Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World
Their claim, not mine... moot point.
Doesn't matter, we both agreed that it was not moral, therefore the example is moot.
I read it correctly... Explain how "the decision not to intervene in Darfur was" an advancement of US interests.
You did say in order to be "pragmatic" that it must advance US interests. Its clear that going in would NOT have advanced our interests, I agree, but it is not clear how "the decision not to intervene in Darfur" somehow equates to an advancement of US interests. At best, the decision to not intervene is neutral, it neither advanced nor caused a decline of US interests.
I submit that they are never necessary... at least not when an agreement is actually in the best interest of both countries.
Is that treaty in the best interest of both countries? Do you believe the absence of that treaty is the same thing as a declaration of war between the two countries? I'm sure there are countries we do not have peace treaties with who are considered to be on friendly terms with the US.
The fact that trading with the US is in the best interest of all the other nations of the world is very relevant. I'm not suggesting that we refuse trade with other nations, only that we begin recognizing the economic benefits of trade with the US as all the "sweetener" we need.
It matters to the people forced to live under dictators propped up by the US, and it matters to people like me who reject the policy of using taxpayer money to prop up these foreign dictators.
I'm not suggesting we become an isolationist nation, only that we use diplomacy when dealing with other countries... And I do not consider throwing taxpayer money at other countries an acceptable form of diplomacy.
You believe we need to prop up foreign dictators to bring stability to the ME, I disagree, I think it causes more instability and that policy is counterproductive in the long run.
I offered reform of the future markets as an alternative policy that would create stability where oil prices are concerned and do so at no cost to taxpayers.
Spend billions to prop up foreign dictators...
Spend nothing to reform futures markets...
I brought up oil because that seems to be the commodity people who support your policy are concerned about, they think we need to prop up foreign dictators in the ME to maintain a stable flow of oil, I know that's hogwash.
So contracts between private individuals the US government should mind it's own business but contracts between foreign countries... The US should get all up in their business and throw taxpayer money around to make it happen.
The futures market is volatile, it causes the price of oil to fluctuate wildly and on a daily basis. Supply and demand where oil is concerned is incredibly stable and would not result in wild price fluctuations... Why do you prefer wild fluctuations in the price of oil to more stable oil prices?
The US military has become superfluous and it doesn't break wind without first running to the UN for approval.
The threats we face as a nation are from terrorism, cyber attacks, and the ideological spread of radical Islam, not some foreign military.
I fail to see the benefits but the cost is clear.
The days of superpowers have come and gone. The world is multipolar and the US needs to shift it's foreign policy strategy to deal with this reality. The strength of the US comes from our economic capability, not our military's ability to 'project strength' throughout the world.
