9 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Attacks Around Baghdad

Unlike you, I'm old enough to remember when (1945-1960 approx.) just about EVERYTHING you purchased, from a TV set, to gasoline, to shoes, to clothing, to automobiles, just about everything except the diamond in your girl's engagement ring was MADE IN THE USA.

It's worth noting that this period was an anomaly in U.S. history, not the norm. The United States was only able to sustain a large middle class in that era because we were the only industrialized country to emerge from World War II with our infrastructure and industry unscathed, and because the period from 1945-1960 saw a major entrenchment of nanny-state socialism in this country (Marshall Plan, G.I. Bill, Interstate Highway System, etc.).

It's worth noting that the U.S. made lots of televisions, gasoline, shoes, clothing, automobiles etc. in an era when we didn't own nearly as many of those things as we do now. This isn't a coincidence, of course -- it's the sobering reality of the limitations on a country's standard of living when it produces everything it consumes.

--and because the period from 1945-1960 saw a major entrenchment of nanny-state socialism in this country (Marshall Plan, G.I. Bill, Interstate Highway System, etc.).--

If that is what it takes to make us independent of the rest of the world, so be it.

--because we were the only industrialized country to emerge from World War II with our infrastructure and industry unscathed--

Our infrastructure and industry is STILL unscathed: what is your point.

"It's worth noting that the U.S. made lots of televisions, gasoline, shoes, clothing, automobiles etc. in an era when we didn't own nearly as many of those things as we do now"

If a slight drop in living standards is the price we pay for being truly free, independent and safe, it's a small price and one well worth paying.

If that is what it takes to make us independent of the rest of the world, so be it.

The 1945-1960 period was NOT one in which we were "independent of the rest of the world." The U.S. was a major exporter during that period -- mainly to countries that were receiving enormous piles of U.S. taxpayer funds in the aftermath of World War II. If you want to be independent, then remember that this works both ways (imports and exports).

For all intents and purposes, the U.S. ceased to be independent when the McKinley administration decided that it was in this nation's best interests to go to war with Spain in 1898 and embark on our first "nation-building" exercise in the Third World.

I'd also point out that in your list of things of "just about everything" made in the U.S. at the time, you neglected to mention a few critical things that were not -- including something as basic as rubber (tire recycling and rationing was necessary during World War II because this was one of those things that could not be produced here in the U.S. in a practical way).

Our infrastructure and industry is STILL unscathed: what is your point.

My point is that theirs (i.e., Europe, Japan, etc.) is now unscathed, too. The U.S. was able to maintain an industrial base with an overpaid (by global standards) middle-class work force because we didn't have any serious competitors back then. Once that ceased to be the case, many of these other countries started kicking out @sses from one end of the globe to the other.

If a slight drop in living standards is the price we pay for being truly free, independent and safe, it's a small price and one well worth paying.

If you think a "slight drop in living standards" is all that it would take, then you're naive. When this country was truly free and independent (it was never really "safe"), most people lived very precarious lives and worked their @sses off from sunrise to sunset almost every day of their lives from the age of 5 until the day they died.

I might be perfectly content with that, but you'd be hard-pressed to find more than 10,000 other people in this nation of 300 million to go along with it.

I agree with what you write in many respects. Where I disagree is with your views on isolationism even if we were able to become self sufficient (at least energy wise anyway. Being we are in a world economic community, our economic survival is also dependent on a free world economy to survive-thrive. To ignore the Islamic threat (inclusive of nuclear whether that be Iran or assuming nukes of governments Islamo-Nazis over throw) to Europe, to the US is damaging and could eventually lead to the destruction of the Western world economies as we know it. That is why I believe we take the offensive rather then withdraw and isolate approach. I am also not confident that if we were totally isolated (which I believe can never happen)we could prevent nukes being lobbed at us sometime in the future when these pieces of sh*t eventually secure that capability, whether that be Iran or assuming nukes of governments Islamo-Nazis over throw.

You may never agree with that approach. Heck, only history will judge same. I think that the age I am (mid 40's) will allow me to probably escape or at least not witness for another 10-20 years,what could be an awful, perhaps nuclear, confrontation with the Islamic fanatics if we do not prevail against them. Heck, depending on just how much of a death wish these Islamo - Nazis have this could come much sooner rather then later if they secure some nukes...fight them hard, fight them now, do what ever we can to defeat their disgusting cause.

"For all intents and purposes, the U.S. ceased to be independent when the McKinley administration decided that it was in this nation's best interests to go to war with Spain in 1898 and embark on our first "nation-building" exercise in the Third World."

Tell me about it! I've been pointing out ad nauseum what a major league fudge up (to put it very politely) the events of 1898 and following were for our nations' future. Kicking Spain out of Cuba and P.R. was fine--well within the Monroe Doctrine. Annexing the Philippines was Stupid with a capital S. Not only did it force the US to extend its reach into the western Pacific (after fighting a nasty insurgency to boot); US military interests in the Philippines (and HI, which IMO it was also a mistake to annex) were easy targets for the Japanese. By not annexing Phil. and HI, there'd have been no American involvement in WW2 and 400,000 lives would have been saved. Spilt milk, I guess.

--I'd also point out that in your list of things of "just about everything" made in the U.S. at the time, you neglected to mention a few critical things that were not -- including something as basic as rubber (tire recycling and rationing was necessary during World War II because this was one of those things that could not be produced here in the U.S. in a practical way).--

Because in the bad old days we needed tree sap for rubber; produced mostly in the Dutch East Indies (under Japanese occupation). Rubber now is invariably produced synthetically here in the USA--no need for vulnerable third world natural rubber.

--When this country was truly free and independent (it was never really "safe"), most people lived very precarious lives and worked their @sses off from sunrise to sunset almost every day of their lives from the age of 5 until the day they died.--

Yeah, before the Industrial Revolution and technological advances put a stop to all that. You just described 1855, not 1955! And yes the nation was "safe"--surrounded by 2 wide oceans and not involved in the foreign messes of the old world (and the Civil War proved how the nation could mobilize for total war), we didn't mess with anyone overseas, and they didn't mess with us.

"The U.S. was a major exporter during that period"

What makes you think we wouldn't be anyways. In food and military equipment, we are the envy of the world. We'd be exporting plenty of both. In my world, all we'd lose are $30 DVD players and cheaply made shoes.

--am also not confident that if we were totally isolated (which I believe can never happen)we could prevent nukes being lobbed at us sometime in the future when these pieces of sh*t eventually secure that capability, whether that be Iran or assuming nukes of governments Islamo-Nazis over throw--

The mighty (and technologically advanced) Soviet Union was armed to the hilt with infinitely more nuclear might than some superstitious, rock-worshipping hellhole like Iran could ever dream of building on its best day, and yet none were "lobbed" at us. Why, because our deterrent was so lethal (or so they assumed) that even the Soviets wouldn't chance it. If Iran lobbed 2 or 3 nukes at the USA, assuming they could cobble together an ICBM (a huge IF) we would turn Iran into a glass parking lot. Iran is even afraid of Israel's nukes, that's why they have to use their hezbollah patsys to do their dirty work.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.