I have always said the Truman policy of Containment has been a mistake, because we gave the initiative to the enemy - if they tried to take over South Korea, they would lose the northern portion, and, if the Chinese tried to intervene, they would lose their islands, including my ancestral homeland of Hainan Island - the Russians would not have escalated to a world war to protect the Chinese, and the Chinese had no means of attacking the US.
Similarly, in Vietnam, we should never have given Laos to the communists, because we could have stopped the North Vietnamese from using that country as part of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. And, if the Soviet Union were shipping anti-aircraft missiles, their ships at Haiphong should have been subject to bombardment - they chose to get into the war, they suffer the consequences.
If we had done so, we would have gone a very long way towards making the world safe for democracy.
Their leaders do, but their people may not. Consider the "Goddess of Democracy" that the Chinese students put up at Tien An Men; consider how Reagan is worshipped in Eastern Europe after the Berlin Wall fell; consider how the southern Vietnamese and Hmong left their homelands to come to North America.
As for forcing our way of life, well, if a society is going to mutilate the genitalia of little girls, I have no qualms forcing that society to accept my values, which would be NOT to do so.
consider how the southern Vietnamese and Hmong left their homelands to come to North America.
Uh, they went everywhere not to be killed by the NVA.
As for forcing our way of life, well, if a society is going to mutilate the genitalia of little girls, I have no qualms forcing that society to accept my values, which would be NOT to do so.
And how would that be if they do that to little boys? We had recently a big debate when a German court decided that circumcision without a medical need is a bodily injury and would warrant a criminal trial against the parents (who should have protected the physical integrity of their son) and the person doing the circumcision. Jews and Muslims were on the barricades. So, what are today's modern values in the West?
As for forcing our way of life, well, if a society is going to mutilate the genitalia of little girls, I have no qualms forcing that society to accept my values, which would be NOT to do so.
So you think we should be the world's police? Should we go in to other countries and kill people because they break USA laws when they are not breaking their own laws?
What if Canada and the USA doesn't agree on something, should we force our ways on you too? Take the death penalty for one example.
I know lots of men who are circumcised, but they are not mutilated the way girls are when they are circumcised. I'm not a medical expert, so I can't tell you why it's different, but mutilation is mutilation.
As for the US being the world's policeman, the answer is yes, it has to be. I don't have a pat answer for when it should intervene and when it shouldn't, but, as Jeanne Kirkpatrick said, just because you can't intervene everywhere doesn't mean you shouldn't intervene anywhere. IOW, the US may not be able to go everywhere, but, if it can go somewhere, even ONE place, it should.
In further response to what I said, Singapore jailed a British reporter for criticizing the Singapore court system, then deported him. That said, Singapore remains a vibrant economic center, and, as far as I know, the per capita income is higher than the US. But I would not want to live in a world dominated by Singapore, just as Singaporeans and I did not want to live in a world dominated by Europeans.
As Reagan said, America is the last bastion of freedom in the world.
I know lots of men who are circumcised, but they are not mutilated the way girls are when they are circumcised. I'm not a medical expert, so I can't tell you why it's different, but mutilation is mutilation.
As for the US being the world's policeman, the answer is yes, it has to be. I don't have a pat answer for when it should intervene and when it shouldn't, but, as Jeanne Kirkpatrick said, just because you can't intervene everywhere doesn't mean you shouldn't intervene anywhere. IOW, the US may not be able to go everywhere, but, if it can go somewhere, even ONE place, it should.
They have their laws and we have ours. I can see us helping if a small country is attacked from another larger country, but that's about all. Just because some other country has laws we don't agree with, or has no law at all, is none of our business.
They have their laws and we have ours. I can see us helping if a small country is attacked from another larger country, but that's about all. Just because some other country has laws we don't agree with, or has no law at all, is none of our business.
Ah, you're weakening, I see. So, if Iraq invades Kuwait, we should intervene; if the Cubans destabilize Grenada, we should also intervene.
All right, what if Germany were to put Jews in gas chambers?
All right, what if Germany were to put Jews in gas chambers?
There was nothing we could do about it. We didn't even know it was happening while it was. But still, unless we're at war with Germany for other reasons than what they do to their own people, I would be against us going and and making the problem worse, as we normally do. Take Vietnam for just one example. Who did we help?