| dib8rman said:
5 - We aren't the world police on our own merit - their usually is a good reason why we invade which by ratio of diplomacy invasion is very rare. In the end though this is a Capitalist country in a international economy so if it's US interest the Government would be obligated to involve US resources. 4 - Making a gold standard sounds good on paper but it would form a democratic capitalism which in it's purest form relies on the mindset of the masses. A good thing unless manipulated which is 1929 says anything then it says that it can be. 3- Why? The electorial college are representatives, they wouldn't be there unless majority wins that is a democracy. (Hope you can see the hypocracy with number 4 here) 2- Fine, but people will still have left wing ideals and right win ideals with or without parties to represent them. 1 - What we need is a more constructive medical industry that doesn't suck the life blood out of the consumer because their the only guys running the show. In otherwords it may be time for government to begin if they haven't already medical research on a competative level with private industry blokes... if they can manage not to fumble that one. |
I'd like to discuss the world police issue. You feel that we don't "police" the world. Sure USA should make sure that it isn't hampered economically throughout the world but having a troop presence in 100 plus countries doesn't make too much sense to me. Sure we needed bases after WW2 in Europe to deter the Soviet Union. Sure we need bases in South Korea because technically they are still at war (just have a cease fire agreement). Other than that I see no need for the amount bases we have in other countries especially in the Middle East.
How would you like it if some Arab nation started putting bases in Mexico, Canada or USA? I can see why there is USA resentment throughout the world and especially in the Middle East. Pretty much Osama wanted Americans to leave the Middle East and I have to say I agree with him on that aspect. We acted like the world police when we invaded Iraq based on pure bs propaganda spewed out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush. Even when they were proven wrong by other intelligence they kept saying the propaganda. There was zero reason to go into Iraq besides Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and a few others wanting to. It distracted us from Afghanistan and prolonged that war. We've interfered with many nations and usually that nations turns out worse than before we interfered.
Iran was an actual democracy before. However in 1953 when BP was about to lose it's oil rights in Iran due to Mohammad Mosaddegh wanting to nationalize the oil in Iran the CIA stepped in and pretty much made things worse. We supported Osama when he was fighting the Russian then look how that turned out. We supported Saddam (giving him weapons of mass destruction) to fight against Iran and look where that ended up. We need to stop meddling in other countries affairs because we don't have a very good tract record. The only thing USA has done right recently would be the first Gulf War and WW2. I suppose you could make a case for Korean War except that General MacArthur got a little too close to China's borders. South Korea is definitely better than North Korea though. So we helped Kuwait, South Korea, and semi help stop the genocide in the Kosovo War. What about the genocide in Sudan? I guess Iraq was more important to get involved in than an actual genocide.
I support sending troops (with a coalition) to help prevent genocides but to interfere with a country just because they have a dictatorship or a company is about to lose resources due to nationalization isn't a good reason. Sending troops should be limited to sending it against nations that attack us, helping allies that get attacked, and help prevent genocide with a coalition.
