Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 28, 2011 at 1:10pm

Furthermore, those foreign sources are often unstable because the USA has 'destabilized' the governments there as documented strategy of monopolizing resources.  Furthermore, Iraq invaded Kuwait over an oil field dispute after actually getting American permission to do so.  If you want to hold your own bulldogs back from 'megalomaniacal fantasies' then the least you could do is keep a tighter hold on their leash.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 26, 2011 at 5:11am

100,000s of Iraqi deaths is not an acceptable rationalisation of our cushy North American lifestyle...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on February 26, 2011 at 5:49am

The second Gulf war, under the second Bush, was certainly questionable and unpopular.  The first one was definitely warranted and necessary.  Like I said.  War is tragic but necessary sometimes.  Our quick response prevented Saddam from pursuing his designs on Saudi Arabia and returned Kuwait back to its people.  Letting him consolidate his position in the region would have been a treasonous dereliction of duty for ANY U.S. President and would have resulted in far more suffering to get him out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on February 27, 2011 at 1:19am

From Atheist Exile in earlier posts in this discussion:

Quote 1

It's about resources.  Many elderly die every year during cold snaps or heat waves.

Quote 2

Use your head.  How many people would die without heating oil?

So let's turn these circumstances around, hypothetically: How many Americans would it be ok for foreigners to come to America to kill, assuming they just needed to guarantee they could obtain America's heating oil to stay warm?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 26, 2011 at 6:35am

How many is then? ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 27, 2011 at 12:17am

1-10 might have been rationalisable... :P

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on February 26, 2011 at 2:09am

The US never has had "isolationist" policies, at least not since about the time the Americans discovered Cuba. That is just political lingo, like for example "Vietnam syndrome" to (successfully) try to exclude the foreign politics the American public would prefer if they were able to rationally consider their options.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on February 26, 2011 at 4:03am

@Albert,

If you want to put words in my mouth, get a sock puppet.  I never said we have or have ever had isolationist policies.  I said "I don't believe that the U.S. should adopt isolationist policies."

Let me know if you want to discuss what I actually wrote.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on February 26, 2011 at 4:26am

Let me know first if you actually took serious what you wrote first.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on February 26, 2011 at 4:48am

Pfffft.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on February 26, 2011 at 7:14am

One day perhaps, yes. But thank you for the compliment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 26, 2011 at 6:23am

Not quite sure if giving the American people power over the U.S. foreign policy would be a very wise choice. I foresee nuclear holocaust in any and all non-Christian country :p

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• …
• 26
• Next ›
• Page