Amongst crowds of cheering Somalis I might add.usmarine2007 wrote:
"But many here believe the only chance for real stability in Somalia lies with international peacekeepers "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070101/ap_ … acekeepers
Sorry, but F off. People tried to help you before and you dragged their bodies in the streets.
usmarine2007 wrote:
Sorry, but F off. People tried to help you before and you dragged their bodies in the streets.
Lol, a wyore actually.............11sog_raider wrote:
usmarine2007 wrote:
Sorry, but F off. People tried to help you before and you dragged their bodies in the streets.
I knew you'd come over to my side eventually.lowing wrote:
Yup, Fuck Somalia, and as long as I am at........................ fuck everyone else to. 3 cheers for isolationism!!
I always have felt this way. The difference between me and you is, I say, if the world wants us to mind our own business, then they should get EVERY BIT of what they ask for. They should deal with their own problems and expect NO help from us. The US is not a genie in a bottle that the world can beckon when it sees fit.Turquoise wrote:
I knew you'd come over to my side eventually.lowing wrote:
Yup, Fuck Somalia, and as long as I am at........................ fuck everyone else to. 3 cheers for isolationism!!
But seriously, I think saying fuck Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Sudan isn't such a bad idea. I realize we have to maintain a certain amount of involvement in the world, but it doesn't have to be militaristic. We should just do the humanitarian aid thing for some countries (not Somalia), but only enter war as a last resort.
If we hadn't outsourced our workforce and not allowed certain organizations (oil) destroy alternate power projects we could live with little to some outside help/influence. It would be bad politically and basically becomes I'm going home and taking my ball with me, but when you have the best ball on the court overall, their not going to want you to go home. Right now it would really hurt us to start this though due to China's rapidly growing economy and global power.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Yay, isolationism! Let's wither from the world scene and turn ourselves into an economic afterthought.
Just as soon as the world starts leeching off of China, ( as if they would allow it) China will feel the same way.Ridir wrote:
If we hadn't outsourced our workforce and not allowed certain organizations (oil) destroy alternate power projects we could live with little to some outside help/influence. It would be bad politically and basically becomes I'm going home and taking my ball with me, but when you have the best ball on the court overall, their not going to want you to go home. Right now it would really hurt us to start this though due to China's rapidly growing economy and global power.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Yay, isolationism! Let's wither from the world scene and turn ourselves into an economic afterthought.
In other words; we could it and live, but we would pay dearly in 100 years maybe.
There is a big difference between military isolationism and economic isolationism. It's good that we are active in the global economic scene. I'm advocating less warfare, not less trade.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Yay, isolationism! Let's wither from the world scene and turn ourselves into an economic afterthought.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-01-01 20:23:32)
I am also not advocating less TRADE, but am advocating for less AID.Turquoise wrote:
There is a big difference between military isolationism and economic isolationism. It's good that we are active in the global economic scene. I'm advocating less warfare, not less trade.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Yay, isolationism! Let's wither from the world scene and turn ourselves into an economic afterthought.
Well, I agree with that idea until it really is in our best interests to help people. I didn't see this second Iraq war as being beneficial to our interests in any way.lowing wrote:
I always have felt this way. The difference between me and you is, I say, if the world wants us to mind our own business, then they should get EVERY BIT of what they ask for. They should deal with their own problems and expect NO help from us. The US is not a genie in a bottle that the world can beckon when it sees fit.Turquoise wrote:
I knew you'd come over to my side eventually.lowing wrote:
Yup, Fuck Somalia, and as long as I am at........................ fuck everyone else to. 3 cheers for isolationism!!
But seriously, I think saying fuck Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Sudan isn't such a bad idea. I realize we have to maintain a certain amount of involvement in the world, but it doesn't have to be militaristic. We should just do the humanitarian aid thing for some countries (not Somalia), but only enter war as a last resort.
Ideally, foreign aid should be a private endeavor. If we stopped funding it through the government, individuals would have more money to spend on it as they please through charities.lowing wrote:
I am also not advocating less TRADE, but am advocating for less AID.Turquoise wrote:
There is a big difference between military isolationism and economic isolationism. It's good that we are active in the global economic scene. I'm advocating less warfare, not less trade.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Yay, isolationism! Let's wither from the world scene and turn ourselves into an economic afterthought.