Which is why the government (In the USA) should be focused on cutting back military spending, rather then cutting important social programs, though some of them could be scaled back a put without major cost to the people. Cutting back the military spending wouldn't hurt much of anyone except the pride of America.

Putin you have a valid point there about trade. I do however support global trade at least for resources that are other wise unobtainable within the country. Such as most fruits in Canada, and so forth. It's really import that is the most damaging part to a country, if Canada and the US were to focus on production they could make a fortune selling to European powers who have to import lots of goods due to lack of land.

However the current lifestyle of North American is unobtainable for a self sufficient country.

It'd be nice if other countries would step up their spending to compensate for the loss of American spending. The problem is nobody wants to pay the money necessary to eliminate terrorism so we have to foot the bill. I'm not saying Canada is one of those countries, especially under Harper (as much as I loathe the guy).

That's the thing though, is that terrorism, would be a lot less of an issue if western democracies weren't trying to stick there noses in other countries business. Yes there would still be terrorists, however America nor the rest of the world will succeed in eliminating terrorism, they should instead focus on keeping their own country safe at home.

See I hate, hate! Harpers policies in that regard, as well as in most others. I feel this whole war on terrorism is wholly unnecessary and self caused. I wish Canada would go back to working only peace keeping missions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/price-power_533696.html long article, but really sums up the pros of military spending. worth a read if you have the time.

I agree the West should stop intervening everywhere, but on the issue of terrorism - the one region of the world that really hasn't been "messed with" - the Middle East and Central Asia, is the center of it all. Compared to Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, the Middle East has been left to its own devices. And areas of the world that have been left to rot, like Somalia, are now spreading turmoil everywhere.

isolationism, in either a economic, or militaristic, form, is not the right answer in the 21st century. with technology at the point it is today, and with the media able to give live access to places thousands of miles away, citizens will see what's going on and expect a response to atrocities. there is a human responsibility that all countries have to protect individuals who are being exploited. while the current US wars and conflicts arent necessarily necessary, we do hold a responsibility to police inhumane actions by governments.

Governments should be allowed to go through the same growing pains the West did, in fact we went through centuries of growing pains before we ever got to the point of having effective governments. What weak countries need above all is authority. Attacking any exercise of authority under the name of "human rights" cripples them and stunts their development.

If we're going to intervene, then do it right. Annex the country and incorporate it into the home territory. Keep it under trusteeship until it can govern itself. Otherwise, leave them alone unless the problems are destabilizing the whole region.

Turmoil yes, that is why this current wave of revolutions in the middle is one of the best possible things that could be happening, we will see a change there. Hopefully towards more stable democratic governments, and so pulling back spending isn't going to destroy the US, it just means yes they will have less global influence, but with the current. Disaster state of the economy, the US won't be a global leader much longer if they can't balance their budget anyways.

Shua, don't mistake self-sufficience for isolationism, or the idea that we, the west should stop trying to police other countries for it either. I'm not suggesting we just give up and say no. We're not getting involved in anything anymore like the US did in world war one.

That's the thing though the US doesn't have a responsibility to police other governments that is and should be the jobs out the countries citizens and international organizations or coalitions of nations like the UN. You don't need a huge military force to exert influence on a nation. Could you imagine what would happen if a trading bloc like the EU, refused to buy Chinese products until the there was better humans rights there?

A stable self-sufficient country can better exert it's influence on a global scale, and in general can rely on countries it has built good relationships with to help it complete tasks like policing international waters.

"Simple fact - trade destroys jobs and brings zero benefits. Large countries like the US and Canada can and absolutely should be self-sufficient."

Maybe you should submit your proof of this idea to the American Economic Review or another journal. A rigorous defense of mercantilism would be virtually unprecedented in the field and would overturn most of the extant research on international trade.

I hope to. First I need to get some portion of my dissertation published. Once that is complete, I absolutely want to submit a paper on this topic.

Given the effect that international trade has had on countries, such as the US, Canada and Europe, indirectly his conclusion is not something that would be hard to defend. Sure trades can be even. The problem comes in when a country imports more and more goods, but starts exporting jobs, to cheaper economies. Trade only makes sense between two balanced powers, by which I mean two powers that both of goods they want to import and export.

The shift in the west has been towards having nothing to export besides cash, and importing everything. In this case we have a damaging effect on the economy where the West is on the losing end of a deal, as jobs get exported, and we channel all our capital into foreign products. Good for goods trade on the other hand is acceptable and can be beneficial to both sides.

I think that our military spending just needs to become smarter. Far too many of our weapons and systems were built to fight the cold war and in some cases, WWII.
For example: aircraft carriers and big surface ships have no defense against any modern ballistic missiles and guidance systems. So these are basically floating coffins in any conventional war. Not to mention the sheer amount of manpower and time we invest into keeping modern vessels floating. We need to downsize our navy and switch primarily to submarines and small, quick missile craft.
The navy isn't the only guilty party here (I'm looking at you, FA 22 raptor) but they are the most obvious roadblock.
This money would be much better spent on the dilapidated electrical grid and on our aircraft-dependent travel industry instead of filling the coffers of companies like Lockheed Martin.

"Given the effect that international trade has had on countries, such as the US, Canada and Europe, indirectly his conclusion is not something that would be hard to defend."

I've seen plenty of defenses of this basic idea. It's just that most everyone who really latches on to it comes from a Critical Theory background and can't do the math to back it up.

McHuff,

Ha, "floating coffin" is a Khruschov-ism. He said the same thing about them.

I don't think surface ships are obsolete though. Especially if you do anything like a blockade, and you need ships to support the transport of troops and equipment. Ships can also carry more missiles and patrol areas for longer periods of time.

Surface ships are currently being deployed to put a stop to Somali piracy. Submarines and the like aren't going to scare Somali pirates into surrendering. In general it seems that those ships have more flexibility in what they can do as compared to subs.

Weirdly, smallish but substantial navies like Singapore's are moving towards bigger surface ships instead of faster, smaller, attack vessels.

Yeah, a modern aircraft carrier is a lot more sophisticated than a WWII era one. It's not so easy to sink.

The thing about having small attack vessels is that it limits your options. An aircraft carrier or battleship can be used to "project" power, whereas a sub can really only sink ships. So conflicts involving navies with the sort of force composition McHuff suggests would be more liable to escalate.

I agree that an economic blockade could be equally as effective on larger powers that are dependent on our trade, ie (china, india). But what about a country as corrupt and non dependent as afghanistan. while their were many larger factors that contributed to the war and invasion there, we do know that economic sanctions cannot always prove effective. Look at Iran. The current administration has placed sanctions on Iran, and yet they are still succeeding economically because other countries that dont agree to western sanctions will do business with Iran. Only a military presence can right the wrongs there. and while not a great example, it still does show some of the negative.

Plus, investing money in the military is similar to spending money on infrastructure, it supplies pay for american workers, and they are jobs that can't really be outsourced for cheap labor. In fact, these wasteful research projects, while still expensive, is money going directly to american companies and citizens.

I will grant you that investing the military can benefit America directly economically. However continuing to purchase new and better arms from corporations does not. Because often these corporations are willing to outsource work. I'm not suggesting you lay off the US military I'm suggested you cut investment in new tech and stop fighting so many wars.

Yes, that does happen, however the cases were a military in needed are rare and really you hardly need to maintain a massive military if you are willing to accept a smaller military and a number of allies. The advantage of this is it also prevents unnecessary wars. Because they require multiple powers backing them to be effective.

"I think that our military spending just needs to become smarter. Far too many of our weapons and systems were built to fight the cold war and in some cases, WWII.
For example: aircraft carriers and big surface ships have no defense against any modern ballistic missiles and guidance systems. So these are basically floating coffins in any conventional war. Not to mention the sheer amount of manpower and time we invest into keeping modern vessels floating. We need to downsize our navy and switch primarily to submarines and small, quick missile craft.
The navy isn't the only guilty party here (I'm looking at you, FA 22 raptor) but they are the most obvious roadblock.
This money would be much better spent on the dilapidated electrical grid and on our aircraft-dependent travel industry instead of filling the coffers of companies like Lockheed Martin."

Aircraft carriers have been the most important facet of our navy for over 60 years, and continue to be today. Rather than a relic of the cold war, they have been essential to every war that the US has fought since the cold war. If you want to talk about clinging to cold war paradigms, in what context do we need submarines in the current world or fast torpedo boats?

Why do we need to change our fleet merely because the Chinese have rolled out a new missile? I think if we go to war with the chinese we have more alarming things to worry about

Damian your right about the corporation part. i just feel that cutting back could reduce costs, it would also reduce job creation. the problem with relying on a series of allies is that when dealing with multiple other nations, is that urgency is impossible. And, as evidence of the UN, bureaucratic organizations bound by more laws because they represent multinational interests only results in ineffective efforts.
Just for the record
political debate swag^^^^^^^^

Yes it could reduce job creation, and yes the economy is in the tank right now which means that you need jobs. Problem is the US debt is already at how many trillion. You've worked your way up to this. You cannot maintain everything you have at the moment. I'd say step off the world stage for a moment, and worry about fixing your country, debt, restructuring. Job creation will not occur with the current corporations. I mean they took all the jobs out in the first place. So either the government needs to create new jobs or they need to encourage businesses to start up that create jobs in America.

Yeah, the UN is ineffective. However I would argue that NATO, much less so. Which is a small unit of powers that together have more military might then individually. Why not just take that a step further.

Aye, I love a good political debate! Course were I live I get in a lot of them. I live in a city that always votes conservative and I'm almost radical left wing. >>

lol, "political debate swag^^^^^^^^"

im the other way. I live somewhere where the radical left is predominant, and im one of the few thats moderately conservative. I argue some of this in school, often to no avail. nice to have someone who is able to understand some of the nuance in my argument. i would probably be more convincing in person over text. but whatever. I guess i feel that maintaining the state of the economy is priority number one, because without a solid economy, we allow international markets to gain even more ground, especially developing ones like in china. Frankly i think we need an overhaul to healthcare social security and taxes in the form of a flat tax. I've done some of the math, and the key factor to my system is setting the median point.

basically the way this flat tax would work would mean that 28-32 percent of you total income, (including capital gains) would go to the federal government, this could simplify tax codes and also be applicable to corporations. However, the best part of this system is then the deductibles that would be given out for finite credit amounts vs percentage based. these could be for having a spouse and children, or being a home owner, or driving a hybrid vehicle, or something else that is positive to the american economy as well as environment. In addition, if the finite deductibles were greater than your percentage owed, the government would pay you. this amount where the max amount of deductibles would equal your income owed would be what the government considers, (after extensive studies) enough money to live comfortably( with healthcare) and support a family. This would allow the government to abolish medicare and caid, as well as poverty support funds. This system could seriously decrease government spending while still supporting all citizens. Just a thought.

Diplomacy Deductible swag^^^

@ Putin33

Bush and his buddies are not warmongers. Everyone in Washington got screwed by bad intel on a colossal scale. If you were the President, and the CIA told you that a country had nuclear weapons and was willing to use them against the Kurds or the Israelis, what would you do? Sit back and let the Middle East light up like a Christmas tree? Besides, it's not really fair to say that Saddam didn't have WMDs. Chemical weapons count as WMDs. Just go ask the nearest Kurd about whether or not Saddam had nerve gas.

"Large countries like the US and Canada can and absolutely should be self-sufficient"

If you're advocating economic protectionism, then I agree with you. I'm not advocating feudal-Japan-style isolationism, but I think some strong protectionism would fix the (American) economy real quick (with the added bonus of destroying the Chinese economy). Capitalism only works if you're the best at it

@ damian

The military is America's highest budget priority, much more than black-hole handout social programs. Especially with China and Russia building up.

I think we're going to see a conventional World War Three within the next 20-30 years. I also think America needs to be ready. We can't afford another hasty build-up like we did in World War Two.

@ Hegelmon

You're right. Subs are nice toys in a shooting war, but only big surface ships can project power. Battleships are a little outdated, but I think a modernized Iowa-class battleship would be handy for an amphibious assault or a very short-range battle. Battleships are expensive in peacetime, but cheaper than aircraft carriers. 16-inch shells (which can be fired accurately from up to 23 miles away, (farther with kinetic-energy sabot rounds) are way cheaper (and more powerful) than Tomahawk cruise missiles)

@ Santa

You're right. We don't need to change our navy just because the Chinese have a weapon that could potentially inflict damage on our navy. We didn't change our navy in WWII, even though the Japanese had weapons capable of sinking our ships.

See the US , will fall behind China in it's current state. Because you don't produce anything. You are predominately a service based country. Which is why I feel at the moment ignoring the economy and taking the time to get your crap together, by stepping off the world stage is a brilliant idea. Your economy is already garbage, so maintaining it is like putting duct tape on a splintered piece of wood. Your better off just throwing it out and starting fresh.

I agree you need to overhaul your medical system, however one of the primary causes of strain on it is the high stress, and high fat diet that is common in the US. Decreasing both of these would decrease health spending in America, couple this with radical health reform to be more like the European system, (It's just better)

I'm not necessarily against a flat tax rate, or a scaled on that makes the rich actually pay taxes, but that is why I'm against your deductible system, because it allows the rich to avoid paying taxes buy doing what they do best, buying lots of junk.

I'm more in favour of trying to find ways to ensure the rich pay more taxes then the poor. So a variable rate that is simplistic, and generally keeps earnings in the 1:20 ration that I talked about earlier, after tax.

i love how while im having this debate with you, im watching the jersey shore.
hypocritical swag

I should clarify what I meant by "small ships". I mean things like missile cruisers and small destroyers, certainly enough to curtail pirate activity and imposing enough to threaten enemies.
I stand by what I said about carriers, though. The US Naval Institute admitted that "Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack." after the Chinese developed the Dong Feng 21 in this report: http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon
The USNI says: "The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike."
Soviet-made "Styx" Missiles sunk the INS Eliat in 1967, since then the Israeli navy has deployed smaller ships to avoid mass casualties like they had with the Eliat.

@ damian

Like I said, economic protectionism is what'll fix America's economy. But first we have to get out of debt with China, so we can jack up tariffs on them.

You're absolutely right. America's economy is in shambles because we import everything now. Our economy was so good in the 20th Century (for the most part) because we made our own goods. I disagree with some Republicans on free-market capitalism. I think that we need to be more protectionist in recessions like this.

"You're right. Subs are nice toys in a shooting war, but only big surface ships can project power. Battleships are a little outdated, but I think a modernized Iowa-class battleship would be handy for an amphibious assault or a very short-range battle. Battleships are expensive in peacetime, but cheaper than aircraft carriers. 16-inch shells (which can be fired accurately from up to 23 miles away, (farther with kinetic-energy sabot rounds) are way cheaper (and more powerful) than Tomahawk cruise missiles)"

better clear the gift shops out first because the only battleships in the US navy are used as museums, the size of battleships made them outdated in WWII let alone today.

The new "battleship" and by that I mean a surface ship with loads of firepower capable of attacking shore targets are the next gen DD(X) destroyers.

And if there is a conventional WWIII i hope the US has the sense to sit it out