warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
A Ron Paul Presidency? I don't think it'd make much of a difference - none of his stupid ideas would ever make it and become law.. None of his good ideas would either.
Was it ever their intent to overrun Western Europe?Did the Soviets overrun Western Europe?
It's not about right, it's about being effective. I accept that the organisation of nations into militarised blocs during the Cold War probably helped limit the number of conventional conflicts- although it was hardly foolproof, given that incredibly destructive wars could and did occur, either with (Vietnam, Afghanistan) or without (Iran-Iraq, Bangladesh) the involvement of the major powers- but this isn't the same world it was then, and the same results can't expected. Furthermore, the Cold War proved largely ineffective at containing irregular insurgencies- socialist, nationalist, religious, anti-colonial- and the aforementioned impotence of the United States in addressing such insurgencies today hasn't exactly helped things. (The United States is hardly alone in this, of course- the continuing Naxalite insurgency in India or the Islamic insurgency in the Philippines are just two other contemporary examples.) The real obstacle to peace is that it's no longer considered acceptable to simply butcher a people into the submission, as was the case with, for example, your indigenous insurgencies in the 19th century, so stateless resistance can find a more secure base on which to operate.I never said we were always right. But, that said, how many major nation on nation wars have been going on? Did the Soviets overrun Western Europe? I'm certainly not going to claim that it is perfect. But I would really hate to see the alternative.
Not what I said at all.I didn't say that.
I was simply pointing out that those Americans who would consider bombing "brown people" would certainly prefer Serbian Christians (that we bombed) over Bosnian Muslims (who we were assisting)...
The point being, traitorfish's idea that bombing Serbs equalled bombing brown people in those ignorant Americans...
There was a prejudice against southern in eastern europeans in America about 100 years ago (leading to immigration quotas, etc). We are WELL past that point today (though we still, logically, have immigration quotas... those quotas aren't based on not wanting east & southern europeans to immigrate, it is done on a nation by nation basis).
There's a fairly strong argument for saying that non-Anglicised Slavs are not "white white" in the North American reckoning, and if that's so then this only constitutes a superficial contradiction to the observed trend.
I'm with Porky. One man doesn't make much of a difference.A Ron Paul Presidency? I don't think it'd make much of a difference - none of his stupid ideas would ever make it and become law.. None of his good ideas would either.
Moving past whatever the current argument is about, do you think Paul would deploy a US presence to areas where genocide is actualy happening? Would Paul's decision be a good idea?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3127109th Congress: 2005-2006
To impose sanctions against individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, to support measures for the protection of civilians and humanitarian operations, and to support peace efforts in the Darfur region of Sudan, and for other purposes.