Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
You guys ask the same questions with tiny little differences. Tito from now on I'll answer your questions because Kirkland is irrational in his debates.


You and Kirk get into some heavy-duty arguments, with multiple charts, figures, and whatnots being zinged back and forth. I tend to keep my arguments more generalized.

On U.S. foreign policy, my only point is that sometimes the best policy is no intervention at all. It is my humble opinion that the U.S. needs to pick and choose a little bit better where it intervenes and for what reason. This way, the U.S. won't be faced with choices about whether or not to leave "X" dictator in power, whether or not to use military force, when to leave and when to stay... and numerous other decisions, which yes... are usually unpopular no matter WHAT they are.

This is a delicate balancing act. We are no longer in the days of the Cold War. We no longer have the specter of the Soviet Union aiming their missiles at us. There are less instances where the U.S. "has" to intervene to protect Americans' way of life. There might be some instances where political and economic interests are skewed to seem like national security concerns.... and this is exactly what gets us in trouble with the rest of the world.

Yes, the U.S. is still the world's greatest superpower. But it's no longer a matter of "who cares what the rest of the world thinks." Thinking like that is not generally acceptable among great and open minds.

We can no longer afford fiascos like the search for the famous WMD. The world's not that stupid, and it offends other countries' leaders that the U.S. would think that.