Because they have a stronger economy than we do and our laws don't penalize US business for treating foreign powers preferentially in the face of sub standard wages as well as working conditions.

TLDR its cheaper for corporations to outsource jobs to country's that we may or may not be aligned with ideologically. This is a huge problem.

Peter Wiggin wrote:TLDR its cheaper for corporations to outsource jobs to country's that we may or may not be aligned with ideologically. This is a huge problem.

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:TLDR its cheaper for corporations to outsource jobs to country's that we may or may not be aligned with ideologically. This is a huge problem.

That is what we call business. We've outsourced to other countries for a long time, not just in the past 20 years. It isn't really a problem. The average American worker not keeping up with the times or our failing to keep on top of Science and Math is the problem. In other words outsourcing isn't the problem, we became complacent and and overconfident, and that is the problem.

Edit: This is awkwardly phrased but I don't feel like editing it at the moment.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Interestingly enough, chinas now running into that same issue. Thats the nature of manufacturing work, it goes to the cheapest labour because frankly, a nine year old somalian can do just as good a job as some drunk American or untrained chinese farmhand for a hell of a lot cheaper.

Peter Wiggin wrote:I respectfully disagree. Then again, I'm a firm believer that America would benefit ALOT from withdrawing our military from around the globe and simply focusing on domestic issues as well as national job growth.

My point exactly....this is a huge problem.

I'm not an economics major, but its seems to me that if corporations are allowed to simply chase the lowest wages all over the globe we are left with the end result of becoming a service oriented society that doesn't actually produce much of anything.

Ahtman wrote:The next Dalai Lama gets to be picked by China, at least i recall the Chinese government saying something to that effect. That one will probably win the award when the time comes.

I lost the site but apparently the awards were a dismal failure.

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:I respectfully disagree. Then again, I'm a firm believer that America would benefit ALOT from withdrawing our military from around the globe and simply focusing on domestic issues as well as national job growth.

Besides our military projection worldwide having nothing to do with the conversation, you may want to research on how successful isolationism has been. Having jobs around the world (we do actually have jobs here in the US) is not a bad thing. Countries that trade together are often less likely to go to war. It helps with stability as well GDP.

ShumaGorath wrote:

My point exactly....this is a huge problem.

I'm not an economics major, but its seems to me that if corporations are allowed to simply chase the lowest wages all over the globe we are left with the end result of becoming a service oriented society that doesn't actually produce much of anything.

First, America is the third largest exporting country on the planet and has the second largest manufacturing sector on the planet. We just consume most of what we produce. Secondly, you should probably take a few minutes to read up on some wikis before stating that "service economies don't produce much" since it makes you seem like you're incapable of understanding that actual physical end of line manufactured goods produced comprise a fraction of actual economic output in the majority of countries on the planet.

It's one of those things where you don't seem like you know enough to actually understand why you have the opinions you have. That happens a lot. I'm dealing often now with the wikileaks thing in my everyday life (theres a reason I avoided that thread like the plague).

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:I respectfully disagree. Then again, I'm a firm believer that America would benefit ALOT from withdrawing our military from around the globe and simply focusing on domestic issues as well as national job growth.

Besides our military projection worldwide having nothing to do with the conversation, you may want to research on how successful isolationism has been. Having jobs around the world (we do actually have jobs here in the US) is not a bad thing. Countries that trade together are often less likely to go to war. It helps with stability as well GDP.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:I respectfully disagree. Then again, I'm a firm believer that America would benefit ALOT from withdrawing our military from around the globe and simply focusing on domestic issues as well as national job growth.

Besides our military projection worldwide having nothing to do with the conversation, you may want to research on how successful isolationism has been. Having jobs around the world (we do actually have jobs here in the US) is not a bad thing. Countries that trade together are often less likely to go to war. It helps with stability as well GDP.

respectfully and I don't want to get into this on this thread, but there's a very great difference between withdrawing our military from across the globe and becoming isolationist. No other nation or group of nations has their forces stretched everywhere. It means we'll just be like, well, every other country.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:I respectfully disagree. Then again, I'm a firm believer that America would benefit ALOT from withdrawing our military from around the globe and simply focusing on domestic issues as well as national job growth.

Besides our military projection worldwide having nothing to do with the conversation, you may want to research on how successful isolationism has been. Having jobs around the world (we do actually have jobs here in the US) is not a bad thing. Countries that trade together are often less likely to go to war. It helps with stability as well GDP.

respectfully and I don't want to get into this on this thread, but there's a very great difference between withdrawing our military from across the globe and becoming isolationist. No other nation or group of nations has their forces stretched everywhere. It means we'll just be like, well, every other country.

We're also the only country on the planet capable of conducting full scale military operations offensively. Theres a tradeoff there.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:I respectfully disagree. Then again, I'm a firm believer that America would benefit ALOT from withdrawing our military from around the globe and simply focusing on domestic issues as well as national job growth.

Besides our military projection worldwide having nothing to do with the conversation, you may want to research on how successful isolationism has been. Having jobs around the world (we do actually have jobs here in the US) is not a bad thing. Countries that trade together are often less likely to go to war. It helps with stability as well GDP.

respectfully and I don't want to get into this on this thread, but there's a very great difference between withdrawing our military from across the globe and becoming isolationist. No other nation or group of nations has their forces stretched everywhere. It means we'll just be like, well, every other country.

We're also the only country on the planet capable of conducting full scale military operations offensively. Theres a tradeoff there.

Where's the benefit again? Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a thing. besides we can no longer do that thing. Note the recent base closing recommendations.

Ahtman wrote:He didn't post that he wanted to lower presence but to pull out from around the globe. I have no problem with a base closing here and there but to completely withdraw is another story all together and you would have to be an Isolationist to want such a thing. You know that Isolationist is a specific term and doesn't mean hiding like a tortoise in a shell but is an approach to foreign policy.

Peter Wiggin wrote:Yes, I know this. Its my personal opinion based on nothign other than my feelings. Its not terribly logical, but it is honest.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:I respectfully disagree. Then again, I'm a firm believer that America would benefit ALOT from withdrawing our military from around the globe and simply focusing on domestic issues as well as national job growth.

Besides our military projection worldwide having nothing to do with the conversation, you may want to research on how successful isolationism has been. Having jobs around the world (we do actually have jobs here in the US) is not a bad thing. Countries that trade together are often less likely to go to war. It helps with stability as well GDP.

respectfully and I don't want to get into this on this thread, but there's a very great difference between withdrawing our military from across the globe and becoming isolationist. No other nation or group of nations has their forces stretched everywhere. It means we'll just be like, well, every other country.

We're also the only country on the planet capable of conducting full scale military operations offensively. Theres a tradeoff there.

Where's the benefit again? Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a thing. besides we can no longer do that thing. Note the recent base closing recommendations.

What the feth. I agree with Frazzled. Kill me now.

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:Yes, I know this. Its my personal opinion based on nothign other than my feelings. Its not terribly logical, but it is honest.

That is like someone saying they are ignorant and wrong but at least they are honest. It isn't exactly a virtuous position. It is what my old Poly Sci Professor called a phantom opinion. yeah, it is an opinion, but it has no weight or legitimacy; it is worthless.

ShumaGorath wrote:
We're engaged in two simultaneous wars. You do realize this, correct? Also, I never said it was a good thing or a bad thing. I said that that was the tradeoff for reducing our presence around the world.

What the feth. I agree with Frazzled. Kill me now.

Yeah, you also seem to have the magic superpower of misquoting me as well. Sometimes I think frazzled infects people with it.

...........Really now? We are engaged in 2 wars? You wanna stand by that statement?

I can't help but wonder why you are in such a pissy mood today?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Iraq and afghanistan are two separate conflicts, and despite the declaration of the end of combat operations we still number just below fifty grand in there. The war will be over when we stop having to actively supply a large number of combat ready service personell in a hostile area on the other side of the planet.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Iraq and afghanistan are two separate conflicts, and despite the declaration of the end of combat operations we still number just below fifty grand in there. The war will be over when we stop having to actively supply a large number of combat ready service personell in a hostile area on the other side of the planet.

So you support the stance that Iraq and Afghanistan are wars?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Iraq and afghanistan are two separate conflicts, and despite the declaration of the end of combat operations we still number just below fifty grand in there. The war will be over when we stop having to actively supply a large number of combat ready service personell in a hostile area on the other side of the planet.

So you support the stance that Iraq and Afghanistan are wars?

Yes? I'm pretty sure I always have.

Military engagements authorized by Congress

In other instances, the United States has engaged in extended military combat that were authorized by Congress, but short of a formal declaration of war.

Ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Whatever you may feel on a personal level, we are NOT in a state of war. That is the sticking point of my opposition to the entire idiotic deal, but if there is a draft for actual warfare I'll be one of the first to go do my duty.

Until then I exercise my right and obligation as a citizen to vehemently oppose the fact that rich old politicians are spending the blood of my generation to gain monetary and political power on the geopolitical stage.

Peter Wiggin wrote:Whatever you may feel on a personal level, we are NOT in a state of war. That is the sticking point of my opposition to the entire idiotic deal, but if there is a draft for actual warfare I'll be one of the first to go do my duty. Until then I exercise my right and obligation as a citizen to vehemently oppose the fact that rich old politicians are spending the blood of my generation to gain monetary and political power on the geopolitical stage.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

I think I posted that link yesterday in reference to something frazzled said about us being at war with Yemen. It's a good link when used right.

Whatever you may feel on a personal level, we are NOT in a state of war. That is the sticking point of my opposition to the entire idiotic deal, but if there is a draft for actual warfare I'll be one of the first to go do my duty.

And yet both administrations have called both wars wars repeatedly and daily for coming on a decade now. It's as if a congressional declaration of war hasn't been made in decades, yet we've been engaged in numerous wars! Remember that thing I said about semantics! It applies. Also, I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Are you soapboxing?

Until then I exercise my right and obligation as a citizen to vehemently oppose the fact that rich old politicians are spending the blood of my generation to gain monetary and political power on the geopolitical stage.

Yes. You are soapboxing. Got it. You used the "politicians are killing out soldiers for money" angle too. Classic unsubstantiated tripe! It's good to see that the old ways never die.

Begging the question

* Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
o Example

Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.
Problem: Billy may be lying.

o Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself.

Hi there, I like to put my opinion forth as fact too!

One man's soap box is another man's protest.

As for the politicians "killing" soldiers, I said NOTHING of the sort. I said that the blood of my generation is being spent to gain monetary and political power for the upper echelon of American society. That's an opinion, but you can take it as me trying to state fact if you really want too.

Also, on the note of a war being a war because someone SAYS it is a war as opposed to an actual act of congress to declare a state of war...................................

The non-identity principle is of a misleading simplicity: it establishes that two unspecified things cannot be identical in all aspects. There are inevitable differences that can be more or less difficult to detect.

A corollary of this principle is that the words we use to speak about a thing are not this thing: a map is not the territory it represents.

When we say "This is a pencil", we blur the differences between pencil1, that we can touch, feel, use, etc., and an unspecified pencil. Thus, the Aristotelian structure of our language encourages us to neglect differences. On the faith of the labels that we ascribe to objects, it is then easy for us to generalize, forgetting that this generalization concerns only labels, which are not the thing spoken about. We will call this semantic reaction 'identification'.

If we say, for example, «Man is an animal», the behaviour of animals can be considered as natural for man, implying the application of the so-called 'law of the jungle', 'law of the strongest' and individualism in human affairs.

How about the term 'dog'? The number of individuals with which any one is directly acquainted is, by necessity, limited, and usually is small. Let us imagine that someone had dealt only with good-natured 'dogs', and had never been bitten by any of them. Next he sees some animal; he says, 'This is a dog'; his associations (relations) do not suggest a bite; he approaches the animal and begins to play with him, and is bitten. Was the statement 'this is a dog' a safe statement? Obviously not. He approached the animal with semantic expectations and evaluation of his verbal definition, but was bitten by the non-verbal, un-speakable objective level, which has different characteristics.
— Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity, p. 373, International non-Aristotelian Library (1933).

ShumaGorath wrote:

Hi there, I like to put my opinion forth as fact too!

I noticed. Remember the service economy thing?

One man's soap box is another man's protest.

I don't control troop levels and I'm fundamentally opposed to how both conflicts have been run. Go protest somewhere else.

As for the politicians "killing" soldiers, I said NOTHING of the sort. I said that the blood of my generation is being spent to gain monetary and political power for the upper echelon of American society. That's an opinion, but you can take it as me trying to state fact if you really want too.

A=b=c

Opinions should be based on fact and logic, even art has a lexicon and set of ideals and concepts that guide the formalization of opinions. Stating opinions as facts then refusing to support them because you can't implies that you have no basis for their formulation.

Also, on the note of a war being a war because someone SAYS it is a war as opposed to an actual act of congress to declare a state of war...................................

The non-identity principle is of a misleading simplicity: it establishes that two unspecified things cannot be identical in all aspects. There are inevitable differences that can be more or less difficult to detect.

A corollary of this principle is that the words we use to speak about a thing are not this thing: a map is not the territory it represents.

When we say "This is a pencil", we blur the differences between pencil1, that we can touch, feel, use, etc., and an unspecified pencil. Thus, the Aristotelian structure of our language encourages us to neglect differences. On the faith of the labels that we ascribe to objects, it is then easy for us to generalize, forgetting that this generalization concerns only labels, which are not the thing spoken about. We will call this semantic reaction 'identification'.

If we say, for example, «Man is an animal», the behaviour of animals can be considered as natural for man, implying the application of the so-called 'law of the jungle', 'law of the strongest' and individualism in human affairs.

How about the term 'dog'? The number of individuals with which any one is directly acquainted is, by necessity, limited, and usually is small. Let us imagine that someone had dealt only with good-natured 'dogs', and had never been bitten by any of them. Next he sees some animal; he says, 'This is a dog'; his associations (relations) do not suggest a bite; he approaches the animal and begins to play with him, and is bitten. Was the statement 'this is a dog' a safe statement? Obviously not. He approached the animal with semantic expectations and evaluation of his verbal definition, but was bitten by the non-verbal, un-speakable objective level, which has different characteristics.
— Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity, p. 373, International non-Aristotelian Library (1933).

A war is a war, whether congress declares the state of war or not. Wars don't require the consent of the government to occur and they don't wait for the paperwork to start. The declaration of war is not the prosecution of it.

Your assumptions are based on fallacy. <shrug> I still got love for you though.