Guest wrote:Maddog wrote:Fletch wrote:Maddog wrote:No, I'm quite clear in my stance that our foreign policy is bad for the US. You and I disagree on why we do what we do. We agree that the US should mind it's own business.
You can't wrap your head around the concept that I think you and Fletch have mental issues, while I also think the US has bad foreign policy that does not serve it's citizens well.
Maybe this will help.
3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
We're nuts but you present that as a reflection of US policy?
"while I also think the US has bad foreign policy that does not serve it's citizens well".
You for real? Fuck serving your citizens well, it's the well-being of other citizens around the world who are getting killed, maimed and scarred that is the issue.
Your only gripe is how much it costs and wish it was spent on the US.
My concern is primarily with the US citizens. That's who are government is supposed to serve.
And you are correct. I'm not a virtue signaler like you and frankly, I find you laughable and useless.
That's a truly pathetic answer, and not just because of the poor spelling and grammar.
Are you really shallow and stupid enough to think that way or is this one of those comments you pull out of your ass when you've been shown up as being on the same level as a sophomore in high school?
Since you're determined to sound like an ignorant schoolboy let's treat you like one and give you some homeworkIn the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
In under 500 words but showing your rationale and citing precedent place this extract from George Washington's farewell address into the context of America involvement in the Middle East and Iran.
That's something I would expect a middle school student to complete in about an hour.
You can expect this from me.