[MMM]

Originally Posted by Suki

So you are basically saying that the end justifies the means. The end being helping allies, the means being providing such help through military actions, no matter what. See? That's where we differ on our viewpoint. Such harsh statement on your part just sealed this discussion.

Your unforgiving tendency to bend someone else's words to fit your argument makes a mature discussion with you rather difficult.

I never said the ends justify the means... why would you even bring up a statement like that?

Address WHAT I SAID and not your simplified interpretations.

Or answer this question: Should the US not support and help its allies in times of conflict?

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I believe all MMM is trying to say is that to pretend conflicts occur in a vaccuum is erroneous.

International politics is a complicated matter. While I'm no fan of the USA myself.. you're going about your criticism all wrong Suki.

The USA isn't at fault for interfering in the matters of others.

Did you know for example that elements of Pakistani's intelligence agency is aiding the Taleban. That the Taleban have been found using Chinese weapons and even Swiss ammunition (though I believe there was a vote in Switzerland regarding the ethics of their weapons proliferation that might have addressed that recently).

It's all a complicated web of relationships held together by power and profit.

What the US is guilty of is pretending that they operate from a moral high ground where things like "freedom" and "liberty" are paramount.

But the reality is that they are simply like every other nation that exists and has ever existed.

We don't always agree, but for the most part I can agree with this statement.