reply to post by daniel_g
Which nations are our friends? Why?
Israel? The nation running the most aggressive spy rings against us, only behind Russia and China?
Which nations are our enemies? Why is X attacking Y?
Do you know why World War I began? Entangling alliances. One guy was assassinated. But everyone had military alliances with everyone else, and soon
The transcript would be handy, but if Israel is the example, as I'm assuming, we've already done a great deal to help them - at our own expense -
and they are also a VERY big kid (biggest on their block). They've got nukes, one of the most advanced militaries on the planet, and a track record
of beating the snot out of anyone who attacks them, even at 5-1 odds.
Regardless, the founders gave us very good advice about such alliances, for good reason. International politics is murky, and I still have to agree
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the
discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to
enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this:
America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and
the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often
fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though
often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly
half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained
from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the
heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power,
and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But
she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and
vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve
herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors
and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the
dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is,
Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit,
We are very far afield here. Yes, if a threat were established against us to sufficient degree, war can be declared and it can be settled - but why
should we be dragged into conflicts that don't involve us?
Yes, people should help others in trouble as they're able - but nations should take care of their own people and interests. If the people feel such
an affront has been committed, they can press Congress to declare accordingly. But for us to plant ourself in a murky dispute not our own, occurring
for complex reasons (how do we determine the guilty), at a cost of blood and wealth is not always the wisest course.
And if we appeal to the apparent injustice of it - sadly that is the way of the world, injustice abounds. Should we as a nation strive to cure it
all? Can we feed all the hungry, end all the genocides, save the North Koreans, stop our own muslim allies from abusing and slaughtering their
unhappy citizens? Why are all these not our friends, and worth saving?
We have to save ourselves before we can even consider it, and there is not enough to us to cure the world's ills.