If we Americans only listened to our Founding Fathers..........

[Toad]

Santa, where is it written that the US needs to be the primary influence on world affairs? We're most likely ALWAYS going to be a desirable trading partner because of the market we represent. Washington's major point is to use trade to influence, rather than treaties, etc.

Nash, I don't think the American populace requires "hegemony" to be happy. I think we'd rather just be "one of the guys".

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. The carping nations have generally huddled under our shield for the last 50+ years because we were the only ones left standing with a shield to hold.

Now militarily the other nations don't have a pot to p*ss in. Doesn't stop them from wanting to run the show, though, does it? Fine, let them.

The world would still desire Boeings, Levis, Cokes and (ugh) Windows even if US troops WERE NOT in the Balkans. You know it, I know it.

As long as the product is good, there will be a market. Captialism works. If we let our products slide, it's our own fault.

The point about the people is that they are tough. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves. We're definitely soft and spoiled now but we have the capability and the group memory of how to survive. The Great Depression hasn't been forgotten.

Pity? Nope, don't want or need anyone else's pity. We've got it extremely good. EXTREMELY good.

It's much more akin to flippin' the carpers off.

Didn't ask for the job, don't want it. Folks think it's so d*mn easy, have right at it.

We've got problems of our own to tend to.

[Nashwan]

The world would still desire Boeings, Levis, Cokes and (ugh) Windows even if US troops WERE NOT in the Balkans. You know it, I know it.

A very large part of US trade is down to the glamour and power the US projects. Do McDonalds really taste that nice? Coke and Pepsi? Are US films really that much better?
The American government uses it's power abroad to secure trade deals for the likes of Boeing, and for military equipment.
US involvement overseas costs very little in real terms, and the benifits far outweigh those costs.
Besides which, compared to the words of the Good Samaritan, Washington's look rather selfish. Most Americans are too generous to watch other people suffer without lifting a hand to help them.

[buhdman]

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
And if we hadn't become involved in WW2? Then what? Britain fall to Germany?  Who would be next? Greenland? Canada? U.S.?

I think what Washington was referring to was "aggression with intent to conquer territory" as Britain had had a nasty habit of doing the previous 300 years on other countries...if we had stayed out of WW2 (like over 60% of the US population wanted to in 1939) we certainly would have had a longer war than just 4 years for the US.

Isolationism leads to things like North Korea's politics.  If an allie needs assistance, we must respond, or be 'next' from the aggressor.  Washington had no idea how fast one could travel from one country to the next 200 years later, if he'd knew that, he would have probably changed his speech alittle I believe.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]

Well said, Ripsnort.  It always amazes me to see how many people will take a statement made hundreds or even thousands of years ago and apply it verbatim to modern times without considering at all the real differences between the social, political, economic, and whatever-other conditions of the two times and then defend it to the death as if it were said yesterday.

[StSanta]

Santa, where is it written that the US needs to be the primary influence on world affairs? We're most likely ALWAYS going to be a desirable trading partner because of the market we represent. Washington's major point is to use trade to influence, rather than treaties, etc.

Toad, you don't need to be a primary influence on the world.

But, if you lose goodwill from the majority of nations in the world, you WILL lose revenue. This is an economic truth that cannot be denied; goodwill is important.

Also, economics cannot be separated from politics. In Europe there's a large body that's the Eu that is starting to flex both its economical and political muscles; like the US, it'll use politics to get favourable economic deals.

China is run by politicians.

What I'm asking Toad, is whether the US as a whole is willing to give up much influence or not. My bet is "no".

[Nash]

Didn't ask for the job, don't want it.

Yes you did and yes you do.  

[Dowding]

Politics will always influence economics, and vice versa.

An isolationist stance will affect the economy of the States. The 'Global Market' will not allow it any other way.

A modern example of how political actions have led to economic come-backs would be the Balkans. European and US construction companies are climbing all over each other to get a piece of the action - which tends to revolve around very pricey infrastructure.

The Gulf War; how much money have foreign construction companies made on the back of the devastation in Kuwait? Or the billions of dollar in arms shipments to Saudi Arabia?

It's not only helpful to have these monies rolling into Western treasuries, it seems to me to be absolutely vital.

I wouldn't go as far as saying such income was the motivation for Western involvement in 'hot-spots' - but I bet that along side the battle-planning, there are government groups liasoning with certain companies to 'get in there' once hostilities are over.

[Toad]

Most Americans are too generous to watch other people suffer without lifting a hand to help them.

I think the US would always "help" as a part of a true International effort.

I don't think the US is interested in having nearly 20% of our armed forces permanently deployed around the globe anymore. I don't think the US is interested in having to provide the majority of the forces and pay the majority of the expenses all the time either.


Buhdman, I think there are quite a few such statements. The First Amendment is an example, written by Washington's contemporaries.

Santa, perhaps what you should be asking is "how long will the mothers and fathers of the US continue to allow their sons and daughters to be used as cannon fodder in the "policing" of the world?"

Remember that there was NO European move to send forces into the Balkans until the US agreed to supply troops as well. Lots of talk, no action. Why did WE have to send troops? It's your backyard; it was a small conflict, not world war.

Influence? Economically the US is going to be a very desirable market for a long time, our participation or non-participation in quasi-military events notwithstanding.

Is Japan a significant economic influence? They don't allow their troops outside their territorial borders. Still a major economic player, however.

Dowding, check on this: Were there companies/countries that made tons of money rebuilding the Gulf and the Balkans that DID NOT send troops to the actual conflicts?

Sure there were. There's always money to be made after every disaster. Rebuilding is a historical trend.

[Nashwan]

Remember that there was NO European move to send forces into the Balkans until the US agreed to supply troops as well. Lots of talk, no action. Why did WE have to send troops? It's your backyard; it was a small conflict, not world war.

Britain and France sent tens of thousands of troops to  Bosnia and Croatia a year before the US committed any, and many smaller countries sent troops at the same time.

[Toad]

Nashwan,

Please document this; I've been looking at some Yugoslavian/Bosnian timelines and they don't appear to support your statement.

When did the British and French troops deploy and how many were sent?

[Toad]

Ah, I see. You're talking about the UN PROFOR mission that totally failed and was replaced by IFOR.

You're right. PROFOR was your show. US only had about 700 on the Macedonian border, IIRC.