Originally posted by Togetic
I agree with you that we're not doing enough to protect the border. I heard the other day that a sheriff in Texas was in a stand-down with members
of the Mexican military 60 miles inside our border. Why are we not freaking out about another nation's military performing exercises and protecting
drug traffickers inside our borders?
The DEA has reported that foreign terrorists are working with mexican cartels in order to get smuggled into the country.
The difficulty in leaving now is that if the government collapses and creates a power vacuum, we might be in worse condition in 15 years than if we
hadn't been there at all.
We created this situation and being there only delays the inevitable. We pretty much gave the Shia the majority in that country, and since we've been
in that country hoards of foreign fighters have flooded in from saudi arabia, egypt and a bunch of other places. The violence isn't going to end,
there will be bloodshed. It doesn't matter if America is there or not, it is doing nothing but getting us & our kids more and more into debt.
The debate about whether the war was "right" or not is over, the fact that we are there and the country is a mess justifies our continued presence.
We broke it, we bought it. You want blowback? Leave the country as it is now.
we're already experiencing blowback from this, we just strengthened Iran by giving the Shia Iraq. A stupid foreign policy that just puts us in a
weaker position. I've given numbers here that showed Iraq had 70% unemployment during the month of July going into august. Iraqi's sitting around
doing nothing and watching foriegn contractors doing work they should be doing. "We broke it" is the understatement of the century. Yeah we broke
it, and the Iraqis are gonna have to fix the mess we have created, and it will probably be though bloodshed.
Further, non-interventionism, in general, is impractical. Would it have been right to let Hitler continue with the Holocaust? Germany never attacked
us; only Japan did. But we went after Germany anyways. There is genocide in Africa, yet we do nothing about it. But is it really so easy to say
"Not my problem," and go back to our iPods? Isn't choosing to not do anything a form of international intervention, because we are making an
affirmative choice that has consequences elsewhere? And won't that cause blowback as much as taking actions? Likewise, it is tempting to ask
whether "non-interventionism" plays so well now because we are dealing in the Middle East who have different skin colors; the same reason why we
don't go to Africa. Questions about international relations are so fraught with difficulties that we can't allow ourselves to be constrained by a
blanket policy.
You're comparing this to nazi germany? Germany was a country, a war machine that was organized and heavily armed. Germany was also sinking U.S.
vessels that were
suppling our allies long before they ever
declared war. The world is also a messed up place, we can't fix everything.
Infact we do more than most nations, our country is the most charitable out of all. We need to focus more on voluntary charity rather than U.S. tax
dollar charity, we can't afford what we're doing anymore it's as simple as that. I put my country first, and we're in trouble..
Non-interventionists are not protectionists they are free traders ( real free trade ) and always advocate dialouge with other nations, even hostile
ones..
They certainly don't call other nations in public the 'axis of evil', that's pathetic and childish. If we wanna harp on Iran for supplying
guerilla groups with weapons then we should take a good look at ourselves first. Our foreign policy does not macth our rhetoric and standards for
other nations. It's simple, talk and trade with people, don't involve yourself with the inner workings of their country, let them handled their own
affairs. We have experienced plenty of blowback from meddling in the affairs of other countries and it's bankrupting us.
Just because the founders did it doesn't mean that it was the right idea. They were representing aristocratic, landed interests. They had their
biases. We need to be having a fundamental debate about whether federalism is still a necessary constitutional feature and whether we should be
holding so fast to "non-interventionism," an antiquated corollary of eighteenth century national sovereignty.
The founders were wise beyond their years, they had the experience of living under tyranny and know a thing or two about war and foreign policy. The
fact is our current foreign policy isn't working. When you have to borrow billions from china and japan daily just to run government and war,
something isn't right. A trillion dollar a year foreign policy is not sustainable, we are bankrupting the country and future generations. How can we
be so irresponsible to let this happen?
[edit on 11-11-2007 by ape]
