C'mon, Uber, that's inane. That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work".
Huh? Now you're beginning to commit logical fallacies. Try reading up on foreign policy journals and articles. The recommendations almost always involve either some financial aid or intervention. Do you really think that these experts are *all* wrong but you with your overly simplistic idealism are correct?
LOL.
Talk about insane...
Without US money, the Pakistani ISI would've been too cash-strapped to aid the Taliban.
Not that the Pakistani ISI were "big givers" by any comparative standards. It was US Interventionists who were trying to "reform" the Taliban by shovelling hundreds of millions a year to the drooling homicidal mullahs.
What if a more fundamentalist government were to gain power in Pakistan?
Gosh, if that were to happen, India might just have to lay down a can of Hindu whoop-ass on the blithering Moon-worshippers -- yet again (these people like nothing better than killing eachother, if nobody else is around to kill).
None of which has anything to do with me, and my family -- who are the true objects of homeland Patriotism.
You make quite a number of assumptions concerning what Pakistan would do without *any* financial aid from the US. It's a foolish wish that by isolating ourselves from the world that "somehow" things will work out for the best.
Nah.
I'm not worried about "things" in general working out for the "best". Hutus will still kill Tutsis by the hundreds of thousands (and vice versa). Things will never work out for the "best" world-wide, until Christ returns; because -- news flash!! -- it's a fallen world.
I'm only concerned about "things working out for the best" of Americans, in the same manner that the Swiss are concerned about "things working out for the best" of the Swiss.
Nothing ever works out "for the best", but Swiss non-interventionist policy has a funny way of working out best for the Swiss.
In a Fallen World, that's good enough for me.
Huh? Now you're beginning to commit logical fallacies. Try reading up on foreign policy journals and articles. The recommendations almost always involve either some financial aid or intervention. Do you really think that these experts are *all* wrong but you with your overly simplistic idealism are correct? LOL. Talk about insane...
This has turned to farce.
You accuse me of logical fallacies, employing as your counter-argument a couple of textbook Appeal To Authority and Appeal To Bandwagon fallacies as your attempt at "refutation"?
That's not even offensive; it's embarassing. If you were even past the level of Freshman Logical Analysis, I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself.
It's pitiable. You want me to respect your argumentative talents, Uber, not to pity you.
Sigh.
Look, watch this: "Well, Golly-Gee, Uber, I don't think all experts are Wrong; I think that only the Foreign Policy Journal Interventionist (so-called) 'experts' are Wrong, and the Foreign Policy Journal Isolationist Experts are Right!!"
Huh, wouldja look at that -- all of a sudden, I have my very own Appeal to Authority and Bandwagon fallacies with which to counter your "arguments" -- and you have no leg to stand on, because your only "argument" in the first place was an Appeal to Authority and Bandwagon Logical Fallacy, which I have now just countered in turn.
That's the problem with Logical Fallacies, Uber -- they gain you nothing when debating someone who is familiar with the science and practice of Logic.
Sheesh, you should already know that.
Oh, heck, I'll say it any way -- for that blatant argumentative blunder, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Try harder next time. I was enjoying our debate, but now you are just disappointing me.