Quote:
Originally Posted by The Third Man
Second chance. I am more than happy to a fair exchange. But I don't know whar you see as the Bush Doctrine. Really. I call it looking out for the citizens and supporting the US Consitution. Is that the Bush Doctrine?
If so ..........
|
Ah, I see now. No, I am not refering to the expanded role of the executive branch, nor am I refering to the constitutionality of military action. I am interested in your philisophical view of foreign intervention. As an extention of that, what do you feel is America's place in this world?
My view is that The United States of America is not the world's police force. The impact of our latest round of foreign intervention has been negligible; Islamic extreemists still threaten our transportation infastructure (as illustrated several days ago), Al Qaeda still remains organized enough to recruit actively and spread propaganda, and Osama bin Laden has not been brought to justice. Instead, we have spent billions of dollars and the lives of too many servicemen chasing phantoms and making new enemies, now in the name of nation building and globalism. It is past time to bring troops home. Recall them all. Other nations have elected leaders, as well as economies and budgets. Let those leaders use the two latter items to serve their own needs. As such, I oppose the doctrine of intervention shared by both progressives and neo-conservatives.
I referred to it as the Bush Doctrine due to the fact that it was most recently illustrated by the war on terror. I feel it is a poor term, but also thought that by using it, you would know exactly what I was talking about.