I am not for war, but is it sometimes necessary? Ask Americans why we are at war and you will get different answers.
We provide healthcare for other countries when thousands of Americans can't afford insurance. We put our troops in danger for another country's "freedom". We have alliances that make enemies of other countries. We supply and support Israel. All for what? How exactly does this benefit America?
Should we continue doing what we have been doing or should we just stay over here and mind our own business? I am eager to see how other atheists view this.
While you may feel frustrated with the direction of the conversation, or with another member and their comments, argumentum ad hominem is explicitly against the debate guidelines. It is unnecessary. There are more productive means of handling the situation.
Because it clearly does. If you cannot see that, and that your own position is not by the rules of political science, then you either know too little about the subject or fail to apply the knowledge you have correctly.
Look, I have mady ideals for which I have compromises suited to the real world:
I don't like religion, but I accept the fact it exists and than some people, even amongst those I call friends, believe in something i find disgusting. I think that a person born into a position by right is wrong, yet i support my monarchy because I don't see the need to change a tradition which is deeply rooted in our history needs to be changed for a president we would never give any power. I hate mixing state and religion, but I support my country keeping the state church because we have not mixed religion and politics to a great extent, and our church is quite likely the most modern in protestantism.
These are the differencec between beeing purely idealistic and a pragmatist. The world is not perfect, neither are people, and we have to compromize perfection to fit reality.
I think both most educated Americans and others knows this perfectly well. That is also completely besides the point. Seeing as international politics calls for at least one superpower (we can agree that it is idealistically unpreferred, but at the same time realize that it is neccesary from a real politik standpoint), and the US did earn that by being the foremost economic and military superpower since the end of the cold war, that the country had and has a right.
The other question which begs itself is, if not the US, then who? Europe has certainly lost its right for a while, along with Russia and Japan. And I don't particularly prefer the other obvious choices of Russia, India, Pakistan or Israel (nuclear powers, can't be a superpower without a military). So what do you prefer? The UN which is limp on every difficult subject? G10 or G20, which all are dependant on the US for markets and products anyway?
You are not being realistic. Ideology is good, but realism is better.
Heather, you are being purely idealistic. It's fine, even admirable, but then you cannot take part in a fact based discussion since you are arguing beliefs while I'm trying to argue interpretation of facts.
History based on ideology.. well, it's like science based on religion.