good question...i have to think about it a little bit. does seem a bit contradictory to what i posted earlier, huh? i guess it depends on the stability of the country building them. i think it is in the united states interests to make sure dictators don't end up with WMD. particularly dictators who don't like us very much! i guess bottom line, you can't speak in absolutes like my original post here did...you have to weigh the circumstances surrounding each situation...weighing your national security interests vs. the interests of other nations. but ultimately, job 1 for the federal government is national security.
i guess bottom line, you can't speak in absolutes like my original post here did...you have to weigh the circumstances surrounding each situation...weighing your national security interests vs. the interests of other nations. but ultimately, job 1 for the federal government is national security. I agree completely! I just think the line is very blurred as to what's in the best interests of national security. I agree totally with what B-Bob said above (no, not the assclown thing ): <I>How about putting it this way: global flourishing and contentment is in the long-term best interest of our country. In the short term, this is debatable.</I> I think the way to maximize security is to primarily have policies that are agreeable with other countries. That reduces the likelihood of problems down the road. There are exceptions of course, but in general, I'd rather us find situations that make both parties fairly happy than situations that find us very happy and someone else very pissed off. The latter just seems like a recipe for long-term disaster to me, but its "easier" to do and justify in the short-term.
