Should we the U.S. let other nations fight their own battles instead of getting involved in every single conflict in the world?
Pages: 1
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Should U.S. let other nations fight their own battles
Don't matter. Some freedom banging twat will intervene if there there is money to be made.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
We don't get involved in every conflict, only ones that are distinctly beneficial to certain groups. We've had an aversion to Africa for about 15 years now.
well we get involved in A LOT of conflicts maybe not every single one but a lot. Why doesnt UK take the lead role or some other country.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
We don't get involved in every conflict, only ones that are distinctly beneficial to certain groups. We've had an aversion to Africa for about 15 years now.
how are we going to take over the world if we dont involve ourselves everywhere? I want skulls.
For the most part, I think we should stay out of the world's conflicts. On the other hand, we should also leave the useless U.N.
Yes please, that would help.
But then again, it's never gonna happen. You just started.
But then again, it's never gonna happen. You just started.
m3thod wrote:
Don't matter. Some freedom banging twat will intervene if there there is money to be made.
One of the main reasons the UN is worthless is because the Security Council makes it so. If nations (including the U.S.) would commit to the UN instead of using it only when it sees fit, it would work far better.Turquoise wrote:
For the most part, I think we should stay out of the world's conflicts. On the other hand, we should also leave the useless U.N.
The stability of the world relies on countries like the US, so no we shouldnt let them fight their own battles.
Fixed.ELITE-UK wrote:
The instability of the world relies on countries like the US, so no we shouldnt let them fight their own battles.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-13 13:32:26)
The current power setup (US pretty much as the sole superpower) is worse for global politics in my opinion than something like during the Cold War where there was a bipolar power arrangement.ELITE-UK wrote:
The stability of the world relies on countries like the US, so no we shouldnt let them fight their own battles.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-07-13 13:32:03)
Braddock wrote:
Fixed.ELITE-UK wrote:
The instability of the world relies on countries like the US, so no we shouldnt let them fight their own battles.
In certain ways, I agree, but I especially don't like the power that China and Russia have in it. I don't think our decisions should have any direct influence from those 2 countries. It's bad enough that we depend on China's trade so much, and Russia might not be the Soviet Union anymore, but they still can't be trusted.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
One of the main reasons the UN is worthless is because the Security Council makes it so. If nations (including the U.S.) would commit to the UN instead of using it only when it sees fit, it would work far better.Turquoise wrote:
For the most part, I think we should stay out of the world's conflicts. On the other hand, we should also leave the useless U.N.
I'd prefer we create a new group that is focused primarily on Western interests and Western nations.
Agreed. The cold war era, though tense at times, was a lot more balanced than the current scenario.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The current power setup (US pretty much as the sole superpower) is worse for global politics in my opinion than something like during the Cold War where there was a bipolar power arrangement.ELITE-UK wrote:
The stability of the world relies on countries like the US, so no we shouldnt let them fight their own battles.
sounds like you like McCain and his League of Democracies idea. Very unlibertarian of you.Turquoise wrote:
In certain ways, I agree, but I especially don't like the power that China and Russia have in it. I don't think our decisions should have any direct influence from those 2 countries. It's bad enough that we depend on China's trade so much, and Russia might not be the Soviet Union anymore, but they still can't be trusted.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
One of the main reasons the UN is worthless is because the Security Council makes it so. If nations (including the U.S.) would commit to the UN instead of using it only when it sees fit, it would work far better.Turquoise wrote:
For the most part, I think we should stay out of the world's conflicts. On the other hand, we should also leave the useless U.N.
I'd prefer we create a new group that is focused primarily on Western interests and Western nations.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-13 13:36:19)
There are certain things I like about McCain. If it weren't for his hawkish nature, his pro-life stance, and his opposition to socialized healthcare, I'd consider voting for him.God Save the Queen wrote:
sounds like you like McCain and his League of Democracies. Very unlibertarian of you.
Affirmative on the question. Blue helmets should be there to help preserve peace and fight if necessary.
Are we involved in every single conflict in the world?? link pleaseblademaster wrote:
Should we the U.S. let other nations fight their own battles instead of getting involved in every single conflict in the world?
Pages: 1
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Should U.S. let other nations fight their own battles