Originally Posted by
AAdvocate
How many U.S. citizens does a country need to actively seek and kill with purpose before they are considered hostile? Do our Allies in Europe still hold the capability to defend itself against aggression? If they don't why not? What changed with their policies over the last few decades? How much longer should U.S. tax payers subsidize their social programs by picking up their slack on defense spending? Do you consider a strong deference a diplomatic arm of a sovereign's government?
Never mind, I highly doubt you think that deep about your statements.
That is way too slippery of a slope and I suspect you know it. I'm not sure we would have any allies in the world with that criteria. Not that it's ok to murder citizens, it's not, but direct military action should be based on a clear threat to US citizens. No problems letting Europe pick up a bigger tab, that means we should be stepping out of other country's conflicts. It seems like some people have been frothing at the mouth for decades to invade Iran and start a war with it. Not for any specific action or threat from Iran, but for similar reasons to Vietnam where some people decide that other people in a different country should not be living the way that they are. One of the reasons I believe that our military actions have to be based on clear and real threats, not "nuke program was obliterated last year"-reasons, is because 30 years down the road we'll be dealing with the entire new generation of terrorists we spawned from these actions. I believe that when we have morally-clear actions/threats/objectives, that is much less likely.