I don't think it's much of a leap to take Ron Paul's idea of non-interventionist: "Bring all of our troops home," and expand it to what the effect would be: isolationism.
Sure, it might not start out as a statement that we don't want to continue this trading relationship. However, reducing our global reach is a very bad idea, in my opinion. Reducing our reach means that we won't have the bases for possibly expanding into other areas when the stuff hits the fan.
Probably, anyone who advocates such an idea just doesn't know what it is that we do in the world.
There is a reason that the founding fathers gave the power to build the armed forces to the congress. These United States have not always existed without enemies who would wish to do us harm.
Arguably, there are people today who wish to do us harm.
Some people may not see this. At present, in addition to being a debtor nation, we also are the largest consumer nation. Other countries depend on our consumption to finance their lifestyle/growing economy/relative opulence.
If the economic conditions of this country really start heading downhill on rollerskates, then other countries will probably also feel the belt tightening.
I doubt that the economy will decline severely.
Trade is important, but so too is security. Part of the reason that many people left Baghdad was because they did not feel secure. Maybe people are now starting to return because the security situation has improved.




Comments: 16
I wholeheartedly agree, Marty. I would say they are two sides of the same coin, in that you can't have trade unless you have security.
Closing those bases and equating that to isolationism is a very large stretch. One is Military the other is Commercial.
Having all those bases for protection didn't help us a bit in WW2 when the Japaneese overran every one of our out of country bases in the pacific.
Our founding fathers and the Constitution restricted our Military to National Defence ONLY. They cautioned against entangling aliances with othe countries.
True but they never left before we got there.
Quote:
"I don't think it's much of a leap to take Ron Paul's idea of non-interventionist: "Bring all of our troops home," and expand it to what the effect would be: isolationism."
Please stop repeating the ignorance of those who want to keep your mind twisted. Think for yourself to come up with opinions. What bonehead came up with the argument that pulling our troops home was the prelude to isolationism? Damn, we have arrived at a pitiful point in our history when when commentators can spit out their venom and we parrot it withoutresonable thought. Please tell me you forgot to put satire in your title.
"Having all those bases for protection didn't help us a bit in WW2 when the Japanese overran every one of our out of country bases in the pacific." -Colonel George
This is exactly what an isolationist attitude results in. Those bases were poorly manned or equipped, ill prepared, and archaic; mostly inherited from Spain. FDR saw what was coming, but the nation didn't want to get involved in either "Europe's war" or "Japanese Imperialistic expansion in Asia" and it cost us big time. Their business, became our business, wanted or not. Most didn't think they would "dare" attack us, and the Japanese thought we wouldn't want to fight; as weak and appeasing. Hitler, successfully, knowing the mood here, tried to keep us out of the war as long as possible by not directly attacking American property, so he could expand and consolidate power -to be too much to handle by America... he thought. Costly for all in many ways.
Thanks for your article and thoughts. Take care.
A dangerous proposal to my way of thinking.
And what exactly are we DOING occupying Korea? Germany? Japan? Let's bring our boys home and take care of OUR borders for a little while, eh? I'm sure some other countries would be relieved to see us get back in our own yard.
Peace in the Middle East? Not likely. They've been fighting over there for more than 2,000 years. We can't fix it. Fighting amongst themselves is so ingrained in them they simply don't know any other way. Even if their LEADERS come to some sort of an agreement, the PEOPLE aren't going to go along with it. They CAN'T. They don't know HOW.
thanks and goodday!