What would happen if America practiced Isolationism?

[GrayMouser]

There's a difference between isolationism and autarky. Isolationism believes that political and economic issues can be separated ; there's no contradiction between being an isolationist and a fervent free trader.

[azalea]

It would be (to put it very simply) "bad" because it would change the world dynamics and would cause everyone to have to adjust which = discomfort (probably temporary), Of course our generations hate to be uncomfortable, thus isolationism is seen as a negative thing. I see it as a bad thing mostly in terms of "why can't we be friends?" I'm one of those types that dislike division of humanity based on invisble boundries. But one thing that really irks me is the seeming hypocricy caused by our relationship w/ Mexico (mentioned in the other thread -- illegal Mexicans coming in droves and abusing the social welfare system without putting back into it). I think we need to either put more energy/ resources into enforcing the border, or (more to my liking, but perhaps less practical) open up the border with Mexico, try to help the country so that it would be unnecessary for it's citizens to come here (they'd have comparable opportunities in their own country), and put more energy/ resources into the Immigration dept. (whatever they're calling it now) so that they can better regulate those receiving services here (more in depth investigations into status). It seems so hypocritical to risk lives enforcing the border every day, but then when they're "in," not doing all that can be done to deport them. For instance, in the small town where I used to live, there were a lot of Mexicans moving there (a lot of opportunities for factory and farm work). There was a story in the paper about the welfare dept. (it was a poor region anyway), and how they were trying to get services for all the Mexicans. One of the angles of the article was how it didn't matter if they were illegal, they could still apply for sevices, because they couldn't ask if they were illegal, or couldn't verify it or something like that. In other words, they were saying that "it doesn't matter if you came here illegally, we want you to come on down to apply for free healthcare, food stamps, etc." (You see, it behooves the local communities to do this because otherwise you have less "control" over the population -- unschooled children, men going to prostitutes and unwittingly spreading syphillus around [this was a big problem there -- and if these guys had healthcare, the situation could be controlled better], theft due to not having enough money for food, etc.) But how I wonder does this make the wives of the men putting their lives on the line every day in the 100+ degree heat to keep these people from getting in, when apparently it doesn't matter if they're here or not!
This may seem like a little tangent, but I was just pointing to what one of the effects of isolationism would be -- and this is something that would very directly affect local communities -- if we were isolated from our neighbors. I prefer a more proactive approach, but it is an issue that ought to be addressed.
Of course "shutting down the borders" to others who don't have a direct route (as say, Mexicans, Cubans, or Haitians) would certainly be easier. We would have less cultural diversity, but on the other hand it would be much easier for the "war on terrorism." Many people would like to see fewer people from the Middle East allowed in, but that would be "racial profiling," and would be "unfair." The fact that the ones doing the terrorizing are Muslims from the Middle East seems to have little effect on that argument. As with so many things, there are no easy answers, but a little common sense goes a long way. I just don't want there to be any more bombings/ hijackings. Isolationism, or semi-isolationism would probably help that.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
An interesting subject, but different from the original one. I don’t believe we always call you. We occasionally do call you, under the NATO alliance, (if you are talking of Yugoslavia), we also offered our aid, under the spirit of alliance, in the Afghanistan. The US decided to go mostly alone; that was your choice, but didn’t had to be so.

You have really a short term memory on everything that Euirope wants us to do. Even with North Korea - we want multi-lateral talks - you think we should talk to North Korea bi-lateraly. Europe thinks we should go into Liberia (which we are now). Europe criticises us on Israel all the time. We're frankly tired of the armchair quartebacking from Europe. It's very easy for you guys to rely on our military and our tax dollars - while you enjoy your social programs and then criticize us for not having the same social programs (which I don't want anyway). 9/11 was the FIRST time ever America has used NATO for it's direct interest. It is the first time NATO planes have EVER patrolled the skies of America. Our planes and tax dollars protected you for years. France even pulled out of NATO because they knew that they were protected by us - but by pulling out - they were under no obligation to have any responsibility. After the Cold War was over - France rejoined NATO and is now a thorn in the side of America.

You see? That was what happened. When the neighbour started to be seen as a real threat for them, they acted, not before.

Hitler was ACTING way before you reacted. Europe even gave him Czeckloslovakia. Why didn't you stop him then? Did you really think by selliong out your neighbor it would keep you safe? Germany neveer attacked us directly - so by your own admisssion - we should NEVER have gotten involved in WWII or even WWI. So I think you should remember the fact that we did at all - and Europeans shold stop criticizing us for getting involved later than Europe.

We were not, and are not, like American states. We were never a country; there was never a common identity (that may be appearing just now), cultural differences are in an entirely different level from those that distinguish American states among themselves (and were even more so then). That you use that example demonstrates clearly that you are failing to understand the fundamental difference of the issue.

You are becoming a country - just like we became a country. This is what Europeans really DO NOT understand about the US. The states were INDIVIDUAL countries after the Revolution. We were not a country. We had an alliance basically under the Articles of Confederation. It was a government with no power. Each state had it's own currency - just like Europe did. Each state handled if's on alliances and own trade. If a representative from France wanted to set up an alliance - there was no guarantee that all the states would follow it.

The Constitution was developed to create the United States and become a country. Initially the Constitutional Convention was just going to put more meat into the Articles of Confederation - but after a few meetings and discussions - it was determined that they were a lost cause and we had fully become a country with a new document - the Constitution of the United States of America. Everyone outside still think that's federal government has all the power - that is NOT true. Most of the power resides with the states. The states determine their local laws, handles unemployment, handles the social services, handles laws governing the death penalty, handles the laws governing abortion, the Federal Government has very few laws. The power rests with the states and what NJ allows - is very different than California or Indiana. The Federal Government only handles things that deal with the country as a whole- like alliances, treaties and trade. Unemployment benefits - even though a federal program - are handled at the state level and the individual states determine the rules governing how they hand out the money.

[jerseydevil]

That is a real overstatement. Europe was not working together. As it happened in the past, some nations had a defensive alliance, against others, that in turn had also their alliance. And many were not allied with any of them.

I understand that - but it doesn't mean that you wouldn't have more of a concern about Germany and should have done something sooner. Germany is your neighbor. The European countries were in discussion enough to determine NOT to do anything. Any one single country could have done something - but didn't lift a finger until it was too late. Now all America hears is that we didn't get involved until Japan bombed us and why didn't we. Can you ask why we should have? Why should we have even have gotten involved with WWI? When did in either war did Germany DIRECTLY attack the United States. As you said - you waited until Germany attacked before doing anything.

It matters because the way it manifested that interest varies with the historical period.
Besides, the US considered since an early time South and Central America as their sphere of interest, thus the reason for your concern. You may remember that no European state then had such a sphere of interest encompassing all of Europe, nor enjoyed such an undisputed military superiority in relation to the others.

So in other words you are saying that no European country had an interest in it's "neighborhood" known as Europe?

1-I believe it is both issues.
2-No one here was calling Bush of Hitler. If you have an issue about that name-calling, I suggest you bring it to the person(s) who said it, and do not insinuate, as you are doing, that all Europeans are Anti-American bigots.

I didn't say anyone hear was - but from the demonstrations in Europe and the outcries there - and from things that were said on this board from last year - much of Europe thinks that and has openly stated it. And I'm not insinuating that ALL Europeans are Anti-Americans bigots - but if you deny that most are or at the very least a large percentage - then you are blind. Look at Chirac - when he tried to prove that he liked the US - you know what he said? He pointed out how he loves ou fast food and everytime he comes to the US he gains a couple of pounds. Now does that idiot really think that was a compliment? He might have lived he - but that doesn't mean he doesn't look down on us.

And if you think Americans look down on Europeans and criticize you guys for what you do internally - you're wrong. We don't really care about Schroeder and Chirac - except when they criticize us and Chirac went out of his way of being arrogant toward the countries who supported us. Even going so far as to throw a temper tantrums in a EU and NATO meetings.

[jerseydevil]

Azelea - that's not isolationism. Isolationism is taking our troops and going home. Isolationism is pulling out of the UN, NATO and all other military and international orginazations. Isolationism is letting the world fend for itself without the help of the US - which most people around the world seem be ungrateful for anyway.

As for your statements on Mexico - you know what you described as your solution...

(more to my liking, but perhaps less practical) open up the border with Mexico, try to help the country so that it would be unnecessary for it's citizens to come here (they'd have comparable opportunities in their own country),

...is exactly what NAFTA was for - of course then people complain that American manufacturing jobs are being moved to Mexico. Of course they're moving there - labor is cheaper. Businesses don't have the high taxes they have here, they don't have to pay all the social programs there. Democrats are against NAFTA - even though it was set up to create a free trade environment between, Canada, The US and Mexico. The side result is that businesses can move across the border to where labor is cheaper. Until mexicans make the same as Americans - Mexicans will still move here and companies will still move there. It's pure economics.

[azalea]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Azelea - that's not isolationism. Isolationism is taking our troops and going home. Isolationism is pulling out of the UN, NATO and all other military and international orginazations. Isolationism is letting the world fend for itself without the help of the US - which most people around the world seem be ungrateful for anyway.

Well, I see it as more complex (that closing off our borders would be included in isolationism), but I do agree that we should bring our troops back from all the different places in the world, but instead help those countries better diplomatically (which would not be isolationistic) to work toward getting along with their neighbors, creating a strong democracy, and becoming more self-sufficient in terms of national security (them I mean, not us). We seem to focus more on the troops method than diplomatic efforts (diplomacy seems to keep things at the status quo rather than working toward potential self sufficiency) But I think the US wants to be "there" because we don't want everyone trying to get nuclear weapons (which they would justify be saying they need them to be secure without the presence of US troops).
I don't think we should withdraw from the UN.

As for your statements on Mexico - you know what you described as your solution...



...is exactly what NAFTA was for - of course then people complain that American manufacturing jobs are being moved to Mexico. Of course they're moving there - labor is cheaper. Businesses don't have the high taxes they have here, they don't have to pay all the social programs there. Democrats are against NAFTA - even though it was set up to create a free trade environment between, Canada, The US and Mexico. The side result is that businesses can move across the border to where labor is cheaper. Until mexicans make the same as Americans - Mexicans will still move here and companies will still move there. It's pure economics.

Yes, NAFTA was a good/ bad thing. But no offense to anyone, but despite the criticism our educational system receives, it is free and comprehensive, and people need to take better advantage of it so that they don't have to rely on factory jobs. No one dreams of becoming a factory worker when he grows up. We need more scientists and engineers -- highly skilled people who can develop alternative fuels, cure diseases, perform complex surgeries, plan efficient communities, and effectively lead the people on all governmental levels. These are the kinds of things people should be striving to become. I may get slammed for this, but it irks me when people whine about these low level jobs going to Mexico -- good! Maybe their economy will improve and they won't have to feel the need to leave their homes and come here to try to make ends meet! Meanwhile, you should have gotten more from your free 13 year public education than how to perform a rote, task for which no skill is required! We need QUALITY plumbers and electricians and carpenters and masons building our homes who have a good work ethic, not unskilled people who build these cheaply made houses that fall apart after 10 years. There are "non intellectual" type jobs, too that need doing here -- if you're unskilled, you can just as well do something else as you can factory work. This may sound harsh, but again, where I used to live there were people who would complain to no end about their situation because of factories closing and moving to Mexico -- but then why had they dropped out of high school? I don't mean ALL of them were in the same situation, but I see the factory jobs moving out as a positive opportunity for the people of this country to aspire to better things than as a negative.
BUT I think that our gov should be better regulating conditions in these factories -- I don't think it's ethical or humane for a co. to see this as an opportunity to exploit people for their own monetary gain. I think the same standards should apply to US companies overseas as to ones here: the gov should require the labor and wage laws to be equivalent, so that the poor people there aren't being misused, which isn't any better than when the people here were misused. You might say that if that happened, it wouldn't make much financial sense for the company to go there -- but hey, too bad, and that solves the other problem, doesn't it? Ah, I'm just mindlessly ranting, now, sorry.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
Well, I see it as more complex (that closing off our borders would be included in isolationism), but I do agree that we should bring our troops back from all the different places in the world, but instead help those countries better diplomatically (which would not be isolationistic) to work toward getting along with their neighbors, creating a strong democracy, and becoming more self-sufficient in terms of national security (them I mean, not us). We seem to focus more on the troops method than diplomatic efforts (diplomacy seems to keep things at the status quo rather than working toward potential self sufficiency) But I think the US wants to be "there" because we don't want everyone trying to get nuclear weapons (which they would justify be saying they need them to be secure without the presence of US troops).
I don't think we should withdraw from the UN.

I think we should pull out of the UN. I also think - that if countries want us to pull out - we should. I thnk we should pull out of South Korea - not that they're screaming for us to do that now - but they were last year. I say "Hey - you didn't want us there - you deal with North Korea - and make sure you call Europe when they start running across the border. Here's Chirac's number - I'm sure he'll lend a helping hand. Hope it works out for you."

[b ]
BUT I think that our gov should be better regulating conditions in these factories -- I don't think it's ethical or humane for a co. to see this as an opportunity to exploit people for their own monetary gain. I think the same standards should apply to US companies overseas as to ones here: the gov should require the labor and wage laws to be equivalent, so that the poor people there aren't being misused, which isn't any better than when the people here were misused.
[/b]

You can't make mexico;'s wage rate the same in Mexico as here - or any other country. The wage rate is different between New Jersey and Indiana and Mississippi. A couple of years ago McDonalds was hiring a night person for $9/hour. I don't know what it is now. But the wage is based on cost of living, education, and bunch of factors. The US can't dictate the laws of Mexico - anymore than Indiana can dictate the laws of New Jersey.

You might say that if that happened, it wouldn't make much financial sense for the company to go there -- but hey, too bad, and that solves the other problem, doesn't it?

you can't aritificiallly set rates - look at the soviet Union - when they went under and Russia had to work under a market Economy - their inflation went sky high. They had 1950's prices and had to catch up to the 1990's. It was very painful. But also remember - even with the 1950's prices - there wasn't even any bread or anything.

[Radagast]

Easy for you all to say about the centuries of infighting but they were chiefly in the Medieval Period, the Napoleonic Wars- a completely different style of warfare. America is far too young a nation to have even existed in these time periods. Would it have fared better?

And, of course, Europe is not a single body and I hope to God it never will be. The cultural differences are just too great. And, being a half-French Brit, I enjoy the best of the two finest countries in Europe.

And I always enjoy Chirac's little jibes. Lighten up. Overall, however, I completely agree that it would be a terrible thing if America entered Splendid Isolation and stopped supporting the world. Of course, it would lose billions of dollars so it just isn't economically worth your while to stop. Until the time when it becomes unprofitable, enjoy your Freedom Fries and look happy.

P.S.- I'm sure we all agree the Freedom Fries thing was way over the top?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
Easy for you all to say about the centuries of infighting but they were chiefly in the Medieval Period, the Napoleonic Wars- a completely different style of warfare. America is far too young a nation to have even existed in these time periods. Would it have fared better?

WWI and WWII were not medieval. If it wasn't for the US - all of Europe would have been under the Soviet Union.

And, of course, Europe is not a single body and I hope to God it never will be. The cultural differences are just too great. And, being a half-French Brit, I enjoy the best of the two finest countries in Europe.

It's on it's way to becoming like the United States. Europe has just been taking longer than what the US did with the Constitution. Already much of the countries power is going to the EU.

As for France being one of the finest countries in Europe - I like Italy better.

And I always enjoy Chirac's little jibes. Lighten up. \

Of course you thought they were funny - they weren't directed at you. Just like I thought it was great that we were finally calling Europeans Euro-whiners. Of course not all Europeans are Euro-whiners. But the most vocal seem to be.

Overall, however, I completely agree that it would be a terrible thing if America entered Splendid Isolation and stopped supporting the world. Of course, it would lose billions of dollars so it just isn't economically worth your while to stop.

We wouldn't necessarily lose billions if we became isolationists. We're not talking about not trading. Even when we were isolationists we still had commercial trade. America was actually founded with the idea of staying isolationist. But pulling our troops out and putting our military dollars toward defense like we used to instead of protecting the world would save tons of money. The world can fend for itself for once - instead of calling upon us all the time. You guys want to think that we just protect the world for financial gain and that is completely not true. Europe gets more oil than we do from the Middle East. If the flow of oil was stopped - it would hurt you guys first and far harder than us.

By the way - I had brought this up in the past - when our troops were dragged through the streets of Somalia and Clinton pulled us out - why did the UN have to leave? Couldn't Europe supply additional troops? Couldn't other UN forces take our place and why were people around the world so upset we pulled out? They were then upset that we didn't do anything about Rwanda and other African countries - but the funny thing is - I didn't see European troops in their to put an end to the bloodshed in Rwanda. I did however hear a lot of negative comments from Europeans about us not going in there.

Until the time when it becomes unprofitable, enjoy your Freedom Fries and look happy.

With the amount of criticisim in what we do and arm chair quarterbacking from the world - it is quickly becoming unprofitiable and just a big bother. I think we should just leave the world stage and go back to the way we were prior to WWII - and then see what the world is like. After WWI - we went back to isolationism. We destroyed most of our military - sunk it into the ocean. Europe forced us out of isolationism and now no matter what we do - nothing is good enough.

P.S.- I'm sure we all agree the Freedom Fries thing was way over the top?

It's not the first time our food as been renamed like that and it's wasn't a countrywide thing. Yes - Congress did it in their cafteria - but McDonalds still had French Fries - although I only normally call them Fries anyway. During WWII - anything that was associated with Germany was changed. And don't forget - during WWII - Britain did the biggest change of all - the Royal family changed their last name from their German name to Windsor.

[Lizra]

So isolationism has nothing to do with tariffs and trading policy, just military aid? I guess it's been awhile since I was in school!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
So isolationism has nothing to do with tariffs and trading policy, just military aid? I guess it's been awhile since I was in school!

Well it can mean that too - but the US never practiced FULL isolationism. The initial policy of the US was not to make military alliances or to get into the wars of others.

[Ruinel]

been... kayaking... all day.... too ... tired... to read ... all ... of this ... thread... but...

The world would have no more whipping boy if the US practiced isolationism. We'd save billions (perhaps trillions) on military 'rescues' and assistance to other countries. I think the US would be better off, personally. Would the rest of the world be better off? Probably not, but I guess that would be their problem.


...........

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's not the first time our food as been renamed like that and it's wasn't a countrywide thing. Yes - Congress did it in their cafteria - but McDonalds still had French Fries - although I only normally call them Fries anyway. During WWII - anything that was associated with Germany was changed. And don't forget - during WWII - Britain did the biggest change of all - the Royal family changed their last name from their German name to Windsor.

Is that a "no"?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Is that a "no"?

yes - it's a no in case I didn't make it clear enough. I don't care what other people think. I won't be visiting France anytime soon - no matter how many travel representatives they beg for Americans to go back to France. They can go complain to Chirac - tell him that (He)"...missed a great opportunity to shut up."

[Radagast]

Yes, the Royal family did indeed change their surname from von Saxe- Coburg- Gotha (as in Dukes of, from Prince Albert's family, who married Queen Victoria, the last of yet another German British Royal Family- the Hannovers, who descend from King Georg [or George] I) to Wettin, and from therein to Windsor. Edward VIII was the last of the Wettins (and the only one!) until I think King George V (Queen's grandfather) changed it to Windsor.

[Elvellon]

You have really a short term memory on everything that Euirope wants us to do. Even with North Korea - we want multi-lateral talks - you think we should talk to North Korea bi-lateraly. Europe thinks we should go into Liberia (which we are now). Europe criticises us on Israel all the time. We're frankly tired of the armchair quartebacking from Europe. It's very easy for you guys to rely on our military and our tax dollars - while you enjoy your social programs and then criticize us for not having the same social programs (which I don't want anyway). 9/11 was the FIRST time ever America has used NATO for it's direct interest. It is the first time NATO planes have EVER patrolled the skies of America. Our planes and tax dollars protected you for years. France even pulled out of NATO because they knew that they were protected by us - but by pulling out - they were under no obligation to have any responsibility. After the Cold War was over - France rejoined NATO and is now a thorn in the side of America.

That’s it!

North Corea/ Israel:
The last time I checked no one orders the US around, nor attempts to. Give some credit to your own country, please. Europeans have opinions about International affairs, that is a consequence of democracy and liberty; everyone is entitled to speak freely, you speak a lot about it.

Armshair Quarterback:
JD, I’ve heard you talk about what Europe did, do, or not do, internally or internationally, A LOT. Sounds a lot like “armshair quarterback” to me, if you really dislike it so much, do not engage in it yourself.

Social Programs:
When Republicans stop criticizing us for having them in our own countries, then you may claim moral high ground.

NATO:
And what is your point? That the “front” of the Cold War was far from your country and near ours?

France:
See bellow

Hitler was ACTING way before you reacted. Europe even gave him Czeckloslovakia. Why didn't you stop him then? Did you really think by selliong out your neighbor it would keep you safe? Germany neveer attacked us directly - so by your own admisssion - we should NEVER have gotten involved in WWII or even WWI. So I think you should remember the fact that we did at all - and Europeans shold stop criticizing us for getting involved later than Europe.

The European countries were in discussion enough to determine NOT to do anything. Any one single country could have done something - but didn't lift a finger until it was too late. Now all America hears is that we didn't get involved until Japan bombed us and why didn't we. Can you ask why we should have? Why should we have even have gotten involved with WWI? When did in either war did Germany DIRECTLY attack the United States. As you said - you waited until Germany attacked before doing anything.

Please. Europe was totally fractured. Nationalism was overwhelming in most countries, and dictatorships abounded.

And stop applying present day morals and worldviews to the past. You yourself claimed it is inappropriate a few days ago, but perhaps you think that is not valid inasmuch as Europe is concerned.

And you must be joking! So by your own words it wasn’t fair to expect for the US to go to war against the Japanese Empire, that were merrily butchering their neighbours, ACTING well before they turned against you, their neighbour also. Yet, it seems, the same cannot be applied to a Europe, (that didn’t even existed then as an entity), I fail to see the coherency.

Or did I said anything about the US and Japan? No? So why do you argue like if I did?

If some Europeans criticizing you for “coming late,” tell that to those that say it, DON’T lecture me about it.

You are becoming a country - just like we became a country. This is what Europeans really DO NOT understand about the US. The states were INDIVIDUAL countries after the Revolution. We were not a country. We had an alliance basically under the Articles of Confederation. It was a government with no power. Each state had it's own currency - just like Europe did. Each state handled if's on alliances and own trade. If a representative from France wanted to set up an alliance - there was no guarantee that all the states would follow it.

No, that is what you don’t get. THEN we weren’t becoming a country. NOW we are, (perhaps).

So in other words you are saying that no European country had an interest in it's "neighborhood" known as Europe?

2 clearly had, (to significant parts of it, at least), Germany and USSR.

[Elvellon]

but from the demonstrations in Europe and the outcries there - and from things that were said on this board from last year - much of Europe thinks that and has openly stated it. And I'm not insinuating that ALL Europeans are Anti-Americans bigots - but if you deny that most are or at the very least a large percentage - then you are blind. Look at Chirac - when he tried to prove that he liked the US - you know what he said? He pointed out how he loves ou fast food and everytime he comes to the US he gains a couple of pounds. Now does that idiot really think that was a compliment? He might have lived he - but that doesn't mean he doesn't look down on us.

“What most Europe thinks?”
“A large percentage of Anti-American bigots?”

For someone that lectures to everyone that wants to listen about how the Media don’t give an accurate image of the US, you sure are willing to forget your own dogma inasmuch as Europe is concerned. And to expect that the most boisterous opinions in the net to be representative of the majority of the population, really. It isn’t me that is suffering from blindness.

Speaking of, just look at this thread, you basically started to complain because I did hold a similar opinion to your own: “there would be an international crisis if the US became isolationist.” The reason? I’ve “accused” the US of exporting democracy and capitalism, and stated that, in many countries, neither is yet solid, and without the threat of consequences many could regress. Way to go, I wonder that if I had an American flag flying in my avatar you would take offence of what I wrote, or would rather nod in concordance.


General complains about France: direct them at,
http://www.info-france-usa.org/contactus.asp



As for the rest I’ll PM you.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Elvellon
... to expect that the most boisterous opinions in the net to be representative of the majority of the population, really. It isn’t me that is suffering from blindness. ...

I am one American that hopes that you are correct. That it is only the loud mouths who complain, protest and hate the US, and that the majority of the world holds a positive view of America.

Unfortunately, what I have heard is that Europe and the rest of the world say nothing but negative comments about the US, that they do not like (and possibly hate, in some cases) the US.
This negative view of the US by the world is the reason why I wish the US was more isolationist. Why should we help when everything we do is wrong anyway.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
That’s it!

North Corea/ Israel:
The last time I checked no one orders the US around, nor attempts to. Give some credit to your own country, please. Europeans have opinions about International affairs, that is a consequence of democracy and liberty; everyone is entitled to speak freely, you speak a lot about it.

The you must not read the news about Europeans saying - America do this - America do that. Maybe you have more onesided news coverage then I thought - or else you just don't watch it - not really sure. But the Europeans on our news - who are a lot of the politicians in Europe - are always saying what America should do.

Armshair Quarterback:
JD, I’ve heard you talk about what Europe did, do, or not do, internally or internationally, A LOT. Sounds a lot like “armshair quarterback” to me, if you really dislike it so much, do not engage in it yourself.

I'm not armchair quarterbacking. When I hear a European SERIOUSLY going to the Middle East to work out problems in Israel and stuff - instead of complaining how stupid and unworkable the "Roadmap to Peace" is - then I will stop complaining about how Europeans complain while jhust sitting there. I haven't seen France invite Sharon and the Palestinians to their country to discuss the bloodshed.

Social Programs:
When Republicans stop criticizing us for having them in our own countries, then you may claim moral high ground.

Actually - I have never heard a republican even complain about your social programs in the US. They don't concern us here. But Europeans constantly complain we don't have them. Can I ask you how many times you have been to the US to know how we talk about you?

NATO:
And what is your point? That the “front” of the Cold War was far from your country and near ours?

It was mostly OUR military and tax dollars which go to the support of NATO. YOu might want to look into that. It was to protect you.

Please. Europe was totally fractured. Nationalism was overwhelming in most countries, and dictatorships abounded.

You mean "western Europe" France, England, Belgium were dictatorships? Or are you tryign to say - Hitler was just one more dictator in a long list of them. If that's the attitude it's amazing Europe did anything.

And stop applying present day morals and worldviews to the past. You yourself claimed it is inappropriate a few days ago, but perhaps you think that is not valid inasmuch as Europe is concerned.

I'm not applying present day morals. Getting involved because your neighbor is massing armies and tanks - contrary to a signed treaty - has nothing to do with morals. Sorrry if you can't see that. Since you have stated that Europe didn't even have to do anything with Hitler until he attacked - remember then that you are lucky the US got invalved at all. - since he never directly aatcked us - nor did Germany attack us in WWI.

And you must be joking! So by your own words it wasn’t fair to expect for the US to go to war against the Japanese Empire, that were merrily butchering their neighbours, ACTING well before they turned against you, their neighbour also. Yet, it seems, the same cannot be applied to a Europe, (that didn’t even existed then as an entity), I fail to see the coherency.

Actually no -Japan wasn't doing ANYTHING to our neighbors. The didn't come over to Canada or to Mexico and attack them. They were starting old wars between China and stuff. Countries - which if you looked at a map - are even further from the Continental US than Europe is. Fine - I will try to refrain from saying EUROPE for WWII - why the hell didn't England, Francem Belgium, Spain or any OTHER European country lift a finger to help a DIRTECT neighbor. During the Revolution and afterward - the United States was NOT one country. The majority of England's outrageous behavior was directed against Massachusettes - yet all 13 colonies stood together - KNOWING that if King George III could do that that one of them - it wouldn't be long before he turned his attention to the other colonies. I guess the European countries of the 1930's weren't as smart as our founding fathers during the 1700's.

[azalea]

Originally posted by jerseydevil



You can't make mexico;'s wage rate the same in Mexico as here - or any other country. The wage rate is different between New Jersey and Indiana and Mississippi. A couple of years ago McDonalds was hiring a night person for $9/hour. I don't know what it is now. But the wage is based on cost of living, education, and bunch of factors. The US can't dictate the laws of Mexico - anymore than Indiana can dictate the laws of New Jersey.

you can't aritificiallly set rates - look at the soviet Union - when they went under and Russia had to work under a market Economy - their inflation went sky high. They had 1950's prices and had to catch up to the 1990's. It was very painful. But also remember - even with the 1950's prices - there wasn't even any bread or anything.

I wasn't clear in my rant -- just to clarify -- I didn't mean to set rates or make wages equal, that would truly be unrealistic. I meant "equivalent," allowing for factors such as cost of living, etc. But I think NAFTA should have been contingent on Mexico enforcing some basic workplace rules, such as, let's say a minimum age for working. I don't know enough about it, but if there is a law, it isn't being enforced well enough. They have to start SOMEWHERE. But it is no better for Mexico in the long run to have US companies there taking advantage of lax labor laws. Nothing will improve, as we've seen in the how many years since NAFTA took effect. Anyway, back on the topic at hand.