Dave Hinz wrote in
:

On 11 Mar 2005 13:01:30 -0800, Charlie Self
wrote:
Dave Hinz responds:
Right, because if it doesn't matter to the USA, it isn't worth
doing,

is that it?

Close enough.

OK, so then, pollution that others produce isn't our problem, people
starving in other countries (because they live where there isn't any
food) isn't our problem, and so on?

What a lot of nonsense. The point is to pursue a reasonable foreign
policy that promotes long-term US interests. Sometimes that means
investing in foreign development or collective security. Not for
idealistic reasons, but because encouraging collaboration and shared
responsibility nets us a return of political and economic stability in
the long run.

The flip side to this is that an unreasonable foreign policy creates a
net drain on us in the long run. It works against our long term
economic and political interests by further increasing anti-Americanism
and further destabilizing the Middle East and the Muslim world. It
screws posterity and saddles our children with economic and political
debt. Hello, GWB?


The only benefits I can see are ephemeral and unnecessary to U.S.
survival.

See above.

Someone, somewhere, in and out of the Conservative movement,
needs to get the idea that we are not, never have been, and should
not be, nannies for the frigging world.

You see that as a _conservative_ problem?

Lately, it sure looks to me like the Bushies want to be the military
policeman of the world. You think otherwise?


If we're threatened, kick the ****
out of the threat. Otherwise, stay out. Let them handle their own
problems.

Sounds good, let's cut off all the aid, grants, relief, and all that.
They don't pay our taxes, so **** 'em.


See above.