Quote:
Originally Posted by troth281
Nonintervention was a great foreign policy 200 years ago. But our founding fathers didn't have to worry about a single bomb taking out hundreds of thousands of people or missiles that could hit anywhere in the United States.
|
And we wouldn't have to worry about that much either if we didn't spend so much time and energy meddling in everyone else's affairs. Yes, we should track real threats, and act in slef-defense when necessary. But I defy you to demonstrate how being the world's policeman has been successful in having to worry *less* about such bombs and missiles, instead of *more*. We've created and sustained more instability with our
realpolitik games than we have prevented, and armed and supported an awful lot of people in the process that would better have been left to fester (Saddam among those). We need to intervene when we are being actually threatened, and not otherwise.
PhilB