| Subject: Obviously you posted this before you read my above response. Mercedes, do you thus advocate a totally isolationist foreign policy? |
Author:
obitchecker
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Mon, May 25, 2009 6:34:55
In reply to:
Mercedes (Me, I 100% totally DISAGREE with Everything written in the PNAC agenda. Thanks be to GOD it failed!!!)
's message, "One more little thing, Obitchecker--What do you mean my interpretation of the PNAC agenda is 'more than a bit slanted'? Didn't you READ the articles? You either AGREE or you DISAGREE with the principles--there's NO half measures!" on Mon, May 25, 2009 11:21:50
Because if you disagree "100 %" with everything written in the PNAC statement, it can only mean this.
Now that's fine, but expect a lot of disagreement from many quarters, not just Republicans, but most Democrats as well. And if you are going to take the "you're either 100% for us or 100% against us" argument, thus, also disagreeing 100% even with the statement that "we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies" and that "we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad" (and "promote" does not have to mean "force"), then the Obama administration must be your enemy as well.
I have no problem with those who argue for a totally isolationist foreign policy, though I don't know how we could easily do that today. But if you come back and say that is not what you're advocating, then you are also not against PNAC "100 percent".
Again, I'm not going to be bullied with the "you're either 100 percent for us or 100 percent against us" line (Sounds like the John Birch Society, although it's interesting to note that they, too, opposed the Iraq invasion), or the repeated use of all caps.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 