Is It Time That America Cuts Itself Off From The Rest?

Jump to Last Post 1-22 of 22 discussions (160 posts)

72
Cagsilposted 12 years ago
Hey Americans,

Just curious what you think. Is it time for America to close it's borders, shutdown economic aid around the world, build it's infrastructure, such as more stable housing complex, more structure railing(traveling system), cut off imports to extreme necessary items, re-vamp the schooling/education system and keep complete economics sale and distribution within our own borders?

It appears as if it's high time America finally took care of it's own, instead of taking care of everyone else in the world, which would also mean that America quits policing the world.

Any other ideas in way to re-vamping America, feel free to weigh in.

And yes outsider views can be spoken, but most likely won't be considered.

I've posted this topic to listen openly to American citizens who want to discuss, how to right the ship known as America. Citizens are the key to fixing America, not outsiders or what outsiders think is best for America.

As a citizen of America, it should be best for citizens to decide the best interests of America, not other people.
reply report
1. 0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I don't know that I would support closing the borders. We are a nation of immigrants. It is one of the things that makes us great. But, yes. I would support pulling the troops back and not feeling as if we have to police the world.
  
  I am also in firm support of cutting off economic aid to other nations. Except for humanitarian reasons. We have enough people here in need of aid without giving it to other countries.
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Emile.
  reply report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, we really do have to stop giving away all our money. We just plain can't afford to do that anymore.
  reply report
2. 61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You cannot stop outsider views in this thread any more than America can close its borders and ignore the outside world. And you (and other nationalists) may not consider them but any other reader of this thread will, so your view doesn't count for much before you start.
  
  And while it is for Americans to decide what to do with America, if you don't decide properly it inevitably leads to others deciding for you by force at some point down the line, this is the world we all live in.
  
  My view, that you arrogantly pre-decide to ignore, is that America should withdraw from the world in the same way that the UK and Europe withdrew from their colonising adventures half a century ago.
  
  Anyone who still buys into the idea that the American aggressive bullying, and warmongering is 'world policing' is blind. America should take its huge war machine home and dismantle most of it, then perhaps the generals will not decide American foreign policy.
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting statement.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not to appear rude, but Europe's propensity for dragging the entire world into war twice in the same century had quite a bit to do with America stepping away from an isolationist position. We lost too many lives helping clean up Europe's messes.
  
  A high horse isn't anywhere a first world nation can balance on comfortably when owning up to their own contribution to history.
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please feel free to be rude to me whenever you like
  
  There is no high horse, I am not defending any position here. Europe of the 1800's is the ancestor of most of us. The wars of the 1900's provided the economic boost for America to achieve number one economy for a short while - and unfortunately the wars model for the ensuing economic drivers of the last 50 years.
  
  I was suggesting that America's colonisation period is over and it should withdraw and do as Cagsil suggests, put its own house in order before it leads to outright global war as America loses more and more friends around the world.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please, tell me where we are colonizing; European style.
  
  I agree, we should back off; but I still say Europe's war mongering put us in a position where we felt the need to drain our economy supporting and participating in such organizations as Nato.
  
  I don't think it could be argued that Britian's prime minister didn't play a major role in convincing Bush that invading Afghanistan and Iraq was the moral high ground. It is wearisome to watch this country foot the bill and take the blame for decisions discussed with and supported by other world powers.
  
  I, for one, would love to see our government attempt to step back. Terrorism isn't really our problem. It appears to be more of a European problem. And, even though Europe hasn't effectively dealt with it, they should be the ones to foot the bill for finding a way to resolve it
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wow - this is like Alice in the Looking glass where everything changes direction!
  
  Colonising does not have to be European style to still be colonising. Just because we have learned that physically occupying a country is fraught with problems and that installing corrupt puppets is a better way of controlling does not mean that you are not colonising. Even such simple de-stabilising as America continued for 50 years in South America is a form of control of countries that cannot be colonised.
  
  The war mongering has been largely the US, it has driven your economy until you are reliant on it. I don't see how you can blame American involvement in Vietnam on Europe ? Blair was talked into the failed Iraq adventure by America and probably the Vatican, bullied into it would be a more appropriate description. And in doing so Blair betrayed the British people.
  
  American aggression world-wide is the cause of which terrorism is the effect. They, of course, consider that America is the world terrorist, just with a more powerful military and media machine.
  
  To get back on thread - America should recognise that the new war is one of economics and it is losing, the reliance on bombs and guns to enforce trade is out of date. The military complex should be drastically reduced and the money, manpower and vigour of it turned to manufacture and trade.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Terrorism worldwide has a much to do with European post war policy as it does with corporate manipulation, as it does with American policy. There are no white gloves behind the closed doors of first world governments. Please, continue to call us war mongers. My prediction is, the next world war will be another that is not of our making; and one where we will once again be asked to help Europe. And we will.
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So - in your view Europe is responsible for your involvement in Korea, Vietnam, your illegal genocide in Laos, also for Iraq, Afghanistan, and now increasingly in Pakistan ? interesting if weird point of view I think.
  
  That the European and American post war carving up of territories and nations, and the arbitrary installation of Israel into Palestine, is the base cause of the trouble - I don't see Europe continuing to use the friction and differences to create more problems rather than less. Except my own UK of course, and France in Libya - of whom I am deeply ashamed.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have said America needs to step back. I think we have made mistakes, as have all first world nations. This high horse Europeans love to pretend exists ' just ain't so'.
  
  I am horrified at the British occupation of Ireland and the conduct of Britain toward the Irish during their quest for independence. I'm shocked that Scotland is still occupied.
  
  Read a history book not tainted by European arrogance. How the devil America became responsible for the insertion of the nation of Israel onto the Middle Eastern landscape is a mystery. The hatred of the people of Europe toward Jews is the culprit. Your nations did everything they could to relegate the Jews to ghettos and second class status. You sat by while genocides occurred. It was Britain's agreement that began the Zionist movement into Palestine.
  
  Britain controlled Palestine, and helped orchestrate events that led to the formation of the state of Israel. America refused to intervene until after the events of the beginning, after the war had ended and the landscape envisioned by the Balfour Declaration was in place.
  
  Carving up the Ottoman empire was a primarily European plan. All strife we are dealing with now in the Middle East began because of European meddling.
  
  This propensity toward viewing history in the short run serves your ego well, but I say we are still trying to find a way to salvage and deal with the mess created by European imperialism worldwide.
  
  Is it our place to? Absolutely not. No more than it was Europe's right to drag us down this path. Has the American government made gross errors in judgment? Absolutely. Just as other nations have. Do we have ex leaders that need their moment at the World Court? Absolutely. Just as all other nations do.
  
  But, had Europe not played a major role in creating the landscape of the modern world we might not be in the position we are today. If you want to blame us for being afraid of World War and attempting to stay involved and keep an American presence worldwide, then blame Europe for showing us how bloody things can get. Blame Europe for making us realize that we have to be proactive.
  
  Until those countries own up to their mistakes it is simple arrogance and haughty disdain for reality that drives your argument.
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Only you see the 'high horse' you claim for me - maybe you should re-read my post ? My point was that the US has continued to exploit the original problems that I said in my post were left over from the imperial days, including the UK inserting Israel into Palestine- and the US is only doing it for its own gain.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And I apologize. You have been right on some levels and I was not willing to be courteous on this fact. I don't agree with much that our government does, however I do see the history that shaped our policies. I do understand why, although the American people don't support many things, we compacently allow things to continue.
  
  We have to get a handle on things and clean up our messes. I do tend to chew the inside my jaw when it appears that we are being put at the forefront of the blame for everything that has ever happened; as often happens on these forums.
  
  I do, however, think our stand by Israel is not necessarily in our own interests. The opposite actually. Our behavior worldwide is, of course, in our own interests; as are the policies of every government. I would like to believe our government could be reshaped so that it always sought the higher good; but it would make us quite the anomaly on the world stage. Don't you think?
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No apology necessary
  
  It is not necessary to look for some higher good, just go home and look to the good of America but without the aggressive world trade policy. This is the lesson that comes from the European withdrawal from its colonisations, although the Libya adventure is pure opportunist re-colonisation by the west led by the UK and France its previous colonial owners.
  reply report
  69
  Charlie Wolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Our involvement in Viet Nam came about as the Southeastern Asian nations destabilized when the European nations who colonized them withdrew after WWII. The communists in the former Soviet Union and China were expanding thier influence and places like Viet Nam were targets. It's just one more mess the US was asked to clean up in the wake of Hitler's attempt at world conquest.
  reply report
  56
  Shinkickerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Who helped build the Nazi war machine Emile? Look into the financing of the Third Reich and the components for their equipment and fuel
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that the USA certainly is a war mongering nation ,in fact most of their budget is spent on military.
  (Like my sister in law says , who works for a Government company ,making artillery, WAR keeps her employed)
  
  Economically( as foreign countries do) companies move off shore to make more money, they are not going to move back to lose billions in tariff taxes etc- it fact the drain continues.
  reply report
3. 56
  Shinkickerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Far from policing the world the US role has been the opposite. Successive US govts have been the most genocidal in modern times. They have been criminal not policing, with illegal wars and state-sponsored terrorism ever since they invaded the Philippines in 1899. As for Isolationism. Could the Military-Industrial Complex survive and is the US economy as a whole not too dependent on the arms trade? A war economy needs perpetual feeding.
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not here to post replies to questions. I asked for citizens thoughts and suggestions. That's all.
  reply report
4. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  cutting off imports would likely kill us all.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think there is much "likely" about it Evan, you wouldn't survive five minutes without imports or exports.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We agree there!
  
  But more to the point: why bother defining "imports" as "things bought from another country".
  
  I import things everyday: I drive to the local grocery store and take their food and then ship it back to my refrigerator for consumption.
  
  I also export things on a daily basis: I drive myself to my place of work and sell my labor to another person. I am exporting my labor about 5 miles every day.
  
  The entire idea of "imports and exports" is just veiled racism because it relies on the foolish notion that the people of earth aren't equal.
  reply report
5. 61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's good to see a blatantly xenophobic post rather than the usually mealy mouthed efforts of your fellow countrymen.
  I wonder, does this isolationist policy include the withdrawal of businesses in foreign countries ie no more American TV, no more American cars, machine tools, grain and every thing else that made up the $48.5 billion in exports to the UK in 2010.
  I do think it would be better for world peace if the US was to surrender its role as the worlds police. It is a rogue force causing far more unrest than it ever settles and putting large areas of the world at risk, both overtly and covertly sponsoring and promoting terrorism.
  
  If you are going to hold the role of world leaders then it is only fair that the world has a say in your, and therefore their own, affairs.
  reply report
6. 61
  Joe Badtoeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you close the borders I assume you will also revert to the national languages of Native Americans too? Or will you have special immigration status?
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Oh you mean the First Americans driven off their land by the first immigrants..
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes,those would be the ones!
  
  But hey, we gave them alcoholism and casinos.
  Seems like a fair trade to me, don't you agree?
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You forgot diseases too-ahh yes they should be more grateful
  reply report
7. 59
  Danny R Handposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am not in favor of total isolationism. However, I do believe we need to bring home 90% of the troops we have around the world. Keeping SMALL bases within the borders of our strongest allies makes good strategic sense. But we don't need 50,000 here, 30,000 there, ect. ect........! As far as putting them to work, I don't think we should discharge everyone in the service just because we bring them home. Continue to train them so we can keep the best fighting force in the world. Only train them on the borders. We shouldn't shut out immigrants all together, just illegal immigrants. By bringing our soldiers home and training them on the borders, we deal with the illegal immigration problem, the drugs being sent across our borders and the continuance of the training of our troops with one action.
  I also do not believe we need to reform our immigration laws. Only inforce the federal laws already on the books, and that will continue to give immigrants the opportunity to make a life here and in time become citizens. I do not agree with amnesty, although some consideration should be given to those who have American children 10 years old or higher.
  We should reform our education policies. Were falling behind the rest of the world and this will directly affect our future generations. Our classes are to big, we don't have enough teachers, and our children spend as much time playing video games as they do learning. Longer school days and longer school years are desperately needed.
  Then there's our trade policies that favor corporations rather than our workers. These policies only make it profitable for corporations to move their manufacturing overseas and cost Americans jobs. Reform our trade policies, and focus on creating a manufacturing base here. America has become a nation of consumption. We produce very little.
  Tax reform is a must. We should lower the base % and implement a flat tax with no loopholes, tax breaks, incentives, or subsidies. Although I think we should continue to exempt those in the range of poverty who make $20,000 annually or less. Reduce,(or REMOVE) our debt in a responsible way. Some cuts now, but the majority of cuts to be implemented in time. Increase revenue and make intelligent cuts in the budget. We could pay our debt off completely in 30 years.
  With these changes in place companies would begin to invest in America again. Yet until that time, the government will need to invest on a LARGE scale in infrastructure, and public service such as firemen, and police. Rebuilding schools and investments in clean energy sources. There are many INVESTMENTS which could be made in our country that would employ millions, and improve our nations future.
  Yet there is another problem we face. Our social culture has erroded. Many of our children have poor work ethics. Our society has allowed our children to become self-centered. We see young people with their pants half down, with bad attitudes, useing foul language, with no respect for others, much less their elders. Many have no desire for education and feel the world owes them. I do not wish to degrade them, but this problem does exist, and if we do not face it, the end result will be less than we wish for our children.
  reply report
  69
  Teddletonmrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Amen,
  reply report
8. 60
  lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'd be fascinated to see how this turned out. Europe is going through a similar thing having finally seen the error of the European union. People are even talking of war. Perhaps now would be a good time to close your borders.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In what way was the Union an error?
  reply report
  60
  lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It was an undemocratic, political central banking system which sought to steal away the sovereignty of individual nations within Europe in order to create a super power which could surpass America. Britain never felt comfortable about it which is why it never bought into the Euro.
  It was never going to be a good thing trying to make such a variety of strong cultures and nationalities tow one single line. Greece are wanting out as we speak and Ireland is bound to be next.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And there was I thinking that it was a common market where labour could move freely around and goods could be traded without let or hindrance and now you tell me it's all about banking!
  
  BTW, don't you mean "toe" rather than "tow"?
  reply report
  60
  lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But that great thing is coming to an end. What do you think went wrong?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Tis the bankers that went wrong, but they are with us, EEC or no EEC.
  reply report
9. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It would be impossible or at least very damaging for the US to attempt to cut itself off from the rest of the world. The world is interconnected in so many ways.
  reply report
74
wheelinalloverposted 12 years ago
With our huge aging population I don't know if closing the borders is a good idea. Someone has to do the work the immigrants do and aging baby boomers never wanted those jobs to begin with. We do however need to find a way to get tax money from them. The funding the government passes out to them so freely needs to be better policed and paid back.

As for bringing our world police force back, it's a great idea but these people need to have jobs to go to. At the present time even those left behind can't find jobs.

My question is does our government stop funding programs which are needed today to balance the budget? It is obvious the business world can't provide jobs which pay enough to keep many people out of poverty.

As for the school system, the Amish do a better job without government funding than the best public schools in the United States maybe we need to look at their example. (I live in a small town and in an underpopulated state so the Amish way would work well here.) As a matter of fact they just outlawed one room school houses here a few years ago. They pay taxes including for a school system they are not a part of.

If more Americans took care of their own as the Amish do, from the cradle to the grave the government would save millions. The Amish do not pay into social security and never take from it. There are also millionaires among the Amish who only have an eighth grade education. The Amish learn from others within their community and from people outside the community. None of them has ever been to college.

Whoever wrote that outside people "have a say no matter what" in a way is right. They can make suggestions as suggestions and someone might listen if what they say has merit. We are part of a global community and many parts of the world depend on us in quite a few ways. We are the market for many of their goods and we do sell to at least a few of them. Without the natural resources they supply we will fail. The oil companies are well aware of this as are the diamond suppliers and many others.

For employment again maybe we should look to the Amish, their unemployment rate is much smaller than the general population. This again is because they take care of their own. It is no wonder to me that their population keeps growing.

They find a way to modify what they learn to make it fit their beliefs we as a country could do similar. Like the victory gardens grown by the people during world war two.

The American Indians also never had the problems we do as a country. When populations got too big they just went to war with their neighbors until the population dropped back to a sustainable level. I don't advocate this but believe it could happen. Others learned new ways to sustain their larger populations.

I don't know what the answers are. Governments rise and fall because they overstep their bounds until the people revolt. "We the people" is no longer the way this country works. Until the people get involved it won't change. We started the whole freedom thing and later generations take it for granted.

Freedom isn't free and it is time we as a country realize this. Get involved and make changes every where you can. Just remember it must be for the betterment of everyone just just the select few it is now.
reply report
1. 72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting input.
  reply report
2. 59
  Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Someone has to do the work the immigrants do and aging baby boomers never wanted those jobs to begin with.
  As for bringing our world police force back, it's a great idea but these people need to have jobs to go to. "
  I wanted to be an Investment Banker but there were no jobs so now I lay concrete block instead
  reply report
  74
  wheelinalloverposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There was never anything in my life I wanted and didn't accomplish before I became wheelchair bound. If I had listened to my doctors I would have only one leg today. I still have both because I did what was needed to keep it. I was told I would never stand again. I have been doing it for years now. Again it was a goal I set for myself. If you want to be an investment banker do what you need to to make it happen. There is a whole wide world out there and someone is sure to need an investment banker.
  
  I can't see baby boomers as migrant farm workers. I personally spent a few years working in orange groves as an after school job. Didn't like it then and can't do it now. Baby boomers never wanted these jobs and not many others born after do either. My father had a teaching degree yet he chose to own his own business. He chose the construction industry because he actually made more than he would have teaching. He still taught, he had apprentices working for him with whom he shared his expertise. His reputation kept him in business until the day he retired.
  reply report
3. 69
  Teddletonmrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Separation of church and state make it impossible for America to model itself after the Amish.
  To pray in school, at work and in the presents of others that do not believe, can you say lawsuit?
  We in America are so busy trying not to piss off or offend the other person we make like-minded folks apathetic or fearful.
  reply report
94
wildernessposted 12 years ago
Shut down all imports except those we absolutely have to have.

Were I China and the US made that choice it would be the last shipment of several minerals virtually unknown in the US. Other countries are in much the same position; the have a virtual monopoly on certain minerals. Others sell much more than we just have to have; if we refuse wood products from Canada will they still sell us oil?

Economic warfare is seldom advantageous to anyone.
reply report
1. 72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Wilderness.
  reply report
2. 67
  Brupieposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Trade wars or protectionism is not in our economic interests. Look in your closet and see how many articles of clothing were manufactured in the U.S. If we close up shop and bring all the troops and foreign aid home what do we get in return - a textile industry with a few hundred low-paying jobs? Our aid has helped foster alliances like the one we have with Korea and Australia. Their purchases of American goods support hundreds of well paying jobs.
  
  Just a factual follow up. If wilderness is referring to the minerals known as "rare earths", the minerals are actually not particularly rare (a company called Molycorp is reviving a closed mine in California). They exist in reasonable quantities in the U.S. but it wasn't economically viable and ecologically sound to mine them. China fixed that by restricting sales.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Some are the rare earths, some are other materials. For instance, there is just one nickel mine left in the US and we use a LOT of nickel.
  
  Mostly, though, it is about protectionism and what it leads to.
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Most of your post I can agree with - except this. China has not restricted sales of anything, they have put into place deals and logistics that make it considerably more favourable for basic resource exporting countries to export to China or other Asean countries. They also offer more stable long term partnerships with easily accessible investment funds. Brazil is a case in point where they are exporting (copper I think I remember) mostly to China now, and are enjoying both considerable development and increasing criticism from the US.
  reply report
  67
  Brupieposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In July of 2010 China reduced their export quota of rare earths by 72%. Google it.
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is not restricting sales, it is deciding how much China needs to determine how much is used internally and how much externally. If you are a food exporting nation then you would do the same or starve, a close analogy I would say ?
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  According to my local paper that is due to China trying to clean up the mining process. It is an ecological disaster and they are revamping the methods used for mining and refining.
  reply report
88
Will Apseposted 12 years ago
I am always amazed that people imagine the foreign policies of their governments are benign, moral and designed to 'help' other people in the world.

Foreign policy is all about pursuit of a nations interests. US foreign policy is no better or worse than any other nations.

Having said that, the more ideological a government is, the more likely you are to see absurd and damaging decisions being made. Unfortunately, the US has had some fanatically right wing governments in recent times and their war mongering will take a lot of getting over.

More likely than recovery is a further swing to the right in coming decades and the sad decline of the US as its economy is weakened by military spending and the kind of globalization that can only harm its industries .
reply report
75
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
I think it's too late and logistically impossible for the USA to turn its back on the rest of the world.
We live in a GLOBAL economy and America is NOT an island (not even a continent, but just a part of one!)

Having said that, I absolutely think we should shift our focus away from the "war on terror" to creating jobs, rebuilding infrastructure and actually educating our citizens to compete in the global economy.
*thinking out loud here*
Imagine all the work that could get done if we brought our troops back home and put them to work domestically.
My goodness.
Who says you have to blow up and devastate a country (literally) before you rebuild it?
All that military might -- surely we could find good uses for it right here.
Support our troops AND support our country!
reply report
1. 72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Mighty Mom.
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh come on, Cags.
  Don't you want to mix it up?
  Spar?
  I'm spoiling for a fight tonight!
  (Not with you -- can't even imagine that!)
  Just sayin'...
  Good thread I hope you get a lot of food for .... a food fight!
  reply report
  60
  logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Food fight? Have you gone bananas?
  reply report
2. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ++
  reply report
66
relacheposted 12 years ago
I don't know what high school you went to, but in mine it was pretty clearly explained and demonstrated through the study of human history that isolationism has never been a viable solution.
reply report
1. 61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Isolation is only half the question, living within your means and borders is the other half I think ?
  reply report
59
Moderndayslaveposted 12 years ago
This is just one example.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/
Why are we Importing steel and glass for something of this significance?
Don't think you can find American products,look here. http://www.americansworking.com/clothin … ories.html A foreign country cant force you to purchase things. There are clearly countries we should stop giving aid to
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politic … gn-aid.htm
The Corporate/American crusades need to stop, bring our troops home
http://www.ccrider27.com/America_At_War … orld.html.
We need to concentrate our energy and resources at home for the greater population ,not abroad for the benefit of the few.
reply report
72
Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago
We need to curb our bloated out of control power hungry Federal Government. There in lies the key to our problems.

Our Federal Government has broken so many Constitutional Laws it is just ridiculous.

Did you know that the Federal Government only holds jurisdiction over Washington D.C. (which is ten square miles) and our territories.

We need to be concerned with defending OURSELVES. Europe can either defend itself or PAY us for protection.

Isolationism would not work, as commercial transactions between Countries is part of an individuals freedom.

Bombing Countries that pose no threat to us is not only wrong it is just plain TERRORISM. Yes our Federal government is perhaps the largest, and most state of the art terrorists in the world!

Not only globally our Federal Government can be defined as domestic terrorists as well. Since they rule through fear, terror, and crisis.

Power to the STATES!!!
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But we already pay you in the UK. British funding of the Iraq war was about $14.32 bn and about $18 billion so far in Afghanistan. And remember that these aren't European wars, they're American wars.
  
  We have also for the last sixty years provided the US with military accommodation, ostensibly for our protection but actually for American protection, to give the US early warning of any attacks launched on the US. Rather than defending us, setting us up as prime targets.
  reply report
  72
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  John, I am referring to the European continent. Britain is quite capable of defending herself.
  
  We not only defend most of the European continent but we also place ourselves in harms way on the Korean peninsula.
  
  All these resources would be better used to improve our own situation. This includes all the wars we are currently engaged in. I want my troops to come home, NOW!
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I thought that we were part of the European continent! A minor Island no doubt, but still a part of it, as is Germany, France and all the other countries who seem to manage pretty well at defending them selves.
  reply report
  72
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Western Europe in particular John. If England considers itself part of Europe, why not join the EU?
  
  John if we did not defend Europe for the past 60 years they would all be speaking Russian. If we do not continue to defend Europe, they may just be speaking Chinese. France and Germany are quite capable of defending themselves WITH the U.S. supporting them
  
  You may soon see a future without U.S. protection. We might have no choice but to let the rest of the world fend for itself. Let them figure it out while we uphold and support the last bastion of freedom on the globe.
  
  The United States of America.
  reply report
  93
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Britain is part of the EU, and has been since the mid-70s.
  reply report
  72
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Am I wrong that they still maintain their own currency?
  reply report
  93
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, you're not wrong about that.
  
  Britain (and several other EU members) maintain their own currency, but they are still full members of the EU. That's different from EMU (European Monetary Union).
  reply report
  78
  psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed but what you said, however, was that they are not in the EU--they are a founding member.
  reply report
  72
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I admit I was wrong pertaining to the EU yet by keeping their own currency Britain has remained sovereign.
  
  If the Euro plummets the Pound may still remain a viable currency. So even though Britain is part of the European Union they were smart enough to not bind themselves fiscally to a flawed currency. Either way the United states should leave all of Europe to its own means.
  
  Why should we guarantee the safety of Europe. Let them defend themselves. They do not appreciate the help so we should let them loose on each other. They do think of themselves as superior to the United States. We also could spend all that money in our homeland to help our own people.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, would that you were right about that
  
  Going back to the OP, I don't think it's practical or desirable for one country - however wealthy - to cut itself off from everyone else. If you implement wholesale isolationism, part of it will have to involve stopping imports from other countries, who will respond in kind. So any jobs that depend on exports will go down the pan.
  reply report
  82
  jimmythejockposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Western Europe in particular John. If England considers itself part of Europe, why not join the EU?
  
  The European Union did not exist until November 1993 and Britain joined it then, opting to keep sterling as the currency instead of the euro.
  reply report
  93
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that's correct. It was named the European Community before then. Maastricht renamed it and instituted the basis for EMU.
  
  Edit: European Economic Community (EEC). Man, so many name changes!
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Treaties
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I thought it was German we would all be speaking!
  
  Many of us did not share your paranoia about Russia, seeing instead an almost third world country, recently released from a peasant economy and desperate to earn foreign currency but without the ability to colonise the western world.
  While some of us were busy watching for Russia to come in through the front door, the US was quietly entering through the back and taking over key industries.
  reply report
  72
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well I support the complete removal of our troops from the rest of the globe. Our troops should act upon threats against the U.S. only.
  
  So I hope you get your wish and the rest of the world will stand up and handle their own countries. We cannot afford it anymore.
  
  We do not want it anymore, our Federal Government are warmongers. Our people are peaceful!
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Agree RB.
  But, too many of our citizens are NOT peaceful.
  If us peaceniks are really the majority, how do we keep voting in government representatives that perpetuate aggression?
  FEAR is by far the strongest human motivator and ANGER is a (more or less) socially acceptable expression of fear.
  
  Our government thrives by keeping us in perpetual fear.
  If it's not the evil "towel heads" it's the evil Chinese who are gonna own us if we're not careful.
  Not to mention all those criminal illegal immigrants.
  Oh yes, and gays who want to marry each other.
  Alternatively, we should be mad at rich people who aren't paying enough taxes.
  I'm probably forgetting some major targets, but you get my drift.
  Feel free to chime in with other "bad guys."
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  True, but really sad and funny at the same time.
  reply report
  59
  Danny R Handposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So there were no bombs that blew up in the subways of London? Wow, I guess were lucky to have your help for OUR war. By the way, you want to compare what we have spent in treasure and life fighting for you?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh indeed there were Danny. Another affect of our close relationship. You're too far away so bomb us instead! And you didn't offer us much protection then did you?
  
  Yes, I'd very much like to compare what you have spent fighting for us. Want to start with world war 2? We finished paying you back for your help a couple or so years ago.
  reply report
  59
  Danny R Handposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently we were not to far away on 9/11. As for comparing, my apologies. We shouldn't degrade the memory of those who died for GOOD causes. It just upsets me that the world sometimes wants to throw all the blame on the U.S. for all the worlds troubles. I acknowledge that our government has made some rash and bad decisions in the arena of foreign policy. At the same time, whenever there is a disaster of any kind, the U.S. is first in line to provide assistance. But you don't see anyone offering us help when we deal with tornado's, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, or wild fires. Yet time and again, we help others when they need it, be it natural disaster or economical, or military. It would be nice to have a little gratitude without being known as (The Big Evil).
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, not all the blame Danny but to accept your share rather than painting yourselves as 100% good guys would be a good start.
  
  You aren't alone in lending aid to the worlds trouble spots either but it's something you do quietly because it needs doing rather than for the bragging rights you think it gives you.
  
  In actual fact your giving aid to the rest of the world, be it disaster aid or anything else amounts to less than 1% of the US budget or 0.21 of gross national earnings, less than half that of the UK!
  
  Don't forget you get that money back and more in increased security and exports.
  reply report
  59
  Danny R Handposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Increased security? From the U.N.? Your joking, right? I never said we were the only ones to give. I said we give and give and give. Now tell me ONE time, including 9/11, that other nations have provided the U.S. with monetary assistance, or public service assistance, such as help in clean up of a natural disaster, or the rebuilding efforts needed due to one.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't mention the UN.
  
  Let's look at international aid after Katrina then. There are far too may countries that gave aid to list here, but here's a taster - Afghanistan, People's Republic of China, Republic of China, Cuba, Iran and Iraq, South Korea, Mexico, Russia and the United Kingdom as starters.
  
  For the full list look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio … ne_Katrina
  
  Would you like to rethink your position in the light of this?
  reply report
  59
  Danny R Handposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I just might. I can admit when I'm wrong.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's a truly impressive list. I wonder how many of those pledges were made good? Any indication of that?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And how many offers were accepted by the US?
  
  That's not so clear.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  True - I noted a couple that were turned down (Cuba and Venezuela) and wondered if there were more. I also saw that a few (Russia) were held up instead of immediate acceptance.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thats simply not true!
  
  Many other countries sent aid and offers of accomodation for stressed out firefighters/police etc during/after 9/11.
  
  I am sure if you checked with many foriegn embassies you would see aid reciprocated back to the American people.
  
  While the U.S is supportive in aid etc they are definately NOT the only nation to do so.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In actual fact, such was the nature of 9/11 that there was very little aid that could be reasonably given. Few if any lost their homes, there were no survivors to dig out of the wreckage. Financial loses were covered by insurance, really about all that could be offered was intelligence.
  reply report
  60
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right, probably gonna get slammed here, by my American friends and also by my Mancunian friend. The British government was not a lap dog, that disgusting little toad TB, agreed to all the Iraq BS, and everything after 9/11, because it suited him, it served his interests. Many people in the UK, approx 1M, marched against the Iraq war, many people in the US marched against Iraq war too. John, during the Vietnam war we had a leader that said NO. We can't say America bullied us into this, we had a disgusting leader who was more than willing.
  
  America, and I don't mean it's citizens, has been a big bully, but equally the UK govt has been everything but angelic, mostly complicit and a bully too. I just don't think it's about who gives the most aid, but which of our countries leaders has had the most guts. Neither.IMO
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not going to argue with that Hollie. No reason to but not really relevant to my post.
  reply report
  60
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not I know, but I'm a bit crap at keeping up. I read most of them, then mine come out a bit garbelled.
  reply report
  93
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree.
  
  It's a bit absurd for people to think America is the only country that follows its interests, and others who follow America are simply misled or threatened.
  
  The UK, like the US, has similar interests around petroleum, and an enormous weapons/aerospace industry, both with tremendous political power.
  
  Several countries like France that didn't participate in the Iraq war did so because they too had interests that prevented them from doing so.
  
  Poland came clean about it - the US & UK lied about it:
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3043330.stm
  reply report
  60
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LL, in my experience the US and UK among other countries lie about it mostly. It seems silly to me that as citizens of other countries, we should defend our countries when we know they have been less than honest. IMO
  reply report
78
Mitch Alanposted 12 years ago
A substantial reduction in the size and scope of the federal government to be more in line with it's Constitutional boundaries would be the first step. Bring back those members of our military that are in places like Japan and Germany, to name a few, and have them be retrained to secure our borders. Put to work American citizens to build a wall at our southern border for those soldiers to secure. Sell Advertizing along the wall to sponsor companies as a way to help offset the costs associated with the construction. Our foriegn aid should be on a case by case basis and not handled as a set annual stipend. The jobs that "Americans won't do" do not exist a hungry man will work. Reduce and/or abolish most (not all) of the entitlements run throught the federal government. A safety net is needed, but not a hammock. Removing an artificial minimum wage, whether through the government or unions, and an increased reliance on a true free market would reduce unemployment and the cost of goods and services (as I have written on). We should continue to deal with other nations on the sale and trade of goods and services, but we should focus on strengthening our own economy through innovation and deregulation (within Constitutional limits)
reply report
1. 72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting post. Thank you.
  reply report
0
andycoolposted 12 years ago
Who Owns America?

More than 30% of American National Debt is held by Foreigners. While most of the country's $14 trillion debt is held by private banks in the U.S., the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board estimate that about $4.4 trillion of it was held by foreign governments that purchase US treasury securities much as an investor buys shares in a company and comes to own his or her little chunk of the organization.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center … ts/mfh.txt

So more than 30% of America is owned by foreigners. And you want to exclude them in your thread?

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budget … management
reply report
1. 72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What's your point? I was asking for suggestions from American citizens. Don't like that, then that's your problem, not mine. For the purpose of this thread, it's about the citizens and what they think.
  reply report
  0
  andycoolposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "And yes outsider views can be spoken, but most likely won't be considered."
  
  My point is very simple and I've no problem at all.
  This arrogance is responsible for what US is today... that's the point!
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, untrue as per usual. It's not arrogance on behalf of the citizens Andy....it's pure stupidity of actions from politicians. Duh!
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly how is fixing our economy and strengthening the infrastructure of our country the business of citizens of other countries? Input is fine but, ultimately, it is our affair.
  
  I have no idea where you are from, but I would never deign to tell a citizen of another country how they should run their country. I would consider it arrogant and condescending.
  reply report
  0
  andycoolposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you know who Timothy F. Geithner is? He is an American citizen, and currently holds the position of U.S. Treasury Secretary. Would you mind reading the following report and tell me why is he exerting pressure on the EU? Would you consider him arrogant and condescending too?
  
  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-2 … rmoil.html
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know who Geithner is. And, since our markets are inextricably tied; our governments all have cross talk quite frequently on the growing debt crisis. I don't consider his behavior any different from the officials of other governments.
  
  The OP wasn't necessarily talking about the worldwide debt crisis that I was aware of.
  reply report
  68
  ThomasEposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  America tells other countries how to run their business every day of the week.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, we must. We run the world according to the rumor mill here on Hub Pages. We're just a country full of war mongers.
  
  Get real. Our government talks to other governments. The officials of those governments would not listen, or act upon the advice, if there was nothing to be gained.
  reply report
  68
  ThomasEposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What is to be gained is that if you disobey the orders of America, your country is invaded, your people raped and murdered, your leaders executed, and your country impoverished.
  
  As Iraq has discovered.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, we haven't invaded the UK, so I think your reasoning is flawed.
  reply report
  68
  ThomasEposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Our foreign policy for the last fifty years has been:
  
  Do whatever the USA tells us to do.
  
  It has worked very well for the UK.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you happy. They say our delusions are as important to our hapiness as is our reality. I suppose I should thank you, as a Brit, for helping to shape the mess of a world we are trying to survive in.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You didn't have to invade, some of our leaders just rolled on their backs and give us to you!
  You not heard about the special relationship where you say "jump" and we say "how high?"
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I find that hard to believe. You have the ability to vote in those with intestinal fortitude. What's stopping you, if you think we control your government?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You don't really need to control our government, just the armed forces and the banking industry will do it!
  
  Unfortunately we don't vote for the Prime Minister, we vote for individual candidates, the winning party elects the Prime Minister. Therefore we vote in those with intestinal fortitude and they elect lap dogs!
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm. Sounds like an internal problem. Can't help you. But, I tell you what. I'll keep calling for reform in our government. Maybe someday our government won't be owned by multinational corporations. Then, the government will actually do what is in the best interests of its citizens and what the citizens want it to do. And that is to pull our troops home and stop trying to police the world.
  
  I can't comment on the complaint that we control the governments of other nations; since I'm not quite sure I buy into the argument that Britain is little more than our lap dog. I have quite a bit more respect for your nation than to believe that too easily.
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct when you say that multinational corporations own your government, they also own the UK government and many others. The only error is that you forgot to include the bankers.
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think of bankers as corporations. But, yes. They are a part of the problem, imo also.
  report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unlike here, where we continually vote in intestinal parasites.
  reply report
  78
  psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And will continue so long as they need to import oil and vital elements for electronic parts.
  reply report
69
Silver Roseposted 12 years ago
I'm not American (I'm a Brit) - but what would you stop importing out of interest?

In Britain the poor have always been fiercely in favour of Free Trade - this dates from the dreadful Corn Laws of the 19th C when the Tories and their landed gentry legislated to ban imports to make greater profits. Millions starved (including the Famine in Ireland).

As a result the poor have always felt that Free Trade lowered prices (the very first Labour government in 1923 repealed all trade restrictions as their very first act - sadly they lasted just a year in office and the Tories re-instated protectionism - and we know how that worked out in the 1930's).

People here are still firmly in favour of Free Trade till this day. It's interesting to hear Americans espouse a different view.

Would you really be happy if prices rose due to protectionism? e.g. price of oil, food, clothes and goods in general?
reply report
1. 72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Protectionism is something America already has a problem with. I only made statements, which were open ended to provoke answers from citizens. Nothing more.
  reply report
60
Captain Redbeardposted 12 years ago
I am no expert in any type of government or policy. I barley have a 9th grade education and received my G.E.D. in 02'. But it seems to me the best way to "fix" America would be kind of simple. You have to start with the convenience of lazy. No more self checkouts and red box dvd rentals. Each one of those things puts people out of work. Next, legalize the illegal immigrants in this country. They make up a huge part of our work force but don't pay to put their kid's in school or any taxes and the citizens are left to pick up the slack. After that we need to enact a policy that says no more immigrants are allowed, only short term visa's for education or work, something along those lines. We need to then start putting higher taxes on companies that manufacture off U.S. soil. We used to be proud laborers, carpenters, plumbers and factory workers. We need that blue color pride back again. We also need to start getting politics back to what it used to be. For the people, by the people.

Some may think this is racist but it is not meant that way, let's look at Obama for a second. IF he didn't have Oprah backing him, would he have made it? All that money and power at his disposal, woman all over the country and the world move to her order and wait on every word spoken, if she is backing then it's going to be a success whether it's a book or a president. Now I think there is something horribly wrong with that. I'm not sure how to put it into words but it just seems wrong.

We as Americans need to stop bickering over stupid stuff like same sex marriage and get back to being united. We need to stop identifying our differences and just move on with life, bigger and badder things are out there, there will always be a Pearl Harbor, 911 and Katrina to contend with and we need to be a unified body ready for when disaster strikes. We are a very young country and grew so rapidly and so strong that we thought we were invincible. Now China has us by the short hairs with all the money that we owe them. We need to get back on our feet economically. I think if we can get our finances in order the rest will start to fall back into place.
reply report
1. 72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting post.
  reply report
93
livelongerposted 12 years ago
You can isolate yourself with respect to trade, and you can isolate yourself with respect to military intervention.

I doubt anyone is advocating the former. It seems most Americans would prefer the latter.

The reasons we are still heavily involved:
- military-industrial complex's wealth and influence (Eisenhower's warning has never been more true)
- the UN has no teeth to enforce national sovereignty, as was the case in the 1990s with Bosnia and Kosovo
- we live in a petroleum-driven economy, and countries will still fight over oil
- we provide security guarantees to many countries, like Taiwan, Japan, Israel, and others, and, as much as the Europeans would be loathe to admit it, all of Western Europe
- bringing back hundreds of thousands of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan into a depressed economy would not help Obama's reelection chances (can you imagine a commercial showing homeless/unemployed vets?), so he keeps them overseas

I'm not optimistic that any of these will change.
reply report
1. 72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Jason.
  reply report
69
Charlie Wolfposted 12 years ago
There is no question that America would be better off ecomically, and more secure as well if we weren't sending huge sums of money to nations who are at best thinly veiled enemies. Some of the comments here suggest that we are the largest problem and primary threat to world peace. I don't believe that and have never seen conclusive proof to support such a view. Rather it seems that our generousity has come to be seen as an entitlement both here and abroad, and as our ability to give as we are expected dwindles, so does regard and respect fo us.
As for closing the borders, it's true that we are a nation of immigrants, but then so is nearly every other country in the world. Humanity did not appear simulteanously everywhere, but rather as a result of immigration or migration. As the America that emerged from these relocations of people, we have the right to do whatever is necessary in order to be secure. Immigration should be allowed but only on the terms that were in effect prior to the inundation of border jumpers we've ignored over the last several years. Those who come in from places other than Mexico do so by going through the required steps of applying for citizenship. Part of that process includes learning things most Americans born here either didn't learn during ther formal education, or have since forgotten. Simply allowing an unchecked stream of people in dire financial condition without any skills to offer beyond being a cheap labor source doesn't help our economy any more than government financed work projects. Both siphon money from people who are productive to give to those who either aren't or wouldn't be without a jobs program.
But our current situation didn't develop in the last three years, or eleven years, and not even the last twenty-five. Financially we haven't been on the most solid ground since nineteen twenty-nine. And without becoming truly united, we may never be again.
reply report
60
paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago
I don't care. Enough with my own problems.
reply report
61
SpanStarposted 12 years ago
I agree things do need to change in America and you are correct in that no one appointed America to be the police of the world. America has been and still is a violent nation for Heaven sake if we close off the borders of America then if we can't find anyone to fight with outside our borders we will most certain find among ourselves within our borders- it's just a fact not an actuation.
reply report
1. 0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Are you serious? A violent nation? I haven't locked my house in over five years. I don't lock the windows. I leave my keys in the car overnight and sometimes my purse. Do you live in the inner city? If not, I think you are grossly overstating, or you have issues. We are not a violent nation that would turn on ourselves if we closed the borders.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Here is just a few websites that present information regarding violence in America.
  
  heard about it.
  
  What can be done to stop this senseless violence? Police report that more than 40 children
  
  younger than 18 have been murdered in Chicago this year, and at least 298 students
  
  enrolled in Chicago public schools have been shot since September 2008. Critics of
  
  Renaissance 2010
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/0 … 13141.html
  
  In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being
  
  at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000
  
  residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).
  
  [1]
  
  The likelihood of committing and falling victim to crime also depends on several
  
  demographic characteristics, as well as location of the population. Overall, men, minorities,
  
  the young, and those in financially less favorable positions are more likely to be crime
  
  victims, as well as commit crimes.[2] Crime in the US is also concentrated in certain areas.
  
  It is quite common for crime in American cities to be highly concentrated in a few, often
  
  economically disadvantaged areas. For example, San Mateo County, California had a
  
  population of approximately 707,000 and 17 homicides in 2001. Six of these 17 homicides
  
  took place in poor, largely Black and Hispanic East Palo Alto, which had a population of
  
  roughly 30,000. So, while East Palo Alto accounted for a mere 4.2% of the population, about
  
  one-third of the homicides took place there.[3] According to the FBI, in 2008 14,180 people
  
  were murdered in America.[4]
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
  
  In the last twenty years, more than 150 children have been sentenced to death in the United
  
  States. Each year there are over 750,000 delinquency cases that go before judges in the
  
  United States. Tens of thousands of these children are tried as adults.
  http://www.come-over.to/fasstar/juvcrime1.htm
  
  Safest and Most Dangerous U.S. Cities, 2007
  
  The following table ranks the safest and most dangerous cities in the United States as of 2007. The cities all have populations of more than 75,000. The rankings are based on a city's rate for six crime categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft.
  
  Read more: Safest and Most Dangerous U.S. Cities, 2007 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299. … z1Z6eamwEH
  
  The assault statistics over the 50 years follows similar trends as the overall violent crime numbers. The numbers peaked at about the early to mid 1990's at over 1 million incidents. Aggravated Assault is the largest sector of violent crime. This is due to most incidents being related to social or group activities where posturing and other types of Alpha Male activity occur. Fights are normally the outcome of such behaviour and this in crime/legal terms is Aggravated Assault
  http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2010/12/50 … in-us.html
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yep and I live close to one of those cities,in fact up until 2009 it was touted ad being the murder capital of the world.
  
  Time to move.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree-it's time to move, somewhere safe.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't doubt that inner cities, where drugs are rampant and poverty ubiquitous have violence. A very small percentage of America lives in the inner cities. To label America as violent because of those pockets is no different from saying every one was a freckle faced redhead because you chose an Iowa town as the pocket to use as your window.
  
  So, you make a choice. If you want to see violence and evil, that's all you see. I've been all around America and that is not what I see
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  These numbers of crime is ridiculous for no matter where one lives and county or inner city it's still America and we need to stop thinking that just because it's not happing to us-it's not happening.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No one said that, but your argument is an insult to probably 95% of Americans that live a safe and happy life. If you want to pretend that we all live in fear and sit on the verge of the breakdown of society, that is your right. I simply wonder what in the world could motivate such an attitude.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What I'm hearing is there are those who do not want to face the truth. Just how many countries has America gone to war with?
  
  Was there violence between The American Indian and Americans
  Was there violence between Blacks & Whites
  Was there violence between Mexicans & Americans
  America's own history proves America has always been a violent country and denying it doesn't change the facts.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not denying anything. But, every moment in history shows violence and peace, in different quarters within every society. Why focus only on the bad? It is not the major portion of who we are.
  
  There's a seedy underbelly in every town, in every corner of the world. But the underbelly is not who those towns are.
  
  And yes, we did have fights to secure America. There were atrocities to the Indians and we did have a war with Mexico. The fight for civil rights was difficult, but I get the impression you want to see only the bad.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No I don't want to see only the bad-but I grew up in America where lies replaced the truth and we Americans at that time went around pretending that everything was just fine and dandy-Waitress really didn't mind being pinched on the behind, Blacks understood there place in society and so we all walked around living a lie- Only the truth can fix a lie- Pretending does not.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just to add my 2cents worth here too .
  I have seen and lived for short while in a small town and the people were fantastic! in fact I made many friends and had some great times.
  
  I was born and came from a similar small town and felt quite at home.
  
  There is just something about the violence in general that has become more violent.
  Men dont have a few drinks and settle an arguement in the carpark anymore.
  They instead pull knives and guns, and kill!
  
  Some girls think getting pregnant is an achievement and lack motivation to become educated-many also lack good parenting skills. The cycle grows.
  
  I blame the laws and policies to a great extent.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Violence and crime is indeed a reality and in some places out of control!
  
  Truly I'm not sure what the answer is ,but pretending it doesnt exist is 'ostrich behaviour'
  
  I talked to a local state trooper at this work expo I attended and he said, Its all about the demand for drugs that creates a huge web of petty to serious crime.
  
  It begins in the cities and is spilling out to the fringes as new customers are sought.
  
  And of course ,addicts need money to support their habit so often youth now will travel (by bus if they have to to) to commit burgs n car theft etc.
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And any idiot cop blaming just drugs is just that..an idiot cop.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  EagleKiwi,
  
  You are correct. Crime and corruption has been with America a very long time. Didn't someone once say you have to first admit you have a problem before you can begin to work on it?
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We have this conversation regularly in our household and much blame is placed on Mexico for the drug cartel etc ,but the thing ,while I agree its not all black n white ,I do say this:
  
  It is all about demand and supply.
  No demand ,no supply.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You most likely are correct EagleKiwi.
  
  I want to take it a bit further I believe we the US can get better control of this problem If We Want To because we've been dealing with products like cigarettes and the likes but you don't hear about the out of control stealing as compared to illegal drugs-that's my opinion.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "If we want too" I believe pretty much sums in up.
  Easier said that done.
  
  Government has the taxes from 'legal drugs' already including tobacco and alcohol.
  
  But anyway getting back to the OP,certainly it would seem impossible to be cut off from the rest of the world.
  
  (At least as long as people travel and migrate etc)
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Another good point.
  
  I think I'll retire from to my recliner now, take care..
  report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok have a goodnight -and lock ya doors
  report
  69
  Charlie Wolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Since her inception, America has been involved in six major wars and as many minor conflicts. By conrtrast, Adolf Hitler was responsible for the deaths of six million people. Polpot murdered perhaps as many as 2.5 million. And Josef Stalin caused the deaths of 20 million. Saddam Hussein used nerve gas on his own countrymen, and none of the other Arab nations can be said to be much better in most respects. It appears the US may be running on higher moral ground if an honest comparision is made.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, I beat my wife but that's OK, I don't beat her as badly as my neighbour beats his!
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you are looking for honest comparison then you have to put into your list that the US were directly or indirectly responsible for over 6 million deaths in Vietnam and Laos alone.
  
  Saddam Hussein gassed villages of the Kurdish people in Iraq, but he was only following the example of the British who did exactly this before him.
  
  The numbers of South Americans killed by the right wing thugs paid by the CIA to keep those countries de-stabilised I do not know, but I guess there is a record somewhere.
  
  The second and totally unnecessary Nagasaki bomb, and all the other foreign 'business'.
  
  Nobody is clean and the US, like the UK and pretty much every country does not have any moral high ground.
  
  It is important to keep a balanced view when trying to compare one country with another, to think that 'your' side is any better than any other is how your (our) governments coerce us into supporting their unnecessary conflicts.
  reply report
  69
  Charlie Wolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  OK but lets include every despot down through history then. Add Genghis Khan, at possibly 40 million. Then throw in Attila the Hun at possibly 5 million more. China's Mao could have murdered as many as 50 million during his time, and I'm sure the Vikings are responsible for a significant number.
  
  And don't forget the Crusades with large losses on both sides either. You're right that nobody is "clean" but nations like the US that have gone to war only as a response to an attack or at the request of another country do have a claim to the higher ground than someone who strikes the first blow in war. As for the "unnecessary Nagasaki bomb" note that the Empire of Japan did not surrender the war they started at Pearl Harbor until the second bomb was dropped.
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are being ridiculous - what did Vietnam ever do to you? or Korea ? or South America ? or Iraq for that matter - currently and in the last century you are the world aggressor with the biggest military and the most active - you are the dirty hands of today that we are discussing here.
  
  You do not have any claim to any moral high ground.
  reply report
  69
  Charlie Wolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Check out the history. The US was asked for help in both the Korean and Viet Nam comflicts. As a nation, we had no desire to be in either one, but the governments of those nations asked for help angains the communist aggressors. Iraq, the first time, was invaded on behalf of Kuwait, who again, requested assistance. The second time was in response to an attack on America directly, and the rest of the world indirectly at the Trade Center in New York. There was no extensive military action in South America, but a few troops probably were dispatched to assist some of the countries there with drug smuggling. Here again, it was by mutual agreement, and by no means an invasion. But with this, I fear, we have departed significantly from the original intent of Cagsil's question. In order to maintain the integrity of his query, I will comment no further on this matter.
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is one of the main reasons on the side of the debate about whether America should withdraw from the world, at least in some ways.
  
  Your view of American adventures in the world is very kindergarten. As just on eexample - Drop over here with a few weeks to spare, we can go tour the vast graveyards in Laos, not Pol Pot's killing fields, but the people who were killed under the one plus million metric tonnes of bombs you dropped on them - who asked you to do that ? the concurrent destruction of the infrastructure, government and social fabric propelled Pol Pot to power in the vaccuum created. Well done and very moral ??
  
  As another little issue, you don't know about the money fed to the bands of thugs that tortured and massacred their way around South America posing for the outside world as right wing 'freedom fighters' ?
  
  You should lift your eyes a little and read up some real history.
  report
  0
  andycoolposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Emile R wrote: "No one said that, but your argument is an insult to probably 95% of Americans that live a safe and happy life."
  
  Myth: 95% of Americans live a safe and happy life
  
  Fact: Half of Americans struggle to stay happy
  
  Have a look: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24376037/ns … tay-happy/
  reply report
74
wheelinalloverposted 12 years ago
If you had read or understood more of what I wrote you would understand that basically I was saying to return to one room school houses in the areas that would work in. That was the Amish example I was referring to, not having prayer is school. I sent my step children to private school because I advocate prayer and christian beliefs.

Also that it doesn't require a college educated teacher to create students who go on to become millionaires. I have seen college educated teachers I wouldn't want teaching my children. To be fair I have seen uneducated ones who I wouldn't want teaching them either.

The current Americans are very different from the world I grew up in. My mother taught her children three languages, taught our values with grandmothers help, and taught us that freedom is never free. Two of her children attended a one room school house of which I was one. In our house everyone worked together to keep things going. Dishes, laundry, and house cleaning responsibilities were shared by all, with each person doing the part they could accomplish.

My school life ended two months into my senior year. There was only one class I required for my diploma. It was five weeks long. Two years of going to school from 8 am until 4:30 pm and working a part time job for school credits gave me 70 credits more than what was required at the time.

When I was old enough to work my work ethic came from people who were born and raised in Mexico. I was more comfortable with their language, so my work ethic and attitude came from those I worked with. For the years that I worked for others no employer ever complained. My own first business was in the black within a few months. The ones I was a partner in were seasonal and we made a yearly living even in a short season. I realize there are still people here who do similar but don't see it in the majority of the people I meet now.
reply report
64
Greek Oneposted 12 years ago
I love the USA

...

especially the sexy American woman who are so full of sexy sexiness!
reply report
66
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
Here are some charts that show the recipients of US foreign aid broken down by military and economic aid.

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politic … gn-aid.htm

My recollection is that US economic aid is smaller as a percentage of GDP than that provided by other industrialized countries. I'll check. Looks like the US is in the middle according to this chart.

A recent poll found Americans think we spend 25% of the budget on foreign aid.

Economist Bob Murphy of Boston College said the actual number is less than 1%.
reply report
98
Gordon Hamiltonposted 12 years ago
Cagsil,

I have long since recognised you are a man of extraordinary intellect and have no doubt you predicted precisely the way this post would go...

In answer to your question, as a British subject (I hope you will excuse my brief intervention!), I say yes...

Save yourself America. The UK is in the cesspit, down the pan, and unsaveable. (Thank you, Blair!!!) I would suggest only that you do, however, retain Germany as a viable ally, as despite being part of the "Euro Disney" economy, Chancellor Markel is still a shrewd old bird!

Good luck with this post and your future!
reply report
1. 71
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I would want Markel onboard as well. She is indeed shrewd.
  reply report
71
earnestshubposted 12 years ago
I always feel safe enough in America. Especially in the big cities.
reply report
60
AngelTraderposted 12 years ago
Do you believe, as an American, you have the freedom of choice to decide America's withdrawal from world affairs? You have no choice or say in what your country decides to do. America is run totally by corporations and the industrial military complex...do you honestly think they would happily pull out of all the wars, conflicts and 'emerging markets' so they can do a bit of home directed altruism. Why do you think they are constantly producing boogie men to scare you with? Gotta keep fighting the good fight, ridding the world of bad guys...most of whom had the tacit support of America in the first place.

As George Carlin said "politicians are put there to give you the idea you have freedom of choice, you don't! You have no choice, you have owners, they own you, they own everything". And this applies to us all, not just Americans. And the owners of the world want one world government, a single currency and the abolition of sovereign countries. Funnily enough most of those calling for this are Americans...Kissinger, Bernanke, Keith Alexander, Timothy Geithner, Richard Perle, Rockefeller to name but a few!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Is It Time That America Cuts Itself Off From The Rest?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Is It Time That America Cuts Itself Off From The Rest?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies