From: Cameron
I don't believe that Isolation is the idea, here. We are not
living in the 19th century, when this was possible and actively
practiced in the U.S. Hell, France even asked us to help them with their
problems post-revolution, to which we said "nahhh, we're gonna stay
neutral on this one." This coming after France was the country that
ensured our victory against Great Britain. Isolationism is what lead to
the attack on Pearl Harbor, which we paid Japan back for a hundred times
over, but we ought to have been better prepared.
A
new paradigm, however, exists in the 21st century. We aren't, and
cannot be, the world police: there are too many conflicts around the
world, from South America to Africa to the Middle East. If we DO attempt
to intervene in every possible conflict,
we will overexpand and meet the same downfall as every empire in
history. Rome fell when it expanded too far north into Europe, and too
far south into Africa. Byzantium and the Sassanian empires fell when, as
they fought over the fertile crescent, Islamic armies came pouring out
of Arabia.
Alexander's
empire was far too big for anyone to handle. Even the individual
kingdoms that emerged after his death crumbled relatively swiftly -
including the Seleucid empire. We also have the example of the Hunnic
empire, which lasted all of 20 years until Attila's death. We have the
Mongolian empire, which lasted a mere 200 years.
The
British Empire was the most successful of its kind, in part because it
had centers of government in every region it controlled. However, even
it fell.
America IS
an empire,
and it is a force for good. It spreads democracy whenever and wherever
possible, and currently has the best performing government system in the
world. However, it too has its weaknesses. Overspending on Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security, wherein spending on each of these agencies
CANNOT be cut, is the main cause of our spending deficit. Cutting that,
rather than national defense spending, would be a wiser course of
action. As we all know, though, these programs are the third rail of
politics. Since Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems absolutely
committed to cutting our budget, it makes sense that he wants to trim it
where he can: defense spending is easier to cut than Medicare or Social
Security.
If Romney,
Gingrich or Santorum are able to come up with a better plan of action,
i'd support them in a heartbeat. But they're wasting their breaths by
talking about social issues when we face a
fiscal problem that will be the downfall of this country, if not
addressed immediately.
My last thought on this subject, as it applies to domestic and foreign policy, and fiscal concerns.
A
federal republic appears to be the best system of government at this
time. Conspiracy theorists believe that a small group of people in power
are working to create a one-world government, of which they would be
the leaders. I do not believe this to be the case, but if it were, it
would be a rather stupid form of governance. Each man would be like a
king, or a tyrant, and would have no checks or balances on what he did.
But
a one-world government, operating as a federal republic, would be
feasible. A bicameral legislature would have representatives from each
country, the lower house based in proportion to their
respective populations, and the upper house with two senators per
country. An executive would serve for a very brief term, say one year
only, after which he could never be reelected. Supreme courts would
ensure that laws operate within the bounds of the constitution -
whatever that new constitution would specify. All laws, besides the
constitution, would expire after 10 years - forcing legislators to
periodically reexamine them if they wish to keep them. The terms of
office for any government official would be one-term only: a set period
in which they act according to the promises they have made to their
constituents.
Just as with our government system, each country would have discretion over local laws, taxes, and administration.
The benefits I see from this model are as follows:
World peace: disputes can be solved
through discourse rather than brute force.
Common law would apply to all citizens, protecting them equally from theft, bodily harm, and civil rights violations.
Promotion of international free trade: all tariffs would be eliminated
A singular monetary system whose value would draw stability from its constituent countries.
Adequate funding for large-scale public works projects, such as roads and railways, in every country.
Efficient, streamlined distribution of the global food supply.
Education systems that allow students to study wherever they please.
Promotion
of capitalism, with all companies answering to ONE regulatory body.
Small businesses allowed to flourish via microloans and other credit
channels.
And lastly, funding for the sciences on an unprecedented scale, generating
the potential to solve our energy problem, and advance cures for cancer, mental health problems, and drug addiction.
Potential disadvantages:
As
with any system, there is a potential for corruption. There would need
to be many eyes watching the government at all times to ensure that it
stays clean.
Feasibility: people don't like to
cooperate with each other. Having every country in the world adopt this
system would be an extremely slow process, as compromises are found.
Finally,
this system would have to be extremely secular: it would have to
respect and leave religion alone, and not encourage or discourage the
development of any one religion. Because of this, such a system would
have to come into being for a reason: why would any one, or number of
countries agree to cede power to
a central power unless something was in it for them? This model is a
work in progress, so I welcome any thoughts and comments.
From: Victor
Nick:
I would like to comment on your notes,
I would like to comment on your notes,
The
fact that the government repeatedly lies to us and keeps things secret
from us is enough of a reason to suspect that, usually when it goes to
war, it is not for the best interest of the American people nor for the
people in that region. There may be a few exceptions, but in general,
this is sadly the case. Of the interventions you showed me in the last
email, only the Korean and Balkan interventions seemed to have either
neutral or positive outcomes. Libya is now ruled by Al-Qeida, a group
which is not a good alternative to Quadaffi.
Military intervention has caused more problems than it has fixed.
You
are for restrained US foreign policy, as I understand. Recently, in
2011 and 2012, we have watched events in the Middle East, so-called
“Arab spring” (in reality it is rather “Arab winter”). The US intervened
in Libya (as a part of NATO), but stayed more or less neutral in other
countries.
Now we are witnessing mass murder in Syria, with no action taken by the US
except the failed UN denunciation vetoed by Russia and China. What is your take on this? You think we just watch the Syrian bloodshed and do nothing? My question illustrates that there is no easy answer to everyday international challenges.
Somebody
should make a hard decision, like it or not… Isolating ourselves would
not resolve issues pertinent to our security and interests.
Victor
From: Nick
If
there’s anything that you absolutely have to watch, it’s this
documentary on the relationship between US and war. As a favor to me,
please watch the whole thing.
“Why
We Fight”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyxRW702Cho Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqDinS41-z8 part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MURjhEFx45Y part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41rlm8INo_M part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_szqNFzKrE
part 5 * Corporations have nothing to do with the military and war?
John McCain thinks otherwise. But that can’t be because it’s a “leftist”
position, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOwrlISqdok part 6 Dick Cheney made 60-70 million dollars from Halliburton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eIYeDWNrfQ Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOuAt891as Part 8 ******most important
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QHqB3UtSGA Part 9 * government lies, news manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R3bIX4uEhU part 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFCivIxiTuE Part 11***** the cost of war on the Iraqi people, more lies from the government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBoTaPwRuC0 Part 12
The
fact that the government repeatedly lies to us and keeps things secret
from us is enough of a reason to suspect that, usually when it goes to
war, it is not for the best interest of the American people nor for the
people in that region. There may be a few exceptions, but in general,
this is sadly the
case. Of the interventions you showed me in the last email, only the
Korean and Balkan interventions seemed to have either neutral or
positive outcomes. Libya is now ruled by Al-Qeida, a group which is not a
good alternative to Quadaffi. Military intervention has caused more
problems than it has fixed. If the government truly went to war with the
interests of the American people in mind, it would have followed the
constitution and it wouldn’t have been so secretive. The fact that it
has ignored that founding document constantly over the last 50 years
proves to me that there is some other interest in mind. I’d like to
believe that the US government has never done anything wrong and that it
always supported freedom for others and always supported democracies,
but the fact is that those were just words, and the actions, for the
most part, are contradictory.
I
simply
don’t understand how the US can send food, money and aid to some people
while at the same time bombing others who, for the most part, are
innocent (obviously that’s not the goal, but innocent people make up 95%
of the casualties, and you’d think they would have changed strategies
by now). An Iraqi who lived through the 90’s, a period of perpetual US
bombing and sanctions that killed a million people, will not remember
the US as a force for good. He will not remember how the US affected
Europe through the Marshall Plan or how it saved people in the Balkans.
He will remember how a US drone killed his family and how the US
government prevented medicine that could have cured his children’s
ailments from entering the country; how US policy directly affected him.
This is where the anti-American sentiment comes from, and we need to
understand that if we have any hope of changing things.
This
is the precise reason I bring up US actions that have a negative effect
on the world. It upsets me how US policy is such a double standard. It
upsets me that our image is tarnished through terrible actions like
this. I don’t want the US to be portrayed as the bully. I don’t want the
US to be hated. I don’t want the US to be attacked. But the only way to
change that is to address its flawed policy. Otherwise we will remain
in this perpetual state of warfare and totally ignorant of the true
causes and the effects that it has on people in the affected countries.
This is not a leftist position, this is the constitutional position. If
the constitution is to the left of the current Republicans, then that
should tell you something about the Republican party. I don’t pick sides
when it comes to political parties, so don’t think that I’m a leftist
or a rightist, or a centrist. I’m a realist.
On
a side note, the US government classified 16 million documents Top
Secret in 2011. Does that mean that 16 million documents can compromise
American security, so they have to be hidden?
No comments:
Post a Comment