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.
This article is hardly from a liberal mouthpiece. It demonstrates the simple ideas that overuse of military excursions abroad are expensive and can backfire against their stated ideoligical or practical purposes. A strong defense is a noble objective, but too strong an offensive is not beneficial.
This article is hardly from a liberal mouthpiece. It demonstrates the simple ideas that overuse of military excursions abroad are expensive and can backfire against their stated ideoligical or practical purposes. A strong defense is a noble objective, but too strong an offensive is not beneficial.
There's a huge difference between defense and these Imperialistic expeditions to acquire and control real estate which are causing us so many problems. It does serve to illustrate one of the differences between traditional Conservatives, and the so-called "Neo-Conservatives" (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove). Historically Conservatives have been chided for being Isolationists. War is viewed as a last resort, not a pre-emptive option, as is central to the Bush doctrine. There is no better historic example of the clash of views between the Conservatives and Liberals than the period between the two world wars, probably the period most comparable to our own in modern times.
The US could stand to be a little more isolationist. Although I really don't agree that just because you don't throw your military into every conflict of American global interest to be isolationist. China hasn't done this, yet would you consider them isolationist?
As long as the United Nations considers the United States the world's police officer, we will continute to assert our military when and where needed. Who is the first one in the room looked at when a conflict arises? You got it. The USA.
As long as the United Nations considers the United States the world's police officer, we will continute to assert our military when and where needed. Who is the first one in the room looked at when a conflict arises? You got it. The USA.
"Where needed" is a matter of debate for me.
Throwing a our military in the middle of a conflict, especially in a poorly thought out fashion, can have variable and unpredictable consequences.
The UN does not command our military. WE willingly use it because some believe it advances US interests.
Yes, we need to choose our battles with care. But when we do decide to go into a conflict, this is my motto:
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.
