The real answer to terrorists

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by bugsbunny04, Well, I guess we could surrender, pack up, and pull everything we have out of the middle east altogether, and break all relations with anybody who does not do the same.

No one has suggested this in the thread thus far.

Then release every single prisoner or detainee, then give them every dollar we can find and beg them for forgiveness for all the innocent people we killed on accident, and beg them to forgive us for trying to help a group of folks that they have outnumbered by a rediculous margin and are trying to kick off land that could easily be argued they are the rightful owners of.

And where does this strawman come from?

Then some of them might stop. But there will still be those who continue hostilities, because they cant get over it. Besides, I dont do the surreneder thing.

The war won't stop, merely because you always need an enemy.

[bugsbunny04]

Pooey, I was expanding on his idea of no longer supporting Israel, and more to the point, answering the greivances of the terrorists.

[tusaki]

Bugs, there is a difference between "this way/no way" and "this way/another way". resorting back to rhetorics doesn't really help to back up your suggested course of action.

The biggest problem with your theory, is still that it is impossible to identify all terrorists, now. Secondly, it is impossible to kill them, at an instant. Thirdly, it is impossible to say, that even if you kill them all, that there wouldn't be -new- terrorists in a few years. This is why it is important to work on the reasons why terrorists exist. Terrorists are a symptom, not the root of the problem.

[Leopard]

Yes, Bugs, you almost had it right:

How about this - We pack up all our things, get government out of meddling in the affairs of ALL foreign nations, let the private sector freely trade with whomever without tarifss or restrictions, and pair down the military to just above the amount needed to defend our borders and coastlines. This is NOT surrender, it is the only ourse open to a country that really respects freedom and desires not to become imperialistic - lead by example. The world does not want or need us as 'policemen' and such a job is not only unworkable, but it is immoral - let the folks in other countries determine for themselves if they want freedom or some despot ruler.

just a thought,
michael

[Sonart]

And they are finite. They are a bilogical organism.

Yes, like weeds. They simply grow more of them.

How about this - We pack up all our things, get government out of meddling in the affairs of ALL foreign nations, let the private sector freely trade with whomever without tarifss or restrictions, and pair down the military to just above the amount needed to defend our borders and coastlines.

Then be prepared for our standard of living to drop considerably.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Sonart, Then be prepared for our standard of living to drop considerably.

Is this an argument? If so, I need more specifics to respond.

[Sonart]

Is this an argument? If so, I need more specifics to respond.

Globilization is not a policy, it's a reality, much of it due to our - America's - own success. Our economy exists as it is today largely because of our development of interests overseas. If we withdraw back into Fortress America, we lose our influence on those 'national interests' and our economy will suffer as a result.

Put simply, we've built our standard of living on the building of a neo-colonial empire. Withdraw from that and we're just a great big post-war Britain.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Sonart, Globilization is not a policy, it's a reality...we've built our standard of living on the building of a neo-colonial empire.

IMO, globalization is a policy. No challenge that it is also reality. Current standards of living are falling for many in the US. Is this a result of globalization also? What will be required of the US taxpayer to maintain the Empire at a level that will uphold the standard of living?

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by Leopard, Yes, Bugs, you almost had it right: How about this - We pack up all our things, get government out of meddling in the affairs of ALL foreign nations, let the private sector freely trade with whomever without tarifss or restrictions, and pair down the military to just above the amount needed to defend our borders and coastlines. This is NOT surrender, it is the only ourse open to a country that really respects freedom and desires not to become imperialistic - lead by example. The world does not want or need us as 'policemen' and such a job is not only unworkable, but it is immoral - let the folks in other countries determine for themselves if they want freedom or some despot ruler. just a thought, michael

Can you say "isolationist"?

[Comrade]

Yeah, we need to supplement the oceans with our own La Ligne de Maginot.

[Sonart]

Current standards of living are falling for many in the US. Is this a result of globalization also?

I tend to believe yes, but not for the reasons you might think.

At the end of World War II, most of Europe and Asia were in ashes, exhausted by the war. The United States, however, was not only untouched by the war but was left with a massively enlarged industrial capacity. We were, for all practical purposes the only industrial power remaining, which we were able to translate into a massive consumer society. Because we were now the manufacturer for the world, without international competition, unions were able to demand, and get, huge improvements in their standards of living, creating a huge middle class out of what were basically unskilled laborers, something unheard of in most manufacturing countries.

By the seventies, however, the world was catching up. Japan and Germany, both destroyed by the war, were now major manufacturers of big ticket items; automobiles, appliances, electronics. We suddenly discovered that we had to actually start innovating and creating quality products to compete, rather than depending on 'built-in obselescence' to fuel the consumer boom.

Come the nineties, globalization is taking over, fueled by the computer and telecommunications revolution. American automobiles, for instance, no longer need to be made in America, being designed in England, engineered in Germany, built in Canada or Mexico, etc. Corporations now exist internationally, tied to whatever country offers the best labor costs, then shipping the products worldwide and the profits back.

I believe the end of the post-war artificial economy is long over, the world has catching up (look at China) and we now have to compete head to head, and that means lowering a standard of living that was artificially high.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Sonart, that means lowering a standard of living that was artificially high.

So the standards will be lowered regardless of globalization or not? Withdrawal or continuing in the present Imperial course? I'm trying to grasp your argument re the standards...