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.
I agree to some extent but the world has got smaller in this age and to keep moving forward I'm not sure it's possible anymore. Not to mention our government the current and in the past can't seem to mind their own business.
It is simplistic to say the the US does not act in its own self interests, we actually do. We are all about trade and we want markets.
I am a proud American and do think it is time for us to stop enabling bad behavior in various ways but I do think it is important for us to try to keep peace and stability if possible. We could actually ignore North Korea IMHO and there is really not much they can do to us. Their leadership needs us as an enemy more than we need to even deal with them. A nuclear armed North Korea is more of a threat to China than the US. If we would stop feeding them they would probably lose interest in us and be a problem for those that live much closer to them IMHO.
It is simplistic to say the the US does not act in its own self interests, we actually do. We are all about trade and we want markets.
I am a proud American and do think it is time for us to stop enabling bad behavior in various ways but I do think it is important for us to try to keep peace and stability if possible. We could actually ignore North Korea IMHO and there is really not much they can do to us. Their leadership needs us as an enemy more than we need to even deal with them. A nuclear armed North Korea is more of a threat to China than the US. If we would stop feeding them they would probably lose interest in us and be a problem for those that live much closer to them IMHO.
Proliferation is the main concern.
NK sells military hardware to nefarious regimes around the world--Yemen, Iran, etc.
They may or may not be crazy enough to nuke us directly, but they definitely will sell nukes and ICBM tech to others. May have done so already.
As for Israeli inventions... you're kidding, right?
Here, go educate yourself:
Every time you log onto anything, you're using cryptographic technology developed in Israel: RSA public key encryption, plus some newer advances by Israeli mathematicians, that underly SSL security used by every website, voicemail, email, etc.
You're also using Intel processors developed in Israel ranging from Celeron to the latest i7 7-core CPUs plus the latest server processors; even if it's not on your home PC, it's in use on servers all over the world that you access every time you use the Internet.
Medical advances, too. An Israeli, Leo Sachs (escaped from Nazi Germany to England, then to Israel) developed the underlying research for amniocentesis, used widely today to check for Down's Syndrome and other abnormalities. Hundreds more examples.
I'm not saying Israel is the be-all, end-all. But it's a worthy country that has earned the right to be respected and protected in the world. Why would people single her out for abuse based on left wing propaganda which is based on anti-semitism and Muslim Jihadist lies? Just let the Embassy be in Jerusalem. I mean, it's already there, but they call it a consulate so as not to tick off the Arabs. I say, ignore their threats; it's the only way to earn their respect. They don't respect weaklings and appeasers.
If you want to doggedly trash Israel then knock yourself out, but I'm not interested in continuing such a conversation. Just trying to share some information with you or at least with any open minded people who might be reading this thread.
Every time you log onto anything, you're using cryptographic technology developed in Israel: RSA public key encryption, plus some newer advances by Israeli mathematicians, that underly SSL security used by every website, voicemail, email, etc.
You're also using Intel processors developed in Israel ranging from Celeron to the latest i7 7-core CPUs plus the latest server processors; even if it's not on your home PC, it's in use on servers all over the world that you access every time you use the Internet.
Also the Israeli's did not invent math and even if they solely developed the underlying encryption of SSL they did not invent SSL.
Medical advances, too. An Israeli, Leo Sachs (escaped from Nazi Germany to England, then to Israel) developed the underlying research for amniocentesis, used widely today to check for Down's Syndrome and other abnormalities. Hundreds more examples.
I'm not saying Israel is the be-all, end-all. But it's a worthy country that has earned the right to be respected and protected in the world. Why would people single her out for abuse based on left wing propaganda which is based on anti-semitism and Muslim Jihadist lies? Just let the Embassy be in Jerusalem. I mean, it's already there, but they call it a consulate so as not to tick off the Arabs. I say, ignore their threats; it's the only way to earn their respect. They don't respect weaklings and appeasers.
If you want to doggedly trash Israel then knock yourself out, but I'm not interested in continuing such a conversation. Just trying to share some information with you or at least with any open minded people who might be reading this thread.
So what does that mean? Just because I do not think we should be paying billions of US tax dollars to Israel I cannot pay to use those?
Guess what, you are on the American invented Internet that the US actually had control over until the second term of the last administration.
There have been more Americans on the moon than Isreali's and more monkeys in space than Isreali's.
Sorry, I personally do not think the US owes Israel anything let alone billions of US dollars per year.
Yes. Every other nation in the world does and always has and always will. Not every policy must be good for us only. Foreign aid, for example. But when it comes to trade, military alliances, and treaties they must always benefit the US for us to enter them.
I know they had a cultural revolution but that does not mean they cannot have additional cultural revolution. I am at a loss what to call it so I used those words. What would be a better way for me to phrase this please.
The Cultural Revolution was a chaotic mass movement in the People's Republic of China. Mao Zedong launched it in 1966, claiming that elitists were undermining the government and Chinese society. Schools were closed and millions of young people were mobilized as Red Guards, who were encouraged to challenge old ways. Books and artwork were destroyed, along with thousands of museums and temples. Individuals in positions of authority were denounced and attacked, and widespread anarchy and terror disrupted the urban economy and industry. Officially, the Revolution was declared over in 1969. However, chaos and political power struggles continued until Mao's death in 1976. Since then, most of the tenets and reforms of the Cultural Revolution have been abandoned.
Basically it was a series of massacres. It would be like saying that Europe needs additional "final solutions."
The inherent role of every government and leader must be to look out for the best interests of its own nation and constituents (If not, who will assume this mantle?).
A nation's 'best interest' can only be determined by each government and its leaders. That may or may not include forming alliances with other nations to serve the mutual interests of multiple nations, none being subordinate to the other. The 'jury is still out' on the success of ECU member nations in forming a lasting alliance.
Over the years, America's foreign policy seems to have shifted toward a 'politically correct' notion that every national action should first be subjected to a 'world popularity' test. Behind that is a 360-degree round of 'second-guessing' by the media and social networks, where pundits attempt to retroactively inject 20-20 hindsight views into any debate or decision. In this effort, "would of, should of, could of" are given equal weight with the 'nations best interests' and every action taken by an elected leader.
It's difficult to imagine how true leadership, common sense and national interests can survive in such an environment - where 'popular opinion polls,' political CYA dithering and polarized second-guessing so prominently prevail.
The inherent role of every government and leader must be to look out for the best interests of its own nation and constituents (If not, who will assume this mantle?).
A nation's 'best interest' can only be determined by each government and its leaders. That may or may not include forming alliances with other nations to serve the mutual interests of multiple nations, none being subordinate to the other. The 'jury is still out' on the success of ECU member nations in forming a lasting alliance.
Over the years, America's foreign policy seems to have shifted toward a 'politically correct' notion that every national action should first be subjected to a 'world popularity' test. Behind that is a 360-degree round of 'second-guessing' by the media and social networks, where pundits attempt to retroactively inject 20-20 hindsight views into any debate or decision. In this effort, "would of, should of, could of" are given equal weight with the 'nations best interests' and every action taken by an elected leader.
It's difficult to imagine how true leadership, common sense and national interests can survive in such an environment - where 'popular opinion polls,' political CYA dithering and polarized second-guessing so prominently prevail.
Frankly I see your response as a sort of knee-jerk reaction to wisdom. First, because I don't think anyone is saying that we need to have a "world popularity test". But we should want to be leaders, not bullies, because in the long run the former is far more productive than the latter.
And here's my example: Great Britain. For how many decades did the sun never set on the British Empire? "Rule, Britannia! rule the waves"! They pretty much bullied the world, turning whole nations into state-slaves. And then the tide turned and we learned once again that the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
When we see China bullying other nations (like Tibet and Taiwan), we're appalled. When we see Russia (or at one time the USSR) bullying other nations, we were and are appalled. But you seem to think that when we are the bullies that all is well with the world. Well, I never saw a bully yet who didn't have his comeuppance.
You seem to think that negotiation means that one party (us) gets 100% of what it wants, and the other party gets 0% of what it wants. That's not negotiation. That's a recipe for retribution in the long run.
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.
