|
During the run-up to the 2008 election, much was made about the candidates positions on holding talks with leaders of countries not friendly to the good old US of A. I found this a most intriguing and frustrating discussion (and topic for shrieking at the top of your lungs).
On one side the position seemed to be that we'll talk to you when you surrender, and not a day before. The other side had a more open-door approach. I probably don't need to remind you which was which.
Seems to me that instead of bombing the crap out of people who don't like us, we should send them food, medicine, clothing, diapers, soap, computers, TV's, XBox's, iPods and any other thing we're trying to export. We could make some friends, and generate some demand for our products. We could give them the materials - and through 'neutral' third parties, the expertise - to build infrastructure for clean water, electricity, etc. The end to the enourmous drain associated with the cost of waging war would be achieved while we created new markets for our goods. Our status in the eyes of the world would improve.
This would cost far less than what we're spending to wage war, although the shift in demand for goods would hurt some US companies while it helped others. However, I don't see how shifting away from a war-machine economy is a bad thing.
The bottom line: Talking to and trading with your enemies is the path to making them your friends and market partners.
The alternatives to this approach seems to be "the beatings will continue until morale improves" at best and "kill them all" at worst. When we've killed everyone except the Canadians, how are they going to feel about us?
|