Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Beefcake on July 27, 2001, 03:32:00 PM
-
I was just reading some stuff im my old History Book, when I found Washingtons Fairwell Address. In it, it says if the American people stay OUT of forien affiars and stay away from political parties, then the USA will do very well. And look at the US today.
-
We don't need some dead, white slave owners to tell us how to live.
The times have changed and we do not need those ugly guns anymore.
Offensive speach has no place in our society either.
"The right of the people to be secure on their persons, houses, paper, and effect..." gotta go as well. How would we collect income tax otherwise.
The "... nor shall private propertybe taken for public use without just compensation." seems stale too.
and finally...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
... is clearly a joke. Every child knows that the Commerce Clause allows to regulate such things like speed limits, water level in your toilet, and the width of the door frame in your house.
[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]
-
Yeah, Beef. I quoted part of that speech in the O-Club a while ago.
Well said by Washington; very wise man. Wish we still were following his outline.
-
Stay out of foreign affairs?
What would his take on Germany's invasion of Europe have been?
Also, aren't foreign affairs and economics in terms of world trade inextricably linked? I can't see how you could have one without the other.
-
You can always look for yourself... don't think you'll like the answer though. :)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm)
-
Hey Toad, why wouldn't I like the answer? Was just asking impartially. Thanks for the link - *great* read. I can't see anything there that would indicate the direction he'd take in relation to my two questions though. He seems to warn of the peril while leaving the door wide open. I admit I'm probably going to have to look at this further.
I missed the last thread where you commented on this speech, but it'd be interesting to see your particular *interpretation* of it.
-
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
...Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
...
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."
-
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 ]
-
Let me put a different emphasis on it. :)
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
As little as possible. Sure, no big deal. We'd be kidding ourselves though if we thought Washington were telepathic enough to foresee exactly how the world economy would evolve some 250 years later. I don't think it's enough any longer for a country to subsist on its own wheat and labour alone. Foreign trade is a neccessity, and you cannot have foreign trade without foreign relations.
"...Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"
Because it's simply a reality. If he (and in turn, you) is arguing for isolationism that's perfectly fine. I think it's totally out of touch, however.
"Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."
Ok so that solves the WWII question - he would probably have deemed it an "extraordinary emergency" and "trusted to temporary alliances" (by that he means enter into with). But I think by bringing this up you are forwarding the "we are not the world's policemen" notion. I agree there's probably too much of that as it is, but a great deal of it is simply based on trade. Nobody seems to want to see any sort of disruption in the market whatsoever, and hence "stability" is the goal more often than for humanitarian reasons.
These two things are far too linked to enable the having of one while ignoring the other.
[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
Let's play "What if"....
What if Switzerland suddenly decided to butcher and burn every African American in the country in order to drive them out...should the US, Britain, Russia or anyone else do anything about it? Or let them do what they want to do? What if you were an African American in Switzerland when this happened? Would you still agree that what Switzerland decides to do is HER business and no one elses?
-
Ripsnort they arent called african americans in switzerland.......
Black people are not all from america, IIRC there are a few in Africa too.
Jesus has the bindly obedient PC BS got deep into people these days.
Try: Blacks, Africans etc.....
I hate PC Its so dishonest fake and stupid, so so so reminds me of communist official thought. I hate it.
-
In my youth, I was not an isolationist.
I was not a real big "interventionist" either, but I thought perhaps there were times when we would have to act even in a situation that might be "questionable" with respect to our "national interests".
I am now almost totally isolationist. I say that without apology.
After watching for the last 30 years the national and international response to US efforts to intervene in affairs that are clearly NOT a matter of our "national interest" and even some matters that were in our "national interest", I no longer see the need to have ANY US troops abroad.
The threats that justified world wide troop deployments to protect US security/sovereignity/mutual assistance treaties just no longer exist.
Your Swiss example, Rip, is clearly not a matter of our "national interest". If every person of color in Switzerland were executed, it would not threaten the soveignity/security or citizens of the US (well, unless they were of color and happened to be in Switzerland at the time ;) )
Now it may be a matter that we would choose to involve ourselves in with respect to the area of "human rights". It isn't national security however.
After seeing the reception we've gotten when we have chosen to become involved in Human Rights issues, I'd still be willing to sit it out. Cold? Harsh? Yep; but we've become the "Great Satan" around the world for getting involved in exactly these sort of situations. Time to let the world do it without us for a while. Call it a reality check for them. ;)
In your Germany conquers all scenario, there still would have been the factor of the two oceans. Long supply lines alone have spelled the end of many a military adventure and those supply lines would have been incredibly long and incredibly difficult for a non-naval power.
Had we never become involved in Europe, Japan would have been rolled up in the Pacific like a $2 carpet and tossed on the ash heap of history in very short order. War against Japan would have fit Washington's outline as it began with us totally in a defensive posture.
As it was, the Pacific Theatre got the least and worst of everything and got that last. Still only took us about 4 years.
Allies needing assistance? Where's the threat? To what ally and from whom? Taiwan? LOL. We're not going to fight for them and only a fool would think otherwise. As for the rest, if you read their opinions now, the never needed our help and they don't now. So be it.
Look around. There is no DIRECT threat to the US in which any ally could tip the balance in our favor. Our fights are now and will be "our" fights. Actually, there really aren't any DIRECT threats to the US that we can't handle alone. It's been that way for a long time. They say they don't need OUR help, we don't need THEIR help. So be it.
Nash, there isn't anything we can't get by trade alone that we truly need. I think that is Washington's message. The US is indeed blessed with huge natural resources. We have more food than we can possibly eat and a respectable amount of energy resources.
Should we lose out on things we import be it oil or BMW's, we would still survive. We'd adapt.
That I think is Washington's message. We don't need entangling alliances. Just free trade. If you can't get it that way, you don't need it. We'd still survive.
We're a soft, spoiled people now. Doesn't mean that we can't once again become as tough as the people that built this country with axes, shovels and plows.
It's been my very great pleasure to know several families that are the sons and daughters of men that were the first to break the Kansas sod with plows. Their fathers were incredibly tough. The sons of those men were cold rolled blue steel... and they proved it in battle. We, their sons, are mere shadows of our progenitors. Doesn't mean the capability has been lost however. It just isn't needed right now.
Foreign trade is beneficial to both sides. Foreign trade has created improving lifestyles on both sides. But to think that life would suddenly end without it is a bit overdrawn I think.
Besides, it wouldn't totally end. Some would still be interested in trading with the what is perhaps the most lucrative market in the international arena.
Foreign trade is only a necessity if you think this social structure and lifestyle must be maintained "status quo".
I'm of the opinion that we were perhaps better off when things were a bit less overdone. There's "too much" in our society now. Just about "too much" of everything.
How many TV's does one house need?
Long enough.
Yes, I'm isolationist. There's no threat to US security that can't be handled from inside our own borders. Bring ALL the troops home. Now.
Thank you and good day! :)
-
Toad: you do realize that the isolationist response will eman a greatly reduced influence on world affairs, enabling the EU and nations such as China to take a much stronger stance?
And that wouldn't be in the best interests of the US.
Also, it'd mean disengaging from NATO. No biggie.
It'd also mean that the missile defense system would only be implemented half heartedly; no radar stations on foreign soil.
Despite what Americans think, America depends on the world, and the world depends on America. Bad relations with the majority of all other countries will hurt the US economically, something that the current adiminstration does not take light heartedly.
If the US and the majority of Americans feel that the benefits of isolationism outweight the disadvantages; go for it. The US is a sovreign nation and can do as it please. *Any* way they act, there'll be advantages and drawbacks.
Europe is doing reasonably good at the moment and is growing as an economic power. Same for China. I just wonder if an American administration really wants to lose the influence - they're politicians and politicians thrive on power. I believe it'd take a good majority of Americans to get an isolationist policy through.
I did read what was posted earlier - keeping only economic links and so forth - but in that bit is also a qualitative variable called goodwill.
-
Totally agree... you cannot think through the effects of an isolationist policy to its logical end without coming to the conclusion that it would be a complete and total disaster.
Hello Pat Buchanen sayonara US hegemony. If ya choose not to mean anything at all to the world, then you really *won't* mean anything at all to the world. Consequences? You bet.
Lookit... it was an *awesome* speech by Washington, but we're no longer talking about trading silk for tobacco and yer enemies aint preparing to lob cannonballs from the the decks of 18th century galleons into the harbours of Maine.
Dowding seems to have it right in that other thread... it *is* sounding like self pity. You cannot say "we've just had enough of the bellyaching", because unless you live in Waco or Montana, your neighbors and the average US citizen completely disagrees with you and any policy of isolationism (here is definitely NOT the place to find the consensus of American public opinion... executing 14 year olds? Afraid not). No concensus? No votes, no 2nd term hence no policy of isolationism. Washington would be all over that, no?
Afterall, your reaching out and touching the world is primarily designed to benefit your country first and foremost.
So after yer done talking to us about Kansas daughters breaking the sod with plows and rebuilding the country with axes and shovels (funny... aren't they still doing that over in the isolationist countries?), you may also want to check in to see what Boeing, Levis, Coke and Mr. Gates have to say about this. :D
I aint sayin' it's right, exactly (and it sure aint pretty)... but I don't see much choice in the matter. Isolationism is naivete to the extreme.
[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
By the way...
Yes, I'm isolationist. There's no threat to US security that can't be handled from inside our own borders. Bring ALL the troops home. Now.
If the US were to (yeah right) go this way, then you may indeed have the distinct pleasure of handling any threats within and "from inside [your] own borders".
Much cleaner to keep that nastiness contained elsewhere, no? :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
Didn't ask for the job, don't want it.
Yes you did and yes you do. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.