More Russians Indicted Today

[Aseahawkfan]

Good POTUSes in the modern era won't happen much because having your life crawled into, dissected, and attacked for $400,000 a year is not particularly attractive as a job. The vitriol that increased since Clinton and the media attention has made being president an unattractive job in my opinion. There are very people with the money, experience, education, and the like that are bulletproof enough to withstand the constant attacks and attention not to mention all that the United States is involved in domestically and internationally. What a thanklessly difficult job it is to be president of this nation.

Fortunately for us the nation generally runs itself. We don't need the most competent, honest, or worthy president to be in office for the nation to work well. That's a major part of the genius of this nation's system. We could put almost anyone into The Oval Office and roll on.

[Aseahawkfan]

No, they're not, at least not inherently.

Taking out bad people is messy and morally debatable. But it's not evil, and this is why libertarian cranks aren't taken seriously.

So the growing libertarian movement that was a major factor in electing someone like Trump isn't taken seriously? Ok. You go on thinking that. The rebellion in the Republican Party is mostly being driven by libertarians that see the mainstream Republicans as nothing more than big government of a different kind.

Drone assassinations are not in line with how we conduct justice, are very abuseable, and open a door for activities that are very dangerous to liberty. Any time you have a nation that can sign off on the death of another person using a drone robot, how exactly is that not evil? What are the rules for it? Are nations like Saudi Arabia or Israel sending us intel on assassination targets that support their political agenda versus real threats to the United States? How do we know?

The best way to keep your hands clean of innocent blood is not to involve yourself in fights where you don't need to be involved. We need to protect our nation here and not worry about killing every possible target without a trial. Then again I doubt we'll ever agree on this, so I'll leave it at that. If the drone killing start occurring on our shore, then I hope you'll start to have a problem with it. I'm going to have problem with it no matter where it is used during non-war time. It's a bad precedent to use drone assassination programs.

And it seems to everyone else that you think you're the only one that knows how to read and pay attention to such things.

(hint: China is a different animal than Mexico, Canada, and the EU, and should be treated as such- that you keep including them in this weak-kneed defense of tariffs on everyone else is illustrative IMO)

I already addressed Canada and Mexico. I made it clear I don't understand the Canada attacks and we exploit Mexico more than they exploit us. I guess this is Trump's way of attacking the very unpopular NAFTA agreement. A lot of his working class supporters did not like that agreement.

EU is a problem partner that limits The United States a lot. But the rules they have in place are more to protect their socialist policies than as a sort of enemy like China. Though France likes to do a lot of deals in the Middle East and could give a rip about America and Terrorism. France would watch us fall and not give a crap if it did not affect France, yet would be on the phone asking for help if their toe was stubbed. I can't stand France.

China's the big bad. They been screwing us for years.

I will say once again why is it ok for these nations to place tariffs on our goods and it's not a trade war, but we do it back and suddenly you and Riverdog have a huge issue? You act like we' live in a world with no trade barriers and Trump just now put them up. They been in place. If you do know they've been in place, then act like it. Tariffs are not new. They have been in place for years on various goods. Trump is trying to knock some of them down and get us some better trade deals. That's not a bad thing if he can actually get a few done.

We agree there- our political atmosphere appears to be swirling the toilet.

Yep. With social media and proven track record of belittling and destroying the other guy's reputation being more effective than campaigning on honesty, effectiveness, and integrity, I'm not sure we've seen the worst yet.

[burrrton]

Drone assassinations are not in line with how we conduct justice, are very abuseable, and open a door for activities that are very dangerous to liberty.

They're no different than cruise missiles except infinitely more precise.

Just admit blowing up bad guys isn't your cup of tea and spare me the anti-military BS. I'll take my chances with Mattis calling the shots, not an isolationist.

I will say once again why is it ok for these nations to place tariffs on our goods and it's not a trade war, but we do it back and suddenly you and Riverdog have a huge issue?

Because who gives a sh*t? Our economy is going gangbusters- you think he can make it "more gangbusters" by taxing everything we buy from them more heavily?

I do get the arguments from both sides, but that doesn't sound like a great idea from this computer chair. We're already seeing some pretty nasty negative effects- how long before we see the purported benefits? A generation from now?

[Aseahawkfan]

If you use that as the definition of "evil", then nearly every POTUS in the 20th century was evil. Was Truman an evil man because he dropped the A-bomb on Japan? If you agree, then you're in a very small minority.

Is morality based on a majority or minority opinion? Who did you ask? Americans or Japanese or some impartial third party? Is Truman evil? Is any man even Hitler all evil or all good? Truman made a very evil decision that killed a lot of innocent men, women, and children. It is documented history with pictures. The weak excuse was that he saved people by ending the war. I hope no one ever makes that decision against us. A nuclear detonation in America will make us forget 9/11 like it was someone setting off a firecracker. You drop a nuclear bomb on someone, you just don't care who you kill any longer.

I'm never going to let my moral ideas be decided by polls or opinions. It's arguable that morality is a social contract made up the majority decision, but it's not how I prefer it. If I made a decision to drop a bomb with the indiscriminate killing power of a nuclear weapon, then I am making an evil decision regardless of the reason behind it. It's something you just don't do if you have a strong conscience. America is responsible for the level of nuclear proliferation today and the only reason we did it was because if not us, then someone else would...and did like Russia and China. Nuclear weapons opened up Pandora's Box and we cannot close it while other men of power seek to control the world. We must willingly participate in the evil of world domination and control, we have no choice. Those nations that don't are weak and will fall if the World goes to war. Perhaps they fall with a clear conscience, but fall they will.

We are involved in a game of domination. More and more I see so many Americans that don't understand this.

The environment you grew up in isn't an excuse. Your reasoning reminds me of an incident that happened back in the late 70's. My employer refused to fire an employee that called a black supervisor of ours a n*****, and one of the reasons they didn't was because the offender, a female born in the 60's, was born and raised in the deep south. We all thought it was outrageous that our employer would use place of birth as an excuse for the use of a totally unacceptable ethnic slur, especially one directed at a superior. I did not find that excuse acceptable then and I don't feel it is acceptable now.

But you ignore all the times Trump has helped black folk he's known? Or spoken well of them? Or donated to NAACP and the like? Which one is the real Trump? The guy making comments at rallies of right wing voters focused on immigration? Or the guy donating to various charities and mingling with people of varying kinds? Which one is the real Trump? Do we even know? As I've told you many times, he's been a public figure for 50 years. So now he runs for president and he's a racist? I don't get it. Why wasn't this known all those years he's been hobknobbing with black and Latin folk.

On a smaller scale, if you don't allow the environment excuse, you would eliminate a lot of people from jobs and daily life. I don't know about you, but I've known a lot of people that you would call racist for their viewpoints that were good folk in nearly every way except for strange racial viewpoint they were raised with. Knew a guy that didn't think the races should mix, but this guy would give a black person a ride home or share his food with them without a second thought. Knew another guy that used racial slurs because his uncles and dad taught him it was ok, but he treated his friends well and was one of those guys you could rely on if you needed your car fixed or house moved. I find it hard to believe you don't know at least a few folk you call friends that use off-color humor or may have some less than perfect opinions concerning race.

Racism is an animal of varying degrees and types from what I've seen. Labeling all racists the same doesn't do much to fix the problem. If Trump is a racist, he's fairly low ball in my book. Not to mention this is the first I've heard of it watching him the past 30 years or so.

I've read some of his quotes and also being part Mexican, I don't see the offense in it. He's right as far as Mexicans coming across the border. A lot of rotten people coming across illegally causing crime and the like. My Mexican mother lives in a border town in El Paso. She's had to watch El Paso go from a place where she could cross the border to get her hair done and buy some street tamales when she was young to a place where they're stacking bodies, robbing houses, and drug crime is rampant. Her and her sister both speak poorly of the Mexicans coming across the border now because they are of a different moral character than when she was young. My Mexican mother is anti-immigration from Latin America because of all the wrong crap going on at the border in El Paso. Lost in the mix is that even a lot of Latin Folk see huge differences in the younger Latin American generation than they knew growing up.

Europe and Canada base their immigration policies more on merit and providing useful skills to society and Canada has been especially focused on immigration from Asia (thus their large Asian population). No one complains about Canada not wanting to take in a lot of people form third world nations, yet the United States gets a president looking to draw immigration from more upscale nations and he's vilified for his brutal honesty. I can only surmise that if Trump were Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau quietly engaging in these racially-slanted immigration policies, the American public would be eating it up. Or if Obama had focused on immigration from Europe or Asia with a big smile on his face and a good speech, the media would be supporting him. Trump does it in his rude, blunt fashion and it's a Trump bash fest.

I guess we'll never see eye to eye on this. Trump's brutally honest and that's a problem in American politics, especially in the PC Era. But what he's saying isn't wrong and would help America long-term even if it would be a cold immigration policy. Latin America has some serious problems we cannot fix. Just allowing them to rush our border is not an effective immigration policy. This whole leftist push to abolish ICE and the like needs to be opposed. If Trump's brutal honesty is showing just how deranged the looney left is when it comes to immigration. Abolish ICE and open borders? WTF are they even talking about?

Reagan wasn't "for" apartheid. He was reluctant to react to it because he felt that the government of South Africa was a friend to the US and didn't want to intervene in another country's business, and he deserves condemnation for that hesitation, but I wouldn't call it racist. Reagan eventually did the right thing and approved sanctions, which was the driving force that caused a change in SA policy. It's not too different to Eisenhower's reaction to Little Rock. Hesitation followed by eventually doing the right thing. Also, keep in mind that Reagan's most trusted foreign policy advisor (Colin Powell) was an African American. Not sure how that occurs if a person harbors racist sentiments.

And Trump hangs out with black celebrities all the time and has given money to minority organizations and spoken extremely well of black folks he knows. What of it? Does one obviate the other? Reagan was a Goldwater Republican that was against The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. A lot of black folk, likely a majority think Reagan was racist. Do you think he was racist? Do you go by their polls? In my experience almost anyone that votes or supports Republicans is viewed as racist. Even Mitt Romney being Mormon means he may have held some seriously racist ideals passed down from The Mormon Church, a church often viewed as racist.

Where do you draw the line? Racism is strange animal. You could dedicate volumes of social science on the studying all the different prejudicial views of race, religion, culture, and ethnicity in America of varying groups. I'm so inured to Republican politicians being labeled racist that I ignore it at this point. If the Democrats have a political campaign playbook, one chapter reads, "All Republican candidates are racist" with an explanation of how to sell that to the American people.

I should probably leave that to some of my female friends. I suppose the infidelity, the trophy wife, the "grab'em by the p****"" remark all justifies a sexist opinion.

Is that sexist or just crude? Does that make Bill Clinton sexist? Or is a Reagan or a Bush more sexist for traditional female roles in their families? What does it take to be a sexist nowadays? Telling a crude joke to a female? Looking at them the wrong way? Standing too close to them and looking creepy? Seems like the Democrats had a lot more sexists in their group than Republicans? Or is it equal? That's a hard question to answer these days with the environment changing so quickly and what constitutes a sexist changing by the second. Seems we've seen a lot of sexists in a lot of powerful positions having problems.

Agreed. I'm desperate for a 3rd party. The options the R's and D's have been giving us have been totally unacceptable.

You and me both. I'm looking, but the offerings are paltry. I feel like a dinosaur or relic. I have a very specific set of wants I know I won't get:

1. Keep as much of the money I earn for my use meaning lower taxes.

2. Get us out of these foreign entanglements. Stop trying to install puppets or rule the world from afar. Keep our military strong enough that people know not to bother us, but stop trying to use our tax money to "help" everywhere. Be the example, not a manipulator. If people want to be free, they can follow our example. We don't need to be messing in their business all the time. No more dumb, wasteful wars.

3. Change the drug policy. This war on drugs isn't working. I'm tired of imprisoning people and making their lives awful, so all they do when they get out is get more drugs. Waste of time and money. Legalize weed. Control the harder drugs to the degree that is needed. Focus on rehabilitation, not punishment.

4. Working/Middle Class focus on economics. Focus on small business and working people's' standard of living. Big dogs have plenty of cash. Poor people are often poor for reasons we cannot fix. Provide the most help to those that don't mind putting in an 8 hour plus day to live a decent life. The government does that, the other two groups will take care of themselves.

5. Maybe socialized medical. I'd like to at least explore it or some kind of portable, single-player health insurance. I have real trouble trusting for profit medical. Yet at the same time I don't if I would trust government controlled medical. The pros and cons of each are a real conundrum. I have to admit it would be super nice to be able to save up money, take months off at a time, and still have health insurance. One of the biggest reasons to stay employed at all times is the cost of health insurance. If health insurance were affordable and portable, a person that managed their money well could take time off as needed and not feel vulnerable to a serious medical issue. I think that would be nice. It's why i like the idea of the Affordable Care Act even if the implementation was wonky.

6. No property tax on personal residences. A person should be able to own a piece of land without paying rent to the government. Find some other way to fund schools and roads in the area.

7. Add Financial and Technological literacy requirements to schools. Kids should be learning finance and technology as part of the curriculum given the type of economy and nation they live in. It would help them in all ways from retirement management to preparing them for the workplace.

8. Focus on a clean, sustainable environment. Whether or not global warming is human caused or not is irrelevant. We all still breathe the air, drink the water, and eat the food on this planet. It pays to study the environment and ensure it is clean and sustainable for use all the time.

That's what I'm looking for in a political party. Both parties have elements of each, but to differing levels. Need a third party to roll them all into one.

[Aseahawkfan]

They're no different than cruise missiles except infinitely more precise.

Just admit blowing up bad guys isn't your cup of tea and spare me the anti-military BS. I'll take my chances with Mattis calling the shots, not an isolationist.

Don't like cruise missiles or modern warfare. Meatgrinder warfare is what I call it. Shock and Awe my ass. Meatgrinder warfare is what it is. It will only get worse. You do not want to be a man on the ground as meatgrinder warfare improves. You're just lucky you don't have to step into the meatgrinder as humans become more reliant on robotic warfare. I imagine you're too old to go to war if you ever did. So easy to talk tough when you're not the recipient of shock and awe. If Americans get hit by shock and awe, they're going to find out how very unpleasant meatgrinder warfare is. We and several other nations have built a war machine that grinds human bodies up and spits them out. You seem to be ok with it. I am not and never will be.

Even to this day I recall the story about a mistake by a drone pilot that killed nine children huddled in a shack that was hit by one of our incendiary missiles in Afghanistan. Little kids trying to escape the horror of war burned alive by a drone missile. Or the Iraqi guy we paid $5000 dollars to because an American missile hit his apartment killing his wife and children. Or the American soldier crying on film during the Iraq invasion that was ready to fall apart because he thought he accidentally shot a pregnant woman. You overlook these things as nothing or just mistakes or what not. These stories are plentiful and not always by accident. I find them disturbing especially considering both Iraq and Afghanistan were unnecessary wars. Even the end result when we ended up finding Osama in Pakistan's (our ally) backyard. Pakistan is still screwing us over supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan to undermine Afghan stability. So we wasted all those lives and all that money and did all that killing for one guy and it's still not over as we just stay involved in their useless, never-ending conflicts. You think that's progress and smart politics? Not sure why you would, but I don't.

The type of warfare humans have built nowadays is a horror show. It's Terminator Skynet save by human rather than machine design. It's meatgrinder warfare improving every day as the powers that be automate are military step by step.

Isolationist? If you don't want your nation traipsing around the world engaging in warfare, then you're an isolationist? Those are our only options in your mind. Military action or isolationism? I don't agree. We can pull back and do business without having to pick a side and send money to back all these mini-dictators that use our help to murder their people. Not sure why you don't see that as an option.

Because who gives a sh*t? Our economy is going gangbusters- you think he can make it "more gangbusters" by taxing everything we buy from them more heavily?

I do get the arguments from both sides, but that doesn't sound like a great idea from this computer chair. We're already seeing some pretty nasty negative effects- how long before we see the purported benefits? A generation from now?

Don't know how long until we see the benefits. Markets don't like unknowns. That part I stress about as my money is in the market and in Chinese companies and stocks that make money off China's growth. But at the same time, we need better trade deals with China and the EU. If we get them, maybe I make even more money. We will see. Best time to press it is now why we're strong. I do hope he gets some of these deals finalized. Long-term I think my companies are solidly positioned as China is growing and those 1.4 billion people love to consume. The wealthier China gets, the better for us and the world economy.

[RiverDog]

Is morality based on a majority or minority opinion? Who did you ask? Americans or Japanese or some impartial third party? Is Truman evil?

Of course, he wasn't. Truman looked at the options he had presented to him for ending the war and made a very businesslike decision: Given that the US would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender, what would the cost in terms of human life to both our boys as well as the enemy be if we either invaded Japan or dropped the bomb on them? The "excuse", as you put it, wasn't weak. The information given to Truman that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in a million US casualties, times 5-10 casualties for the Japanese. It was a humane decision, and you're making a huge, almost assuredly incorrect assumption that Truman "didn't care" who he killed.

Hitler's dilemma was completely different. His campaign against the Jews had nothing to do with a military objective, but rather a social agenda. He was the epitome of evil and comparing him with Truman or any other POTUS is outrageous.

I'm never going to let my moral ideas be decided by polls or opinions. It's arguable that morality is a social contract made up the majority decision, but it's not how I prefer it. If I made a decision to drop a bomb with the indiscriminate killing power of a nuclear weapon, then I am making an evil decision regardless of the reason behind it. It's something you just don't do if you have a strong conscience. America is responsible for the level of nuclear proliferation today and the only reason we did it was because if not us, then someone else would...and did like Russia and China. Nuclear weapons opened up Pandora's Box and we cannot close it while other men of power seek to control the world. We must willingly participate in the evil of world domination and control, we have no choice. Those nations that don't are weak and will fall if the World goes to war. Perhaps they fall with a clear conscience, but fall they will.

That's one POV. But another POV is that nuclear weapons, or MAD...mutually assured destruction...prevented Europe into entering into another World War. That part of the world was in nearly constant conflict until nuclear weapons entered the scene. I am confident that had we not had a nuclear superiority in the 50's and 60's that the USSR would have pushed their conventional advantage in Europe and we would have been embroiled in yet another major overseas conflict.

What vindicates Truman's decision is the end result: What has Japan become in the past 70 years since we dropped the A-bomb on them? Would they have been better off had we retreated and allowed them to keep their imperial monarchy? What emerged from Truman's decision was a strong, democratic, and vibrant Japan, one of our most trusted allies and with whom we've established multiple ties....including some of my personal friends.

[burrrton]

Don't like cruise missiles or modern warfare.

You don't say?

Thanks for chiming in. Leave the heavy lifting to the adults, please. You're welcome.

[RiverDog]

Don't like cruise missiles or modern warfare.

You don't say?

Thanks for chiming in. Leave the heavy lifting to the adults, please. You're welcome.

I don't care if the weapons are sticks and stones, I don't like warfare, period.

But it's a necessary evil if we are to maintain a viable civilization, and drones seems to me to be a good solution that keeps our people out of harm's way. Additionally, someone has to be the big guy on the block, so if not the US, who else would you trust with our security? The United Nations?

[Aseahawkfan]

Of course, he wasn't. Truman looked at the options he had presented to him for ending the war and made a very businesslike decision: Given that the US would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender, what would the cost in terms of human life to both our boys as well as the enemy be if we either invaded Japan or dropped the bomb on them? The "excuse", as you put it, wasn't weak. The information given to Truman that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in a million US casualties, times 5-10 casualties for the Japanese. It was a humane decision, and you're making a huge, almost assuredly incorrect assumption that Truman "didn't care" who he killed.

I'm sure Truman did care. He still made an evil decision based on speculation. There is a never a time when killing innocent people is a good decision. Never. At best you could argue that an evil decision will accomplish some objective that may eventually lead to what may be a good outcome. Then again at one point in time it was considered good and moral by some to own slaves, so morality can often be a product of the time.

Hitler's dilemma was completely different. His campaign against the Jews had nothing to do with a military objective, but rather a social agenda. He was the epitome of evil and comparing him with Truman or any other POTUS is outrageous.

Hardly outrageous. We have POTUSes that supported and believed in slavery. That pushed the destruction of native populations and drove them off their land. I want you to explain to me how that is not a Hitler-level of evil? This nation when founded believed in a racial structure that taught people to believe that a single group of people based on physical characteristics were subhuman and deserved their place as property. They also taught that the colonists had a clear right to take land from native populations driving them off and killing them if necessary. Is this not as evil as Hitler? Or you going to argue semantics like not using them in human experiments like say the Tuskegee Experiments? If it wasn't a Hitler-level of evil, it wasn't much lower.

You just own up to what you're country has done that is evil and fix it for the future. Trying to explain it or hide it or make excuses for it won't much work as the demographics change. You may not live to see it, but at some point The Founders of this nation are going to experience a backlash in excess of what we see now for their stance on slavery and the treatment of natives. There is not going to be a lot of love for former slavers in this nation far in excess of what you see now. You can try to make arguments and apologize for their beliefs, but I doubt that will work as the mob demographics change.

That's one POV. But another POV is that nuclear weapons, or MAD...mutually assured destruction...prevented Europe into entering into another World War. That part of the world was in nearly constant conflict until nuclear weapons entered the scene. I am confident that had we not had a nuclear superiority in the 50's and 60's that the USSR would have pushed their conventional advantage in Europe and we would have been embroiled in yet another major overseas conflict.

What vindicates Truman's decision is the end result: What has Japan become in the past 70 years since we dropped the A-bomb on them? Would they have been better off had we retreated and allowed them to keep their imperial monarchy? What emerged from Truman's decision was a strong, democratic, and vibrant Japan, one of our most trusted allies and with whom we've established multiple ties....including some of my personal friends.

Vindicates? There is no vindication for an evil act. There is only the power you have to answer it. Japan had no power to return the pain. If the had, they like would have bombed us to repay us. If America wasn't the only nation with nuclear weapons at the time, they would have been used on us. We would have been crying bloody evil to the end of our country's days even if Japan they decided that the outcome "vindicated" their actions. I wonder if you would be stating the same thing if we had been nuked by Japan and it was a good outcome later on.

The Soviets advanced regardless. This idea the nuclear bomb stopped them is not at all based in fact. Even after the nuclear bomb Russia and the Soviet Union continued to expand communism. They did not go farther than East Germany because they did not have the means. I have no idea why people think America or the USSR could take whatever they want. Even a tiny nation like Vietnam and Afghanistan made war so costly to America and the USSR that they had to give up. It is not easy to take over other nations that don't want you there, even small ones regardless of the power of your military. Easy to knock them down or ruin them as both Vietnam and Afghanistan were ruined for years, but hard to take them over and maintain control. Japan was an ally prior to WW2. Did you know the Japanese sided with the allies WW1 helping them police the seas against Germany? Was it that hard for them to return to the fold?

The end result of an evil decision doesn't make the decision less evil when it is made. It merely means as you said a business decision that was very evil was made to subjugate an enemy. What we did afterwards was why we're better than most nations. We are a ruthless nation when it comes to war and what I mean by that is we play to win and will do what is necessary to win. You don't have to be some ethnic cleansing crazy like Hitler to win. In fact, Hitler followed a bad playbook with his ethnic superiority. The greatest empire builders in history from Egypt to Alexander the Great to Rome to England to America to China did well because they were ruthless in warfare doing what was necessary to subjugate their enemy, but pragmatic in victory and knew better than to treat a conquered enemy as someone to enslave or destroy. Rather they pursued and achieved their objectives by rebuilding the place they defeated into powerful source of tribute, business relationship, military ally, or the like. They did not attempt to take away their culture rather they chose to influence with quality additions like the English Education system in much of the colonies invaded by The British Empire, roads and water management advances in Roman colonies, business and governmental systems for America, and the like.

You can make an evil decision that leads to a good outcome, but one should never forget or overlook that it is an evil decision. The Truman situation is so hard to discuss on a forum as it was so nuanced. Did Truman know how big the explosions would be? Did he know the aftermath? No one had ever seen a nuclear bomb dropped on a population prior to Japan. Was he pushed into it by his generals and advisers as the only option? If he had known what it would do, would have chosen a different option? Hard to say.

It's so hard to discuss something this complex on a forum. There is so much history involved. To sum up my point. America has done a lot of evil in the world, a lot of good, and a lot of everything in-between. Our near Hitler-level evil period was obviously slavery and the destruction of the natives who make up 1% of the population in America at the moment. They used to populate this land from one end to the other, now they're a bunch of small groups on reservations and interspersed in the population. The only reason we don't get hit like Germany is most of the world was engaged in similar behavior, especially most of the powers of Europe and it's farther in the past than Hitler.

You can't be a powerful nation and not do some evil acts to be powerful. It doesn't work like that. You also have to be fairly pragmatic, ruthless, and smart to become powerful. Our leadership chose to pursue power and growth. We have been the most effective nation at acquiring power over the last hundred years or so. We made a lot of enemies and a lot of allies over the years as expected. At this point it seems a good idea to step back some and let the world learn to govern itself some. I think we've pretty well proven Democracy and capitalism with socialist elements is the best way to run a nation. No need to continue to interfere in other nations or make unnecessary enemies. Let them sort themselves out and stand down for a while.

We've been in a war once a decade for nearly 50 years. WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq War 1, Iraq2/Afghanistan, Cold War, Yugoslavia, Somalia, and smaller actions here and there like Panama and El Salvador/Nicaragua/Afghanistan (during the Russian Invasion). Maybe take a break from all the war mongering for a little while. For a nation folk like burrtton claims isn't imperial, we seem to spend a lot of time making war in other nations.

I'm going to leave it there. This is one of those topics that could go on endlessly given the history involved. We probably disagree. But then again I'm not much a sugar-coater. A cruel, ruthless, evil decision is a cruel, ruthless, evil decision regardless of the outcome. You need to be able to make them to govern nations. Doesn't make your nation all evil. Just means you do what you have to do to stay on top. We do that. I am saying as long as it continues, we humans are the worst threat to our well-being in existence. Military build up to maintain equality may be the death of us. We've seen it for years from the time of swords and shields. We're in the age of robot warfare infancy. If we continue along the path that created MAD, we're going to have competition to build the best robotic armies as the next level of MAD.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't care if the weapons are sticks and stones, I don't like warfare, period.

But it's a necessary evil if we are to maintain a viable civilization, and drones seems to me to be a good solution that keeps our people out of harm's way. Additionally, someone has to be the big guy on the block, so if not the US, who else would you trust with our security? The United Nations?

This is what drives the world. What choice do we have? If not us, then someone else will? It's the way humans work. We're in constant competition. I don't think we've seen the worst of it myself. One serious hiccup in the food chain or a nuclear attack on some nation by a rogue element, we may see some serious death.

[Aseahawkfan]

You don't say?

Thanks for chiming in. Leave the heavy lifting to the adults, please. You're welcome.

Adults know when evil is evil and don't make excuses like some immature kid that can't admit when a wrong has been done. I wonder why you do it myself? My feeling is if you had admit America had done quite a bit of evil in the world, you couldn't enjoy her as a nation because some minds see only black and white, good and evil without having the ability to understand that in a nation of humans both will live within that nation like neighbors.

You keep on thinking that we could take over the world and because we don't that it makes us good or kind or whatever your ridiculous view is. I'll keep on being an adult knowing that we did a lot of evil to gain power, murdered a lot of people, and we did it for questionable reasons in a lot of places that you attempt to justify, but can't. Which is why these immature, childish insults are the best responses you can summon to answer the complex questions I put to you.

I will desist from engaging you as I doubt you will ever be capable of a quality answer backed up by facts and history. You keep sucking your thumb while rocking back and forth telling yourself "America does no evil, America does no evil" if it maks you feel better.

[burrrton]

Adults know when evil is evil and don't make excuses like some immature kid that can't admit when a wrong has been done.

No, adults can evaluate complex situations like warfare, see the spectrum of morality in play, and avoid making blanket statements- it's kids that can't do that so they oversimplify by retreating to bumper sticker opinions like "bombs bad".

You're making it obvious which of those two you are.