Subject:
|
Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:15:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
279 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > So back to the 'Merican xenophobic tendancies where the rest of the world's
> > > concerned? Wait 'til something like Pearl Harbour happens again before you
> > > take any action outside your borders?
> >
> > Well which way are you arguing here?
> >
> > If you think we 'murricans should be the world's policeman it's aw'fly darn
> > clear to me that Iraq desperately needs waxing, and has, since about 10 days
> > after they signed the cease fire. (but they aren't the only ones)
>
> I think many countries want the US to be the policement, but only when
> they're interests are at risk.
>
> In my opinion, we have a small responsibility to protect Europe,
> however, those countries being in pretty good economic condition, the
> help should mostly be in the form of mutual aid pacts, not outright
> defense.
>
> We have a responsibility to ourselves and the world to become involved
> if something of the scale of WW II starts to brew again.
>
> We have a responsibility to ourselves to dismantle enemies who
> demonstrate a willingness to attack the US.
I think we all have a duty to defend freedom where it is threatened... even if
it means out multinationals loose $$$. Take a look at what the UK did in Sierra
Leon:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1065898.stm
It was not perfect. UK lives were lost. But democracy was restored. It was done
not because Sierra Leon threatened us, but because it was the right thing to do.
>
> I think some support of Israel is worthwhile to the extent that it would
> prevent nuclear war (because I have no doubt that if Israel feels truly
> threatened that it will launch).
As will Iraq [if they have them], Pakistan, India, and N Korea. Should the US
not also aid these countries' belligerence? Fund the Pakistan v India arm race?
> I don't think they need as much support
> as we are giving. I also don't think this is necessarily an obligation,
> just a cost benefit issue.
>
> I think we should look for ways to offer support for struggling nations
> that pays us real benefits (and incidentally pays them real benefits
> because they are able to take a step closer to the top of the pile).
It depends on what you mean by "real benefits". If it's $,$$$,$$$, I'd
oppose you.
>
> Our current path of supporting almost all sides in the Middle East
> really isn't going to solve anything.
> Nothing will be solved there until
> everyone there realizes they need to respect each other.
I agree.
>
> Personally, I'm pretty happy with the whole Afghanistan business.
Why?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2582051.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2648241.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2607629.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2588839.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2215475.stm
Scott A
>
> Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
69 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
