stoning

[88Mariner]

Re: stoning

it does, in that sense, 'make sense now'. but the content of what you said, still does not 'make sense'.

if the United States spreads itself so thin that it cannot even help itself, who will take the place of the United States when it falls under? Nobody. It is in your best interest, as it is with everyone else in the world, that this country stay operational, viable, and willing to go down that avenue of exporting security.

I analogize your expression to that of a jockey whipping the horse to race faster and faster, and suddenly dying of exhaustion.

to wit, keep whipping.

[sammwalk]

Re: stoning

Ok, first off; up yours for asserting that the United States must sacrifice its soldiers, its taxpayers money, and its liberty to save the asses of people who refuse to rise up for themselves. No country has a right to what is being created here, nor does any other country have a right to the lives of our military personal, or the lives of our citizens in general.

Second, why close your borders there in Israel? WHat are you, isolationist? A country does not exist without borders and we've done a piss-poor job at closing ours up. We cannot even begin to take our national security seriously until we close the goddman doors and windows. Until then, fighting abroad should be out of the picture.

So, take your stupid neocon beliefs that you believe america must sacrifice itself to the world, and shove it. All we've done is act like daddy when little johnny gets hurt. time to grow up. Sink or swim.
.

This was a weak response to this vvvvvvv and you can do better.

Then remove yourselves from the international stage - completely.

Remove all your troops and bases from every country they are in; stop all aid to every country; remove yourselves from the UN (actually that in itself aint a bad idea considering how shit that organisation is!), remove yourselves from nato. Close down your borders so even the illegals cant get in.

Become the closed isolationist country that China is. how does that work for you?

The US is the one remaining super power - the question is are you prepared to hand that throne over to China and the Russian bear?

The world is clearly at a precipice, we can either jump off and lose every single freedom that those of us in the west take for granted, or we can work towards ensuring that every single human being on this planet has the right to live their lives how they want and not how some political doctrine or quasi religious fanatic tell them to - A strong America internally will equal a strong America externally but that can only happen once all those lovely rights you and I have are open to every single human being.

Obama stood for change both at home and abroad - I certainly hope he can deliver and actually prove to the world that the change he has been talking about is global, otherwise where does he differ from all his predecessors?

This is a false dilemma. The alternative to US involvement in humanitarian crises is perhaps to be less involved. Taking a position of non-involvement in particular cases does not somehow necessitate complete non-involvement. It's naive to think in such absolute alternatives.

Also, you're going to have to realize that even individual people, let alone whole nations, will never have complete adherence to a consistent policy. In the real world there will be contradictions. This is not a reason to abandon the greater goals. In this case, if the US chooses not to get involved, it does not mean that we stop other humanitarian aid elsewhere. It simply means we do not get involved.

Also we seem to be confusing/conflating humanitarian aid, diplomatic relations, military strategy, national security, and international trade. While these things overlap, there are different goals to each and they should be considered as uniquely motivated.

Our criteria for getting involved should probably be something like:

1. Is there genocide or similar widespread murder?
2. Is the likelihood for successful outcome with US aid vastly overwhelming?
3. Do we have the appropriate resources to affect the positive outcome?
4. Will aid or continuing efforts have a lasting positive effect?
5. Would aid sent be otherwise used for victims or poor in the US or strong US allies?
6. Will there be consequences from the perpetrators of the violence or their allies?

Depending on the answers to these questions, different levels of aid or political pressure will be rendered.

[day_for_night]

Re: stoning

^
|
amen. davetlv, you are thinking in absolutely nonsensical absolutes. because america isnt conforming to some notion you hold of what "change" means in terms of Obama being elected. that they should then abandon having military instilations and giving aid world-wide?? Its just plain silly. Its the same shit the republicans do when they fear-monger. Your either with us or against us. The world should never be this black and white.

You are taking this campaign idea that Barack ran with...'change', and twisting it to mean what you want. When did he say they would become the world's traffic cops?? NEVER. Its a ludicrous idea. Ask britain how colonialism turned out in the long-run, and look at alot of the countries that have had colonial masters for a barometer of that experiment.

[Miroslav]

Re: stoning

My comments, as shown in my post, were a direct response to this:

Now re-read my post - does it make sense now?

No. Sorry.

We STILL don't have the resources to stop all the rape and murder and injustice in the world. Hell, we don't even have the resources to stop it here in our own country. And btw, I don't see any of you knuckleheads offering to help us out now that we have major problems over here in the US. But tell you what, here is what we'll do for you:

America to the world: STOP RAPING AND KILLING EACH OTHER!!!

Ok then! You guys take it from here, good luck.

We got problems here to solve, and none of you knuckleheads out there are going to help us with them now that we're in a bind.