Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neutronsgalore
History is loaded with heavily trade inter-dependent nations that have ended up killing each other anyway. Trade as a means of achieving peace has long since been proven a failure. It even causes you to be more involved in war than less, since as your economy becomes more dependent upon foreign nations, so does the need to protect them with your military grow. This is what over-extended and collapsed the British Empire. Unnecessary trade, especially in anything military critical, is a weakness that attracts enemies. That's why it didn't take long for the Founders to realize that protectionism was the only effective way to build a nation and keep it intact in the long term.

Congratualtions on the most screwed up, wrong-heaeded bastardization of the lessons of history I have ever read. This is a tour-de-force of evil - you have to actually understand the truth in order to lie so thoroughly.

The Founders supported protectionism and restricted free trade? LOL! Bald-faced lie. Britain was "protecting" it's trade with it's empire building? LOL - double-twist with a pike and a triple flip. Britians machinations blew up in it's face when it was confronted with America's free trade and resulting staggering growth and international power, genius.

But here's your ultimate farce: "Unnecessary trade, especially in anything military critical, is a weakness that attracts enemies. A more meaningless, incorrect, and outright absurd statement has possibly never been made. Who determines "unnecessary" trade? How can something be military "critical" yet "unnecessary"? And how would the manufacturing or acquisition of something "military critical" attract an enemy who otherwise would leave you alone, given you had such manufacturing and trade abilities?

What utter, moronic, stupid pap you've written, and all with the express goal of fundamentally confusing basic conservative issues. Begone, idiot collectivist troll.

50 posted on 12/19/2009 9:57:35 AM PST by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: Talisker
The Founders supported protectionism and restricted free trade? LOL! Bald-faced lie.

Try telling that to Alexander Hamilton, one of the biggest supporters of protectionism and whose policies of tariffs on imports were responsible for considerable industrial growth in the US. Stop licking the boots of the banker class and the Chicoms and wake up and actually read history. If you knew history you'd know the primary cause of the Civil War was not slavery, but the South's opposition to increased import tariffs. The Civil War was between a PROTECTIONIST Union and a FREE TRADE Confederacy. And even though the Confederacy had superior-skilled officers and soldiers, it was not enough in the face of the blockade that cut them off from the foreign supply which they were heavily dependent upon.

Britians machinations blew up in it's face when it was confronted with America's free trade and resulting staggering growth and international power, genius.

Britain started to go into decline as it became more and more dependent on imports from other nations and far-flung territories. It accelerated when it eliminated the protections on it's domestic agriculture, which was devasated as a result. Eventually, as a result of such free trade policies Britain's production of food dropped below it's consumption. This was taken advantage of by Germany and their U-boat campgain. This required the United States (which was still mostly PROTECTIONIST up to the start of WWI) to come to it's rescue. You might say it was our first foreign "bailout", mainly to make sure that we had a say in the war's aftermath to make sure the loans to other nations could be repaid. An end result of the debacle of creating the Federal Reserve.

A more meaningless, incorrect, and outright absurd statement has possibly never been made. Who determines "unnecessary" trade? How can something be military "critical" yet "unnecessary"? And how would the manufacturing or acquisition of something "military critical" attract an enemy who otherwise would leave you alone, given you had such manufacturing and trade abilities?

"Unnecessary" is anything that is capable of being manufactured, grown, raised, mined, or otherwise supported domestically. A good example of a militarily (and economically) critical need is oil. The need to import of which leaves us expending tremendous blood and treasure to protect. Our oil needs could be met through coal-to-oil and thermal conversion along with expanded drilling. The end of importing oil from Islamic nations would cut off a lot of terrorist funding as well.

Another example of a vulnerability is our reliance on critical electronics (both military and civilian) from Japan, S. Korea, Phillipines, Taiwan, etc....even CHINA. The supply of which, in a major war, could be cut off through interdiction or intimidation. Severe supply disruption/halt from those countries and most of our advanced military production will screech to a halt over a 30-120 day period. Do you know we are now wholly dependent upon CHINA for critical rare-earth magnets needed for the US military's satellites, nav/comm/control-systems, and PGMs? The list is endless of how much damage would be done.

57 posted on 01/10/2010 5:53:58 PM PST by neutronsgalore (ROPERS DELENDA EST!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson