- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 83,699
- Reaction score
- 58,404
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Oh no, fact. The Left's idea of "compromise" and "thought" is that everyone must agree with your sick twisted worldview.
OK, then the next invasion or nuke attack from an enemy will be on your hands, not mine. I reject isolationism.
Ahh so you'd have no problem with another Hitler slaughtering millions of Jews then. Just because we (the US) decided to crawl into our shell and ignore everyone else.
Ahh so you'd have no problem with another Hitler slaughtering millions of Jews then. Just because we (the US) decided to crawl into our shell and ignore everyone else.
So, you don't see the difference.OK, then the next invasion or nuke attack from an enemy will be on your hands, not mine. I reject isolationism.
Exactly. When the German Jews cried for help in 1941, it was the Republicans in Congress who pushed for America to enter WWII.
So had the Japs never bombed Pearl, you would have seen a Nazi occupied Europe for decades to come.Exactly. When the German Jews cried for help in 1941, it was the Republicans in Congress who pushed for America to enter WWII.
that old gink Ron Paul
Ahh so you'd have no problem with another Hitler slaughtering millions of Jews then. Just because we (the US) decided to crawl into our shell and ignore everyone else.
Exactly. When the German Jews cried for help in 1941, it was the Republicans in Congress who pushed for America to enter WWII.
So had the Japs never bombed Pearl, you would have seen a Nazi occupied Europe for decades to come.
The U.S. didn't get involved in WWII to save the Jews or stop the Nazi's. We got involved because Japan bombed us. If we had been doing it for the Jews we would have acted far quicker and in a different manner than we did.
But that is irrelevant to the idea of non-interventionalism and Ron Paul's foreign policyYou know we have troops in over 130 countries? Can you even fathom just how much the financial consequences that entails, not even looking at the political and societal consequences it has on us?
Eggzactly. If troops were on foreign soil building homes or something you might have a point of leaving them there but otherwise, people know what military troops are for and wherever they are located it creates a source of strained tension there or nearby there. I'm a pretty far lefty but this is definite cross-over I have with Ron Paul and Libertarians.
We are the United States and we need to focus on our country first. If we are to be a part of the UN, let them be the world's police. For some reason we think we have to be the world's police unilaterally AND another police force via leading the UN. Using the military to secure corporate interests around the world should NOT be our objective as a nation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?