Henning said:
First off, We don't have enough oil, not for long. Without radical energy change we have no chance of winning. Besides all these other issues, it's ecologically the correct path. You can clean the air and water while you produce energy, or you can polute it. Remember, population is climbing quickly and shows no sign of stopping, and China and India will come into full consumption in the next decade.
I do not now or ever have subscribed to the 'chicken little' outlook. Aldous Huxley is probably the most famous of those doom & gloom prognosicators. But I not just being the contrarian, I just look to the advent of new technologies and new perspectives which have served to dispel such dire prognosis. However, from an ecological standpoint, yes, it is wise to get away from the petro burning infernal machines. It is better stewardship of our dominion.
It wouldn't be isolationism, it would be exclusion.
Thank you for the correction. The two or not the same, the latter is the most correct here.
If you're gonna play purse string politics, you gotta close the purse sometimes. Sometimes you just have to turn your back, f'em. If they turn around and come after ya, it's time to do some smiting.
I'll never understand why we do this. Well, maybe in this way I understand: like rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII because it is the most right thing to do; to be humane. Our largess has been and continues to be unequaled. Many have said this is cultural imperialism. But now I'm confusing our humane caring with tenents of capitalism. The two can be one and the same but is subjected to so much criticism that the altruism is submerged beneath rampant and repeated charges of a contrived desire to dominate that the whole thing just leaves a bad taste. At best, we are confused as to what the original purpose was and we find it hard to stop trying to 'prove' ourselves.
I've gotten too esoteric, anyway it is aside from the topic of this discussion.
"Purse string politics" is an apt descriptor. The problem I have with such policy is three fold. One, we have the purse, therefore, lesser nations (in the economic sense) do not have the ability to say when enough is enough (nor are they so inclined to say); two, it devalues other equally important elements of the societies of both the giver (us) and the recipient. The latter is actually a valid arguement that such "purse string politics" are NOT cultural imperialism.
To illustrate this devaluation picture the difference between our govt policy and a missionary organization. Both give to those in need but the former is more sterile to the needsof the recipient while the latter gives in a more wholistic fashion which addressess much more of their needs. As it should be because govt should not be in the position of providing for one's needs. Marx tried that.
The third part of the problem I have with how our govt gives is that it does so indiscrimately. On the face, that is a good thing, but when the result is giving stinger missles to those who are likely to be our enemy then I wish the turkeys inside the beltway would be a lot more discriminating. But it is not just idle wishful thinking. People actually die or have their lives severly disrupted because our govt somewhere down the line made a decision... Sometimes, those people are Americans and I find that very bitter that our govt has aided in the deaths of Americans.
The whole thing is revolution has to come from within. This whole running revolutions path of world politics over the years has not really served us as a nation very well.
Not sure what you mean.
It has most definitely benefitted many large U.S. companies and thereby contributed into the economy and such, but over all on a world stage, it has and still is biting us in the collective a$$. Our last 50 years foriegn policy would make the founding fathers wretch. As you said, current policy is built on incorrect models.
Money does funny things to people. That is a platitude but it is also an adequate euphemism which describes how people will do anything for short term gain--even kill other people.
What I would like to see is for our govt to get out of the propping up business, whether it be people, countires, or airlines. There are many NGOs which can and do do a better job. And because they do not deal in missles or money the path to a long lasting agreement between various cultures will be that much shorter.
But when someone takes up arms against us then all bets are off. "Takes up arms" is all inclusive; it isn't confined to armaments, it could be cultural or political too. Then our govt steps up to
protect.
Good one also.
