re: #8 Romantic Heretic

Lil ad absurdum there on China. We have ways we already encouraged them to behave to some effect. Wanna really hit their policy? Quit buying their cheap clothes, toys, and jewelry. Boom a half $billion votes aimed right at their policy.

Show me a similar lever we have to hit ISIS with.

It’s not great logic to argue that we would be obligated everywhere because we would choose to act occasionally to stop atrocities, the rise of a dangerous power or intervene in a genocide. I never understood that logic.

How come I never see anyone complain about Clinton NATO and the Serbs in the Balkans? Probably because he is not a Bush. Or much smarter because he never invaded.

But your argument against us helping against ISIS would have extended back tio opposing Clinton and NATO back then? It’;s already very well established we are not on some solo adventure attacking ISIS. Ask the Turks, the Kurds, the Iraqis some reginal heads who are begging for more help.

Some say we view the world through a prism. This time it appears to be a Bush circular polarizer. “Bush invaded so we won’t/can’t/mustn’t/etc help Iraq militarily ever ever again!” I understand the anger. I’m just not there. Our policy IMHO is far more properly a forward looking policy not one stuck in the rear view mirror standing on the gas in reverse. I’m just not one to ignore atrocities or globally distant reality over partisan politics or dollars.