep us out of the second World War. Now, why didn't we return to isolationsim after the first world war? First and foremost Pearl Harbor had a psychological effect on the country and created a determination with Washington to never be surprised in that way again. Obviously the obvious ambitions of the Soviet Union made it impossible to once again enter a period of isolationism.

By the end of the Second World War we had invested the lives of tens of thousands of American troops, billions of dollars worth of money, and were starting to do the heavylifting of rebuilding. It should be evident that after an investment on that scale these United States could not simply allow the Soviet Union to then overrun Europe negating the efforts and sacrafice of American troops and prosperity.

Once the Soviet Union aquired the atomic bomb it would have been suicidal to enter a new period of isolationism. The two major oceans obviously couldn't protect us from a sudden Soviet nuclear strike. This threat made it absolutely necessary that these United States be engaged in the rest of the world diplomatically, militarily, socially, and financially. It meant opposing Soviet aggression when necessary, courting and manipulating foreign governments and leaders, and creating a unified bloc against the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

All the while these United States grew stronger our culture began to spread around the world in ways the world has never known except perhaps during the Roman Emprie. As we opened up new markets around the world our economy expanded, but so to did our reliance on those foreign markets to sustain our economic growth.

So what does all of this mean now? It means that we now have so many links to the rest of the world that we are in the position of having to police and maintain those links for pure survivability. Like I said we as a people have always been expansionists and unless we stop being who we are as Americans there will be an increasing world to protect our assetts, trade links, and interests around the world.

This does NOT mean that it is in our interest to send in the 101st Airborne every time a two bit dictator burns a village. However, can we afford to lose Taiwan as a trading partner if China decides to repatriot the ROC? Can we afford to lose South Korea if Pyongyang decides to head south again?

It's such a popular and mindless slogan to chant, "No blood for oil." But can we afford to lose our access to foreign oil without protecting that as a major national security interest? Can anyone here imagine what would happen if we weren't willing to go to war for oil? Indeed if these United States were suddenly cut off from our oil supply it would essentially shut down the entire country forcing everyone out of a job and devestate the American economy.

In a region that is inherently unstable how long can it be in the interest of these United States to do nothing while that instability becomes increasingly worse threatening the very security and lives of Americans? Especially when that instability happens to be sitting right on top of this nation's #1 national security interest.

All of this forces us into the position of having to be engaged with the rest of the world. There is no way to turn the clock on America back and stop ourselves from becoming entangled in the world's competing interests.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/9/2006, 06:36 PM
So, it's a pretty silly hypothetical, eh?

lexsooner
2/9/2006, 07:52 PM
not saying it would work but everyone wants to gripe about America until they need a handout.

That's better than many Eastern Kentuckians - they continue to gripe about America WHILE receiving handouts.

Harry Beanbag
2/9/2006, 08:23 PM
This does NOT mean that it is in our interest to send in the 101st Airborne every time a two bit dictator burns a village. However, can we afford to lose Taiwan as a trading partner if China decides to repatriot the ROC? Can we afford to lose South Korea if Pyongyang decides to head south again?



If they're smart, China will go after Taiwan and North Korea will attack the South simultaneously. Our military is just too damn small to do much about it right now. Since the fall of the USSR, we've fallen into the same trap as we were in before WWI and WWII, with our pants down. This is magnified even more by what could happen in the Middle East if things go wrong with Iran.