Is it more important to pursue peace, or to ensure that United States retains its role as the economic and military leader of the world? Is it more important to make our country even more rich, or to ensure some basic standard of living throughout the world?
3 comments:
Why do you think those various things are incompatible?
I would posit that the United States remaining the economic and military leader of the world is the best way to ensure peace.
Similarly, policies that promote U.S. economic growth will also promote world economic growth. Division of wealth may remain a problem, but the best (and perhaps only) method to combat poverty is economic growth, not redistribution.
Why not both?
MLKjr said "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". So hooray for spreading democracy!
Then again some believe the war itself is injust...I don't know about that; but it IS expensive.
If I had to pick one I say lets make money, can't go wrong with that.
I don't think that they must be incompatible, but they have been. Are you aware that the United States is the only country that favors militarizing space? And we won't allow any competitors. Or that Russia offered to give up claims on East Germany as early as 1952 under the only condition that the unified Germany didn't join any military organizations that particularly targeted it? Or that we are the country that consistently pulls out of treaties to limit weapons systems?
Post a Comment