What would happen if America practiced Isolationism?

[jerseydevil]

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

Japan is what got us into WWII - and by your own admission - Japan was the only country that attacked us. We didn't have to go after Germany. Like I said - you're lucky I guess we came to YOUR aid. The reason I brought up japan is because people have said we didn't get into WWII soon enough - you are the only one that have even heard suggest that we didn't have to get involved at all (if you extend your idea that the countries of Europe acted on their own and Hitler hadn't attacked any of them).

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

I don't know if you think we came in late or not. I was stating views that I repeatedly hear from Europeans. As I said in the PM - look at the past threads on the anti-americanism that has gone on this board and how we were criticized by your fellow continentals on not getting involved sooner.

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

So in other words - no one could lift a finger against Hitler - but all the European countries could meet to decide NOT to do anything - and to go so far as to tell Hitler he could have Czechloslovakia but NOT Poland?

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

NO - if you read European history - which I imagine you have - you would know that all the countries were interested in what their neighbors did. They just felt they could appease Hitler and he'd just be happy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
“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.

I'm not suffering from blindness and I'm not getting my information from just the net. The media in Europe doesn't give an accurate portrayal of America. I have laughed sometimes when I read some of the European news media websites and see how they report something - such as the BBC a lot of the times.

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.

I didn't take offense by that. But whether you had a frigging American flag avatar or not - I would disagree with your claim that the American economy would be hurt by the countries that are developing democracies. You have yet to name any. Can you please name some of these HUGE trading partners that are on the brink of collapse without the US propping them up that would that would hurt the US economy? Which is what I did - I disagreed with you on that.

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

I don't have to direct my complaints at France. The lack of American tourists have spoken loud and clear to them. It's abotu time America used it's pocketbook sometimes when it came to countries that treat us like crap - just like Europeans (particularly in France) ransack McDonalds and stuff.
[

As for the rest I’ll PM you.

Thank you for the PM - you have my reply.

[jerseydevil]

By the way Elvellon - I said I agreed with what you said in the beginning.

Elvellon - I agree - it was in our best interest to protect you from communism. That goes without saying. We instituted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and Japan. But that is over with. You guys have been on your feet for decades, the Soviet Union has been gone for over a decade. I however don't understand what you mean about our military enforcing trade. How does our military enforce trade with Europe or anytone else? Do our tanks come in when Europe increases tarrifs or do our planes bomb your cities when you refuse to take our genetically grown corn? We have a huge trade deficit so we really suck at influencing trade in our favor.

I disagreed with you when you said that Europe didn't have a role in causing the problems of the Middle East that we our dealing with today. Europes colonialism is a had a DIRECT affect on the problems we face today. Look at Pakistan and India - fighting over Kashmir - that IS a DIRECT result of how Britain left the region. Pakistan was created by Britain and they left the question of Kasmir up in the air.

Britain created Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, all these countries Britain or another European country (mostly France) created duing the 1910's and later. The Eropean powers gave no thought to how they created the countries and the different tribal groups that don't get along.

That is when we started our disagreement. What I stated is historically accurate - whether you want to accept it or not.

This is another thing I said before.. which I have since repeated. You stated that the US economy would be hurt by the unstable democracies and countries that are only developing capitalism - but you still have not stated which of these are powerful enough to hurt the US economy if they fall.

It's not wasted. Which MAJOR democractic/capitalist countries are there that we are currently propping up that will fall if we become isolationist? The only thing the US really has to be concerned with is the Middle East - and Europe and japan are far more relient on their oil than we are. I think Europe can start pulling it's weight. If you calim our economy would be hurt by the instability - Europe will even be more so. Are you also saying that the world sits on America's shoulders and that if we decide to become isolationist - Europe won't pick up the slack? Because if you are - this is EXACTLY why I think we should become isolationist. I think the world relies too much on us and then likes to criticise us every move we make like some armchair quarterback.

If you also notice - I never talked about YOU personally - unlike YOU making this personal against me.

I will state this again - Americans are quickly becoming tired of the NEGATIVE rants coming from Europe and the anti-american comments from Europe that many peeople - and the number is growing - think that the US should pull out of the UN and pull our troops out of various places. Do I think we should pulll out of Iraq right now? NO I do not. It's in our best interest to be there. But we should pull our trooops out of europe - no matter what problems it causes with their local economies. Russia is no longer a threat and Germany has made their contempt for America very clear - if you deny THAT statement - look at what Schroeder has said about us and the fact that one of the main things he was voted in on was his anti--American rhetoric.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
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.

I agree with you on that. I think the agreement with NAFTA should have been SIMILAR employment laws - like child labor laws. The reason I say similar is becuase I don't know all the laws in Canada - and I don't want their laws dictated to us (just like people don't want our laws dictated to them). But I do think that that child labor laws (which I'm not sure if Mexico has) would have been important.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Ruinel
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.

I live here; and I talk with people from other parts of Europe that come here, too. The majority of the people may have issues with actions (that affect all), mostly from your government, (particularly from the current one), not the people.

Kyoto, for instance; the issue affects all of us, and people speak about it. The same with the UN and the Gulf War 2.
Then there is the constant issue of American Capitalism vs. the European Capitalism (that some there, funnily enough, call Socialism). It bothers many to see the attacks at the European traditional system from within AND from without, and it is felt as an intromission, one that may cost what is viewed as social rights. But again, those issues are not with the US people, but with those in power, and with particular worldviews (that actually are not exclusive from this or that side of the ocean).

If you have doubts consider this; why so many European politicians felt confident in siding with the US? (This was not an issue of “old” vs. “new” Europe, as some said, there is nothing new about, Italy, Spain, Britain or Portugal and those governments sided with the US government), If it was a deep hatred/resentment/whatever, of the people, you may rest assured they wouldn’t have risked it, we aren’t the Middle East. But they know the problem is with issues; those come and go, while the alliance and friendship remains. Neither do you see any boycott to the US products (or even any real thought of it). That is not for fear of economical reprisals, as some may say, for it would likely be something instinctive, not coordinated, at least at start. People would avoid things from there on their own, based on their own dislike, well before becoming aware of everyone doing it. People would not pause to think, “If I don’t by this Pepsi the Americans may not buy my wine.” There is none, for it is not America or the Americans that people dislike.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Kyoto, for instance; the issue affects all of us, and people speak about it.

But that is our decision to get into treaties and agreements. Europe doesn't just stae it's opinion about it - they make personal attacks against America about it. Sorry if our not signing affects you - but I agree with not signing that treaty. Clinton didn't even send it onto Congress because he knew it was a dead deal. Bush sent it onto Congress - who rejected it - but you guys blame Bush. The majority of Americans didn't want Kyototo. Too much of it would have hurt our economy and too much of it was directed at America and not the third world polluters.

The same with the UN and the Gulf War 2.

If we pull out of the UN - it's our decision. Just like it was France's decision to pull out of NATO during the cold war and rejoin when it was over. The world relies TOO much on the US and with all the complaining from Europe and the rest of the world - why should we want to be part of that world body. Especially when that world body right before the war with Iraq - voted Iraq in as Chairman of Disarmement Committee and Libya as the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee.

As for Gulf War - most of Europe chose not to support us - that was their decision - but Chirac went out of his way to block us. It was in the US's best interest to take direct action in Iraq and in the Middle East - you can either support us or not hinder us. What we are doing now in Iraq - should have been done in 1991 whether you agree or not.

Then there is the constant issue of American Capitalism vs. the European Capitalism (that some there, funnily enough, call Socialism).

Most of Europe is socialist - no matter what you want to call it. You heavily tax the rich and companies - you have tons of social programs that tax payers have to support. You have these socialist programs and we choose not to.

We don't care really that you have socialist programs but it's also none of your business if we have the death penalty or not - but we see plenty of demonstrations in Europe when someone is going to be executed. How many demonstrations in America do you see comlaining about the internal affairs of Europe?

It bothers many to see the attacks at the European traditional system from within AND from without, and it is felt as an intromission, one that may cost what is viewed as social rights. But again, those issues are not with the US people, but with those in power, and with particular worldviews (that actually are not exclusive from this or that side of the ocean).

Well 57% of the US population supports George Bush and 67% support his handling of Iraq at this time.

If you have doubts consider this; why so many European politicians felt confident in siding with the US? (This was not an issue of “old” vs. “new” Europe, as some said, there is nothing new about, Italy, Spain, Britain or Portugal and those governments sided with the US government), If it was a deep hatred/resentment/whatever, of the people, you may rest assured they wouldn’t have risked it, we aren’t the Middle East. But they know the problem is with issues; those come and go, while the alliance and friendship remains.

Britain was the only main European power to send troops. Norway sent a sub and I think another ship, Australia helped out. Some countries helped out in other ways. But the term "old Europe" was used particularly to describe Belgium, Germany and France. "New Europe" was used to describe the former Eastern Bloc countries who supported America and weren't afraid to openly side with us.

Neither do you see any boycott to the US products (or even any real thought of it).

You mean you have never seen the McDonalds ransacked in Europe or the calls on boycotting American products? Please you have to be joking. They may not have done it this time - but repeatedly in the past - Europeans have boycotted our products.

[jerseydevil]

That is not for fear of economical reprisals, as some may say, for it would likely be something instinctive, not coordinated, at least at start. People would avoid things from there on their own, based on their own dislike, well before becoming aware of everyone doing it. People would not pause to think, “If I don’t by this Pepsi the Americans may not buy my wine.” There is none, for it is not America or the Americans that people dislike.

As I said you must dislike the American people's view - becuase the majority of Americans actually support the President when it comes to Iraq - even right now. And as I said - repeatedly McDonalds - particularly in France have been ransacked and destroyed - many of our prodcuts in Europe have been boycotted over the years. This is the first time I can ever remember where America has collectively boycotted France or any other European country because of things they said or felt. I must say though - it's about time we turned the tables.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Elvellon
I live here; and I talk with people from other parts of Europe that come here, too. The majority of the people may have issues with actions (that affect all), mostly from your government, (particularly from the current one), not the people....

I honestly hope you are right. I visited Germany a few years ago and made side trips to the Czech Republic, Austria (just inside the border), Switzerland, and Lichtenstein. The Austrian border guards were the least happy to see us Americans and the Czech Republic border guards were the happiest. (Although, I know that Lalaith would be happy to welcome us to her country. )

Just for the record, I did not vote for GW Bush, and I can't wait until I can cast my vote again against him. Gore would have made a much better president, IMO. He is far more articulate and intelligent. (Ok, go ahead JD, rip into me... you Bush-lovin' repubican. )

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Just for the record, I did not vote for GW Bush, and I can't wait until I can cast my vote again against him. Gore would have made a much better president, IMO. He is far more articulate and intelligent. (Ok, go ahead JD, rip into me... you Bush-lovin' repubican. )

I'm not a Bush loving Republican - I think he is far better than Gore would have been though. I think that many things Bush has done or said have been wrong - but i support him on Iraq, on his tough stand at the UN and his stand agains world opinion.

If Clinton had followed through on some actions - instead of listening to world opiniojn all the time - we might have been able to get Osama bin Ladin before 9/11. The world and some Americans complained when we started going after Al Qaeda when they bombed our emabassies saying "He's only a guy in a cave - what can he do to you?" Well we should have continued with the military action against him. Clinton ran his presidency on opinion polls and if they didn't go a certain way he pulled out. Clinton was not a leader who made DECISIVE descisions. Gore would have been the same way - and he would not have had the international experts on his cabinet - like Condioeeza Rice and Colin Powell.

I will again vote for Bush - but chances are New Jersey will probably vote democratic - just like Texas will probably vote for Bush.

By the way - I wish Colin Powell (even though he supports affirmative action) or Condoleeza Rice would run for President. I had wanted John McCain for President in 2000.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
...I will again vote for Bush - but chances are New Jersey will probably vote democratic - just like Texas will probably vote for Bush....

yeah, I guess your vote and mine will not be heard then.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
yeah, I guess your vote and mine will not be heard then.

It doesn't matter if they're heard or not - it's the fact of taking part in the democratic process that our country fought for.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I am a democrat, and I'll vote for Bush again. Gore was brain dead IMO.

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
I am a democrat, and I'll vote for Bush again. Gore was brain dead IMO.

And Bush is a genius?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
And Bush is a genius?

He's better than Al Bore and better than any of the existing candidates running in the democratic primaries. I don't like Gephart. I don't really know much abotu Lieberman - even though he did run for Vice President.

Oh and actually - Bush got better grades in college than Gore did.

[Insidious Rex]

oh my god are we actually trying to make the argument here that Bush intellectually is better then Gore? Hey if i had taken Frat 101 I would have gotten an A too. Its a joke to even compare Bushes intellect to Gores (or so many other politicians). But then I guess its better to try to argue that hes actually smart then the usual republican argument of "hey for an idiot hes a pretty good president you know" which ive never understood.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
...Oh and actually - Bush got better grades in college than Gore did.

O.o Then what happened to Bush? Did he get hit in the head and suffer brain damage? o.O

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
oh my god are we actually trying to make the argument here that Bush intellectually is better then Gore? Hey if i had taken Frat 101 I would have gotten an A too. Its a joke to even compare Bushes intellect to Gores (or so many other politicians). But then I guess its better to try to argue that hes actually smart then the usual republican argument of "hey for an idiot hes a pretty good president you know" which ive never understood.

Supposedly he took harder classes than Gore too. Intelligence doesn't have anything to do how well you are to public speaking. Yes - I am annoyed sometimes by his public speaking part. But a lot of very smart people come off as idiots.

Gore is a good politician - I'll give you that. Giving people what they want to hear and saying all the right things and covering it up with a convincing smile.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Gore is a good politician - I'll give you that. Giving people what they want to hear and saying all the right things and covering it up with a convincing smile.

And, at the end of the day, that's all you people want.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Supposedly he took harder classes than Gore too. Intelligence doesn't have anything to do how well you are to public speaking. Yes - I am annoyed sometimes by his public speaking part. But a lot of very smart people come off as idiots.

Gore is a good politician - I'll give you that. Giving people what they want to hear and saying all the right things and covering it up with a convincing smile.

Well actually Ive always thought that one of Gores weaknesses was that he was actually too smart in an intellectual kind of way. puts a lot of people off. makes him seem wooden. where as Clinton was incredibly gifted intellectually. the guy knew EVERYTHING. but he never came across as stiff or snooty. He was always just another bubba. But for me I want my president to have at least some level of intellect that makes me feel like ok I can handle the fact that he is in the most powerful position in the world. I don’t feel that way with Bush by a long shot. I see him as a stuffed suit who really doesn’t have much of a clue about much of anything. Which means of course that its his cabinet and surrounding cast that have a real significant say in how things go. But I think as a rule I want my president to be smarter then me. Id say that’s fair.

[Khamûl]

Does the president's intelligence really have anything to do with what would happen if America became an isolationist country?