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.
To me, it's an obvious YES. Just like we all put our family's best interest above other families we know. It doesn't mean we treat other families like crap, are cruel, or such things. If someone doesn't put their family first in their life, they're a sorry person, IMO. It's the same with our country. That this is even an issue in our nation today boggles my mind.
To me, it's an obvious YES. Just like we all put our family's best interest above other families we know. It doesn't mean we treat other families like crap, are cruel, or such things. If someone doesn't put their family first in their life, they're a sorry person, IMO. It's the same with our country. That this is even an issue in our nation today boggles my mind.
I see the question "Should we put our own interests before the World?" as a rhetorical one.
Who really believes that we shouldn't put our own national interest first?
The problem is how we define our interests.
Is global warming a legitimate concern that requires action? The vast majority of scientists believe that it is.
At this point, I'm not particularly interested in hearing from the 5% of scientists who don't believe that. It is certainly reasonable to debate the costs involved in fixing this problem and it is reasonable to require other nations to do their share. The telling thing about the Paris Accords is that literally every other nation--but the USA--has signed on to this agreement. If the agreement were that bad, every other nation in the world would not have committed to it. The USA has done a decent job already of reducing carbon emissions. They are down 11% from where they were eight years ago. I suspect--treaty or not--carbon emissions will continue to decline in the United States. Those praying for a resurgence in the coal mining industry are going to be bitterly disappointed. Public utilities are the prime customer for coal and they have already made the decision to phase out coal fired power plants. Its simply a question of converting those plants to natural gas or solar technology. The process is well underway.
The Israel question is difficult. Israel is an ally of the USA, but in essence some are implying that it is somehow in our "best interests" to give that ally 100% of what it wants. This assumes that Israeli and American interests are completely identical. I dispute that. American interests would best be served by a treaty or treaties that guarantee peace and stability among the countries and factions in the Middle East. Israeli interests are best served by a policy that leaves Israel in control of as much land as possible. The two interests have points of commonality, but are not identical.
Proper identification of American interests would do much to resolve this debate.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 12 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,160 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
It matters for accuracy. And yes, without the mainland areas Hong Kong would have been crippled, which I alluded to in my last sentence.
As far as "good" relations go, you'll see a divergence of opinion on that.
Come on themn what should Britain have done.
Given that we had no Empire left and nothing to support military action in the area and we were much diminished in a military sense by the 1990's, what would you suggest we do.
We withdrew from Empire adter WW2 and Hong Kong was merely a final part of the process.
The process started after we were left bankrupt following WW2 when John Maynard Keynes went to the US to try and secure a loan, the US refused Keynes numerous times and put in numerous stipulations. Furthermore the US a country which fought for independence against Britain continually pushed it's agenda of decolonisation and individual nation states, something Britain had to embrace in order to try and rebuild it's bombed out cites and to provide millions of new homes for it's citizens.
In terms of relations with China they are actualy relatively good today compared to many times in our history.
Last edited by Brave New World; 12-31-2017 at 09:14 AM..
Given that we had no Empire left and nothing to support military action in the area and we were much diminished in a military sense by the 1990's, what would you suggest we do.
We withdrew from Empire and Hong Kong was merely a final part of the process.
In terms of relations with China they are actualy relatively good today compared to many times in our history.
I'm not debating the wisdom of Hong Kong's retrocession to China. It was inevitable because of the circumstances.
I'm just finding it funny here in the US where one political party has, in five years, turned Vladimir Skywalker into Darth Putin.
Is global warming a legitimate concern that requires action? The vast majority of scientists believe that it is.
At this point, I'm not particularly interested in hearing from the 5% of scientists who don't believe that. It is certainly reasonable to debate the costs involved in fixing this problem and it is reasonable to require other nations to do their share. The telling thing about the Paris Accords is that literally every other nation--but the USA--has signed on to this agreement. If the agreement were that bad, every other nation in the world would not have committed to it. The USA has done a decent job already of reducing carbon emissions. They are down 11% from where they were eight years ago. I suspect--treaty or not--carbon emissions will continue to decline in the United States. Those praying for a resurgence in the coal mining industry are going to be bitterly disappointed. Public utilities are the prime customer for coal and they have already made the decision to phase out coal fired power plants. Its simply a question of converting those plants to natural gas or solar technology. The process is well underway.
The problem is that the globalists are trying to make everyone believe that joining a treaty equates to taking action and not joining the treaty equates to not taking action. It is concrete action not treaties and pledges that reduce emissions. As you noted, we have been doing this already and don't need to be part of a treaty to continue doing it.
The climate pact is not really about emissions. Each nations' cuts are voluntary pledges. What is not voluntary are the contributions to the $100 Billion per year Green Fund, ofwhich the US is expected to pay $10 Billion per year. The loss of those billions of dollars is what other nations are upset, not about our emissions. How about we spend that $10 Billion in our country making improvements to our emissions, where it would likely result in greater overall emission cuts? Would that satisfy everyone? You know it wouldn't.
Most of the nations supporting the treaty stand to gain something from it. Have you actually read the Individual Nation pledges? (Or even the climate pact itself?) Nearly all of the pledges include a clause "conditional on international support". Translation: we'll reduce emissions if you pay for it.
We went through that wealth redistribution scheme in the 70's and 80's with the IMF and World Bank loans, whereby we lent billions to "developing nations" to improve infrastructure. Did any of these nations become "developed" and climb off the list? They pilfered it and squandered it building up their armies and padding their bank accounts, then came back chanting "debt forgiveness" when the money was gone, the debt was crushing, and the infrastructure still crumbling.
China and other Thirld World nations stole our manufacturing because they could make things cheaper with factories that pay slave wages and grossly pollute the environment. Now they want us to help pay to make their factories cleaner and greener?
American interests would best be served by a treaty or treaties that guarantee peace and stability among the countries and factions in the Middle East.
Treaties never have and never will "guarantee peace and stability".
Probably we should end both. Egypt hates us no matter what we do, and the Israelis can make their own weapons today that are equal to or maybe even superior to American equipment.
That was the policy in late 1947 and early 1948. The rest of the world armed the Arabs to the teeth while we, "neutrally," didn't arm either side. Fortunately clandestine aid was enough to enable Israel to win the 1948 war for independence. See The Pledge by Leonard Slater.
In other words, petrodollars, which are abundant in during price spikes, will arm the Arabs to the teeth. Right now there's a bit of a spike, to the low $60s.
So, it's in our best interests to let Israel be conquered, just as we let the Soviets take over the democracies of western Europe?
How did Soviets hurt us? It's funny, you hear conflicting stories of how the Soviets collapsed. Did we have to intervene for the USSR to fail or dod Communism fail them?
So, it's in our best interests to let Israel be conquered, just as we let the Soviets take over the democracies of western Europe?
Who exactly in this thread said that?
Please give the post number.
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.
