655 000 killed
Out of context: Reply #194
- Started
- Last post
- 194 Responses
- TheBlueOne0
I would like the US to do things militarily that are consistent with our national interest and consistent with our constitutional principles. Interpret that whether you think that's being the "world's police" however you want. I personally have never taken a pacifist point of view, and find a strong military neccessary to the prestige and influence of the US.
Toppling the Taliban and denying AL Queda a base of operations is in our national interest, especially after attacking us on 9/11.
Providing humanitarian aid and stability to regions that are failed states - see Sudan, et al - that provide openings for terrorist organization to find safe haven, ditto. This has to be taken on a case by case basis.
Invading sovereign nations that we have under control through diplomatic and economic means in the hopes to "install democracy" and which are not a threat to the interests of the US, at the high cost of blood and status? I see that as a negative. See Iraq.
I know some of you guys saw Saddam as a threat and somehow connected to 9/11. I do not, nor do I think the evidence was or is there to support it. Historical we had always had our hands in his regime and he was a paper tiger who just happened to sit on huge reserves of oil - and the Bush administration caters to the oil industry, at the expense of our national and patriotic interest. And it has been a terrible policy from day one.
Discuss.