@9CJ6CB6Comments4mos ago

Our national debt doesn’t have a deadline to be paid, only a risk if it is not

We have the money to pay it, it’s called the rich population. We can reduce it overtime, but once again, just as you claim I failed to mention other parts of your argument, you failed to mention that we have made a deal to finance it because that was the terms of the past confrontation with Russia. If we are willing to leave people in a country that has not been the aggressor to lack their own civil liberties, than we are simply a “freedom-for-me-but-not-for-thee” kind of country. Peace is desirable, and as such, I hope that we can push Russia back enough that their government will be willing to negotiate, but, if Russia doesn’t stop attacking, we all die anyway. WW3 is a risk, a risk that we are less likely to have in comparison to the days of the Cold War. We are not sacrificing our own liberties to assist Ukraine, we are sacrificing money, money that will come back to us when Ukraine isn’t drowning in offensive soldiers and corruption. World War 3 isn’t as big of a risk as before, and Putin isn’t willing to cause global winter for a slab of land that used to be his. We can’t do nothing, we can’t go isolationist because if we do, BRICS will fill the void, and as they grow, we weaken. Then, no matter what america will be stuck in an endless war, this time at its own borders. It takes a world saying “That’s enough” to prevent a conflict, because if one weaker voice is all that speaks against Russia, then they will squash it like a bug. Our meager cost of subsidies has crippled Russia more than we could’ve dreamed in our long feud, and we are not the ones fighting. It is for our safety and the rest of the world’s that Russia is held back, and eventually, they will be pushed back enough to be forced to vy for peace.

▲▲Reply to this Disagree 2 Context •••Agree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

5 Replies

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…4mos4MO

I see I need to up your dosage of common sense, so here's a powerful prescription – George Washington's brilliant defence of non-interventionism in his Farewell Address. If symptoms persist after one reading, please consult me, and I can give you a second dosage of medicine, from John Quincy Adams. But first try this medicine:

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes… Read more of Republican Government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests … The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships, or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will noy lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by our justice shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambitions, rival-ship, interest, humor, or caprice? 'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world … Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing … constantly keeping in view that 'tis folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. 'Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. … The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations."