Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Wizlah wrote:... Please tell me the last time you stuck your nose in Africa to keep the peace there.

US military involvement/activity (troop deployments, combat, humanitarian, evacuations, etc.)?

18 times since 1990.

Edit: Sorry. The congressional report I read was dated 2008, so that's 18 times between 1990-2008.

Doh. Somalia. How could I forget.

FTN wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:

FTN wrote:this is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but does not work in theory. if we turtled up and became an isolationist nation, we'd be inviting unrest all around the world. the world is, for the most part, peaceful because we ally ourselves with most nations who aren't trying to cause trouble.

I don't really get this sentence at all. Maybe we do ally ourselves with peaceful nations, but that isn't making the world more peaceful. And if it were, I doubt it'd be because of our current efforts to make it so.

if we did not get involved internationally in the affairs of other nations and let countries do whatever they wanted, the world would be far less civil. the threat of action by the US, either militarily or economically, is a big deterrent for most countries. most. you can argue that china has as big of an influence as the US, but theres is more economic, because of their buying power (of debt)

i find it really difficult to imagine a scenario in which the US becomes non-interventional around the world. the US tried to be a non-interventional entity after World War I, and you saw how well that worked out. now i think we feel obligated to be completely and totally involved, for better or worse.

I'm not necessarily arguing for isolationism, just that you're creating a false dichotomy here and the side you're defending doesn't even work. You're painting this picture as though we should be content with the status quo. And if I were arguing for isolationism, your example of that one time isolationism didn't work almost 100 years ago isn't all that compelling

im not defending it, im arguing that is the stance of the US government, and why I think they take that stance. im not saying its right. there are plenty of people smarter than me who have outlined many times why we need to shift our foreign policy. i just dont think its realistic.

FTN wrote:we want people to behave and not cause trouble, because trouble costs more to police. is that catering to our own self interests too? yes. is it wrong? yes. is it reality? yes.

among the things that you need to sort out here is "our" own self-interests, and how we come to them. "Our" self interest is a mighty dynamic thing in a porous democracy

arguing that it's not realistic to change things means you tacitly condone it.

FTN wrote:im not defending it, im arguing that is the stance of the US government, and why I think they take that stance. im not saying its right. there are plenty of people smarter than me who have outlined many times why we need to shift our foreign policy. i just dont think its realistic.

You are defending it. You're saying it's the only realistic option. You're using the classic argument of There Is No Alternative.

here is an example to consider.

what would have happened at the end of WW2 if we had basically said "peace, we're out" and decided to again try to become non-interventional. does the USSR take more liberties in europe? 10 years later, are we fighting world war 3 against the soviet union because they want to exert their control over all of western europe? what we got was essentially a 40 year pissing contest between the US and the USSR, with neither side opting to throw down because they knew it might be the end of the world. but the russians knew that we were committed to protecting west germany, and all of the other key players in that region.

how strong would NATO have been without the US? of course, the League of Nations was strongly supported by Woody Wilson, but the US never joined, and you saw how effective they were at preventing WW2.

Barry Jive wrote:arguing that it's not realistic to change things means you tacitly condone it.

i dont condone it. i know it cant be changed, so i dont waste my energy arguing that the US should not have a presence around the globe.

FTN wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:arguing that it's not realistic to change things means you tacitly condone it.

i dont condone it. i know it cant be changed, so i dont waste my energy arguing that the US should not have a presence around the globe.

God bless your idealism sir. Truly a shining light which will inspire people to think differently.

teach me how to die

We obviously have a role to play on the world stage, I'm just arguing that some if what we do really comes back to bite us in the ass. We prop up unpopular dictatorships in our own self-interest at the expense of the people of those countries who are living in poverty and fear. Think that doesn't drive people to radicalization? We authorized a drone strike earlier this year that accidentally landed in an Afghan wedding celebration and caused several deaths. We have essentially accepted the use of torture as a viable means of intelligence gathering. How would you look at America if you were living in the Middle East?

So, it appears the Mom is also a terrorist. She really should've come to the US for questioning. Pretty good chance she just "disappears" in Russia, if you get my drift.

Napalm wrote:

Conspiracy would be a totally innocuous and accurate word to use in that context. It's amazing how stupid these Boston conspiracy theorists are.

wait...since Obama is the president now, this must mean that OMG THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DON'T REALLY HATE EACH OTHER!!! IT'S ALL A BIG RUSE!!! OMG CAN YOU SEE HOW HUGE THIS IS??

Youseff wrote:

Napalm wrote:

Conspiracy would be a totally innocuous and accurate word to use in that context. It's amazing how stupid these Boston conspiracy theorists are.

Yea, I think it was more of an oh-shit truthers are going to spin my using conspiracy I should use another word.

Yeh, I don't see what he said except to avoid the word conspiracy, which is something most politicians in his situation would probably do. And I don't see Laura looking weird at all.

But he still gave an rambling, barely coherent answer. It reminded me of his presidency. Bad flashback.

i thought the telling thing was he said "another"

911 was a conspiracy by radical Muslims, and will forever be tied to his tenure as POTUS so "another" is also appropriate.

Youseff wrote:911 was a conspiracy by radical Muslims, and will forever be tied to his tenure as POTUS so "another" is also appropriate.

YOU MISSPELLED GOVERNMENT!

INSIDE JOB.

CONSPIRACY.

CONNECT THE INVISIBLE DOTS.