Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/8/06 06:45 PM, _rainmaker_ wrote:

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.

Back in the day. Dueling was a regular thing.
I never said they could just look at America and just know everything that's going on. I think they would actually be extremely proud of the US considering the Nation they brought up is now the world super power.

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.

I think they would be very proud. But as far as social values go they would be more angry with Liberals.

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

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.

You're calling me a fucking moron? You're a tool to the liberal machine, go read a history book sonny, you'll find out that the majority of Americans were farmers and laborers, not scholars and professors.

At 7/8/06 07:49 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: 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.

How the fuck are you speaking for 56 people who have been dead for 200 years?

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

Europe would be speaking Russian and there would still be a Cold War.

Only difference.

At 7/8/06 08:27 PM, Goliath- wrote:

They were already losing the war,

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

Germany was doomed the instant they tried to take on the Soviet Union.

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.

It ain't the size of the hammer, it's how hidden the nail is. We've seen how "easy" it is to invade a county with a massively superior force on multiple occasions. So far, only one is even close to being considered a success, and even that's backsliding now (Afghanistan). And we, as a country, were hardly on the level of Vietnam, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq, when it comes to comparitive military might.

We only hastened the inevitable outcome. And because of our geographic position and late entry, we ended up coming out on top and booming from the war. We didnt have to rebuild our country like the rest of Europe. We rebuilt Japan only because it was a lucrative prospect (the irony of which, in todays economy, is rather amusing), and a bit of national guilt for unleashing the Nukes.

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.

I never said he didn't make mistakes or wasn't blinded by arrogance, but to call him stupid is a grave error.

At 7/8/06 09:36 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:
Hey did you know Japan attacked America in WWii? Did you also know that Japan was Germany's ally?

attacking =/= invading. And an invading force is what it would have taken to have us all speaking German as you said would have happened had we not entered the war.

Winning WWii was a joint effort, it was not simply the Russians. Hitler made his biggest mistake when he broke his peace treaty with Stalin and started a war on both fronts of Germany. Needless to say, if Hitler only had to focus on one side of his country, he'd have a much easier time winning the war.

Obviously. But that error (mainly) cost him the war. Our part in it only moved the timeline up a few months.

You honestly think America would have been able to take on the entire world? It would have been America & Canada vs. everyone else, do not fool yourself into thinking Hitler never had a chance of winning.

I think with our military power, and millitia-minded public, it would be nearly impossible for any force in the world to invade us successfully, then and now. And Hitler would have had to WIN the war in order to try that, which wasn't going to happen... certainly not in the short term.

"If we break this treaty with Russia, then we can fight the war on two fronts!!!!1111 lololololololol, i is smarte"

See above quote about mistakes vs stupidity vs arrogance.

At 7/9/06 01:47 AM, Ravariel wrote: Germany was doomed the instant they tried to take on the Soviet Union.

Which can be considered a mistake.

It ain't the size of the hammer, it's how hidden the nail is.

What? That doesnt make any sense when its compared to this.

A country cant be hidden as easily as a nail.

We've seen how "easy" it is to invade a county with a massively superior force on multiple occasions.

Very easy.

So far, only one is even close to being considered a success, and even that's backsliding now (Afghanistan).

We went in with a concious, we didnt massacre the population and qwell rebels as we should have if we wanted to own the country. Which we dont, so you cant really compare it.

And we, as a country, were hardly on the level of Vietnam, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq, when it comes to comparitive military might.

I think todays vietnam could defeat yesterdays america.

I never said he didn't make mistakes or wasn't blinded by arrogance, but to call him stupid is a grave error.

When you combine the two you get stupidity.

At 7/9/06 02:16 AM, Goliath- wrote:

It ain't the size of the hammer, it's how hidden the nail is.

What? That doesnt make any sense when its compared to this.

A country cant be hidden as easily as a nail.

People can. It doesn't matter how large your army is, if you're invading a country with patriotic, armed people (like America) numbers will only help so much. Nevermind invading a country an ocean away. It was supply lines that doomed their invasion of the Soviets... now add to the difficulty, 3 times the distance over water, and you can see how they'd be doomed from the start.

We've seen how "easy" it is to invade a county with a massively superior force on multiple occasions.

Very easy.

Vietnam, Korea and Iraq went SO well... sure. It was cake. We totally showed them, didn't we?

And we, as a country, were hardly on the level of Vietnam, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq, when it comes to comparitive military might.

I think todays vietnam could defeat yesterdays america.

You cant compare military might of two different times. The world armies of the 40's would NEVER have been able to successfully invade our country. Period.

Vietnam beat our superior force with it's inferior one rather soundly. Korea didn't go much better. Afghanistan went down quick, but they barely have fire, so that doesn't really count. Iraq... well, we've all seen how that's going. Invading another country successfully is INSANELY difficult. It takes not only a larger military force, but exceptional strategy, superior tactics, region-wide siplomatic and political maneuvering, and a great deal of luck. I repeat: the armies of the world in the 40s would NEVER have been able to invade the US.

Quit watching Red Dawn like it was on the History Channel.

Wait, hold on... how the hell did we get so far off-topic?

This isn't about WW2, it's about JMHX's proposal that isolationism would be the best thing for the prosperity of the country. Small picture looks good... even works out on paper. Unfortunately, the larger picture kinda suffers. But then again, if you don't give a damn about the state of the rest of the world, I guess that's just peachy.

Thing is, an isolationist policy is great in the short-term. Who cares if China is pissed off at us if we gain in social and economic growth? So what if there's Genocide in Africa as long as we can get our diamonds? Wait... bad example. But the problem exists that we are never truly isolated. Everything in the world effects us in some way. A country's civil war can disrupt trade. A diplomatic snafu can do the same thing. Pissing off the #2 economy in the world is a good way to get yourself in BIG trouble.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't stop sticking our nose where it doesn't belong... but there are a few things that we, as the preeminent power in the world, SHOULD do. Such as stopping Genocide (i.e. WW2 Germany, Bosnia, Darfur), keeping positive diplomatic relations with as many countries as possible, assisting other's economies when possible, etc.

I don't say this out of any love for other people. But the benefit of others is, indirectly, beneficial for us. If a country likes us, chances are we get good trade with them, thus both of us benefit. If we assist another country's economy, everyone benefits from the result. Genocide and war, be it civil or otherwise, disrupts entire regions, making trade and economic growth nearly impossible, thus bad for everyone.

If we isolate our economy, the lack of competition and interaction may find us outpaced by others, and evolved out of our perch on top of the worldwide food chain... which is exactly what you wish to avoid, no?

At 7/9/06 03:21 AM, Ravariel wrote: Iraq... well, we've all seen how that's going.

Last I checked we invaded Iraq quite flawlessly. We have almost complete control of the country at all times. But the war now is much more asymetrical than Vietnam. I mean there are comparisons, but Vietnam comparisons to Iraq are simply impossible. There is not Viet Cong. There are no supplies to be carried down a Ho Saddam Trail from North Iraq. There is no NVA to be fought. This is warfare carried out on a battlefied so asymetrical and so chaotic CentCom would say we are shitting them if we put this in a wargame 40 years ago.

Where our government screwed up the planning is the occupation. America can quite easily and perfectly invade damn near any country. The problems emerge in the occupation. And we mightly fucked that up.

At 7/9/06 01:47 AM, Ravariel wrote: We rebuilt Japan only because it was a lucrative prospect

I would like to see that sourced.

At 7/9/06 03:42 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 7/9/06 03:21 AM, Ravariel wrote: Iraq... well, we've all seen how that's going.

Last I checked we invaded Iraq quite flawlessly. We have almost complete control of the country at all times.

Eeeehh, I don't quite see it that way. our control of the country seems to be shaky at best. We still haven't been able to get an effective government going, their military is pitiful, there are insurgent attacks almost daily. We haven't "lost" yet, but neither have we won. We probably will win eventually... but I hesitate to mark it in that column due to the sheer uncertainty of the situation.

But the war now is much more asymetrical than Vietnam. I mean there are comparisons, but Vietnam comparisons to Iraq are simply impossible. There is not Viet Cong. There are no supplies to be carried down a Ho Saddam Trail from North Iraq. There is no NVA to be fought. This is warfare carried out on a battlefied so asymetrical and so chaotic CentCom would say we are shitting them if we put this in a wargame 40 years ago.

I agree, and I wan't trying to compare it to Vietnam, tactically or strategically... only as examples of the difficulty of invading and occupying a country, even with a vastly superior force.

Where our government screwed up the planning is the occupation. America can quite easily and perfectly invade damn near any country. The problems emerge in the occupation. And we mightly fucked that up.

Exactly. Maybe I should have been a little more clear. Invasion is simple enough... it's the occupation that's tough.

At 7/9/06 01:47 AM, Ravariel wrote: We rebuilt Japan only because it was a lucrative prospect

I would like to see that sourced.

I'll work on that and get back to you tomorrow (read: after I get a night's sleep).

At 7/8/06 08:41 PM, MeSmashie wrote: 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.

I'm impressed by the debate here, but I take issue with Washington condoning Iraq -- this has proved to be a long-term nation building process that has significantly bound us to the ebbs and flows of another nation, which Washington strongly stood against not only during his Administration and its dealings with revolutionary France, but in his Farewell Address condemning entangling alliances and relationships with nations abroad.

Yes, but back then, It was possible for your country to still advance and practice isolationism.

That is impossible in todays world.

We live in a global market and from the effects of the Cold War. We simply can't issolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

At 7/8/06 08:58 PM, AccessCode wrote: Back in the day. Dueling was a regular thing.

Oh yeah, I know. But the point was to show times change, and now that you mention it, morals change. My post wasn't directed at you, moreless, it was meant to agree with you on some things, and disagree with you on others. You still bring up a great point.

I never said they could just look at America and just know everything that's going on. I think they would actually be extremely proud of the US considering the Nation they brought up is now the world super power.

Oh yeah, but it's just like me and my patriotism; I'm proud of my country for some things, and I despise my country for others (though I will say, I'm proud of my country for A LOT more, and even though I disagree with the U.S. Government on a few issues, that in no way serves as even 1% of the feelings for my country).

I think they would be very proud. But as far as social values go they would be more angry with Liberals.

I think they'd be more angry than proud, though. You're right about being more angry with liberals, because the base of the liberal party is change, while the base of the conservative party is staying the same, sometimes even moving back. Though, it's up to anyone's guess to estimate whether they'd be prouder or angrier with the modern United States.

At 7/9/06 03:21 AM, Ravariel wrote: People can. It doesn't matter how large your army is, if you're invading a country with patriotic, armed people (like America) numbers will only help so much.

Milita versus a real army.

Hmm, lets think.
Doy, the army always wins.

Nevermind invading a country an ocean away. It was supply lines that doomed their invasion of the Soviets... now add to the difficulty

Pretty much every country that had tried to invade russia failed.
Not many countries have tried to invade north america, but England managed it.

Vietnam, Korea and Iraq went SO well... sure. It was cake. We totally showed them, didn't we?

I dont know much about Vietnam and Korea, but Iraq was succesful. Within three weeks we had our troops occupying the country with few casualties.

You cant compare military might of two different times. The world armies of the 40's would NEVER have been able to successfully invade our country. Period.

Are you dense? Our military back then was nothing like it is now. Most of them were fresh recruits straight out of high school forced to do it by a draft.

Vietnam beat our superior force with it's inferior one rather soundly.

As far as I know we were never beat in Vietnam. We never had any major loses and quite a few wins. The only reason we lost is because we pulled because of so many protests.

Afghanistan went down quick, but they barely have fire, so that doesn't really count. Iraq... well, we've all seen how that's going. Invading another country successfully is INSANELY difficult.

No, invading a country and setting up its democracy and national defenses back to the government without having to worry it will go back to before you invaded is insanely difficult.

It takes not only a larger military force, but exceptional strategy, superior tactics, region-wide siplomatic and political maneuvering, and a great deal of luck.

And that is what war is.
Its not two countries send two armies to fight and the winner owns the losing country.

I repeat: the armies of the world in the 40s would NEVER have been able to invade the US.

Invade = yes.
Occupy = yes.
Control = no.

Quit watching Red Dawn like it was on the History Channel.

Whats Red Dawn? Is that the one where they go onto mars hoping there is air, only to be killed by a disfunctional mechanical dog?
Oh wait, that was Red Planet.

At 7/8/06 01:38 AM, Dinodoode wrote: The world would be much worse if America stopped caring.

And everyone would complain that we didn't help thise poor people in Iraq.

At 7/9/06 10:33 PM, Goliath- wrote: Milita versus a real army.

Hmm, lets think.
Doy, the army always wins.

Tell that to the British.

Pretty much every country that had tried to invade russia failed.

Doesn't negate the "why".

Not many countries have tried to invade north america, but England managed it.

Apples and oranges. The Native Americans were caught so completely offguard that there was nothign they could do. No such thing would have happened during and after WW2.

I dont know much about Vietnam and Korea, but Iraq was succesful. Within three weeks we had our troops occupying the country with few casualties.

Yeah... how've we done since then? Thought so.

Are you dense? Our military back then was nothing like it is now. Most of them were fresh recruits straight out of high school forced to do it by a draft.

Congratulations, you just described all of the armies of the entire world of the time. Many on the German's side were recruited in a much less civil manner... how hard do you think THEY would fight fo their "country"?

Vietnam beat our superior force with it's inferior one rather soundly.

As far as I know we were never beat in Vietnam. We never had any major loses and quite a few wins. The only reason we lost is because we pulled because of so many protests.

You also said you dont know much about Vietnam or Korea, so bone up on the history. Protests at home had little to do with our failure in Vietnam.

I repeat: the armies of the world in the 40s would NEVER have been able to invade the US.

Invade = yes.
Occupy = yes.
Control = no.

Occupation = control. We, the most powerful army in the world by several units of measure, have not yet solidified our occupation of a third-world country even three years after we "effortlessly took them out in 3 weeks". If that's not a decent example of the difficulty of occupation, then I'm not sure what is.

Quit watching Red Dawn like it was on the History Channel.

Whats Red Dawn? Is that the one where they go onto mars hoping there is air, only to be killed by a disfunctional mechanical dog?
Oh wait, that was Red Planet.

Lol... I finally checked your profile... yer only 14. No wonder you don't know that movie... it was made years before you were ever born. Late Cold-war flick about Russia and Cuba jopining forces and invading the US. Cheesy 80's dreck... but amusing nonetheless. You should rent it.

While I respect our position in the world economy as the world's undisputed superpower, the notion that out military is responsible for other country's well being is absurd. That is not our place and it shouldn't be any nation's place. It's too much to ask of any one country and it's not any country's business tampering with the sovereignty of another nation. Travesties happened and were resolved before the US went around trying to play World Police. The world does not and has never needed the United States mucking around with other people's internal conflicts.

Just for an interesting fact to add: It was Germany who declared war on the US, not the other way around.

The US needed a legitimate reason to get involved in the war - and Japan supplied that exact reason, with the Pearl Harbor attack. The US declared war on Japan, and since Germany and Japan had a formal alliance, a show of support was needed. So, Germany declared war on the US.

The US was supplying arms to Britain during it's pre-debut, and was mobilizing it's army and industry well before too. Though I'm a bit surprised war didn't occur earlier, considering that on a few occasions, German ships attacked and sunk US ships.
-----
For the founding fathers, I doubt that they would know what to think if they saw the current world as it is. Their primary concern back then was to conceive a new nation of their own, free from Britain's tyranny, and to ensure that ideals were set up to prevent a similar situation from arising again. It's possible that the edicts imposed by Britain instilled the very things written in the Constitution, such as each man (and woman, in current phrasing) being allowed to rise to their full potential (Emancipation), and Universal Suffrage (although it took quite awhile to allow everyone to vote, kinks to be worked out).

Things such as Capitalism and Socialism were essentially unknown concepts back then. Hell, even economics was only starting to truly develop as a 'science', as it were (supply/demand, investment, etc.). The subject known as liberalism, was to be the base concept for what they proceeded upon. (No, not liberalism as in liberal/conservative, but as in classical liberalism - big difference)

My only [personal] complaint is about how they treated those who thought differently about the situation, ones who wanted to stay loyal to the queen. They were drove out by the citizens, maimed or killed otherwise (in some situations - and this event seemed to be independent from official government). Their voices were extinguished, so to speak.
-----
About Isolationism... seperating yourselves from the world does not solve one's problems. There is simply too much to be desired from this world that would prevent such a pose. And there are times when action must be taken outside of an individual territory. An open mind must be used when approaching problems, and one's own judgement upon the situation at hand. Sometimes a friend can be overwhelmed at times, and action must be taken if this friend is to go through with this situation.

It doesn't always mean military support either, and more situations happen in this world that are not militarily-relevant. Sometimes a simple show of support, saying 'We support you!' can be entirely more effective - but, judgement must come in hand, and respect must be delivered as to not treat each situation as a similar one before. Examine each side of the event, and decide what would be the most prudent response, considering all available information and knowledge at the time.

Custom answers for custom circumstances.

At 7/10/06 03:04 AM, Ravariel wrote: Tell that to the British.

We had more numbers and better tactics.
Hidding behind a tree dodging bullets works a bit better than standing out in the open.

Not to mention we had a lot more loses than wins. And we needed the French to help us out.

Doesn't negate the "why".

Weather.

Yeah... how've we done since then? Thought so.

Your missing the point, we came in and occupied the country but were not dealing with it as if we were trying to make it our own (which were not). Were dealing with it as if we were trying to set it back on its feet.

Many on the German's side were recruited in a much less civil manner...

Propaganda.
They fought volountarily thinking they were doing the world good. Most of our soldiers were forced into it thinking that they were fighting a pointless war for the good of another country.

Which do you think had more confidence?

You also said you dont know much about Vietnam or Korea, so bone up on the history.

I get a few bits of information from parents and teachers.

Protests at home had little to do with our failure in Vietnam.

I think someone who was alive during it would know more about it then you.

Occupation = control.

No.
If I came into your house with a gun do I control you? To some extent yes, but if you wanted you, or someone else in your house, could try and stop me. Just because I am in your house with a few weapons doesnt mean I wouldnt meet resistence, which isnt what a control is.

We, the most powerful army in the world by several units of measure, have not yet solidified our occupation of a third-world country

Our soldiers are in Iraq, I would say thats an occupation.

At 7/10/06 03:36 PM, Goliath- wrote:

At 7/10/06 03:04 AM, Ravariel wrote: Tell that to the British.

We had more numbers and better tactics.
Hidding behind a tree dodging bullets works a bit better than standing out in the open.

Which is why we were destroyed in every battle until we could train regulars that had the same kind of skills as the British. And we had more numbers? Since when?

At 7/10/06 08:21 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 7/10/06 03:36 PM, Goliath- wrote:

At 7/10/06 03:04 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Which is why we were destroyed in every battle until we could train regulars that had the same kind of skills as the British. And we had more numbers? Since when?

we were still destroyed but It was stupid to train troops for that.

Guirrela Warfare is where it's at.

The Guerrilla Warfare was somewhat effective in a war of attrition like the Revolution, but Washington knew that, for all the zeal of the troops, they would be destroyed in every full-on battle unless there was training and discipline within the ranks. Gradually they got to that point, and combined guerrilla tactics with strong military training and discipline to win some surprising victories. I wouldn't go too far into the patina of war by saying that our zealous rag-tag 'Army' circa 1776 would have won the Revolution had it not been for intense military training during the course of the war, and the addition of regiments of Regulars to supplement militia ranks.

At 7/10/06 08:21 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Which is why we were destroyed in every battle until we could train regulars that had the same kind of skills as the British.

Actually we didnt adapt to Guirella(sp) warfare until about the middle of the war when most of our generals felt they needed to try something new and radical. And guess what? We started winning.

And we had more numbers? Since when?

About a third of the population of the new world at the beginning of the war, and that turned to over 4/5 by the time the war ended. They had an entire population against their soldiers, they would have needed to end their campaigns in the east to bring enough soldiers over, which they felt was unesecary(sp).

We HARDLY had the entire population of the United States fighting the British, and a significant amount of people in the country were either avowed Tories or closet loyalists, including most of the state of New York at the time, New Jersey, and a few other Northeastern states. Hell, Benjamin Franklin's son was the Royal Governor of New Jersey, and managed to direct most of the Loyalist New Jersey opposition from his jail cell.

Just as importantly, there were NOT that many guns. Sorry, but no. Not everyone had a gun.

At 7/11/06 02:35 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Just as importantly, there were NOT that many guns. Sorry, but no. Not everyone had a gun.

Don't try to turn this into a 2nd Amendment debate. That's not what the topic was about, and it's not what the guy above me was trying to say.

At 7/11/06 02:26 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: We HARDLY had the entire population of the United States fighting the British,

Thats why I said a third were for the revolution. I didnt say they fought, but a lot of people gave money and supplies to the soldiers. Some revolted against the British and allowed the Revolutionists to take the town. By the time the Americans got a few victories a lot more people joined the cause.

and a significant amount of people in the country were either avowed Tories or closet loyalists,

Actually by the middle of the war most of the tories converted to either quiet loyalists or full on revolutionists due to the discrimination against tories and seizure of possesions that the British did.

including most of the state of New York at the time, New Jersey, and a few other Northeastern states.

I'm sorry, I might be confusing this with something else but I seem to recall a few cities in the north (including New York) rioted and eventually revolted against the british.

At 7/11/06 03:54 PM, Goliath- wrote:

At 7/11/06 02:26 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

I'm sorry, I might be confusing this with something else but I seem to recall a few cities in the north (including New York) rioted and eventually revolted against the british.

We didn't get NYC back till the British surrendured in Yorktown.

At 7/11/06 03:54 PM, Goliath- wrote:

At 7/11/06 02:26 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

I'm sorry, I might be confusing this with something else but I seem to recall a few cities in the north (including New York) rioted and eventually revolted against the british.

Most of the New England states - with the exception of Massachusetts after Washington's brilliant siege of Boston, remained loyal to the crown. After the war ended and New York was taken back, most of the loyalist tories boarded ships and left for England, since they found themselves in a very hostile atmosphere.

Yeah... I sure that they would be pretty pissed off. Now that Americans are dumb fat. The only thing they have on their mind is war. They can't accept anything enviromental. Also they are ignorant because they think god did "it".

It's rather funny to see a 3 page topic go from America becoming (?) an isolationist nation and the inevitable globalizaztion, to reminiscing about good ol' junior high history classes in the US, to stating the obvious about average Americans.

Anyways, this reply is for America becoming an isolationist country (if thats what in fact the original question was): American's market depends solely on imports now - - - well, just a guess, but it would be like for every 15 dollars made in imported goods, 1 measly dollar is made through the sale of domestics. I wonder if the US still has its touch and can produce products and markets that can sell not only to Americans, but to other friendly countries too. If not, than America would 'suffer' lol. Maybe not. As for taxes, what about Native Americans? And what if God was one of us? Pardon my meaningless ranting, but I just wanted you all to think about that. Do kindly correct me if I am wrong about anything.