RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism?

RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cloudboy -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 8:51:15 PM)
One of my best friends is in the STATE DEPT, and what he says is: "When the US gets dragged into something -- WWII, Kosovo, Kuwait --- it does a good job --- but when it meddles: Latin & South America, installing the Shah of IRAN, Vietnam, and the Iraq War -- we do a poor job." The reasons really haven't changed since the one's outlined in THE UGLY AMERICAN. Dick Cheney calling the insurgents in IRAQ "Dead Enders" and Donald Rumsfeld blowing off the looters / looting in IRAQ, and Paul Bremer dismantling the national army --- all could have been chapters in the original 1954 book. The military industrial complex needs enemies, and if the US has proven anything during my lifetime --- we'll find them even if they're not a danger to the USA or our own vital interests.

Musicmystery -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 8:54:29 PM)
And again, all of which have nothing to do with my post about the Navy and shipping. You are stuck in your own pet bias, seeing it even when it's not the topic.

cloudboy -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 9:03:20 PM)
You made a conclusory statement. Why is your statement in post 2 true? Because it is "apparent." That's as far as your bouncing ball travels.

Musicmystery -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 9:08:10 PM)
You are being obtuse. I know you're able to tell one topic from another when it suits you. Whatever. Enjoy your game.

MrRodgers -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 10:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. The u.s. had virtually nothing to do with the defeat of japan,germany or italy. You're going to have to explain that one. If the US had virtually nothing to do with those defeats...what caused them ? Body count works for me. How many dead or captured germans did the russians produce? How many dead or captured japanese did the russians produce? I am still not clear on the US having virtually nothing to do with your listed defeats. Beyond the eastern front in Germany, what did the Russians have to do with defeating Italy and the Japanese ?

MrRodgers -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 10:28:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Oil isn't always interchangeable -- there are different qualities to oil, and different amounts of refining and hence purposes. The Alberta tar sands, for example, is especially dirty oil Look - the differences between oils is how much hydrogenation they require and how much cracking, desulphurization etc. But this is essentially a cost question. Oil wouldn't be a significant problem if the US was able to buy from canada and mexico. The US imports about 9-10% of our oil from all Persian gulf states. (in 1000's) 1 Canada 895,976 18.23% 2 Mexico 559,304 11.38% 3 Saudi Arabia 541,987 11.03% 4 Venezuela 496,684 10.10% 5 Nigeria 413,932 8.42% Total 4,915,957 These figures were ending 2012 and middle east imports have since gone down. The US now imports less than 1/2 of our crude oil consumption. Crude oil consumption in the US is now less than 6.9 billion bbls./year.

MrBukani -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 12:16:24 AM)
The muslims wouldn't hate you so much, they blame america for practically everything. They say the west has stolen everything from the rest of the world. Loosers just hate to admit, THEY LOST THE WAR![:D] You all know why the EU was formed, as a buffer to the USA. Both economic and military. The plan was okay the execution was poor. Work together and the USA will be on top for a long time coming. Plan Europe has failed so far and was the only true competitor. China is next in line to compete but I don't think they can either. Intervention stinks when the cost outweighs the revenue. But that takes decades, we'll have to wait and see if Iraq pays off or not.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 12:31:57 AM)
The Russians definitely didn't have much to do with defeating Japan. I think they declared war on Japan AFTER the first A-Bomb was dropped. As for Italy, apart from possibly the Russians in the S.S. I don't think they went anywhere near it. And even then I am not sure that the Russian S.S. was involved in Italy. As for shipping; I was many years at sea in the merchant marine and sailed through some very iffy areas as regards pirates. I never saw anybody that was recognisably a pirate (But then you wouldn't I guess), but in the same areas, I never saw an American warship. I DID see a few Russian vessels at times and those boys don't mess around...............maybe that's why I never saw any pirates ?

DomKen -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 5:55:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. The u.s. had virtually nothing to do with the defeat of japan,germany or italy. You're going to have to explain that one. If the US had virtually nothing to do with those defeats...what caused them ? Body count works for me. How many dead or captured germans did the russians produce? How many dead or captured japanese did the russians produce? I am still not clear on the US having virtually nothing to do with your listed defeats. Beyond the eastern front in Germany, what did the Russians have to do with defeating Italy and the Japanese ? Tommy boy is completely insane. He doesn't think the US has ever done a single good thing ever. He thinks we fought the Second World War strictly to enrich Prescott Bush. You'll be much happier if you put him on ignore like most of the rest of the forum.

DomKen -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 6:01:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 The Russians definitely didn't have much to do with defeating Japan. I think they declared war on Japan AFTER the first A-Bomb was dropped. As for Italy, apart from possibly the Russians in the S.S. I don't think they went anywhere near it. And even then I am not sure that the Russian S.S. was involved in Italy. As for shipping; I was many years at sea in the merchant marine and sailed through some very iffy areas as regards pirates. I never saw anybody that was recognisably a pirate (But then you wouldn't I guess), but in the same areas, I never saw an American warship. I DID see a few Russian vessels at times and those boys don't mess around...............maybe that's why I never saw any pirates ? I was in the USN and while anti piracy isn't high up on our list of jobs there are parts of the world where we do engage in it and it is always part of the mission. A friend on a frigate actually did engage with some pirates near Java in 1987 or 1988. IIRC they had taken a pleasure boat and were trying to sail it into port. And the USN did deal with the Somali pirates a few years back.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 7:33:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs. Why? The US Navy makes this possible. Would there truly be a slower economy with fewer jobs, though? Why would there be? With an increased cost of international shipping, wouldn't manufacturing jobs come back (or not have left in the first place)? Wouldn't that mean more people working for more money here? I agree with your initial premise that international shipping would be more expensive. I'm not sure your analysis of what that would mean, in the long run, is so accurate. If your initial premise (regarding international shipping costs) is correct, is that truly a bad thing? Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. We would not be able to sell our goods to most of the world. That's if we hadn't ever gone all imperial. The question most are addressing considers a future President making a future decision to pull the military back home and stop being World Cop. It's not that simple. Consider for instance our present dependence on foreign oil. Yeah, it really is that simple, Ken. It's not an overnight thing, but increase domestic drilling (will take 10 years before we see an increase in production for those new wells, right?), build the Keystone XL, and maybe increase imports from Mexico. In 0 years, how dependent will we still be on "non-North American" oil? I'm sure we probably won't be able to get everything from NA, but the more we do, the better, no?

DesideriScuri -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 7:35:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Why would fewer people buy more expensive goods? Law of Demand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand Why do business have sales? To lower their profit margin? No -- to increase their volume. People buy more when the price drops (assuming price elasticity--which is true for most goods), and vice versa. How does that not apply now? I thought bringing manufacturing back to America was a good thing?

DesideriScuri -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 7:36:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Nonetheless, it would come with economic consequences. We're a globe. It's pretty late to put that back in the bottle. The Mongols tried it, and gradually turned an Empire that controlled half the globe into an isolated mess it wouldn't recover from until the mid 20th century. It's not too late to put it back in the bottle. It can start damn near overnight. Pull the troops out of foreign countries. Bring them back home. Stop playing World Cop. Stop intervening in almost every dust up that occurs. Bam. Bottle starting to fill back up, bro. I've already explained why that's unrealistic. It's been unrealistic for over a century. You can ignore it if you like, but simplistic though you'd like reality to be, it isn't. It's not unrealistic, if you don't put a short time limit on it.

thompsonx -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 8:19:36 AM)
ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Then why bring them up if not as an example? Back up and read the whole exchange...He brought up china not me. And the Chinese call the Manchu dynasty after the first ruler, Ming. So what ?

thompsonx -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 8:28:29 AM)
You know you're quite a troll thompson. Name calling is certianly easier than actually backing up the moronic tripe in your posts. How do I know Egypt is propped up by 4 bill in us aid? Because every couple of years or so I read the entire US budget. That is not what I asked you to validate Sure. You're an idiot. This would again be one of your ignorant unsubstantiated opinions You're asking validation (ie., proof) of a hypothetical event. There can be no proof. If you want to ask why I think so - thats a different question. I asked for some validation for your ignorant unsubstantiated opinions. So far you have failed to provide any. So the original question - what happens if the US basically goes home. In North Africa - this leaves a significant power vaccuum. In your ignorat opinion. This means no more intelligence sharing with the arab spring states. It means no more military patrols. It means that leaders in that region now will look otherwhere. Omg...national self determination...what a concept...maybe we could interest some international body in the idea...maybe the u.n.??? Europe is bankrupt - and has shown zero ability to deal with protecting its southern border. There was nothing in the paper about europe's southern border being invaded by anyone? Military budgets continue to decline. Why is this a bad thing? Europe has essentially zero ability to project anything in the region. From whom? The separatists movements that are going on in Mali, egypt, libya, nigeria, and kenya start to flourish. More of that national self determination thing??? The rest of your comments merit no response. It would appear that lack of knowledge rather than lack of merit would be the proximate cause.

thompsonx -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 8:34:16 AM)
Tommy boy is completely insane. This would be your ignorantunsubtantiated opinion. He doesn't think the US has ever done a single good thing ever. This would also be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. He thinks we fought the Second World War strictly to enrich Prescott Bush. This would be another one of your ignorant unsubstantiated opinions. You'll be much happier if you put him on ignore like most of the rest of the forum. Opinions are a lot like assholes ...most everyone has one and most everyone feels that theirs works best for them.

Musicmystery -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 8:48:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Why would fewer people buy more expensive goods? Law of Demand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand Why do business have sales? To lower their profit margin? No -- to increase their volume. People buy more when the price drops (assuming price elasticity--which is true for most goods), and vice versa. How does that not apply now? I thought bringing manufacturing back to America was a good thing? It does apply -- and it's why you don't understand. I answered your question -- that's why fewer people would buy more expensive goods. As for bringing back manufacturing, it depends greatly on WHAT we manufacture. For example, high tech, absolutely. Clothing, not so much. And the reason, as I've already shared, is comparative advantage.

Musicmystery -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 9:02:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Nonetheless, it would come with economic consequences. We're a globe. It's pretty late to put that back in the bottle. The Mongols tried it, and gradually turned an Empire that controlled half the globe into an isolated mess it wouldn't recover from until the mid 20th century. It's not too late to put it back in the bottle. It can start damn near overnight. Pull the troops out of foreign countries. Bring them back home. Stop playing World Cop. Stop intervening in almost every dust up that occurs. Bam. Bottle starting to fill back up, bro. I've already explained why that's unrealistic. It's been unrealistic for over a century. You can ignore it if you like, but simplistic though you'd like reality to be, it isn't. It's not unrealistic, if you don't put a short time limit on it. We're 1/5 of the global economy. I'm being gentle with you because it's clear you are unaware of basic economics. But can you not see that crawling into our shell would hurt us? We exported $2.3 trillion in 2013 -- 15% of our economy. Can you not see that cutting your business' sales by 15% is going to cost jobs? Further, we import goods when they can be made more efficiently elsewhere. If we didn't, they would be far more expensive here, as we would have to divert production away from better producing activities to lesser ones, hurting us on both fronts. And at higher cost, consumers would buy fewer (elastic) goods (law of demand), further lowering production and costing jobs. Closing borders is a simplistic fantasy. It would be economically catastrophic. In fact, that Democrats (who actually do know better at the leadership level) pander to union wishes to do this (and I'm even sympathetic to unions overall) is the main reason I'd vote Republican if we actually had viable (read--reasonable and sane) Republican candidates instead of these Tea Party and Right Wing nutjobs, who have raised idiocy to new heights and love it.

Musicmystery -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 9:08:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs. Why? The US Navy makes this possible. Would there truly be a slower economy with fewer jobs, though? Why would there be? With an increased cost of international shipping, wouldn't manufacturing jobs come back (or not have left in the first place)? Wouldn't that mean more people working for more money here? I agree with your initial premise that international shipping would be more expensive. I'm not sure your analysis of what that would mean, in the long run, is so accurate. If your initial premise (regarding international shipping costs) is correct, is that truly a bad thing? Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. We would not be able to sell our goods to most of the world. That's if we hadn't ever gone all imperial. The question most are addressing considers a future President making a future decision to pull the military back home and stop being World Cop. It's not that simple. Consider for instance our present dependence on foreign oil. Yeah, it really is that simple, Ken. It's not an overnight thing, but increase domestic drilling (will take 10 years before we see an increase in production for those new wells, right?), build the Keystone XL, and maybe increase imports from Mexico. In 0 years, how dependent will we still be on "non-North American" oil? I'm sure we probably won't be able to get everything from NA, but the more we do, the better, no? You would also pay more for it. Drilling further and further out in the ocean, for example, raises costs considerably, and the reason we don't more is that, at the current price of oil, it's not worth it economically. If oil doubled in price, as some analysts say it needs to, we'd be moving forward. So we could achieve independence--if you're ready to pay double at the pump, for heating, etc. And for increased food prices and good overall, as transportation prices climb, and the subsequent drain on the economy as consumption drops. The one benefit would be, analysts say, that American are just not going to get behind fuel economy in a major way unless gas is very expensive. We are a very short-sighted people. Independence sounds good, but it's very costly. On a micro level, there's a reason I don't produce everything I need myself. I like the self-sufficiency, but I have far greater wealth and leisure by specializing in areas I can sell effectively and buying what others produce more efficiently.

DomKen -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/11/2014 9:18:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs. Why? The US Navy makes this possible. Would there truly be a slower economy with fewer jobs, though? Why would there be? With an increased cost of international shipping, wouldn't manufacturing jobs come back (or not have left in the first place)? Wouldn't that mean more people working for more money here? I agree with your initial premise that international shipping would be more expensive. I'm not sure your analysis of what that would mean, in the long run, is so accurate. If your initial premise (regarding international shipping costs) is correct, is that truly a bad thing? Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. We would not be able to sell our goods to most of the world. That's if we hadn't ever gone all imperial. The question most are addressing considers a future President making a future decision to pull the military back home and stop being World Cop. It's not that simple. Consider for instance our present dependence on foreign oil. Yeah, it really is that simple, Ken. It's not an overnight thing, but increase domestic drilling (will take 10 years before we see an increase in production for those new wells, right?), build the Keystone XL, and maybe increase imports from Mexico. In 0 years, how dependent will we still be on "non-North American" oil? I'm sure we probably won't be able to get everything from NA, but the more we do, the better, no? That's a hilarious fantasy. Look up the total maximum estimate for the Alberta tar sands. Then look up how much the US consumes per year.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625