COMMENTS:
It's possible, but it's not a good idea.
No, look at the impact it has had on north korea. The only one could consider this is a country that does not depend on exports for income or imports for survival. I cant think of a single country in this position.
by ABC on Fri Dec 10, 04 10:52am
[+]
Technically, for the ordinary citizens. B/c here in the West, we're living our own lives, almost in a bubble. I don't think any of us can comprehend what it's like to live in those places. Oh sure, it affects us on an emotional level, but the bottom line is, we can still go about living our lives in relative peace.
by aya on Fri Dec 10, 04 10:52am
[+]
On an economic level, no. But we don't really think about how much of the stuff we buy might come from sweatshops, do we? And there is a sense of unlimited optimism when it comes to oil. Sure, it's finite, but but does anybody think of that? A lot of it has to do with our lives, we take it for granted, b/c that is, unfortunately, human.
by aya on Fri Dec 10, 04 10:55am
[+]
Isolationism isn't workable, not in the long run.
But can we get by with a lot smaller contribution to the world? Absolutely.
And thats whats REALLY important isnt it Herzog..?
No - I think we need to look with longer sight - in terms of the environment, the actions of one nation have a great effect on others - in terms of trade and exploitation of resources some of our actions here in the west are perhaps a cause of the poverty and disgruntledness of other nations, that could well be one of the many causes of terrorism.
by brar on Fri Dec 10, 04 12:48pm
[+]
Yes steely, that IS what it's all about.
Americans pay taxes to benefit americans, not foreigners.
Other nations seem to have this notion that the american taxpayer exists to benefit them. This is not the case.
Well, I guess your tax dollars must be very important to you.
You could always refuse to buy anything not made in the US too and perhaps slap tariffs on all imports. Im sure any large nation can stand alone.
Whoops, didnt the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union fall due to their policy of One Nationism?
Or do you advocate a totalitarian regime that is totally dependant on its own produce?
Perhaps this is why Bush was re-elected, maybe this is the direction the majorityof the US want to go in, to be led from the top and have laws passsed that restrict more and more of the civil liberties we as human beings should have by right.
It has been argued that those who earn this and that should be responsible for their own family unit, why do you need a country? If families are not dependant on the society the live in, then surely they can be left to their own decives.
That way noone pays tax, we all are then at the mercy of our employers. The hours would become longer and the wages lower, until we are all brought low.
Only as a collective can man protect himself and his family, not by psuedo neo conservative ideas of self and the so called 'family unit'... this is just a transparent ploy to divide us and sowe end up fight with each other, instead of uniting and sharing equally in the wealth the we, the people create.
I'm not a big fan of foreign aid either but $10 billion is nothing compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars we waste right here in the US.
Right steely, that wasn't a straw man argument at all. I say 'we could reduce our foreign aid expenditures, that's not really a proper government expense'.
You say 'oh so you're in favor a stalinist dictatorship?'.
I realize you are always going to disagree with anything I say out of spite, but at least try to make it look reasonable.
The economy should run as free from government involvment as possible. People should be allowed to buy whatever products they wish without facing unreasonable tariffs.
That isn't the question though.
It's what should the GOVERNMENT DO. I think they shouldn't be giving away our money to ungrateful nations. If they're going to take our money they should at least use it to benefit americans. I don't care for taxes, but they are a necessity in some cases. And taking my money to buy condoms for africans, who aren't going to use them anyway, to control aids, is not a worthwhile expenditure.
If you feel this is such an important enterprise then by all means spend your own hard earned money on it, but don't demand that the US government take it by force from the american public.
So, Herzog, "Americans pay taxes to benefit Americans, not foreigners."
Why are we in Iraq, then?
To prevent saddam from becoming a threat to us.
No one claimed this war was fought for the iraqis benefit. It works out that way, but that's not the intent.
Unfortunately no,isolationism is not a real opinion for ANY nation.We live in a world where information and news can spread around the world in minutes.A nation can no longer shut the rest of world out and pretend that since everything is fine in my country I don't have to be concerned about the rest of the world.The reason why America was hit on 9/11 was because we were too self involved.
herz: Thatis the question, though ... what does benefit Americans? Often, I suggest, the consequences go far beyond the surface.
For example, consider the case of tuberculosis. For a disease that scientists conquered 40 years ago and has not been a threat to America for a generation or two, tuberculosis has made an astonishing comeback in teh world.
Today relatively recent strains of TB that resist antibiotics have driven the death toll from the disease to 2 million people a year. TB is also responsible for the deaths of a third of HIV/AIDS sufferers worldwide, according to the New York-based Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, because HIV often acts as a catalyst for latent TB infections.
Do you believe that these diseases will respect national boundaries? Or might it be (quote-unquote) in the interest of Americans to aid other countries to eradicate diseases?
|
