A Zionist, in the American context, will promote the shedding of American blood for Israel.
I also believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. I just believe it must stand on its own merit, and any "American" who would promote the shedding of American blood for Israel's benefit has a traitor's heart.
Comment threads can't go deeper, so I'm moving it up one.
What's the story of WWII?
Fought the wrong enemy, mostly. On the Japanese front, we went Total War on their ass, and made a fairly permanent ally. On the German front, we went "allied victory" on their ass, and paved the way for the Stasi. Also enabled the Russian rape of East Germany, permanently stunting their IQ. Pretty sad, all in all.
For the Persians, our intervention destabilized it in the first place. Poor foreign policy created an enemy.
I am willing to defend freedom and liberty everywhere. I would love to see us topple the Iranian regime since the young people of Iran hate it too. I am not a non-interventionist like that.
You're obviously not a non-interventionist at all, and you drank too much neo-con flavor-aid.
Fair, but we followed an interventionist path, rather than a conquest path. That's my ultimate issue here. I'm okay with conquest, but I despise half hearted victory. Since WW2, we've followed a path of "just enough" but it's never really been enough. If it's not enough, it shouldn't be engaged with at all.
Well we didn't fight all the enemies in WWII we should have. If we had bombed Russia like von Neumann wanted, then the whole sweep of Communism and all those deaths and war might have been avoided since Mao would have known we meant business, so yeah, time to walk away and let Chiang Kai-shek have the country back. Wimps like Eisenhower don't have the stomach or the intelligence to do what needs to be done.
With this
Fair, but we followed an interventionist path, rather than a conquest path. That's my ultimate issue here. I'm okay with conquest, but I despise half hearted victory. Since WW2, we've followed a path of "just enough" but it's never really been enough. If it's not enough, it shouldn't be engaged with at all.
A Zionist, in the American context, will promote the shedding of American blood for Israel.
I also believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. I just believe it must stand on its own merit, and any "American" who would promote the shedding of American blood for Israel's benefit has a traitor's heart.
No one can serve two masters.
Family, community, country, in that order. A country that doesn't serve the community, and a community that doesn't serve the family, is worthless.
If there's a god, it's just a spectator. But morality (self-discipline) is key to liberty, and religion often serves that function well.
Comment threads can't go deeper, so I'm moving it up one.
Fought the wrong enemy, mostly. On the Japanese front, we went Total War on their ass, and made a fairly permanent ally. On the German front, we went "allied victory" on their ass, and paved the way for the Stasi. Also enabled the Russian rape of East Germany, permanently stunting their IQ. Pretty sad, all in all.
For the Persians, our intervention destabilized it in the first place. Poor foreign policy created an enemy.
You're obviously not a non-interventionist at all, and you drank too much neo-con flavor-aid.
Again, comment depth exceeded.
Fair, but we followed an interventionist path, rather than a conquest path. That's my ultimate issue here. I'm okay with conquest, but I despise half hearted victory. Since WW2, we've followed a path of "just enough" but it's never really been enough. If it's not enough, it shouldn't be engaged with at all.
I was responding to this
With this