Sky, never in our history have we had economic isolationism, nor is that what Neal is talking about.

Yes, you are correct. I don't know how to make that point more clear ;)
And isolationism is not my prefered choice but as an American, I get really tired of the nagging and whining about us. If I am at a party and everyone is upset about me, I simply leave.

And take all our Overseas Aid money with us. :D

Maybe, but the US has not become an international player after WWII for altruistic reasons only. International enaggement also means the ability to project international influence. Power. Shape internatio0nal orgnaization like one would want them to be, so that they feed back onto one's own economy positively, not negatively. WTO and ICF are god examples, they directly reflect massive American design input. But if you withdraw from all that, and piss off nations who love the UN (just an example), then why should they be willing to to business with you? even more so when they see that thy can hurt you when they don't trade with you? You need a lot of certain ore and other ressource for hightech, for space and aero technology, for example, much of that comes from Africa. when you project no influenc there, other nations will take over - and make sure to damage you by keeping you away from access. One rival less. Your trade deficit is legendary. If you do no longer pose a threat, or play the international card, why should others continue to pump money into your economy!? It depends on foreign investements. Probably no western economy can survive anymore without international envestements, but no other economy I see as vulenrabel to this as the american. You are livng on credit.no, I can't see isolationsim to be a good option for the US. Bush seem to have been told that, too, in a speech short while ago he also said that isolationism will only damage the american economy. You simply depend on being international. Skip the political part of it, no longer being able to protect the economical internationalsim that way, and you start dying.Isolationism only is an option for someone why can afford to run his shop truly autark. I do not see that conditon being fulfilled, wether politically, nor economically. not only with regard to the US, but all the West. This is an invitation to unite, but it is also one of our greatest weaknesses.

Problem is, you cant just expect the trade to roll in and out. Because sooner or later someone is going to blow a fuse. And then there is war. And before you know it, the merchants are being shot out of the sea like it was 1941.

I think the wealth is precisely because, even if Iraq is a hellhole, there is a sort of Pax Romana being kept by the US as the strongest guarantee. Everyone benefits from this. The minute USA turned to isolationism, a power vacuum would emerge, and BOOM. New war.

Let us not forget, when all this is being debated at the UN and about Iraq is probably the 10%. The remaining 90% is just "done" by everyday administration, trade between countries etc. But it doesn't make headlines very often, unlike the 10%.

The French and the Saudis seem to think that the Grim Reaper has captured him first.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...538569,00.html

I suppose that the war on terror is won. Champagne all around.

I wouldn't touch a zip of that Champagne, because war on the terrorism isn't won solely on Bin Laden's death.

First of all, it's simply crazy to say there is war against terrorism, how can one proclaim war against terrorism, it's unworkable. For the type of enemy we fight, its simple, for every one of them we kill, 2 sprouts out, out of rage. It's printed in the book, for them the book is the only way. Therefore, for eternity we will see terrorism. You can appease it, but not eradicate it.

Clearly.

If there's any substance to the rumour of Bin Laden's death (of natural causes while roaming the ME a free man not so good, little satisfaction there) then that could be the Oct surprise. I'm hoping whathever the cause, that he is either dead or captured as this guy's been on the loose far too long for public enemy #1.

Either way of course the fight goes on, but the "war"? Never been fond of that "war on terror" phrase. Great campaign slogan, absolutely useless in terms of defining accurately how one must deal with terrorism.

Think about this. Maybe it's not a good thing if ObL is dead. He's pretty good at playing the hidden rabbit and as such is not a lightening rod for terrorists to get behind anymore. He's more useful alive then dead. Food for thought.

This one would be a surprise at least to the president, judging by his earlier claims about WOT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/wo...rtner=homepage

Of course it does not matter if bin Laden is alive, dead or vacationing in Tahiti. If the reports are true, and this does seem to be a big if, it will not change America's problems and policies what-so-ever. Furthermore, if he has still not died from dissease or old age at this point, it is that which remains his biggest threat for the future, not the US military.

I agree with the inappropriate nature of the term 'War on Terror', but it is the term used. Personally, I have a strong preference for 'Middle Eastern Foriegn Policy Blunder'. Catchy, isn't it?

When people link to articles, could they give a short recap of the contents? Would be really swell. I don't even care if it is just the headline.