what would happen.... ?

[babylady4]

Very interesting discussion.

If you want to see the Afganistan/Russia/US triangle check out 'Charlie Wilson's War'. I know that it is the 'Hollywood' version of events, but worthwhile to watch and it explains a lot (to those of us too young to remember the events).

I personally would like to see us pull all of our AID and spend our $$$ here taking care of ourselves. Become self-sufficient if you will. THEN see who comes crying for help; we should never have become the 'watchdog' for the world..... it is not appreciated and in the end we get the shaft.

So to the world; take care of yourselves we are no longer going to help in any way shape or form (which means we will be removing all forms of assistance and any companies that provide employment to your people). Good luck you are on your own! WE DON'T NEED YOU.

 

[CityGirlintheCountry]

You know, Boyd, I have often wondered the same thing. We seem to send a lot of money to places that only hate us. During the Cold War it made sense to "buy" the loyalty of certain countries. But I haven't the faintest clue why we are doing it now. Think what we could do here with the money we spend overseas in ungrateful nations! It's almost like those countries feel they are entitled to the money and that no matter what they do they'll get it because we owe it to them.

I vote we cut it all off and turn it back towards home.

(I also vote that we call in the loans other countries owe us, but that's a whole other conversation.)

 

[rizq]

Quote:
Agreed. Very intersting indeed. I agree that pulling our aid and staying at home (for the most part) would be ideal, but really am not versed enough on this subject to if that is practical. Would be nice to be able to take care of our own country and fix its problems first, though. I think we need our money here to take care of our people, then worry about the rest if/when we are able.

I will definitely be watching this subject with interest.

 

[Davaroo]

Quote:
We've tried isolationism as a policy, that is pulling back from the world, more than a few times. Each time, we ended up worse off than before. If you allow events to swirl around you, while you choose not to look, sooner or later they spill over onto you.

“To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right - is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.” - Ronald Reagan.

The thing to do with the world, is to remain involved, but on agreeable terms. Make them value you more than they dislike you. Then they can go fight, while you shake your head in private.
The French did this during the American Revolution, if you'll recall.
They despised the British, and knew this:

If we won, then Britain was weakened and they had a trading partner in us.
If we lost, then Britain was weakened - and the French might gain some ground in their Western colonies because of it.

They didn't stand out, but instead, got in on terms! It's a win-win.

There can never be a total "fix" for all our problems - society, by it's dynamic nature, precludes it. There is always a new problem, there is always another committee or cabal. What is wanted is a minimizing of problems, i.e., keeping the big ones under control so the balance favors gain.

 

[rizq]

Quote:
We've tried isolationism as a policy, that is pulling back from the world, more than a few times. Each time, we ended up worse off than before. If you allow events to swirl around you, while you choose not to look, sooner or later they spill over onto you.

“To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right - is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.” - Ronald Reagan.

The thing to do with the world, is to remain involved, but on agreeable terms. Make them value you more than they dislike you. Then they can go fight, while you shake your head in private.
The French did this during the American Revolution, if you'll recall.
They despised the British, and knew this:

If we won, then Britain was weakened and they had a trading partner in us.
If we lost, then Britain was weakened - and the French might gain some ground in their Western colonies because of it.

They didn't stand out, but instead, got in on terms! It's a win-win.

There can never be a total "fix" for all our problems - society, by it's dynamic nature, precludes it. There is always a new problem, there is always another committee or cabal. What is wanted is a minimizing of problems, i.e., keeping the big ones under control so the balance favors gain.

I agree that isolationism is not the answer. I did not mean it to come across as we should just ignore the world, but do we need to be out there as much as we are when there are so many problems domestically? Would we not be better served to spend more of our energies at home and less of our energies abroad until some of our issues are under better control?

I guess I am not really sure, at the moment, how to put into words what I am trying to say. I did not get much sleep last night and am not really having a highly articulate day. And, as I said, I have not educated myself very well on the subject, so every opinion I have is just instinct, so I had better just step back and watch

ETA: Dave, I always enjoy your posts. You seem to be a very wise man and have an impressive command of the English language and an incredible talent for making yourself understood through the written word.

 

[Ridgerunner]

My opinion only. Regardless of what I say below or how I phrase it, I do respect the rights of others to think differently. It's something like when I was in the army. I did not agree with Jane Fonda but I was willing to fight for her right to say it.

I've worked overseas; Euope, Africa, and Asia. It is a global economy out there. I currently have relatives unemployed or underemployed because of the state of our economy so I am aware things are not peachy. I do firmly believe, however, that if we went the isolationist route our economy and standard of living would really hit the skids. Our current economic situation would seem like heaven on earth, if I'm allowed to say that on Sunday. Pandora's box has been opened and we'll never get everything back in.

Why do we give foreign aid? Because they have something we want and the only way to get it is to buy it. It may be raw materials, political stability, influence, military bases, whatever, but it goes back to the money we get from trade.

It may be hard to believe sometimes, but our elected officials do not have a goal of destroying our country. I personally think may of them are smallminded, refuse to see the big picture of what ultimately will be good for our country, and focus too much on political posturing so they can get reelected, but I do not believe they are evil. They have rational (to them) reasons for doing what they do. And WE keep reelecting them.

Enough said. I've aggrevated enough people. Enjoy your weekend.

 

[PurpleChicken]

99% of our aid dollars are used to control and stabilize the world. Ask yourselves what the world would look like if the USA disappeared tomorrow. It's a very scary thing. This subject can be intellectualized to the extreme.

Team America is one of my favorite movies. The love scene sends me to the floor gasping for air.

 

[PurpleChicken]

Quote:
Well said. Well said.

 

[Boyd]

wasn't being an isolationist sort of what left us open to the pearl harbor attack that drug us into world war II, or the cuban missle crisis into the cold war?

Does keeping the peace mean you have to be the biggest, baddest and meanest? Which makes me wonder why we are fighting wars without the resolve to win. The 1st gulf war was pretty cut and dried. The 2nd? Afghanistan? Vietnam, korea .................. okok I am hijacking my own thread but still..

I wonder how much money we do send out in foreign aid. Would it be enough to make a difference to discontinue it for a couple of years and pump it back into education and ultimately our economy?

 

[Davaroo]

Quote:
Not so much the Cuban situation, but certainly WWII. But the War of 1812 was one instance, as was the First World War.

Does keeping the peace mean you have to be the biggest, baddest and meanest?

Not usually, no. It means you have to be right, number one, and you have to have the attention of the combatants.
I'm worried that Americans have lost the guts to be right and don't really know how to get the attention of the world anymore.

I wonder how much money we do send out in foreign aid. Would it be enough to make a difference to discontinue it for a couple of years and pump it back into education and ultimately our economy?

Ridgerunner said it well:

"It is a global economy out there. I currently have relatives unemployed or underemployed because of the state of our economy so I am aware things are not peachy. I do firmly believe, however, that if we went the isolationist route our economy and standard of living would really hit the skids. Our current economic situation would seem like heaven on earth, if I'm allowed to say that on Sunday. Pandora's box has been opened and we'll never get everything back in.

Why do we give foreign aid? Because they have something we want and the only way to get it is to buy it. It may be raw materials, political stability, influence, military bases, whatever, but it goes back to the money we get from trade.

It may be hard to believe sometimes, but our elected officials do not have a goal of destroying our country. I personally think may of them are small minded, refuse to see the big picture of what ultimately will be good for our country, and focus too much on political posturing so they can get reelected."

We cannot just box up our toys and go home because we don't like the neighbor kids today. Instead, we have to have something to offer that no one else has, or does as well.

Here's a hint - 90% of the worlds food is grown on only 17% of the cultivated land. That sounds like there's an untapped market, to me.​