Every time someone complains about the US abroad, a good question is "who else would you rather be THE world's superpower?" Russia & China are the only two other options, tbh. I'll settle for the imperfections of the US, while working to fix those imperfections.
-
-
-
I'd like to respond to that question with another: "Must there be a Superman?"
-
Not a Superman. But a guarantor(s) of world stability, yes. The idea behind the Security Council, Council of Vienna, NATO and others all aim towards that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not isolationist at all, but supposing an isolationist read the above and said "sure, let China have them"? then what's the argument
-
Such a person doesn't realize the natural resources in africa.
-
that's like saying Denmark doesn't realize that because they don't try to police the world. China has 25% of the world's population. India has 20%. What's the rational argument for us to control more of the world than they do put together
-
That we're better at it than they are, and that population size doesn't mean diddly squat.
-
"You're tax money should go for this because we're good at it" isn't going to convince many people
-
Oh, I didn't realize I was justifying it to taxpayers. In that case theres many reasons, which obviously the majority buy into.
-
Personally I'd rather have a world dominated by a democratic country rather than a communist or oligarcic.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Its* - damn autocorrect
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.