America's Failure

[JMHX]

I wondered what would happen if the Founding Fathers were to come back after their two-century nap. What would they think of the nation as it was now? What would Washington, Adams and Jefferson, the first three presidents, think of our path? I determined that they would be upset. Very upset. They would see the United Nations, NATO, the War in Iraq, and so many other things as gross offenses against the ideal of American government.

They understood that the United States, to remain strong, must not entangle itself in alliances that do not concern the United States. To go off cavalierly into war where the United States is not directly threatened, to sign on to organizations that dictate when and why and how we can use our military and economic might, to bend to the will of an organization like the WTO in order to progress our own economy - all of these are offensive to the original intent of the American nation, and it is sad how far we have drifted.

Both World Wars provide insight into why we are headed in the wrong direction, but to stand up for the original ideals of the nation is now called "unpatriotic" and "cowardly," while involving ourselves in irrelevant conflicts and entangling international doctrines is considered the best way to go.

Something's wrong.

[Buffalow]

Yes, but the founding father didn't live in today's world. In the 1700's, most Americans couldn't find out where China was on a map, today we are their biggest customer. We are a world superpower, so we cannot just say "We don't want to do this anymore, we've decided to become isolationists."

The world would be much worse if America stopped caring.

[JMHX]

Because of enduring and entangling alliances with China, we have allowed them to swell while our national debt and trade gap are the largest in the history of the World. If anything, we're siphoning off our international power to the Chinese because politicians in Washington are too politically correct to acknowledge that the entangling alliances of Chinese trade disproportionately weaken us while strengthening the Chinese.

[Buffalow]

This isn't about China. It's the fact that we have relations with China, so we cannot become Isolationist for another 30 years or so, if become isolationist was the point of this thread.

[JMHX]

At 7/8/06 01:42 AM, Dinodoode wrote: This isn't about China.

I'm sorry, it seems as if your entire post was about Chinese trade.

[sdhonda]

But like he said, this isnt the late 1700s. Globalization, for good or bad, is enivtable. And the best thing to do is join in.

[JMHX]

At 7/8/06 01:45 AM, sdhonda wrote: But like he said, this isnt the late 1700s. Globalization, for good or bad, is enivtable. And the best thing to do is join in.

So long as you're not an American worker or someone concerned with economic responsibility in the least.

[Jayemare]

Imagine what they would think of the size of our government. They created something that was supposed to be a tool of the people, not something that controled them. Just think what they would say when they saw all that the government got involved with, what they would think of trial lawyers, what they would think of the hundreds of thousands of pages of laws compared to their short, direct constitution.

[Buffalow]

At 7/8/06 01:43 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 7/8/06 01:42 AM, Dinodoode wrote: This isn't about China.

I'm sorry, it seems as if your entire post was about Chinese trade.

It was an example of how America has more influence on the world than any other country. America will always have some place in the world, even if we do fall, we will be talked about like the Ancient Romans are talked about today.

[SkunkyFluffy]

At 7/8/06 01:46 AM, Dinodoode wrote:

At 7/8/06 01:43 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 7/8/06 01:42 AM, Dinodoode wrote:

It was an example of how America has more influence on the world than any other country.

You know how we got there?

From a better source than me:

It was because America remained independent of the alliances of Europe – the Triple Entente of Britain, France and Russia, and Triple Alliance of Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Italy – that Americans did not arrive on the battlefields of the Great War of 1914-1918 until six months before the Armistice. America lost 116,000 soldiers in that bloodbath, but avoided the horrendous casualties that killed the Austro-Hungarian, German, Russian and Ottoman empires, and forever wounded the British and French.

America emerged the most powerful nation and greatest creditor on earth, as a Senate wisely rejected both the Versailles Treaty and a League of Nations set up to enforce its dishonorable terms.

World War II began Sept. 3, 1939, when Britain declared war on Germany to honor a guarantee Neville Chamberlain had given to Poland. France fell in the late spring of 1940, as the British were hurled off the continent. Stalin's prison house of nations was invaded in June of 1941. Untold millions in Central and Eastern Europe perished.

Free of alliances, the Americans did not even land in France until five years after the war began, only 11 months before its end in Europe.

No European empire survived these wars. No great European nation was left undiminished. These wars ended Europe's role as shaper of world history.

Thus it was that America emerged as first nation on earth, the most self-sufficient republic in history, undisputed leader of the West. For 40 years of Cold War against a Soviet Empire, America drew a red line across Europe and told Moscow not to cross it. Nor did we cross it the other way to liberate Eastern Europe, when the Hungarian Revolution broke out in 1956, the Prague Spring was crushed by Russian tanks in 1968, or Solidarity was smashed on Moscow's orders in 1981.

[Buffalow]

At 7/8/06 01:50 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

You know how we got there?

We all took 8th grade Social Studies, thanks.

[SkunkyFluffy]

Apparently you didn't take anything away from it. We got to where we are by avoiding entangling alliances and overbearing international treaties that would force us to bind down our ability to the terms of other nations.

By your view, we would've jumped in at the start and signed all the documents, ratified Versailles and the League of Nations, and continued on the globalization trip we're on.

[Buffalow]

At 7/8/06 01:58 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

By your view......

I have a view?

[Demosthenez]

The most powerful nation in the world cant just go "Thanks but no thanks" as much as I would love for that to happen. America really doesnt have a choice, power was thrust onto the USA.

And I think the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves for a lot more reasons than that now. I think if they somehow came back to life, they would take one look at Bush, one look at Congress, one look at our goddamned tax code and their heads would explode. But it would be mostly our leaders that would make them want to die.

I was thinking about this on the Fourth of July when I was watching the fireworks with some friends on the beach. I was a tad high so that helped too. I was thinking about Abraham Lincoln, about George Washington, about Thomas Jefferson, about Madison. They all had corruption in their lifetimes. All their governments were corrupt. But the corruption then was open. It was illegal. Maybe nothing was done about it and the perpertrators got off free, but our corruption now is crouched in legality. It is hidden in the law, in campaign contributions, in PAC's, in lawyers, in the spoils system that is STILL around even after how messed up it has been shown over the years, in pork legislation, in media manipulation, in lobbyists.

The simply would be disgusted if they saw us now. Disgusted.

[JMHX]

We would still have been able to help - perhaps more efficiently - had we not gotten ourselves tied into the ultimate binding contracts of CAFTA and NAFTA, and long-term trade agreements with China, and so many other things that have proven well intentioned but horrible in reality.

[fahrenheit]

You have to realize the founding fathers dreamt of an unreal society. There is no way you could control a country the size of the US with their dreams of the government.

[JMHX]

At 7/8/06 04:07 AM, Goliath- wrote: You have to realize the founding fathers dreamt of an unreal society. There is no way you could control a country the size of the US with their dreams of the government.

We've certainly done well under Hamilton's view.

He opposed long-term alliances, too.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 7/8/06 01:34 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Something's wrong.

Stop talking about what the Founding Fathers would have wanted unless you want to give up your position of taxing the rich or the income tax in general. Remember that the Founding Fathers started the Revolutionary War because of taxes.

[Memorize]

Considering the Founding Fathers had much more strict moral values...I'd say they'd be more angry against the one's wanting to tax the people more. :D

[PV2White]

I see what your saying, the U.S. dosent manufacture anything anymore, and most factories are closeing down to move to other countries with people willing to work for cheaper pay, my family will become a victim of this in december.

But i cant honestly stand by you on your opinion about being global and having alliances, its good to have someone else backing you....even if its just 1 person, or country for this instance.

Its really good to help out countries in need, we've been on the ANTI- Dick-tator job ever since WW2 not to mention the guy was infact threating U.S. and European oil supply, so thats 2 reasons to go after em' until we can run our engines off freaking corn oil and owl sh*t we gotta keep the oil supply safe.

As for that osama guy....i dont really know -what- where doing about him anymore.

[rainmaker]

At 7/8/06 05:56 PM, AccessCode wrote: Considering the Founding Fathers had much more strict moral values...I'd say they'd be more angry against the one's wanting to tax the people more. :D

Well, in some senses they had a much more strict moral value, but in others, morals lacked. Dueling ring a bell? It was a legal practice in those days, simply because man wanted to avenge his name. Dueling (successfully) while not practiced, follows "murder" nowadays, and is obviously a felony.

Of course, being strict about taxation was a trade of theirs, but the U.S. being a powerhouse is out of control. If we were to halt some trade, some insourcing (unnecessary trade and insourcing, obviously), then maybe taxation would slip ever-so-slightly. It would still be a horrendous outrage to our forefathers, but it might show the possibility of slight change. However, it seems as if the U.S. cannot do that, without a said country screaming, "Diplomacy! Diplomacy!", because of the web we've tangled ourselves in.

I have to agree with JMHX, wholeheartedly. Yeah, everything didn't turn out as planned. Not much did, actually. We have political parties, economic dependency on other nations, etc. He's right, but what's to be done about it? Nothing.

[fahrenheit]

At 7/8/06 05:55 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Remember that the Founding Fathers started the Revolutionary War because of taxes.

It was because they were being taxed by a government an ocean away where they had no say of what was happening to them.
They didnt have a representative, they didnt even control what went on in their own country.
That is why they revolted, not because they were being taxed.

[Guitarmy]

At 7/8/06 01:38 AM, Dinodoode wrote: Yes, but the founding father didn't live in today's world. In the 1700's, most Americans couldn't find out where China was on a map, today we are their biggest customer. We are a world superpower, so we cannot just say "We don't want to do this anymore, we've decided to become isolationists."

The world would be much worse if America stopped caring.

No, you're a fucking moron, in 1700 people were much better educated than they are now.

[HighlyIllogical]

Jefferson, wouldn't have recognized the need for a standing military, even today. All of them except Jefferson would have said: Invade afghanistan, but, no, no no on Iraq. And then they'd say: Pushing North Korea into a corner would be bad. 1 v 1 negotiations only.

[fahrenheit]

At 7/8/06 07:47 PM, Guitarmy wrote: No, you're a fucking moron, in 1700 people were much better educated than they are now.

No, they werent.
The educated were as smart as they are now, but the majority of people were simply farmers or other bron over brain job.
And you calling him a fucking moron just proves how stupid you are.

[Ravariel]

At 7/8/06 06:57 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 7/8/06 01:34 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Something's wrong.

Yeah, the founder's of this nation. If we didn't involve ourselves in WWii when we did, we'd all be speakign German right now. I like how America is now, sometimes w must involve ourselves into just causes, whether a majority of American people agree or not.

WTF ever, dude. Germany had no means and no reason to invade America. They were already losing the war, thanks to the Soviet Union (more specifically the Ural Mountains). We only hastened the end, we hardly won the war. Even if Germany HAD succeeded in taking over all of Europe and Russia, they still would have had to invade the U.S.... which is tactically and strategically retarded. As evil and vile as Hitler may have been, he wasn't stupid.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 7/8/06 07:47 PM, Guitarmy wrote:

No, you're a fucking moron, in 1700 people were much better educated than they are now.

The wealthy of the 1700s were better educated than today's poor and middle class, but mostly in terms of enlightenment philosophy. The middle class and poor today have more education than the middle class and poor of the 1700s

[fahrenheit]

At 7/8/06 07:57 PM, Ravariel wrote: WTF ever, dude. Germany had no means and no reason to invade America.

They were looking for world domination werent they?

They were already losing the war,

What are you talking about? We barely won the war, and only because of the mistakes Hitler made.

Even if Germany HAD succeeded in taking over all of Europe and Russia, they still would have had to invade the U.S....

If they had Europe and Russia they would have a huge army, one that would have been able to crush to the US at the time.

which is tactically and strategically retarded. As evil and vile as Hitler may have been, he wasn't stupid.

Hitler was a drug addict, he allowed US soldiers to invade and didnt give give the proper resistence, and he made a very arrogant error by letting the Allies gain control of the air space.

[Politics]

The Founding Fathers have about as much knowledge about judging politics in the modern world as they do about rebuilding modern computers.

The world isn't the same as it was 200 years ago, and historical events were an inevitable force which drew the United States into those alliances. If the U.S were to have ignored said events, they would have lost massive trade partners and would have been caused massive damage by opposing forces in the world. The United States certainly wouldn't be the superpower it is today.

[MeSmashie]

Well lets see if I can get you some clarification

Washington:
Would understand and approve of the war on terrorism, up to and including Afghanistan and Iraq. He would not, however approve of open boarders. Nor would he have approved of any form of socialism.

Jefferson:
Would understand the parts of the war on terrorism, but would not have approved the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. He would have not stood for any form of socialism; and would have revolted at the concept of farm aid. He would support the UN but not NATO. This may seem a bit schizophrenic but although Jefferson understood the need for global diplomacy he was an isolationist at heart.

Adams:
Would have, like Washington, supported the war on terrorism. But he would have bulked at any coalition requirements and would have fought tooth and nail over the idea of the UN or even NATO.