Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let the market dictate some decisions about energy. I like most of the current thinking of our government. I guess the next election will tell us if people like what is going on.
It will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
And so we shouldn't do what we could...out of spite. Na na na na na na.
When it comes to climate change, each nation is either part of the problem or part of the solution, and by withdrawing from the pact, we are part of the problem. We ought to be leaders. Instead, we are not even followers. We are stuck in the mud. And Republican thinking, like yours, is putting us in that position in many issues.
Furthermore, there is no benefit to the United States to making Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Does it actually matter to us in any concrete way where any nation's capital is? Does it matter to us that the capital of Thailand is Bangkok instead of Chiang Mai? Heck, few Americans could name more than 5 world capitals. But I'll tell you that placing the capital in Jerusalem is not worth one life, no matter whether that life is Israeli or Palestinian. It's just dirt.
Rather than put our interests first, we should go on a world apology tour, bow before the leaders of the other countries, and proclaim our guilt for causing all the world's problems.
And so we shouldn't do what we could...out of spite. Na na na na na na.
When it comes to climate change, each nation is either part of the problem or part of the solution, and by withdrawing from the pact, we are part of the problem. We ought to be leaders. Instead, we are not even followers. We are stuck in the mud. And Republican thinking, like yours, is putting us in that position in many issues.
You should read the treaty and tell me what it does for the problem, as opposed to helping the rather wealthy leaders of Third World countries. You are into policies that feel good rather than do good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Furthermore, there is no benefit to the United States to making Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Does it actually matter to us in any concrete way where any nation's capital is? Does it matter to us that the capital of Thailand is Bangkok instead of Chiang Mai? Heck, few Americans could name more than 5 world capitals. But I'll tell you that placing the capital in Jerusalem is not worth one life, no matter whether that life is Israeli or Palestinian. It's just dirt.
It tells the world that intransigent foreign policy decisions don't help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvert Hall '62
Rather than put our interests first, we should go on a world apology tour, bow before the leaders of the other countries, and proclaim our guilt for causing all the world's problems.
Oh wait, I sense Deja Vu.
I totally agree. The West (except the Axis powers) has had nothing to apologize for going back a century or so.
The US has an interest in preventing climate change. The Paris Treaty is not perfect, but moves everyone in the right direction. Trump's withdrawal from the accord makes the USA the only nation in the world that no longer adheres to the Paris Treaty. If you blithely dismiss the treaty as not doing anything constructive about climate change than you take a position that is literally at odds with every other country in the world.
The reality is Trump withdrew America from this treaty to appease some people in the fossil fuel industry, supporters in places like West Virginia and Kentucky, and nut reactionary groups who believe there are things like "one world government".
Recognition of Jerusalem as capitol of Israel. This is a complex issue and too many people fail to grasp the nuances involved in it.
The reality is that neither of these two actions are in the long term interest of the American people.
1. (A) The voters rejected all of this.
(B) The voters rejected this, too.
2. We grasp it.
3. The voters disagreed with the false choices presented from the Left, establishment, and globalists.
It also makes me laugh to think that people willfully refuse to research Donald Trump's lifelong history with Jewish people. It's even been used against him.
And that Kushner and Adelson are mind controlling The President, even though the US has CLEARLY supported the Jerusalem issue for decades but now that Trump actually did it...OMG OMG DONORS!
P.S. Here's the start of your one world government/ new world order research, a.k.a. Regionalism...instead of blithely dismissing:
TL;DR Once you accept government grant money for an innocuous "art walk" in your county, you're on the hook for all the other demands they make of you such as in your educational system.
3. The voters disagreed with the false choices presented from the Left, establishment, and globalists.
It also makes me laugh to think that people willfully refuse to research Donald Trump's lifelong history with Jewish people. It's even been used against him.
And that Kushner and Adelson are mind controlling The President, even though the US has CLEARLY supported the Jerusalem issue for decades but now that Trump actually did it...OMG OMG DONORS!
FOr once, we get a President who actually has some respect for his own promises.
It tells the world that intransigent foreign policy decisions don't help.I totally agree. The West (except the Axis powers) has had nothing to apologize for going back a century or so.
You've got to be kidding.
How about France's colonial rule of Indochina?
How about Great Britain's colonial rule of India among other places, as well as the atrocities committed in an attempt to maintain rule? Or their support for the apartheid South African government? (Margaret Thatcher used to refer to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.)
How about the U.S.'s involvement in a little fracas in Southeast Asia?
How about the U.S.'s secret bombing of neutral Cambodia?
How about the puppet governments the U.S. has installed and/or supported in Latin America, including coups specifically instigated by the CIA.
How about the CIA instigating a coup against the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953 and installing a dictator? In fact, how about the U.S.'s overall involvement in Middle East internal politics throughout the 1950s and beyond by way of covert CIA operations?
How about the U.S. secretly selling arms to our "good buddies" in Iran in the 1980s in order to secretly fund an effort to overthrow the democratically-elected government in Nicaragua.
How about the U.S. invading Iraq in 2003 under the false pretense of Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction."
You should read the treaty and tell me what it does for the problem, as opposed to helping the rather wealthy leaders of Third World countries. You are into policies that feel good rather than do good.
It tells the world that intransigent foreign policy decisions don't help.I totally agree. The West (except the Axis powers) has had nothing to apologize for going back a century or so.
What is does is provide a starting point for action. A beginning. And a rather unique beginning since now every country in the world has some common focus of at least acknowledging the problem. Every nation except one.
Cosmetic policy decisions don't help, either.
Nothing to apologize for? 1.3 million dead in the Vietnam War, not to mention those who suffered from PTSD and are still dying from Agent Orange. And what was it for? A proxy war. Honestly, we could have done much better, but instead played century-old games with modern (at the time) weapons.
How about Great Britain's colonial rule of India among other places, as well as the atrocities committed in an attempt to maintain rule?
Good points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda
Or their support for the apartheid South African government? (Margaret Thatcher used to refer to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.)
Generally a good point. South Africa hasn't been as bad a race to the bottom as Zimbabwe. I still have questions about the readiness of the majority for self-government. The previous apartheid regime didn't do a good job prepping them to govern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda
How about the U.S.'s involvement in a little fracas in Southeast Asia?
How about the U.S.'s secret bombing of neutral Cambodia?
I am torn. Obviously Vietnam and Cambodia were not handled appropriately. On the other hand, the "domino theory" may well have proven out if the Communists had not been held at bay in the unsuccessful Vietnam War. The normal Soviet tactic was to "fish in troubled waters," i.e. foment instability in countries that were suffering political or economic issues and then arrive as the savior.
Such countries as Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore were emerging from the chaos of WW II and may well have fallen had Communism not been battled in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Even though the battles didn't work in those countries they bought Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore much needed time to become stable and reasonably prosperous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda
How about the puppet governments the U.S. has installed and/or supported in Latin America, including coups specifically instigated by the CIA.
The difference is that Latin America is, with the exception of Chile and Costa Rica, badly governed. At least right-wing caudillos give up power. Left-wing regimes, examples being Cuba and Venezuela not so much. And the people suffer either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda
How about the CIA instigating a coup against the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953 and installing a dictator? In fact, how about the U.S.'s overall involvement in Middle East internal politics throughout the 1950s and beyond by way of covert CIA operations?
Again better our governments than Islamist or Soviet-backed governments. Either way, not much good government in that part of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda
How about the U.S. secretly selling arms to our "good buddies" in Iran in the 1980s in order to secretly fund an effort to overthrow the democratically-elected government in Nicaragua.
Less defensible but we should have openly funded the anti-Sandinista effort. We were forced to do it indirectly by well-intentioned but naive laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda
How about the U.S. invading Iraq in 2003 under the false pretense of Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction."
Not necessarily false but concealed or moved weapons, perhaps to Syria. Remember it was Saddam who boasted of having them. It's like boasting in an airport that you've got weaponry to blow the place "sky high."
Let's see what is written about NK and Iran 50 years from now.
I assume all the people who hate what America was in the past would be quite happy in another country or hemisphere. Why stay here? Why drive? Why use public transit? Why not donate their fair share instead of whatever the IRS tax tables state? I'm sure there's some idealistically perfect country somewhere in the world with an unblemished past.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
