AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (63 comments)

  1. PeakTrader

    “Mexico’s Biggest Problem is the US Government”

    Mexico’s biggest problem are U.S. drug users. They don’t care how much damage and propaganda they create, as long as they have their drugs.

    Exploiting ignorance and blaming others are ways to justify their drug use.

  2. Sprewell

    I like the cut of this guy’s jib. :)

  3. meph, cocaine, oxycontin, psychadelic drugs, etc….

    all should be legal? No drug should be illegal?

    how about adulterated food?

    foods that contain known toxins and chemicals that can damage your health should be allowed without regulation?

    no rules on what substances can be in food?

    it’s easy to selectively pick specific examples but the harder task is if you believe there needs to be some regulation – then what should and what not.

    The vast majority of citizens – in a country with elective governance is never going to agree to have no regulations for drugs or food – they want regulation.

    1. Sprewell

      meph, cocaine, oxycontin, psychadelic drugs, etc….

      all should be legal? No drug should be illegal?
      Yep.

      how about adulterated food?
      If it’s illegal now, has that stopped it from happening?

      foods that contain known toxins and chemicals that can damage your health should be allowed without regulation?
      Why do you think that people who care would ingest these “known toxins?” Why do you think the govt is doing a good job at figuring out what is and what isn’t damaging your health now? Do cigarettes and alcohol damage your health? Are they illegal?

      no rules on what substances can be in food?
      Yep.

      it’s easy to selectively pick specific examples but the harder task is if you believe there needs to be some regulation – then what should and what not.
      Easy, we believe in no regulation of what you put in your body.

      The vast majority of citizens – in a country with elective governance is never going to agree to have no regulations for drugs or food – they want regulation.
      They also agreed to ban alcohol before, how did that work out for them?

      Pretty soon, sites like Yelp or Amazon will have detailed health info for all the places you visit or food you eat. I’m sure they’ll surface a lot more info than the shit work the govt does now. Do you really think taxpayers will want their tax dollars to continue paying for incompetent regulatory agencies, when they’ll have so many other, far better sources of information?

      1. re: ” Easy, we believe in no regulation of what you put in your body.”

        and no regulation of what’s in the food either?

        so how would you know what is going into your body if there are no required labels disclosing it?

        Before the Food & Drug Act, people could put anything they wanted into a food or drug without telling you or they could even tell you something different …

        but you’d never know… and if your child died as a result, the company would either go bankrupt or throw a team of heavy-duty lawyers at you and pound you to a pulp.

        but many substances don’t have to kill you before they ruin your life – and you may not have a clue which of the foods and drugs you were consuming caused it.

        It would be like drinking 3 kinds of moonshine and taking a “natural” drug that was supposed to “help” and that was after you had fish that had high levels of mercury that you did not know …..

        no regulation at all? seriously? and Yelp is going to protect you?

        hmmmmm

        1. anomdebus

          You can not mandate labeling yet keep fraud illegal.

          If a person decides to eat a product with no ingredient label, then they are taking their chances and that is their business.

          Its a lot easier nowadays to get the word out (rightly or wrongly) to claim that some company’s product injured your child

          1. re: ” If a person decides to eat a product with no ingredient label, then they are taking their chances and that is their business.

            Its a lot easier nowadays to get the word out (rightly or wrongly) to claim that some company’s product injured your child”

            even if you had NO labels and no laws regarding labels?

            any company could put a a label or not and if they put a label they could put anything they wanted on the label even if misleading and not fully truthful or untruthful by omission?

            we take labels for granted.

            I’m asking what if there were no labels and no requirements for labels and no enforcement of misleading or less than truthful labels?

            how would you know what was in or not in a product or whether that product was good or bad for you – way short of whether it killed you or not?

            The Brits used to put strychnine in beer but who knew?

          2. Methinks

            Logic is a mystery to Larry. Note that each response that isn’t a completely idiotic question is a fallacy. In fact, he is capable only of stringing together fallacies and asking dumb questions.

            Any serious answer is basically providing him with a laxative.

        2. morganovich

          sprewell-

          don’t feed the troll. larry will just run around in circles, make appeal to practice fallacy after fallacy, misrepresent the facts, and make absurd claims like “markets cannot set standards and reputations do not propagate and stick” and “Before the Food & Drug Act, people could put anything they wanted into a food or drug without telling you or they could even tell you something different …” which is wildly untrue. you still we liable if you poisoned people. you still we liable if you lied.

          companies that did were exposed, sued, driven out of business etc.

          but he’ll never see it.

          there is no amount of logic that will get through.

          he literally cannot think that way.

          just let it go. he’ll clog up every thread with this same nonsense if you respond.

          1. “… ” which is wildly untrue. you still we liable if you poisoned people. you still we liable if you lied.”

            indeed, if people knew it.

            unless you die right after eating it..how would you really know?

            people got sick, were maimed the rest of their lives, and died – and never knew what exact thing did it.

            and even if they suspected it, proving it was an entirely different matter especially when the company denied it and you had not real way to prove it.

            people who believe that regulation is not needed live in a pretend world. the only places that operate this way are 3rd world countries – or this country prior to when the 1906 food and drug act was passed.

            and Morg – it takes TWO to clog the thread and I just watched you do it to another person in another thread…..that I had nothing to do with.

          2. morganovich

            larry-

            you are confusing your repetitive logical fallacies and inability to grasp key points (which is a waste of time) with going back and forth over somehting which is making some form of progress. based on your demonstrated inability to see the difference, i do not expect you to understand that.

            you are absolutely correct that it takes 2 to clog a thread and given that you will do so any time anyone attempts to get you to see basic logic and cease arguing by misrepresentation, straw man, and appeal to practice fallacies, i am now going back to ignoring you in hopes that others will do likewise and prevent the “larification” of yet another discussion.

            it was not my intention to engage with you at all here, merely to provide some advice to others about doing so.

          3. Morg – if I’m guilty of all these transgressions guy WHY oh WHY do you help to “clutter”?

            the anti-regulation blather you spout is totally in LA LA Land.

            The average person would no more agree to repeal the Food and Drug act than the man in the moon.

            this is not ME – Morg – this is YOU!

            You are the one here that denies the reality of what the majority of people in this country belief about food and drug regs.

            you are in loonyland on this. Tell me how many elected leaders have run on a platform of getting rid of the food and drug laws? how many guy?

            what do you call that? oh yeah.. an appeal to popularity or practice?

            so if a majority of voters totally reject your view it’s an appeal to practice?

            ;-)

            ;-)

            Morg .. you’re living in LA LA LAnd guy.

          4. Sprewell

            morg, I’m well aware of the dumb arguments that Larry often makes, but I chose to respond to him anyway. I don’t see how responding to him here leads to him clogging up a bunch of other threads.

      2. re ” Do you really think taxpayers will want their tax dollars to continue paying for incompetent regulatory agencies, when they’ll have so many other, far better sources of information?”

        do you really think if there is no regulation that companies are going to tell you either?

        why do you think companies would not sell you adulterated food much less not tell you or actually tell you something else?

        do we have any history of that actually happening>

        we do – prior to the Food & Drug act of 1906… a litany of it.

      3. Sprewell

        Larry,

        re: ” Easy, we believe in no regulation of what you put in your body.”

        and no regulation of what’s in the food either?
        What part of “no regulation of what you put in your body” do you not understand?

        so how would you know what is going into your body if there are no required labels disclosing it?
        If people care, the companies will provide labels, or Yelp-like websites will analyze the product and put that info online.

        Before the Food & Drug Act, people could put anything they wanted into a food or drug without telling you or they could even tell you something different …
        Before that act was signed in 1906, average inflation-adjusted income was a couple thousand dollars, meaning you lived on $10/day, if you were lucky. That environment is so different from the US today, it is silly to think it provides any reference whatsoever.

        but you’d never know… and if your child died as a result, the company would either go bankrupt or throw a team of heavy-duty lawyers at you and pound you to a pulp.
        “You’d never know” because the science wasn’t that advanced, which means the govt back then wouldn’t know either. That’s not true today.

        but many substances don’t have to kill you before they ruin your life – and you may not have a clue which of the foods and drugs you were consuming caused it.
        You wouldn’t have a clue now either, under your heavy regulation, in that case. All kinds of hormones and other crap goes into your USDA-regulated food now, I don’t see you complaining. Online sites will do this job ten times better, which is why they will obsolete the FDA.

        It would be like drinking 3 kinds of moonshine and taking a “natural” drug that was supposed to “help” and that was after you had fish that had high levels of mercury that you did not know …..
        What “would be like” this? If you want to do all these things, you can do so now: the govt can’t stop you.

        no regulation at all? seriously? and Yelp is going to protect you?
        Yep, no regulation. Nobody is going to protect you: the govt doesn’t give a shit about you, they just want your money. With Yelp, you will be able to inform and protect yourself.

        do you really think if there is no regulation that companies are going to tell you either?
        They will if they want my business.

        why do you think companies would not sell you adulterated food much less not tell you or actually tell you something else?
        Because they would go out of business if they sold me such stuff or lied to me?

        do we have any history of that actually happening>

        we do – prior to the Food & Drug act of 1906… a litany of it.
        We also have a history of “a litany of it” happening after 1906, why is that? Could it be that the govt is useless and the real reason everything got better is because we got richer in the market and started caring more about what we eat? Gee, I wonder if that could be it.

        1. re: ” Easy, we believe in no regulation of what you put in your body.”

          and no regulation of what’s in the food either?
          What part of “no regulation of what you put in your body” do you not understand?

          well I don’t think it is the reality… and I don’t think it’s what a majority of Americans would agree to.

          we have a history associated with no regulations of food and drugs and it resulted in significant regulations at a time that most limited govt people point to – as a time of limited govt.

          the purpose of the Law is to protect the rights of people and that includes those that would be harmed by things made by other people especially those things of which they have no knowledge of if there are no regus that require disclosure.

          Prior to 1906 no producer of anything had to tell you anything at all about what was in their product.

          It didn’t have to kill you to ruin your life.

          and even then you’d not have an easy time proving what harmed you in the first place.

          it was a no brainer to pass the 1906 law.

          1. Sprewell

            it was a no brainer to pass the 1906 law.
            Yep, literally a “no brainer,” as in those who supported it didn’t have brains. :)

          2. re: ” it was a no brainer to pass the 1906 law.
            Yep, literally a “no brainer,” as in those who supported it didn’t have brains. :)”

            touche!

            but the people in 1906 were more than likely the very folks that we bather about now days who supported limited govt.

            the phrase “limited govt” is, in fact, an oxymoron.

            it’s ALL in the eye of the beholder and “limited govt” is probably one of the more overused phrases in recent times and it has no real meaning to start with. It’s as if not a one of the SCOTUS from 1900 on knows what it really means, eh?

  4. Benjamin Cole

    Well, in the USA we may have a war on plants, but in Afghanistan we have spent $2 trillion to give Afghanis the right to grow opium, as much of it as they can sell.

    The Taliban had crushed poppy production.

    Now Afghanis are back in business, world leaders under USA tutelage. Boomtimes in poppy-land!

    So, no ware o plants—just marijuana.

    1. anomdebus

      The Taliban didn’t manage to do that until the US government paid them to destroy it. Granted, they were an effective tool for the job, but they didn’t do it solely of their own accord.

  5. “and invading other countries to reduce hatred against America.”

    Huh? Who made that as a primary argument? When we invade other countries, right or wrong, it’s to kill our enemies.

    1. re: ” When we invade other countries, right or wrong, it’s to kill our enemies.”

      and more often than not, make more enemies as the rest of the population realizes that our presence is usually not without consequences that many others don’t like and want us out (but want us to leave money).

      1. Weakness is provocative too, Lartard. This is especially true in primitive Islamic cultures.

        I don’t agree with the long occupation of Afghanistan, but they shouldn’t have knocked our buildings down if they didn’t want an ass kicking.

        1. Paul 99% of Afghans had nothing to do with the buildings guy… hell they didn’t even know about it.

          this is how you make enemies of entire countries guy.

          this is why we end up getting booted out…

          1. 99% of the Japanese didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor. 100% of the Germans didn’t. Should we have rolled over then, too?

            The government in control of Afghanistan worked with Al Qaeda and blanketed the country with terrorist training camps. And Bin Laden thought he could get away with 9/11 because of the weakness America showed in the decade prior:
            “We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions, showing they can run in less than twenty-four hours. This was then repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions, we rely on God.”

            That’s how you make Islamofascist savages think they can slaughter you, guy.

          2. Paul, there are a billion Muslims in the world guy.

            they live in 30 or more countries.

            1/100th of of one percent are islamo fascists like our own home-grown versions.

            get a grip.

          3. “Paul, there are a billion Muslims in the world guy.”

            And Larry resorts to a non-sequitur.

            “1/100th of of one percent are islamo fascists like our own home-grown versions.”

            Did you pull that statistic out of the same orifice you get the rest of your arguments? Or maybe you cribbed it from the CAIR website?

          4. paul -what percent of a billion is 1/100th of one percent?

            I get about 100,000. is that a bad number?

          5. morganovich

            paul-

            i would like to invite you to join the larry embargo.

            you’re never going to get anywhere.

            do not feed the troll.

            fwiw, i agree that to not respond to an attack like 9/11 would be provocative in the extreme.

            to avoid being attacked, one needs to cultivate a reputation that provides deterrence.

            if a regime shelters and aids a group that is attacking you, then they pay a price for it.

            i also agree that we really ought not to be in the nation state building business and are WAY past and plausible beneficial role over there, but to not respond overwhelmingly would have been to invite more attacks and to make it clear that harboring these guys is OK.

            i think the us ought to be far less interventionist in its foreign policy, but when you get attacked, you respond decisively. like the romans, we cannot possibly defend all out interests and territory all the time. the best we can do it make it clear that attacks will be punished so aggressively that people stop wanting to perpetrate them/turn a blind eye to those who live with them that do.

          6. responding to 911

            you want to go after the bad guys – not nation states.

            drones are good.

            invasions of countries are bad.

          7. Morganovich,

            As usual, you make the point better than I ever could. Agree 100%.

          8. Now be a good boy and listen to Morg and go sit down and behave.

          9. Methinks

            Hee Haw “logic”:

            “If yuh’ don’t laahkl mah kwuestuns, then dont anser mah pohsts.”

            Followed by outrage at a mutual agreement not to engage Hee Haw in his tail-chasing crusades.

          10. that’s the first sensible post I’ve heard from you lately gal.

          11. Methinks,

            Yeah, I always regret getting sucked into Larry’s ignorant ramblings.

          12. re: ” Yeah, I always regret getting sucked into Larry’s ignorant ramblings.”

            ha ha ha.. You and Morg are a SCREAM!

            ya’ll are like those whack-a-moles!

          13. morganovich

            methinks-

            lol.

            yeah, for a guy who argues appeal to majority all the time, he sure does not like to accept the majority verdict that he’s the village idiot (and sadly does not even know it).

          14. a majority vote in a village of idiots…???

            shazammm…!!!

            Morg I’d love to hear you regale Methinks with more of your thinking on diamonds and women!

          15. morganovich

            “Morg I’d love to hear you regale Methinks with more of your thinking on diamonds and women!”

            and we’d love to never hear from you again.

            make you a deal:

            she and i will speak more about diamonds, and you go away.

            great deal, right guy? right?

          16. re: ” she and i will speak more about diamonds, and you go away.

            great deal, right guy? right?”

            really? and miss all the wonderful logic you share with others?

            you’re kidding right?

            you know Morg – most folks who think they are talking to trolls – just stop… they don’t go on and on.. making “deals”.

            you’re a HOOT!

            ;-)

          17. morganovich

            i’m not talking to you larry, i’m making fun of you.

            talking to you involves trying to get you to understand an issue and basic logic which is fruitless and annoying.

            making fun of you is amusing (though pitifully easy).

          18. go for Morg – it makes you even more of an idiot!

            you’re a fool Morg.. but you fit right in… ;-)

            now go talk some more about diamonds!

          19. morganovich

            QED.

        2. Paul

          I don’t agree with the long occupation of Afghanistan, but they shouldn’t have knocked our buildings down if they didn’t want an ass kicking.

          They didn’t knock our building down.

          1. The Venn Diagram between the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be almost all intersection.

          2. Paul

            The Venn Diagram between the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be almost all intersection.

            Ideologically, Yes. But the US response seems to be to swat at mosquitoes with a sledgehammer. Massive damage everywhere it strikes, without any real effect on the mosquito population. For every one hit, others takes its place from among a population of those previously uncommitted, but now outraged at the damage done by the sledgehammer that has destroyed homes and killed family members and neighbors.

            Sticking around in a clueless attempt to patch things up in a manner that’s neither needed nor wanted just compounds the problem.

            The chief building-knocker-downer has been killed, along with most of his close buddies, as well as tens of thousands of people who aren’t in any way involved.

            Maybe the best solution would be to get the hell out of the swamp.

          3. Jesus H. Keerist.. Ron and I agree on something..

            maybe..

          4. morganovich

            ron-

            well, it’s a bit more complex than that, no?

            guys trained in and operating out of Afghanistan attacked us.

            the local government was happy to harbor them.

            so, you go after the guys in afghanistan which, of course, is an act of war against the country, and once you are at war, well, might as well take down that government as well to deter other states from harboring similar folks.

            there is no way we can really police the whole world for threats. you need to provide incentives for states to keep militias/terrorists/whatever from using their territory to launch attacks on us.

            but i think we are WAY over the line there. the current drone programs are an awful lot like the rockets the us gets upset with the Palestinians over.

            i don’t see much difference.

          5. Ron,

            “But the US response seems to be to swat at mosquitoes with a sledgehammer.”

            I don’t know what to do with that. If you are saying we should have just curled up into a ball after 9/11, I completely disagree.

            “Maybe the best solution would be to get the hell out of the swamp.”

            I don’t really disagree with that, in regard to Afghanistan.

          6. morganovich

            “Maybe the best solution would be to get the hell out of the swamp.”

            which would be fine if the mosquitoes stayed there, but, as 2001 showed us, that is not always going to be the case. 8 years of “ignore the swamp” led to aggressive bugs and a lazy landowner.

            when an enemy views you as a stay at home weakling, it invites attack.

            i think 9/11 was a huge miscalculation by AQ etc.

            they thought we would cower like the spanish or the french.

            no one believes that now.

            i think we can look at this a bit of a different way as well:

            you cannot kill mosquitoes with a hammer, sure enough, but you can with napalm. it’s messy and horrible, but it works, and blowing up buildings full of civilians is pretty horrible too. if you, my swamp owning neighbor want to avoid that, they perhaps you could use the easier “pesticide” solution yourself. i cannot do that for you, but you can. crack down on these groups.

            that was the choice we laid out. from a pure political science deterrence standpoint, it was the right move.

            what else could we have done? there is no perfect answer. i think it was the best of a tough bunch of options.

            still being there is a disaster and i fully agree we ought to have been gone long ago, but making it clear that others need to keep their swamps under control or face consequences is really the only way to deter attack.

          7. re: ” you cannot kill mosquitoes with a hammer, sure enough, but you can with napalm. it’s messy and horrible,”

            and far more effective than drones, eh?

            how many maimed young people and retired military are we signed up to tax people (like you) to pay for in the next 50 years?

            this is “smart”? NOT!

          8. morganovich

            no one ever gets out of afghanistan in one piece.

            the russians sure didn’t. hell, even alexander the great had to give up on that place and marry oxyartes’s daughter to get what was left of his troops out.

            it’s impossible terrain with a tribal culture of blood feud, blood money, and graft. it’s not even really a country in any meaningful sense.

            you cannot govern it, invade it, or subdue it.

            we really ought to have been in and out tactically in 6 months.

            any plan that includes “pacify and establish government in afghanistan” is doomed to fail.

          9. morganovich

            larry-

            your total inability to grasp metaphor never ceases to amaze.

          10. morganovich

            well, it’s a bit more complex than that, no?

            Well, yes. That was the short version.

            guys trained in and operating out of Afghanistan attacked us.

            Yes

            the local government was happy to harbor them.

            Yes.

            so, you go after the guys in afghanistan which, of course, is an act of war against the country….”

            So far so good.

            and once you are at war, well, might as well take down that government as well to deter other states from harboring similar folks.

            There I begin to disagree. In my view, the proper response would have been an immediate and devastating air strike on any and all known Al-Qeada compounds and training camps, perhaps trapping bin Laden before he and others could abandon the camps and flee to the mountains. The several weeks wasted negotiating and asking for UN permission resulted in the retaliatory strike, when it did come, destroying empty facilities.

            Being at war with Afghanistan had no real meaning in the normal sense, as the Taliban had no capability of striking the US militarily. invading and occupying a foreign country for more than ten years has had no upside and lots of downside. we haven’t produced a US friendly nation nor US and democracy loving people, but just the opposite.

            As I see it, there is little point in attacking political entities when radical Islamists are ideological, not national, and may be found in many parts of the world. They aren’t tied to particular countries.

            Conventional military power, in which the US has an undisputed advantage, is not effective against individuals willing to blow themselves up to create panic in the population of a much stronger enemies.

            If you aren’t familiar with this title, I would highly recommend it.

          11. Paul

            I don’t know what to do with that. If you are saying we should have just curled up into a ball after 9/11, I completely disagree.

            I recommend just the opposite. I think an immediate and devastating attack on bin Laden and Al-Qeada would have been the best response. Attacking and occupying Afghanistan was a huge mistake, in my view. It has cost more lives than the attack on 9-11.

            I believe the US had some pretty good intelligence on who was responsible for the attack, but Bush followed diplomatic procedures to ask the Taliban to give up bin Laden and made sure he had UN concurrence before taking action, by which time it was too late. The bad guys were gone.
            See my response to morganovich.

          12. no one ever gets out of afghanistan in one piece.

            the russians sure didn’t. hell, even alexander the great had to give up on that place and marry oxyartes’s daughter to get what was left of his troops out.

            That’s for sure. In fact as far as I know the only invader who had any amount of success was Genghis Khan, and he only did so by killing everyone he could reach, which even then didn’t include remote in the mountains.

            I also believe that the Taliban only held sway in the cities and lowlands, and had little influence in the mountains.

            It seems like the height of and hubris for those in the US to believe they can somehow create a popular, democratic nation out of a collection of tribes who never had and probably never will have a large central government of any type.

          13. morganovich

            ron-

            we may be talking past one another a bit.

            i am not championing occupying the country or state building.

            what i am saying is that if you make it clear that the price for attacking the US gets paid not just by the guys who did it, but also the entities that helped them, then you get a more effective form of deterrence.

            it’s not just aimed at afghans, but also at libya, etc.

            if you knowingly (and in many cases happily) let these guys stage from your territory, then you are also culpable.

            if it’s clear that there is a penalty for this, then it becomes more difficult for terrorists to find a place that will let them base and stage.

            to do this does not require full blown occupation.

            but as we have seen over and over, sanctions do not work worth a damn in most of these countries. you wind up helping the government take more control.

          14. morganovich

            we may be talking past one another a bit.

            i am not championing occupying the country or state building.

            Yes. I think we are saying pretty much the same thing.

            what i am saying is that if you make it clear that the price for attacking the US gets paid not just by the guys who did it, but also the entities that helped them, then you get a more effective form of deterrence.

            Yes that should be a part of the response, but I’m not sure it’s necessary to topple a government to demonstrate resolve.

            but as we have seen over and over, sanctions do not work worth a damn in most of these countries. you wind up helping the government take more control.

            I don’t believe sanctions ever work in any country, for that very reason. Economic sanctions are the worst, as they don’t seem to hurt those who deserve to be hurt, but innocent people instead.

  6. Ron,

    Well then it sounds like we’re all pretty much agreed that a)Larry is an idiot and b) the occupation of Afghanistan was a terrible mistake. The more I learn about our so-called allies, the less interested I am in helping them achieve any semblance of civilization..

    1. Well then it sounds like we’re all pretty much agreed that a)Larry is an idiot and b) the occupation of Afghanistan was a terrible mistake.

      Yup and Yup. :)

      The more I learn about our so-called allies, the less interested I am in helping them achieve any semblance of civilization.

      Afghanistan, as we know, it is not a single nation state, but a single geographic region with borders previously defined by the British when they took their turn at trying to control the region, IIRC.

      They, like everyone before and after them, failed.

      People in other parts of the world with different cultures and values don’t want or need our help. Trying to force values on other people because we think we know best can’t possibly end well.

      Punish those who attack us, then leave.

      1. re: ” Punish those who attack us, then leave.”

        punish everyone who lives in the region no matter whether they are terrorists are not – then leave.

        otherwise known as dumb-as-a-stump foreign policy supported by folks like Paul until it blows up in their face and they have to “re-think” it.

        the BETTER “punish and leave” is the drone program.

        still has collateral damage – no question – but not on the nation level.

        1. “otherwise known as dumb-as-a-stump foreign policy supported by folks like Paul until it blows up in their face and they have to “re-think” it.”

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyrxgWfINS8

      2. Ron,

        “Trying to force values on other people because we think we know best can’t possibly end well.”

        That’s probably true more often than not. But when it comes to pedophilia and sharia, we do know best. It sickens me that we tolerate it while dumping so much blood and treasure over there.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content