D
deMontfort
Guest
Have you considered that I really don’t care what they (or YOU) agree or disagree on? Consider that a hint.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
I may be dense, but I have no idea at what you are hinting at, but your post does sound very American, and a little like a threat.
Not a good idea, btw.
Last edited:
T
_thaddeus
Guest
Let me ask you, in your coarse opinion, does your country (assuming U.S.) have any allies that are not socialists?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Then I think a mirror would be more suited to your desires than a public forum.
No rogue opinions and you get to be right all the time!
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Perhaps, now that the Labour Party seem to have adopted an official pro-abortion stance (rather than leave it as an issue of conscience for their MPs) this may change?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
How can America “run the world” when it cannot even run itself?
I
Isca
Guest
This is always likely to end up a conscience issue for MPs, in my view, despite any pronouncements to the contrary on paper. My own town’s MP is Conservative and I would be lobbying for him to vote pro-life in any proposed new legislation, as I would with any MP we end up with!
I’m buoyed by the fact that a group of Catholic Labour MPs have started a new pressure group within the party in the last few months, and am looking forward to seeing how that develops.
I’m buoyed by the fact that a group of Catholic Labour MPs have started a new pressure group within the party in the last few months, and am looking forward to seeing how that develops.
Last edited:
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Yes, I think there will be some Labour MPs who will vote in a pro-life manner, but the last Labour Party election manifesto changed their situation in that to now do so could mean they will be rebelling against their party whip. This will also mean that default position for Labour MPs now is to vote pro-abortion. Will this lead to some MPs who would have voted pro-life now abstaining rather than vote against their party? Or those MPs who would have abstained on pro-life issues now voting loyally with their party? And what are the prospects now for a pro-life Labour MP getting a position on the Labour front bench if they will be voting against their party whip on abortion issues?
I believe this shift is due to Labour’s sharp swing to the left which we have seen recently, where I think support for extreme, almost militant, feminism results in seeing support for abortion as almost a core value.
I wonder what the response from the left (particularly from the likes of Momentum) will be to the March for Life in London on 5th May this year.
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
@Isca - I am SUPER late to rise to your assistance (if this even helps) - I am married to a British citizen and I agree wholeheartedly that despite our common language we do not in any way share a common culture. I think I was more ready for that aspect than my husband was when we married 18 years ago (this April, actually - man, how time flies). I would not be good at explaining the differences between what Brits think at the word “socialism” and what Americans think as I’m the most apolitical person you’re likely to meet.
UK “socialism” leans - to my thinking - as more of an American “Democrat” mindset, and not the hardline, borderline Communistic thinking that many of my countrymen call to mind with the word. There’s still a big difference between the two, but I think that’s a respectable start.
I’m a US military officer and know that most of our allies qualify as socialistic nations. There’s nothing wrong with that and it has nothing to do with the teachings of the Catholic church. European socialism is more about the benefit of the collective good, not an autocracy.
Like I said, I’m not a political science guru. Medical officers aren’t versed in strategy and US doctrine like our line side bretheren are, and there are reasons for that (we are classified as noncombatants; it’s not our role to plan warfare). But I know what I’ve seen in the 20 years I’ve had close contact with your countrymen and have counted them as close family members.
My husband is a C of E’r, and has more Conservative views as a result. Interesting how that was nailed on.
UK “socialism” leans - to my thinking - as more of an American “Democrat” mindset, and not the hardline, borderline Communistic thinking that many of my countrymen call to mind with the word. There’s still a big difference between the two, but I think that’s a respectable start.
I’m a US military officer and know that most of our allies qualify as socialistic nations. There’s nothing wrong with that and it has nothing to do with the teachings of the Catholic church. European socialism is more about the benefit of the collective good, not an autocracy.
Like I said, I’m not a political science guru. Medical officers aren’t versed in strategy and US doctrine like our line side bretheren are, and there are reasons for that (we are classified as noncombatants; it’s not our role to plan warfare). But I know what I’ve seen in the 20 years I’ve had close contact with your countrymen and have counted them as close family members.
My husband is a C of E’r, and has more Conservative views as a result. Interesting how that was nailed on.
Last edited:
I
Isca
Guest
Thanks Pup7, glad you understood my POV on this one!
P
Pup7
Guest
Sorry I was late to the party. Glad to help! It can get confusing sometimes for people not exposed to the differences. I will always defend my in-law country when I can. Even if it’s not always the best job!
Even if it’s not always the best job!
2
2towers
Guest
We were right to help out in the first WWars, in the second one of course, we were attacked by Japan. Most of the other were a “hot” portion of the COLD war of course.[Nam and Korea] The cold war was such a big long complicated conflict it would be hard to characterize it properly in a thread.
I think it was the Middle East wars where we started getting the “wold police department” designation. Like it or hate it, no we do not have the money to act as a world police, but as it has been said, there are situations where, in my mind at least we have a responsibility to help, at least in my opinion, at some level. Rwanda was a missed opportunity where I think we should have done something.
Syria is an example of a situation where there just were not any good moves. I am not smart enough to know what we should or should not do in cases like that. Sometime all you can do is to offer humanitarian aid and advisers.
One thing that puzzles me though, and I am totally pro “carry a big stick,” why does our military budget have to be bigger than most of the countries of the world combined? Look how Russia and China push people around [and yes I know we have been guilty of that] on a shoe string budget compared to us.
I think it was the Middle East wars where we started getting the “wold police department” designation. Like it or hate it, no we do not have the money to act as a world police, but as it has been said, there are situations where, in my mind at least we have a responsibility to help, at least in my opinion, at some level. Rwanda was a missed opportunity where I think we should have done something.
Syria is an example of a situation where there just were not any good moves. I am not smart enough to know what we should or should not do in cases like that. Sometime all you can do is to offer humanitarian aid and advisers.
One thing that puzzles me though, and I am totally pro “carry a big stick,” why does our military budget have to be bigger than most of the countries of the world combined? Look how Russia and China push people around [and yes I know we have been guilty of that] on a shoe string budget compared to us.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
They don’t have the ability to fight major conflicts on multiple global fronts.
Since most of their bases are located withing their borders, they aren’t supporting bases across the globe.
Wages for all involved are also much higher in the US.
Perhaps if NATO nations were stronger on their own accord, we’d have less of a commitment.
Last edited:
S
straykat
Guest
Maybe it’s their job for now. I don’t know. I kind of think God lets a baton pass across nations, for his own reasons. They may not be good nations in themselves, but they set up things. If it wasn’t for Alexander, there’d be no Hellenization, if it wasn’t for Rome, there’d be fewer roads and infrastructure. It’s these two things that mobilized the Gospel and early church though. A premade network.
Down the centuries, everyone gets their chance at the baton. Spain, England, now the US. Maybe there’s a grander purpose to all of it that we don’t know. By now, I can see that Spain was needed because they brought the gospel to the Americas in a huge way.
Down the centuries, everyone gets their chance at the baton. Spain, England, now the US. Maybe there’s a grander purpose to all of it that we don’t know. By now, I can see that Spain was needed because they brought the gospel to the Americas in a huge way.
Last edited:
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
its Gods domain to run His world.
L
ltwin
Guest
I don’t think its America’s job to “run the world.” However, I do think that we have been blessed by God to be the wealthiest and strongest nation on earth (at least at the moment), and that means we have a responsibility to use our strength wisely to act as a just and positive influence and as a world leader work with allied nations to restrain nations that are acting aggressively toward other peoples.
I’d be all for reducing American military power if we had someone friendly we could hand over our responsibilities as a leading nation to. When the US became a world superpower after WW2, we supplanted the United Kingdom’s role as a stabilizing influence over the world. This wasn’t a big deal because the US and UK shared similar values.
Who would step into American shoes? China? Do you really want to live under the Chinese world order? I have nothing against the Chinese people, but as a nation-state their values do not seem to be the same as those held by Western liberal democracies and I personally think the world would be better off under the leadership of the US or Europe or even Japan.
Last edited:
J
J.S.C
Guest
What’s the alternative?
In an ideal world, all countries would take care of themselves and the United States wouldn’t have to intervene as much. But we don’t live in that world. We instead see two powers (Russia and China) which have actively been looking to expand their influence overseas. America does the same thing (obviously), but our sphere of influence is largely democratic and respectful of human rights. I’m sure that people will rush to point out the exceptions – but those don’t disprove the rule. Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and other parts of the world have benefited from our presence.
Russia and China don’t care about democracy at all. Consider that every time the U.S. considers supporting a tyrannical government, it could face significant backlash from its own citizens and people abroad. This influences policymakers. But the governments in Moscow/Beijing wouldn’t care about these concerns at all. They have authoritarian political structures at home, and would gladly spread these if circumstances permitted.
Russia looms over Europe, as does China over Asian democracies. The United States needs to stand ready to defend these areas. If we don’t, no one else will.
In an ideal world, all countries would take care of themselves and the United States wouldn’t have to intervene as much. But we don’t live in that world. We instead see two powers (Russia and China) which have actively been looking to expand their influence overseas. America does the same thing (obviously), but our sphere of influence is largely democratic and respectful of human rights. I’m sure that people will rush to point out the exceptions – but those don’t disprove the rule. Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and other parts of the world have benefited from our presence.
Russia and China don’t care about democracy at all. Consider that every time the U.S. considers supporting a tyrannical government, it could face significant backlash from its own citizens and people abroad. This influences policymakers. But the governments in Moscow/Beijing wouldn’t care about these concerns at all. They have authoritarian political structures at home, and would gladly spread these if circumstances permitted.
Russia looms over Europe, as does China over Asian democracies. The United States needs to stand ready to defend these areas. If we don’t, no one else will.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Other European states have nuclear weapons. In a post-nuclear world, there will be no set-piece invasions of nuclear states.
So no. Russia does not “loom” over Europe in a menacing way that demands American dollars and personnel. Germany is just as capable as we are of bathing Moscow in nuclear fire.
Sure, as America dominates the Americas.
And I personally think Japan has nukes. They’ve just done a better job than Israel of hiding it. Their “no offensive military” policy persists only because they haven’t needed one. The folks in China are aware of this.
Again, no more set-piece invasions in a post-nuclear age for nuclear states.
Tell me why we should toss American sons and daughters into the meat-grinder of “freedom” for the sake of Filipino suzerainty, as one example?
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
The common understanding is that Germany does not have nuclear weapons of its own, and that the only nuclear powers in Europe are Britain, France and Russia. Germany is one of the NATO countries storing US nuclear weapons, but they require US codes to be employed.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Apologies. My understanding of who’s in the Nuclear Club isn’t perfect. Scratch out “Germany” and write “France” or “Britain”. My point remains intact.Vonsalza:
The common understanding is that Germany does not have nuclear weapons of its own, and that the only nuclear powers in Europe are Britain, France and Russia. Germany is one of the NATO countries storing US nuclear weapons, but they require US codes to be employed.
We don’t need a massive military presence over there. Or most anywhere, really.
- Status