Isolationism: Feasible? Preferential?

[TomJoe]

As I've been reading about this melamine poisoning which killed possibly thousands of pets, and has even contaminated human food supplies via chickens eating contaminated chicken feed, I began to wonder just how much of a problem this lapse in regulatory practices is.

Can we reliably depend on food products from other countries, which obviously don't have as stringent a set of controls as we do? Even if it's not to be directly used for human consumption, it could potentially work its way into our food supply if eaten by cattle, swine and fowl.

As I read articles on melamine, I began to wonder about the potential for prion diseases, which can take up to 50 years* to manifest themselves. By the time symptoms present themselves, it's way too late either to treat the patient or take corrective action on what caused the disease. Imagine something incubating 25-50 years in our food supply, that we don't know about and can't test for and that when it emerges, it'll do so fiercely.

I hate to be an alarmist, but from an agricultural standpoint ... is self-reliance (and export only) the safest route we could take? And, more importantly, should we (could we) realistically consider adopting such a stance?

*http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=45811

[JackDog]

I don't understand why we're importing grain from China for in the first place. America used to be called the breadbasket of the world, so why are we importing what can be (or is being) grown here? Are US farmers switching over to other crops to make more money?

And as far as isolationism goes, it think that it's preferable to what we're doing now in every way. I'd like to see the US cease all foreign aid (military and humanitarian) until we've paid down the National Debt. It drives me crazy to think that we're borrowing billions and billions of dollars from China, Japan, and other countries just to keep our government operating--but instead of using it wisely, the politicians are burning through it faster than they can get it.

[TomJoe]

I don't understand why we're importing grain from China for in the first place. America used to be called the breadbasket of the world, so why are we importing what can be (or is being) grown here? Are US farmers switching over to other crops to make more money?
Actually, there are programs that pay farmers to not grow anything. They're conservation programs where the farmers make a concerted effort to not cultivate the land. Maybe not exactly "pay", but there are some significant tax breaks.

But this is a point I was considering when I wrote this up. I don't think it's necessary a Good Thing that family farming has given way to big business, because it has IMO resulted in loss of quality so they can line their pockets. Who suffers? We do. And when they try to lower costs for themselves, they go on the cheap and buy stuff (fertilizer, food stuffs, etc etc) from out of the country and potentially put us at risk when they buy inferior products. That's not to say that we can't screw ourselves up without going outside of our borders, but I think it's significantly less if we keep things "in house".

Plus, I think the prospects of us importing food is only going to go up. As farmers strive to produce corn for ethanol, we're going to have to find corn for eating elsewhere. Nevermind that continual growing of corn will destroy farmland if they don't rotate it properly.

And as far as isolationism goes, it think that it's preferable to what we're doing now in every way. I'd like to see the US cease all foreign aid (military and humanitarian) until we've paid down the National Debt. It drives me crazy to think that we're borrowing billions and billions of dollars from China, Japan, and other countries just to keep our government operating--but instead of using it wisely, the politicians are burning through it faster than they can get it.Can't say I disagree with you.

[godfry n. glad]

Isolationism? In what context?

I can certainly see the need for closer monitoring of imports. But, hey, that means more 'regulation' and our political system has been saying that such is not preferable. I guess that's all those wackjobs created by prion degradation, huh?

Politically, I think it's presently unlikely, given that we have US military bases in over 800 nations worldwide. The US is probably sending more people for longer periods of exposure more frequently than any other nation on the planet. Whatever breaks out wherever has a much higher likelihood of being brought into the US.

I personally think that we need to demobilize much of our accumulated overseas military presence. What do we need it for? Why do we need major bases in Paraguay? Kazakhstan? Turkey? Germany? The UK? Isn't the Cold War over? When the war is over, you bring the soldiers home, right?

SO WTF HAPPENED?

The Soviet Union came down in 1993. It's now 2007...Fourteen stinkin' years later and we're still outfitted for 'containment', with 'forward bases' providing an 'aggressive' assertive global position. Rather than finally support all the humanitarian issues we, amongst others, have tried to address in the face of an implacably evil opponent, we've pissed on them all and acted the bully in world affairs. If anything, the situation worsens. Why do we now have a huge military base in Macedonia (Camp Bondsteel)?

As for international exchange....well, I don't think it's particularly adviseable to limit it entirely, as would be indicated with true isolationism. Many of the things we have come to enjoy would have to be forgone. Thanks to international trade in foodstuffs, we get things we would otherwise not have much access to at all. Crisp apples in the springtime. Bananas year 'round. I do think, however, that all import and export of materials needs closer controls for human health and safety.

Am I foaming at the mouth, yet?

[JackDog]

I personally think that we need to demobilize much of our accumulated overseas military presence. What do we need it for? Why do we need major bases in Paraguay? Kazakhstan? Turkey? Germany? The UK? Isn't the Cold War over? When the war is over, you bring the soldiers home, right?

No shit. Why in the world are there over 39,000 American troops stationed in South Korea? That's the only number that I know off the top of my head, but I'm sure that there are tens of thousands of troops stationed in Germany, England, and other countries where they don't belong as well. The only reason that I can see is that they're protecting American Corporate interests, but that's just a multi-billion dollar welfare program and not in the best interests of the average American citizen.

[TomJoe]

Why in the world are there over 39,000 American troops stationed in South Korea?
Because South Korea and North Korea only have a cease-fire (does that mean they're technically still at war, they don't have a peace treaty), and we're South Korea's ally. That one at least makes some sense.

[godfry n. glad]

Why in the world are there over 39,000 American troops stationed in South Korea?
Because South Korea and North Korea only have a cease-fire (does that mean they're technically still at war, they don't have a peace treaty), and we're South Korea's ally. That one at least makes some sense.

Excuse me, but South Korea has a population of forty-seven million, more than twice the North's twenty-one million, and is twenty-five to thirty times richer than its desolate neighbor. In 2000, Kim Dae-jung, president of South Korea made a historic journey of reconciliation to Pyongyang, without the advice or even consultation of the US. It's my understanding that a sizeable proportion of the South Korean electorate want the US bases out.

If they can make approaches of reconciliation and are tiring of our imperial presence in their country, then I think we should accomodate. Allow Koreans to bring into being their democracy, on their terms, not forced from above.

We need to stop interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations. It will only cause negative repercussions in the future..."Blowback", as the CIA calls it. The 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution was "blowback" from our meddling in the affairs of Iran from 1953 through the 1970s. Terrorist attacks on the US are "blowback" from our actions in the Middle East and central Asia. We need to get out of our "forward positions" before we alienate even more of the world. If the despots we are currently propping up in central Asia (Uzbekistan, Kazahkstan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan) are overthrown by angry locals...we'll be a in world of hurt. (And that's not even taking into consideration the possibility of political overthrow in either Saudi Arabia or Indonesia.)

If we really want to bring about stability in Afghanistan, we should be working with Iran, as well as Pakistan. Instead, we've frozen out of deliberations those who have a lot to gain and managed to be the supplier and "Daddy Warbucks" to the Pakistani Intelligence, which has turned it around and expended it on supporting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In our meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, we CREATED the monster the current administration calls us to slay. WE built what would become al-Qaeda training camps. WE supplied what would become al-Qaeda with advanced weapons technology, including the Stinger missile. Our terrorism is coming back to haunt us; we need to deny all additional acts of terrorism against other peoples and nations. We need to stop flaunting our power and planting the seeds of disillusionment and resentment. Demobilize the military, now.

[godfry n. glad]

We need to stop interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations.

Along these lines, I just read that the Whitlam Labour government in Australia was brought down by the Governor General removing the Prime Minister, Whitlam, at the behest of the USCIA.

Can anybody tell me more?

[TomJoe]

Why in the world are there over 39,000 American troops stationed in South Korea?
Because South Korea and North Korea only have a cease-fire (does that mean they're technically still at war, they don't have a peace treaty), and we're South Korea's ally. That one at least makes some sense.

Excuse me, but South Korea has a population of forty-seven million, more than twice the North's twenty-one million, and is twenty-five to thirty times richer than its desolate neighbor. In 2000, Kim Dae-jung, president of South Korea made a historic journey of reconciliation to Pyongyang, without the advice or even consultation of the US. It's my understanding that a sizeable proportion of the South Korean electorate want the US bases out.

The emphasized portion is the only part that really, IMO, means anything. We've stayed at the behest of the South Koreans, and I agree that once they don't want us there any longer, we should go. But I don't think we were wrong to be in Korea when we were, and I don't think it's a huge problem that we maintain a base there. I don't think it's a huge problem that we maintain bases in Europe ... and we probably keep more military staff in Europe than Europe does here because we've never really been invaded. Two world wars in Europe, plus a Cold War, tend to make it a bit more convenient to keep us over there.

If things have changed and Europe wants us out, if I were President, I'd pull the troops back immediately. I'd probably also take every damn nail and piece of scrap on those bases back to the United States as well.

Perhaps things have gotten to the point where being completely isolationist would be a problem, and I don't think we'd want to do that anyways ... we have very strong allies throughout the world with excellent economic power (Japan comes immediately to mind) and alienating them wouldn't be the best thing in the world to do ... but I do think we can be a fairly self-sustaining country, especially when it comes to food. And it SHOULD be that way when it comes to fuel. There are certain things I just don't think we should import, and if people complain that they can't get those exotic fruits anymore ... well, life ain't always fair.