Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#Actualysg

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:42 PM

Political decisions typically aren't (and definitely should not be) made on the basis of anti-Americanism among the populace of a nation whose government is still an ally. Pulling out of SK and leaving them to stand alone just because some of their citizens don't like us would be an all-around crappy move.

smile.png

It seems that most people here are not reading what I'm writing smile.png . SK of today is not SK of 1950. It's a wealthy nation, with an advanced military. SK's military expenditure is more than NK's GDP.

Really, you need a whole lot more justification for something like that than "they don't like us, so screw 'em".

Why? If you hate my guts, why should I put my neck on the line for you? If we work in the same office, I help you out and cover for you but you spread rumors about me behind my back, you're on your own smile.png .

Hell, Australia doesn't like us (just ask Hodgman tongue.png ) but would you honestly suggest that, should some act of aggression be instigated against Australia, we should say "there's a rising tide of anti-Americanism there, so screw 'em"?

There are consequences for actions smile.png . And yes, I'd advocate that position.

The US is currently far too over-extended, militarily and politically speaking, for isolationism to be a valid diplomatic move.

All the more reason to draw down worldwide.

I'm all in favor of less interference in other people's business for the most part, and would be overjoyed if my government would stop instigating wars driven by greed and arrogance, but something like what you propose would just be a dick move entirely.

Are you serious? Really?

We have a debt of over 13 trillion dollars, a budget deficit for years now and we should keep going as if these are the 90's? No, a dick move would be to continue to keep going as we are, bankrupt the country and then shrug, smile sheepishly and meekly say: "Well, making drastic changes is hard.. he he .."

#1ysg

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:38 PM

Political decisions typically aren't (and definitely should not be) made on the basis of anti-Americanism among the populace of a nation whose government is still an ally. Pulling out of SK and leaving them to stand alone just because some of their citizens don't like us would be an all-around crappy move.

smile.png

It seems that most people here are not reading what I'm writing smile.png . SK of today is not SK of 1950. It's a wealthy nation, with an advanced military. SK's military expenditure is more than NK's GDP.

Really, you need a whole lot more justification for something like that than "they don't like us, so screw 'em".

Why? If you hate my guts, why should I put my neck on the line for you? If we work in the same office, I help you out and cover for you but you spread rumors about me behind my back, you're on your own smile.png .

Hell, Australia doesn't like us (just ask Hodgman tongue.png ) but would you honestly suggest that, should some act of aggression be instigated against Australia, we should say "there's a rising tide of anti-Americanism there, so screw 'em"?

There are consequences for actions smile.png . And yes, I'd advocate that position.

The US is currently far too over-extended, militarily and politically speaking, for isolationism to be a valid diplomatic move.

All the more reason to draw down worldwide.

I'm all in favor of less interference in other people's business for the most part, and would be overjoyed if my government would stop instigating wars driven by greed and arrogance, but something like what you propose would just be a dick move entirely.

Are you serious? Really?

We have a debt of 13 trillion dollar, a budget deficit for years now and we should keep going as if these are the 90's? No, a dick move would be to continue to keep going as we are, bankrupt the country and then shrug, smile sheepishly and meekly say: "Well, making drastic changes is hard.. he he .."

PARTNERS