Both fair and accurate points Chico and Northway to which there really isn't much of a response. However, Hamas ruling Palestine wouldn't be terrible if they stuck solely to their political side. The issues arise when their terrorist side strikes in Lebanon and Israel. The Palestinians do deserve their own country and the chance to be free, any other view is hypocritical. The issue is what happens if that new state becomes a threat to our national security, which is the problem we face in each situation where we want the people to be free "but on our terms" as some would put it. It is very hard not to contradict yourself in this situation.
Actually, it's the problem we face when we spend several decades meddling in the affairs of other countries.
Both fair and accurate points Chico and Northway to which there really isn't much of a response. However, Hamas ruling Palestine wouldn't be terrible if they stuck solely to their political side. The issues arise when their terrorist side strikes in Lebanon and Israel. The Palestinians do deserve their own country and the chance to be free, any other view is hypocritical. The issue is what happens if that new state becomes a threat to our national security, which is the problem we face in each situation where we want the people to be free "but on our terms" as some would put it. It is very hard not to contradict yourself in this situation.
Actually, it's the problem we face when we spend several decades meddling in the affairs of other countries.
Do we have any choice? Obama clearly didn't want to get involved in Libya. But NATO and many European countries basically demanded it. We are the world's police/military force, like it or not. We could change that, but then we'd lose most of our autonomy and rely on some other country for military operations. I don't think we'd ever voluntarily do that.
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:59 pm Posts: 1367 Location: Land of the Nats and Redskins
Thanks for responding my exact sentiments Lyds haha. Banger, this is a policy upheld by both parties. I know you're left leaning based on our discussions, however, I would argue JFK was the one who really pushed this policy, to be honest. Aside from losing autonomy, if no other country decided to intervene as we often do the world would be much more oppressed than it is today.
_________________ Playoffs or bust....Ya Gotta Believe in 2012, it's why they play the games! Anything can happen.
Do we have any choice? Obama clearly didn't want to get involved in Libya. But NATO and many European countries basically demanded it. We are the world's police/military force, like it or not. We could change that, but then we'd lose most of our autonomy and rely on some other country for military operations. I don't think we'd ever voluntarily do that.
Of course we have a choice. There is always a choice.
Thanks for responding my exact sentiments Lyds haha. Banger, this is a policy upheld by both parties. I know you're left leaning based on our discussions, however, I would argue JFK was the one who really pushed this policy, to be honest. Aside from losing autonomy, if no other country decided to intervene as we often do the world would be much more oppressed than it is today.
It would be disingenuous to say that we are meddling in the internal affairs of other countries to stop oppression. We are doing it because we think we can get something out of it. There have been plenty of times when the US has supported dictators who oppressed their people because it was in US imperial interests (for example, the 1953 CIA-supported coup in Iran that removed a democratically-elected prime minister and replaced him with the Shah), so it is not necessarily true that we have made the world less oppressed through our interventions. Not only have many of these actions not decreased oppression throughout the world, but they have increased worldwide animosity towards the US.
And you need to stop imputing Democratic politicians' actions onto progressives as a whole. JFK may have escalated US involvement in the Vietnam War, but the vast majority of Americans protesting the war were progressives. Most liberals (and by some polls, most Americans) would favor a single payer healthcare system in the US, but Obama refused to even consider it; they also liked the idea of the public option, yet Obama failed to give it any real support even after the House passed a bill including the public option.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
