NationStates Jolt Archive

I am only curious to see the results of this question which is most likely very unlikely but curious as to the effect of if it were to become a reality.

Wouldn't that damage its precious economy?

What do you mean "should"? They're doing a pretty good job already... :rolleyes:

economically, no.

with regards to foreign policy yes.

Yes, I'm sick of America trying to run the world.

Yes, I'm sick of America trying to run the world.

Wait, we don't already? Hmm. I'll have to get back to you on that. *Walks down the hall* "Nick! Get me the directors of the CIA and NSA on the line. They apparently aren't doing what we're paying them for."

We shouldn't withdraw economically, because that would pose far more problems than anything we'd possibly gain.

However, I am in favor of having a more non-instrusive foregin policy that basically comes down to 'You don't bother us, we don't bother you'

I agree, the US shouldn't back down economically, but charging into the middle-east saying, "Women shouldn't cover their faces!" when they've been practicing the tradition for thousands of years isn't right. Afghanistan I can understand but why Iraq?

Yes, I'm sick of America trying to run the world.

It isn't that we're trying to run the world. It's the fact that we still have values and morals. We know right from wrong. And we will do whatever in our power to help whoever so needs it.

No USA is not perfect but we have backbone when it comes to facing real threats of terrorism and to face off against the dictators who have absolutely no belief in Human Rights.

As for the person who said it would hurt us economically, I disagree. I feel that it would strenghten us tremedously. We have plenty of resources at home. And by us becoming an isolationist country I personally would fully support it because of the simple fact all of our monies going else where could be used to help out our own. The poor, the ones who need health care, social security, the elderly. Bring our troops home and we will have the absolute best homeland security the world has yet ever seen, etc...

Yes, because mr big bad world police, WILL get our asses kicked more than once, and eventually someone will be strong enough to rise up, and bring the war to America itself.

Yes, because mr big bad world police, WILL get our asses kicked more than once, and eventually someone will be strong enough to rise up, and bring the war to America itself.

I wasn't gonna respond to your post but then decided what the Hell.

I say Bring it ON!!!

We should, but once again not economically. We need to stop thinking that our way of life is the best for everyone, and that we should invade the middle east in order to force our way of life on everyone there. If they want to adopt our way of life, let them. But we should NOT force our way of life on them.

It isn't that we're trying to run the world. It's the fact that we still have values and morals. We know right from wrong. And we will do whatever in our power to help whoever so needs it.

America knows the right from the wrong that applies to the whole world? America has values and morals that apply to the whole world?

Yes, because mr big bad world police, WILL get our asses kicked more than once, and eventually someone will be strong enough to rise up, and bring the war to America itself.

You know, just going off past history and then respective troop strenth and resources...we would win. In fact, the only nation we would have trouble in a stand up fight against is china. And that's simply because we don't use horde tactics.

What's with all the newbie trolls/puppets this weekend.

Yes, I'm sick of America trying to run the world.

Yeah. It sucks that the EU doesn't actually do anything except overfish and argue about farming subsidies.

We should, but once again not economically. We need to stop thinking that our way of life is the best for everyone, and that we should invade the middle east in order to force our way of life on everyone there. If they want to adopt our way of life, let them. But we should NOT force our way of life on them.

We aren't forcing our way of life. We are simply saying that People have rights to education, to elections, to be able to voice their own opinions, that the women have the right not to be raped and hidden from the world. So do you agree with the way women were treated in Iraq before we invaded. Someone must have the balls to stand up to the evil that threatens Human Rights.

It's like some of you people think that Saddam and Iraqi men treated their women very well. It completely shocks me that some of you actually wish things were back to what it was when Saddam was in Power. What a shame.

It isn't that we're trying to run the world. It's the fact that we still have values and morals. We know right from wrong. And we will do whatever in our power to help whoever so needs it.
We don't have a monopoly on values or morals, we just have a greater ability to project our values on others, whether they like it ot not. And plenty of people in the country still disagree over whether "helping" people who don't want our help is right or wrong.

No USA is not perfect but we have backbone when it comes to facing real threats of terrorism and to face off against the dictators who have absolutely no belief in Human Rights.
That, I think, is part of the problem. Backbone is all fine and good, but on its own it isn't enough. We need intelligent leadership, or just better intelligence in general so that we can recognize where to stand strong and where to let things slide. Destabilizing Iraq and the Middle East in general wasn't intelligent, and neither is try to justify it by saying we did it for the people. There are plenty of countries that could lose a dictator and have a better chance than Iraq of remaining stable and not being preyed on by their neighbors. Wielding our power with intelligence, if we want to become interventionist "liberators", is better than simply not backing down when we screw up.
As for the person who said it would hurt us economically, I disagree. I feel that it would strenghten us tremedously. We have plenty of resources at home. And by us becoming an isolationist country I personally would fully support it because of the simple fact all of our monies going else where could be used to help out our own. The poor, the ones who need health care, social security, the elderly. Bring our troops home and we will have the absolute best homeland security the world has yet ever seen, etc...

We need the rest of the world. Americans have been living with foreign goods and resources for the last few generations, and we simply cannot fill those demands with domestic goods. It would take a massive restructuring of our economy towards manufacturing to fill most of what we get from foreign producers, IIRC.

Wait, we don't already? Hmm. I'll have to get back to you on that. *Walks down the hall* "Nick! Get me the directors of the CIA and NSA on the line. They apparently aren't doing what we're paying them for."
I thought "I'm sick of America running the world" sounded a bit too conspiratorial.

It isn't that we're trying to run the world. It's the fact that we still have values and morals. We know right from wrong. And we will do whatever in our power to help whoever so needs it.
Trying to run the world is exactly what America has been doing since 1945. Creating pro-American states everywhere, damn the people of those countries. Everyone else has values and morals too so get off your horse.

I can't think of American foreign policy where they help anyone outside their own interests, except possibly Israel.

What's with all the newbie trolls/puppets this weekend.

Huh?

You know, just going off past history and then respective troop strenth and resources...we would win. In fact, the only nation we would have trouble in a stand up fight against is china. And that's simply because we don't use horde tactics.

So you're saying that if the entire European Union decided they've had enough of America and invaded us, we would win the war?

I am only curious to see the results of this question which is most likely very unlikely but curious as to the effect of if it were to become a reality.

If it were to become a reality:

* Huge Depression for the American and Planetary economy.
* Massive unemployment for the same.
* Privation as America cuts back on International aid & charity.
* Huge upswing in terrorism.
* "Communist" governements strengthened in Viet Nam, China, and North Korea.
* Fall of South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Philipeans outright.
* Gradual fall of Europe and Japan, as they now suddenly have to spend money on defense.

So you're saying that if the entire European Union decided they've had enough of America and invaded us, we would win the war?

In a word...yes.

We aren't forcing our way of life. We are simply saying that People have rights to education, to elections, to be able to voice their own opinions, that the women have the right not to be raped and hidden from the world. So do you agree with the way women were treated in Iraq before we invaded. Someone must have the balls to stand up to the evil that threatens Human Rights.

It's like some of you people think that Saddam and Iraqi men treated their women very well. It completely shocks me that some of you actually wish things were back to what it was when Saddam was in Power. What a shame.

By invading a country and saying "Congrats. You have education, elections, and free speech." is essentially forcing our way of life on them. I myself am pro-democracy, but I don't think we should force it onto people who don't want it, even if their dictator is making them say they don't want it. And you have to agree, some dictators are rather good. Look at Hugo Chavez and what he's done for Venezuela. Look at Hitler. Sure, he killed millions of Jews, but he also brought Germany up from the metaphorical pits of hell. Same with Lenin and Stalin in Russia. While it may not look like dictators do much good from the outside world, if you look closer, you can see the many positive effects they have.

In a word...yes.

Ok, the entire European Union and Latin America?

I thought "I'm sick of America running the world" sounded a bit too conspiratorial.


Trying to run the world is exactly what America has been doing since 1945. Creating pro-American states everywhere, damn the people of those countries. Everyone else has values and morals too so get off your horse.

I can't think of American foreign policy where they help anyone outside their own interests, except possibly Israel.

:eek: But Meath! Everyone knows that only AMERICA has values and morals, and only AMERICA knows right from wrong! And because of that, AMERICA should be able to rule the world, because we know what is right, just like Hitler knew what was right! *sarcasm*

By invading a country and saying "Congrats. You have education, elections, and free speech." is essentially forcing our way of life on them. I myself am pro-democracy, but I don't think we should force it onto people who don't want it, even if their dictator is making them say they don't want it. And you have to agree, some dictators are rather good. Look at Hugo Chavez and what he's done for Venezuela. Look at Hitler. Sure, he killed millions of Jews, but he also brought Germany up from the metaphorical pits of hell. Same with Lenin and Stalin in Russia. While it may not look like dictators do much good from the outside world, if you look closer, you can see the many positive effects they have.


Lenin, yes. Stalin, no. Lenin was an idealist in addition to being a vtrue visionary. If you overlook the holocaust, Stalin wasn't that much different from Hitler. Trotsky would have been a better choice for the soviets.

Ok, the entire European Union and Latin America?

Considering the cartels spend most of their time killing eachother, I say it'd be a negligible addition. Besides that, even if they made it to the border, they'd have to deal with all the armed rednecks in addition to the military.

So you're saying that if the entire European Union decided they've had enough of America and invaded us, we would win the war?
As a European I don't think we could beat America. We spend less than half of the money America does on defence. Also, we would never do that because our economies are so interdependent.

And you have to agree, some dictators are rather good. Look at Hugo Chavez and what he's done for Venezuela.
Chevaz isn't a dictator.

Chevaz isn't a dictator.

Oh, sorry. I was just trying to NOT piss off the idiots who think he is.

Trying to run the world is exactly what America has been doing since 1945. Creating pro-American states everywhere, damn the people of those countries. Everyone else has values and morals too so get off your horse.

I can't think of American foreign policy where they help anyone outside their own interests, except possibly Israel.

Yet ironically, the world is more peaceful now than it ever was before WW2, even though it has many more people.

The first annual Human Security Report finds – despite evidence from Afghanistan to Iraq, Chechnya to Congo – that violent conflict around the world is declining. Can this be true?

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/report_2927.jsp

The Human Security Report (HSR) – co-financed by five governments, including Canada and Britain – is modelled on that indispensable guide to issues of development, the United Nations Human Development Report, though it is not itself a product of the UN system. It argues that there has in fact been a marked decrease in political violence since the end of the cold war. The number of armed conflicts has decreased by more than 40%, and the number of major conflicts (which it defines as resulting in 1,000 or more "battle-deaths") has declined by 80%.

Considering the cartels spend most of their time killing eachother, I say it'd be a negligible addition. Besides that, even if they made it to the border, they'd have to deal with all the armed rednecks in addition to the military.

Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand added, along with all non-EU European countries.

EDIT: Added to EU and Latin America, of course.

Lenin, yes. Stalin, no. Lenin was an idealist in addition to being a vtrue visionary. If you overlook the holocaust, Stalin wasn't that much different from Hitler. Trotsky would have been a better choice for the soviets.

I guess. Maybe Stalin just stole all of Lenin's glory. But you have to agree some dictators have in fact done more good than all the bad we've known them to have done.

:eek: But Meath! Everyone knows that only AMERICA has values and morals, and only AMERICA knows right from wrong! And because of that, AMERICA should be able to rule the world, because we know what is right, just like Hitler knew what was right! *sarcasm*
Are you saying that Adolf didn't know?!? :eek: That would explain a lot... :p

Well, I think if the USA did pull everything back and became isolationists and left the world completely alone we most likely then would not have to worry about N Korea, Iran, China, al-queda threatening us, They would have the rest of the world for their own leisures and pleasures. We, Americans, would be minding our own business and watch to see the rest of the world deal with the terrorists and dictatorships who would no longer need to worry about America because we would simply do nothing and could care less about N. Korea lauching their nukes and the terrorists fighting like cowards. They need not worry about the USA no more because we would no longer pose a threat to them due to our change in foreign policy.

As for our economy I think it may be slowed some but would pick up tremendously seeing how resilient our people are. Job creations would flourish seeing how we wouldn't be out sourcing no more, etc... Sounds like a winner winner situation.

I wasn't gonna respond to your post but then decided what the Hell.

I say Bring it ON!!!

It would be a one hour war to end that country, that is all. Or maybe a year, but that country could never win on its own. They just have 1/2 the military of the world, so they'd pwn.

The US would only lose against Japan, China, and Russia combined (or something like that).

As a European I don't think we could beat America. We spend less than half of the money America does on defence. Also, we would never do that because our economies are so interdependent.


It is not even that much:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ca/WorldMilitarySpending.jpg/350px-WorldMilitarySpending.jpg

Also:

1) ...the combined European fleets (w/o the UK) could be totally detroyed by two of the seven active American fleets. With the UK, it might take 3.

2) BTW, Europe is nearly wholly reliant on the US for airlift capabiliy. Unless your plan is to convert some cruise ships and surprise us in Miami, you've got a serious logistical problem. ;)

No USA is not perfect but we have backbone when it comes to facing real threats of terrorism and to face off against the dictators who have absolutely no belief in Human Rights.

As for the person who said it would hurt us economically, I disagree. I feel that it would strenghten us tremedously. We have plenty of resources at home. And by us becoming an isolationist country I personally would fully support it because of the simple fact all of our monies going else where could be used to help out our own. The poor, the ones who need health care, social security, the elderly. Bring our troops home and we will have the absolute best homeland security the world has yet ever seen, etc...

Sorry I didn't say anything on this earlier

I agree we have to face the terrorists, who threaten us. If they theaten others, let them be. Not our problem. Same with dictators. They don't threaten us, let them be.

And in case you don't remeber, America is at a peak on dependency on foreign oil since the crisis in the mid-70's. Without that oil, we would ultimately die out as a country. And without all that foriegn labor, nothing would get done.

Are you saying that Adolf didn't know?!? :eek: That would explain a lot... :p

I'm saying he absolutely thought he was right. Of course, I don't know how many people think that the mass murder of Jews and other "undesirables" is right. That's why I rebuke America's absolute thought that it is right. There is not ONE ideology that is suitable to everyone. Well, maybe Pastafarianism, but besides that nothing.

Well, I think if the USA did pull everything back and became isolationists and left the world completely alone we most likely then would not have to worry about N Korea, Iran, China, al-queda threatening us, They would have the rest of the world for their own leisures and pleasures. We, Americans, would be minding our own business and watch to see the rest of the world deal with the terrorists and dictatorships who would no longer need to worry about America because we would simply do nothing and could care less about N. Korea lauching their nukes and the terrorists fighting like cowards. They need not worry about the USA no more because we would no longer pose a threat to them due to our change in foreign policy.

As for our economy I think it may be slowed some but would pick up tremendously seeing how resilient our people are. Job creations would flourish seeing how we wouldn't be out sourcing no more, etc... Sounds like a winner winner situation.

And? What's wrong with letting NK launch nukes, as long as they don't launch at us (or Finland)? What's wrong with letting terrorists attack, as long as they don't attack us (or Finland)? What's wrong with letting dictators take over countries, as long as it's not the U.S. (or Finland)?

Sorry I didn't say anything on this earlier

And in case you don't remeber, America is at a peak on dependency on foreign oil since the crisis in the mid-70's. Without that oil, we would ultimately die out as a country. And without all that foriegn labor, nothing would get done.

As for oil all we have to do is open up oil rigs in our Gulf of Mexico and let not forget Alaska. We do indeed have enough oil to end the depency rather quickly.

As for oil all we have to do is open up oil rigs in our Gulf of Mexico and let not forget Alaska. We do indeed have enough oil to end the depency rather quickly.

Enough to supply this ENTIRE country of 300 million, over half of which have cars and drive them regularly?

Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand added, along with all non-EU European countries.

EDIT: Added to EU and Latin America, of course.

Oh noes! It's Canada! Quick Deploy girl scout troop 183! Let's be serious here, Canada is practically the fifty-second state. (The fifty-first being puerto rico). And Australia and new zealand? Get real. a twenty-three to twenty-eight hour flight time to hawaii? And The Bulk of the US Navy is in the Pacific, I think. I'm not sure on that as I'm Air Force.

Chair Force, hooah!

Enough to supply this ENTIRE country of 300 million, over half of which have cars and drive them regularly?

Absolutely

As for oil all we have to do is open up oil rigs in our Gulf of Mexico and let not forget Alaska. We do indeed have enough oil to end the depency rather quickly.

We'd suck those dry in less than two decades. It'll take a few more years to even get the fields going to fill our demand, and we'll still be dependent upon foreign oil until then.

and think of the job creations in the event of opening up our own oil rigs and upgrading and adding new and improved refineries.

Oh noes! It's Canada! Quick Deploy girl scout troop 183! Let's be serious here, Canada is practically the fifty-second state. (The fifty-first being puerto rico). And Australia and new zealand? Get real. a twenty-three to twenty-eight hour flight time to hawaii? And The Bulk of the US Navy is in the Pacific, I think. I'm not sure on that as I'm Air Force.

Chair Force, hooah!

Ok then. Add all of the Pacific islands, with Hawaii and Alaska joining them. Along with that, add Japan, Indonesia, and essentially all other small third world Pacific-Asian countries.

and think of the job creations in the event of opening up our own oil rigs and upgrading and adding new and improved refineries.

There are only a limited amount of oil fields in the Gulf and Alaska, not enough to build so many rigs and refineries to increase jobs by much, and not anywhere near enough to end our dependency on foreign oil.

I guess. Maybe Stalin just stole all of Lenin's glory. But you have to agree some dictators have in fact done more good than all the bad we've known them to have done.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against all foreign leaders. For instance, I'm of the opinion we should open trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba. Although I also think we should have annexed it when we invaded way back when. If Iran hadn't been so effed up during their revolution and taken american hostages, I probably wouldn't be worried about another trouble spot in the middle east.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against all foreign leaders. For instance, I'm of the opinion we should open trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba. Although I also think we should have annexed it when we invaded way back when. If Iran hadn't been so effed up during their revolution and taken american hostages, I probably wouldn't be worried about another trouble spot in the middle east.

What about Venezuela?

Ok then. Add all of the Pacific islands, with Hawaii and Alaska joining them. Along with that, add Japan, Indonesia, and essentially all other small third world Pacific-Asian countries.

Um...Hawaii and Alaska are ours. Look, I'll save you some trouble. It'll be easy going until China gets involved. And that's simply because we can't match numbers in the field. It'll end up alot like the Korean War, I think. We roll in and wipe out their air force in the first week or two and then spend the next few years toiling along on the ground.

okay even if you were right, which I'm not sure you are, As America being an isolationist nation we would only be concerned over what is in our best interests, what would say we wouldn't just take control over the middle east oil.

okay even if you were right, which I'm not sure you are, As America being an isolationist nation we would only be concerned over what is in our best interests, what would say we wouldn't just take control over the middle east oil.

Well, tiger, let me tell you something. You know all of that money tha helps the people in the US? Well, sport, it comes from abroad. Foreigners invest and in turn the US economy gets money, companies get income which is taxed and that senile old patriot with a shotgun and American flag up his ass gets welfare and his grandchildren get education and other goodies.

okay now about China...I would only be concerned with them if we were on the same mainland as theres because our numbers don't even come close. However, if they were to attempt to invade USA homeland I honestly think that they would not stand a chance. Our airforce and Navy are awesome, the Best. How would china successfully get their people on our main land. We'd destroy them one by one

What about Venezuela?

I don't know anything about Venezuela. Um...they have coffee beans? Unlike their Columbian neighbors I don't think their chief export is drugs? It's in our best interest for them to be stable as I think roughly fifteen percent of our oil imports are from there?

okay even if you were right, which I'm not sure you are, As America being an isolationist nation we would only be concerned over what is in our best interests, what would say we wouldn't just take control over the middle east oil.

No, as being an isolationist country, we wouldn't care to do ANYTHING with the outside world. That includes invading.

What the hell.

The average non-american Generalite doesn't like the US so why not?

Actually being an isolationist country we would focus on what is in our best interest. I need to retract my earlier said reply about middle eastern oil. Why would we go that far away. We wouldn't we'd remain closer to home and take cuban and venazuala oil. in the interest as Americans.:D

Um...Hawaii and Alaska are ours. Look, I'll save you some trouble. It'll be easy going until China gets involved. And that's simply because we can't match numbers in the field. It'll end up alot like the Korean War, I think. We roll in and wipe out their air force in the first week or two and then spend the next few years toiling along on the ground.

I know that. But since they are so far away, they could easily fall under other influence.

Added: All Asian countries BESIDES China and the Middle East. Russia too. So now the only people NOT against us is the Middle-East, Africa, and China.

Actually being an isolationist country we would focus on what is in our best interest. I need to retract my earlier said reply about middle eastern oil. Why would we go that far away. We wouldn't we'd remain closer to home and take cuban and venazuala oil. in the interest as Americans.:D

Once again, NO INVASIONS. Being isolationist means getting rid of ALL foreign relations, including hostile ones.

okay now about China...I would only be concerned with them if we were on the same mainland as theres because our numbers don't even come close. However, if they were to attempt to invade USA homeland I honestly think that they would not stand a chance. Our airforce and Navy are awesome, the Best. How would china successfully get their people on our main land. We'd destroy them one by one

But there are so goddamn many of them.

I don't know anything about Venezuela. Um...they have coffee beans? Unlike their Columbian neighbors I don't think their chief export is drugs? It's in our best interest for them to be stable as I think roughly fifteen percent of our oil imports are from there?

Jeez man, have you been watching the news?

I know that. But since they are so far away, they could easily fall under other influence.

Added: All Asian countries BESIDES China and the Middle East. Russia too. So now the only people NOT against us is the Middle-East, Africa, and China.

why do you add all those armyless countries... all you need to wipe america in about a month is russia, france and the UK. simple (of course the UK would bring in most of it's commonwealth and everything but still:p )

Jeez man, have you been watching the news?
What the hell is this "news" contraption of which you speak?

okay now about China...I would only be concerned with them if we were on the same mainland as theres because our numbers don't even come close. However, if they were to attempt to invade USA homeland I honestly think that they would not stand a chance. Our airforce and Navy are awesome, the Best. How would china successfully get their people on our main land. We'd destroy them one by one

Think about it. They would have ALL of the world's navies and air forces to assist them in troop deployment. The only reason America has the best is because we don't allow other people to make navies and air forces. With us being occupied by land battles by Canada and Latin America, the other people could easily construct a make shift navy and air force and use that to assault us, while our navies are occupied in the Gulf, and our Air Forces occupied else where in the Western Hemisphere.

I would greatly disagree. If I was the head of Isolationist America I would like to keep my People happy with their SUVs including myself and in the interests of Americans We Love oil So we would claim and take the resources that are in our best interests. Who would stop us

I know that. But since they are so far away, they could easily fall under other influence.

Added: All Asian countries BESIDES China and the Middle East. Russia too. So now the only people NOT against us is the Middle-East, Africa, and China.

Fine, you know what? Then we stop putting money into their economies before we invade them all and we win. The only reason Russia hasn't turned into a third-world country yet is because it's propped up on american dollars.

I would greatly disagree. If I was the head of Isolationist America I would like to keep my People happy with their SUVs including myself and in the interests of Americans We Love oil So we would claim and take the resources that are in our best interests. Who would stop us

Every motherfucker who cared. Russia has oil, you won't get a drop from them. And you're not being very isolationist, tiger.

why is this carrying on? i mean really... the UK navy can rival the americans and can use canada to deploy troops (whether canada like it or not the queen is still the sovereign), france has the best military technology (yes, better than the US) and russia has the people and the nukes... oh and between the 3 they could harm pretty much all of america's trade. that is all you need

Think about it. They would have ALL of the world's navies and air forces to assist them in troop deployment. The only reason America has the best is because we don't allow other people to make navies and air forces. With us being occupied by land battles by Canada and Latin America, the other people could easily construct a make shift navy and air force and use that to assault us, while our navies are occupied in the Gulf, and our Air Forces occupied else where in the Western Hemisphere.

Not so. America's navy is the best because we spend 10 times more on our military than China does. Sure, they have a bunch of people, but they can't even come close to the US in military might. Our superior navy and airforce can rip them to shreds. There is no way that any country will be able to launch an amphibious assault against the US -- their entire fleet will be sunk within hours of leaving their ports -- not to mention that we'll have the capacity to quickly bomb their ports if war is declared.

I would greatly disagree. If I was the head of Isolationist America I would like to keep my People happy with their SUVs including myself and in the interests of Americans We Love oil So we would claim and take the resources that are in our best interests. Who would stop us

DUDE. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ISOLATONIST MEANS. It means you do NOT interact WHATSOEVER with outside countries, even if it is for your best interests.

Fine, you know what? Then we stop putting money into their economies before we invade them all and we win. The only reason Russia hasn't turned into a third-world country yet is because it's propped up on american dollars.

Fine. Middle-East is now in, along with the North part of Africa.

Jeez man, have you been watching the news?

I turn wrenches on a flightline during the news. And then I sleep. And then I go back to work to turn wrenches and argue with pilots because officers don't know jack about anything.

Not so. America's navy is the best because we spend 10 times more on our military than China does. Sure, they have a bunch of people, but they can't even come close to the US in military might. Our superior navy and airforce can rip them to shreds. There is no way that any country will be able to launch an amphibious assault against the US -- their entire fleet will be sunk within hours of leaving their ports -- not to mention that we'll have the capacity to quickly bomb their ports if war is declared.

Yes, and then America will then rule the world. That's quite a large empire to control, don't you think? Dissidents everywhere, rebellions poping up, etc. I don't think it would stay stable for long.

EDIT: Also, didn't I say that our navies and air forces would be occupied in other areas?

why is this carrying on? i mean really... the UK navy can rival the americans and can use canada to deploy troops (whether canada like it or not the queen is still the sovereign), france has the best military technology (yes, better than the US) and russia has the people and the nukes... oh and between the 3 they could harm pretty much all of america's trade. that is all you need

Sorry, there's too many misguided nationalists here. They all have been brainwashed by pro-American propaganda into thinking America could conquer the world, it's just that we are too kind to do so.

why do you add all those armyless countries... all you need to wipe america in about a month is russia, france and the UK. simple (of course the UK would bring in most of it's commonwealth and everything but still:p )

Let's see. Russia only exists as it does because of American dollars. The brits...I don't wanna ruffle your feathers or any thing, but your hardly a threat. And the French? What are they gonna' do, wave a white flag at me?

Think about it. They would have ALL of the world's navies and air forces to assist them in troop deployment. The only reason America has the best is because we don't allow other people to make navies and air forces. With us being occupied by land battles by Canada and Latin America, the other people could easily construct a make shift navy and air force and use that to assault us, while our navies are occupied in the Gulf, and our Air Forces occupied else where in the Western Hemisphere.

Canada=no threat.
Latin America=slightly larger threat yet still negligible. China wouldn't be able to invade because they have to first pass taiwan and japan. As we effectively own japan and the japanese hate the chinese I think us plus the JSDF could handle them. Even if they got by us by committing their entire military or something, they still lose because Taiwan would invade them. They've been wanting to dop it for years and haven't because we told them not to.

Yes, and then America will then rule the world. That's quite a large empire to control, don't you think? Dissidents everywhere, rebellions poping up, etc. I don't think it would stay stable for long.

EDIT: Also, didn't I say that our navies and air forces would be occupied in other areas?

I never said that America would rule the world. I simply said that it could successfully defend itself against the rest of the world simultaneously attacking it. You did say that our navy and air force would be occupied in other areas, but that is not quite so true. The US Navy dwarfs all other navies in size and strength -- it could easily demolish all others one by one. A worldwide American empire, however, would be quite unstable.

why is this carrying on? i mean really... the UK navy can rival the americans and can use canada to deploy troops (whether canada like it or not the queen is still the sovereign), france has the best military technology (yes, better than the US) and russia has the people and the nukes... oh and between the 3 they could harm pretty much all of america's trade. that is all you need

WE have you outgunned on the water. The French are hardly threatening to anybody, and Canada was grated it's independance from the crown a few years back. And I needn't bring up the Russia/economic thing again, must I? As for Nukes, we have, what? a hundred times as many nuclear weapons as the rest of the world? And you know why they would'nt be used? MAD. Besides, if you wanted WMDs we could use Thor's Hammer. I don't know if it's operational or still theory but the gist is this. A sattelite based weapon, we drop a big I-beam made of tungsten on the target. It's too dense to burn up on reentry, and it hits with the same explosive force as a nuke, but without any of the radiation.

Christ No.

Surely a war would be a nuke-fest. Or you could theorise about the idea (admittedly unlikely but so is most of this thread) of UK, France etc sending experts over to bring the Chinese military up to speed technologically/training-wise.

Canada=no threat. Aside from an easy route for Russia and her allies to use as a base for men and nukes. Alaska is hardly hugely fortified, or at a push Russia could go via the North Pole. Or the european allies could move men and nukes there channel hopping along the north via Greenland etc. Or Mexico, You'd have to surround the entire Americas to prevent enemies from simply deploying troops/nukes in allies to your north and south. Not even America could do that.

Also how would Americans deal with not importing a lot of things from other countries, coffee for example.

Ideally I'd like the USA and more particularly Bush to discover the thing between isolationism and war, namely diplomacy.

We aren't forcing our way of life. We are simply saying that People have rights to education, to elections, to be able to voice their own opinions, that the women have the right not to be raped and hidden from the world. So do you agree with the way women were treated in Iraq before we invaded. Someone must have the balls to stand up to the evil that threatens Human Rights.

So why do you refuse to sign the charter on rights of the child? You'd say that innocent until proven guilty was an american value, while violating with places like Guantanemo bay etc. Does that give someone the right to invade you?

Canada=no threat.
Latin America=slightly larger threat yet still negligible. China wouldn't be able to invade because they have to first pass taiwan and japan. As we effectively own japan and the japanese hate the chinese I think us plus the JSDF could handle them. Even if they got by us by committing their entire military or something, they still lose because Taiwan would invade them. They've been wanting to dop it for years and haven't because we told them not to.

Hey. I said that ALL of the world is against US, not against each other. Get it through that thick skull of yours.

Look, I believe an American military superiority, I don't believe we should be isolationist, and I don't think we should actually try to rule the world.

WE have you outgunned on the water. The French are hardly threatening to anybody, and Canada was grated it's independance from the crown a few years back. And I needn't bring up the Russia/economic thing again, must I? As for Nukes, we have, what? a hundred times as many nuclear weapons as the rest of the world? And you know why they would'nt be used? MAD. Besides, if you wanted WMDs we could use Thor's Hammer. I don't know if it's operational or still theory but the gist is this. A sattelite based weapon, we drop a big I-beam made of tungsten on the target. It's too dense to burn up on reentry, and it hits with the same explosive force as a nuke, but without any of the radiation.

And don't forget the myth of the Russian population, which is not the population of the Soviet Union. Russia now has a population equal to roughly half of the US.

Combined they could muster probably five carriers, no more than two of them would be proper carriers, and not just jump jet carriers. While the US would have 12 Supercarriers.

Hey. I said that ALL of the world is against US, not against each other. Get it through that thick skull of yours.

People are oppurtunistic, and everybody has their own agenda. Taiwan isn't much of a threat to us because of the distance involved. And Japan is no threat. You know why? WE are their offensive military. Of course no matter what you say about the rest of the world ganging up on us, we still have Israel as an ally. They could mop up the middle east with little problem.

People are oppurtunistic, and everybody has their own agenda. Taiwan isn't much of a threat to us because of the distance involved. And Japan is no threat. You know why? WE are their offensive military. Of course no matter what you say about the rest of the world ganging up on us, we still have Israel as an ally. They could mop up the middle east with little problem.

Ugh. For the love of god, READ MY MESSAGES. This is a theoritical conflict, in that EVERYONE, even our current allies, would be attacking the United States, and would be working with each other, no matter their difference before the war. There would be no invasions BESIDES on the U.S.

And don't forget the myth of the Russian population, which is not the population of the Soviet Union. Russia now has a population equal to roughly half of the US.

Combined they could muster probably five carriers, no more than two of them would be proper carriers, and not just jump jet carriers. While the US would have 12 Supercarriers.

See my post, it would be quite possible for other countries to attack the USA by passing the oceans and those carriers.

It isn't that we're trying to run the world. It's the fact that we still have values and morals.

So does everyone else.

We know right from wrong.

So does everyone else.

And we will do whatever in our power to help whoever so needs it.

Given half a chance, so will everyone else.

okay the question that was asked was for America to become more of an isolationist country NOT a complete isolationist Reason Being was for us to start doing what is in OUR best interests. Pay attention to the question and stop assuming what the question should of said.

As for Canada and Latin America taking the ground force to America now that is funny. :D

as for the UK i believe that they will always be on our side considering they did learn a very strong lesson in the late 1700's

Ugh. For the love of god, READ MY MESSAGES. This is a theoritical conflict, in that EVERYONE, even our current allies, would be attacking the United States, and would be working with each other, no matter their difference before the war. There would be no invasions BESIDES on the U.S.

Fine, then we stop giving the Israelis military equipment and smash them later. The point is no matter what, we cannot lose a defensive war. I think we could win an offensive war in those circumstances provided provided we don't occupy the territory. We'd have to destroy everything and raze the fields as we went along, but it's doable.

as for the UK i believe that they will always be on our side considering they did learn a very strong lesson in the late 1700's

Don't go to war against a country with french allies?

as for the UK i believe that they will always be on our side considering they did learn a very strong lesson in the late 1700's

They only came back fourty years later.

as for the UK i believe that they will always be on our side considering they did learn a very strong lesson in the late 1700's

Bog off. As an afterthought, try finding out exactly how many people support the "Special Relationship." We wouldn't be America's stooge if the British people had anything to say about it.

why is this carrying on? i mean really... the UK navy can rival the americans and can use canada to deploy troops (whether canada like it or not the queen is still the sovereign), france has the best military technology (yes, better than the US) and russia has the people and the nukes... oh and between the 3 they could harm pretty much all of america's trade. that is all you need

I am a monarchist and I recognize the Queen as the titular head of state in Canada, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom certainly isn't the head of our government, and he/she would be the one to order the deployment of troops, not Her Majesty. Troops would not be deployed unless the Parliament of Canada agreed to it, and if the PM(UK) were to insist upon deploying British troops in Canada, we would very quickly sever our ties to the monarchy.

We would only agree to war with the US if we were attacked, never as instigators.

Besides, there are other, more effective things we could do if the Americans got shirty with us, like shut off all the natural gas, oil, and electricity. But attack? No.

Besides, there are other, more effective things we could do if the Americans got shirty with us, like shut off all the natural gas, oil, and electricity. But attack? No.

Don't forget the maple syrup...oh the humanity!

Don't forget the maple syrup...oh the humanity!

Well, things could get sticky.

Thing is (and this is little to do with the Isolationism thing) America could easily win a defensive war against any Nation.

But there are nations the USA could not easily invade.
Namely Russia, the UK, France, China, India and anywhere in the Middle East (as they are prooving right now).

Originally Posted by Emminger View Post
as for the UK i believe that they will always be on our side considering they did learn a very strong lesson in the late 1700's

the thing about 1700's is that the revolutionaries were aided by the french (who lets face it are the real reason the british lost... come to think of it this is the only war i can think of where france won)

now the problem with america atm is roman syndrome (i just invented it do you like it. you should probably wait till you hear it) basically lets time hop back to roman times before its power fall, sure they were at the top of their game, but they became cocky and felt they could do anything then omg whats this some so called 'barbaric and less developed' people in the east (the huns) start pushing and flexing their muscles and hey presto the romans have to pull everything back and defend the so called untouchable homeland as the surrounding tribes have had enough and rampage through the empire. this is whats gonna happen to america. the so called less develped people in the east (in this case china) will flex their muscles, the other guys will see them resisting and do the same untill eventually hey presto you are on ure arse inthe motherland

I never had a problem with the rest of the world until the started their anti-americanism and bush bashing. It really hit a nerve after constantly hearing from the biased news media and the constant griping on how everything AAmerica does is wrong and then attempting to challenge our intellegence was first couple of yrs i tolerated after that it hit a nerve before you as the rest of the world places judgement on America you best look at your own governments and nations at a whole.

I also ask you try to think of a world without America ever being founded to imagine what kind of world you would have.

I Love my country and I have a lot of pride in my country and as long as I'm an American. If the world so seemingly wants to crucify me and anyone else who glorifies our nation then so be it. Americans have as a majority a great sense of Pride in their country and that is one of the biggest reasons we are as great as we say. God Bless America and our wonderful, and most generous people.

I never had a problem with the rest of the world until the started their anti-americanism and bush bashing. It really hit a nerve after constantly hearing from the biased news media and the constant griping on how everything AAmerica does is wrong and then attempting to challenge our intellegence was first couple of yrs i tolerated after that it hit a nerve before you as the rest of the world places judgement on America you best look at your own governments and nations at a whole. Funny how the anti-Americanism grew and the Bush bashing began after the US invaded Iraq. How suspicious.

Yes.

as for the UK i believe that they will always be on our side considering they did learn a very strong lesson in the late 1700's

The only reason we won it was because of the French. If they didn't help us, we'd have been colonies until the early 1900's or late 1800's, when revolutionary Marxists declare the "Commonwealth of New England" to be independent of England. So yeah, by now we'd would've been known as New England, we'd probably only have everything east of the appalachians, with the "Democratic Republic of the Cherokee" controlling the rest of the stuff east of the Mississippi, and the "Kingdom of Chief Hunting Bird XVIII" controlling the rest of America.

Emminger's random capitalization and incomplete sentences remind me of an Emily Dickinson poem. Hey, she was an isolationist, too!

And why is Hugo Chavez a dictator?

(Okay, back to lurking.)

The only reason we won it was because of the French. If they didn't help us, we'd have been colonies until the early 1900's or late 1800's, when revolutionary Marxists declare the "Commonwealth of New England" to be independent of England. So yeah, by now we'd would've been known as New England, we'd probably only have everything east of the appalachians, with the "Democratic Republic of the Cherokee" controlling the rest of the stuff east of the Mississippi, and the "Kingdom of Chief Hunting Bird XVIII" controlling the rest of America.

i dont get it are you saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. because it doesnt sound all that bad if you ask me

I also ask you try to think of a world without America ever being founded to imagine what kind of world you would have.
see now i always imagined it something like this http://www.greenmuseum.org/c/aen/Images/Ecology/paradise-xl.jpeg

I never had a problem with the rest of the world until the started their anti-americanism and bush bashing. It really hit a nerve after constantly hearing from the biased news media and the constant griping on how everything AAmerica does is wrong and then attempting to challenge our intellegence was first couple of yrs i tolerated after that it hit a nerve before you as the rest of the world places judgement on America you best look at your own governments and nations at a whole.

I also ask you try to think of a world without America ever being founded to imagine what kind of world you would have.

I Love my country and I have a lot of pride in my country and as long as I'm an American. If the world so seemingly wants to crucify me and anyone else who glorifies our nation then so be it. Americans have as a majority a great sense of Pride in their country and that is one of the biggest reasons we are as great as we say. God Bless America and our wonderful, and most generous people.

It's not America we hate, it's Bush's america. Also given that all we ever hear about your education system is how bad it is, it's not totally random to jump to the conclusion that American's aren't hugely intelligent as a rule. It's quite probably incorrect, but not without foundation.

It's not America we hate, it's Bush's america. Also given that all we ever hear about your education system is how bad it is, it's not totally random to jump to the conclusion that American's aren't hugely intelligent as a rule. It's quite probably incorrect, but not without foundation.

I totally agree. I don't hate America. I hate Bush and the way he and his Neo-cons are running the show.

i dont get it are you saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. because it doesnt sound all that bad if you ask me

I'm just saying that's what I think would've happened.

Emminger's random capitalization and incomplete sentences remind me of an Emily Dickinson poem. Hey, she was an isolationist, too!

And why is Hugo Chavez a dictator?

(Okay, back to lurking.)

Because misguided nationalists say he is. And you're not a lurker unless you've been here for at least six months, and have only posted five times per months, and if you've been on for at least an average of five hours a day.

I'm just saying that's what I think would've happened. oh well fair enough:fluffle:

Yeah. It sucks that the EU doesn't actually do anything except overfish and argue about farming subsidies.
We keep the world economy going and keep our own people in a good state. Which is what America also does plus more. We just know that invading small countries across the world is something that's not needed.

It completely shocks me that some of you actually wish things were back to what it was when Saddam was in Power. What a shame.
Well, even if Hussein was doing some evil things, at least the average Ahmed didn't have to worry about being blown up all the time.

Yet ironically, the world is more peaceful now than it ever was before WW2, even though it has many more people.

I'm not against what America did in WWII. The peace of the world is largely due to the EU which has ensured that there has been no war in Europe since 1945.

America and the soviets fuelled most of the conflicts that blighted the world since WWII. That's why conflicts have decreased since 1991.

2) BTW, Europe is nearly wholly reliant on the US for airlift capabiliy. Unless your plan is to convert some cruise ships and surprise us in Miami, you've got a serious logistical problem. ;)
I'm not advocating war against the US here. That would be fucking stupid.

I never had a problem with the rest of the world until the started their anti-americanism and bush bashing. It really hit a nerve after constantly hearing from the biased news media and the constant griping on how everything AAmerica does is wrong and then attempting to challenge our intellegence was first couple of yrs i tolerated after that it hit a nerve before you as the rest of the world places judgement on America you best look at your own governments and nations at a whole.

If you don't like America-bashing then stop your restof the world-bashing.

Your side of the pond started it.

We aren't forcing our way of life. We are simply saying that People have rights to education, to elections, to be able to voice their own opinions, that the women have the right not to be raped and hidden from the world. So do you agree with the way women were treated in Iraq before we invaded. Someone must have the balls to stand up to the evil that threatens Human Rights.

It's like some of you people think that Saddam and Iraqi men treated their women very well. It completely shocks me that some of you actually wish things were back to what it was when Saddam was in Power. What a shame.

Please enlighten us as to how the Iraqi's treated their women since you seem to know something the rest of the world does not.

Iraq was a secular country prior to the U.S. invasion.
Iraqi women held jobs, attended school (even Universities) and were allowed to vote in elections (not that they were fair elections but you get my point).

Iraq was not Afghanistan! (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm)

Try getting some of your news somewhere besides Fox if you want to know what is really going on in the world.

I would greatly disagree. If I was the head of Isolationist America I would like to keep my People happy with their SUVs including myself and in the interests of Americans We Love oil So we would claim and take the resources that are in our best interests. Who would stop us

The first person to realize that the Secret Service is similar to the Praetorian Guard.

It isn't that we're trying to run the world. It's the fact that we still have values and morals. We know right from wrong. And we will do whatever in our power to help whoever so needs it.

No USA is not perfect but we have backbone when it comes to facing real threats of terrorism and to face off against the dictators who have absolutely no belief in Human Rights. I've always respected this about America. No matter what atrocity is being commited, they'll be there on the front line, fighting fire with fire.

As for the person who said it would hurt us economically, I disagree. I feel that it would strenghten us tremedously. We have plenty of resources at home. And by us becoming an isolationist country I personally would fully support it because of the simple fact all of our monies going else where could be used to help out our own. The poor, the ones who need health care, social security, the elderly. Bring our troops home and we will have the absolute best homeland security the world has yet ever seen, etc...
You should read up on a little microeconomic theory. it isn't complex, and it won't take long. Until then, please take my personal gratitude for your selflessness in offering your great economy to the world, despite the noted advantage of keeping it for yourselves. Your philanthropy epitomises the capitalist doctrine of helping your fellow man at ones own expense.

I never had a problem with the rest of the world until the started their anti-americanism and bush bashing. It really hit a nerve after constantly hearing from the biased news media and the constant griping on how everything AAmerica does is wrong and then attempting to challenge our intellegence was first couple of yrs i tolerated after that it hit a nerve before you as the rest of the world places judgement on America you best look at your own governments and nations at a whole.

I also ask you try to think of a world without America ever being founded to imagine what kind of world you would have.

I Love my country and I have a lot of pride in my country and as long as I'm an American. If the world so seemingly wants to crucify me and anyone else who glorifies our nation then so be it. Americans have as a majority a great sense of Pride in their country and that is one of the biggest reasons we are as great as we say. God Bless America and our wonderful, and most generous people.

*shudder*

*shudder*

Yes, Europeans shudder at the thought of loving a country, or actually doing something to help your country. They only want to benefit themselves, as quickly as possible -- who cares if their country profits or not? They don't join the army and they are all for welfare to fund their hedonistic habits. They smoke pot and speak ill of the government. Damn liberals. They're dragging the entire world down.

Yes, Europeans shudder at the thought of loving a country, or actually doing something to help your country. They only want to benefit themselves, as quickly as possible -- who cares if their country profits or not? They don't join the army and they are all for welfare to fund their hedonistic habits. They smoke pot and speak ill of the government. Damn liberals. They're dragging the entire world down.

What's your problem with hedonism?

many things:

1) More Isolationist? Please do.

2) There is no such thing as political isolationism while economic non-isolationism or have you not looked into the lobbying system in most western democracies. Most of the foreign policies is partly to help business make money abroad.

3) In a war between the USA and the world. The world would win hands down. Maybe not the first onslaught but the world would have economic, industrial and eventually tactical and military supremacy. Face it, a part of north america can not rival with the rest of the world. It might take ten years, but the USA would loose. Saying the contrary is folly.

4) Don't knock Canada. We might not be able to invade the US (and we don't want to) but don't count un us to take an invasion lying down. We got guns too. You'd be bogged down in a insurgency in no time. And you'd love our winter.

5) The person claiming that the USA is promoting democracy abroad and all that trite has forgotten a slew of military dictators propped up by the US (usually against democratically elected government) so your claim is laughable.

Thank you for your time.

Yes, Europeans shudder at the thought of loving a country, or actually doing something to help your country. They only want to benefit themselves, as quickly as possible -- who cares if their country profits or not? They don't join the army and they are all for welfare to fund their hedonistic habits. They smoke pot and speak ill of the government. Damn liberals. They're dragging the entire world down.
Right, because 'Sydney, Australia' (<.<) is in europe.

Ok I'm not even going to deal with the bullshit that this debate has degenerated into I'm just going to deal with the original question. My answer: Abso-friggin-lutely not! Isolationism delays economic progress, and causes economic inefficiency. It causes a delay in innovation, and, as such, a delay in economic progress. If isolationism would not have been so prevalent all over the world for so many years we would be decades ahead of where we are now. Problems in places like Africa would already be on their way to being solved. I mean, think about it. How much technical and economic progress took place during the 1900s when a great deal of isolationist policies went away? Answer: More than took place in the previous 10,000 years. In the more near term, say the 1990s look at how much innovation and economic advancement has happened. What took place then you say? Things like NAFTA and the advent of the WTO. (Granted the WTO is rubbish just like the UN, IMO.) Bottom line, more is to be gained from free trade than from isolationism.

Right, because 'Sydney, Australia' (<.<) is in europe.

Geographically? No. In commie spirit? Yes.

Emminger's random capitalization and incomplete sentences remind me of an Emily Dickinson poem. Hey, she was an isolationist, too!

And why is Hugo Chavez a dictator?

(Okay, back to lurking.)

It was rather Dickinsonian, wasn't it?

As for the OP, I think most of the rest of the world would breathe a great sigh of relief. Please, keep your military and your foreign aid. They have done more harm than good over the course of history.

Geographically? No. In commie spirit? Yes.
Well, the liberals are in power right now, but I guess you wouldn't know what that meant.

Yeah. America fucked up the world pretty badly, no denying that. We should stop trying to play foreign affairs. We're bad at it.

No man is an island. Certainly, US policy should change from our current antagonistic stance to a more cooperative one, but we should not abandon the world.

Yes, Europeans shudder at the thought of loving a country, or actually doing something to help your country. They only want to benefit themselves, as quickly as possible -- who cares if their country profits or not? They don't join the army and they are all for welfare to fund their hedonistic habits. They smoke pot and speak ill of the government. Damn liberals. They're dragging the entire world down.

No, Europeans have learned a lesson from both World Wars. Misguided nationalism only leads to death. And that is what is infecting America now. Misguided nationalism. And what's wrong with pot? Show me one thing that is wrong with pot. Also, show me that absolutely positvely NOT changing ANY policies is good for a country.

Yes, Europeans shudder at the thought of loving a country, or actually doing something to help your country. They only want to benefit themselves, as quickly as possible -- who cares if their country profits or not? They don't join the army and they are all for welfare to fund their hedonistic habits. They smoke pot and speak ill of the government. Damn liberals. They're dragging the entire world down.

You sure about that I was of the understanding a number of European countries had manditory service.

Somalia. Afghanistan. Iraq. Serbia.

What America put into each one:
Lots of money
Lots of soldiers
lots of time

What America got out of them:
Resentment of an entire populace
Debt
Dead soldiers (to be expected in any military conflict, but this has to be combined with the above).

Yeah, getting involved in other country's affairs when they haven't done anything to us sucks. I'm all for non-alignment and non-intevertionalism. I'd rather see the United States respected as an equal than liked as friend.

Economic isolation is entirely stupid, never part of America's policy, and would be our death warrent. I think a little bit of protectionism might be in order (raised tarrifs and all that jazz) to get our industry back on its feet.

And the JSDF fight? Dudes, I know a Japanese guy that says they're paid to clean up bodies after traffic accidents. Without the US protecting it, Japan (and Taiwan) is open real estate.