Obviously you posted this before you read my above response. Mercedes, do you thus advocate a totally isolationist foreign policy? -- Duke Doggie's "DEEP DOO-DOO"

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

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 ]