|
If you haven't served this country then you have no right to send others to war. Go watch this and learn from our past mistakes:
Quite the fascist and divisive attitude from a supporter of "TROO LIBERTY," haven't you ever heard of civilian control of the military?
This is what Ron Paulbots want, to divide the country among the righteous and the sinners, and then punish the sinners. Every single position they take is deliberately divisive, every statement they make intended to divide and classify, because that's how they think. You either agree with them or you're Emanuel Goldstein. Two Minutes Hate for anyone who isn't with Ron Paul.
If you really love this country and liberty you know that setting up special classes of people in order to divide groups of Americans against other groups of Americans is un-American.
|
Can we stop calling each other "bots" in this thread? Obamabots, Paulbots, etc.. It's extremely retarded. There is no denying that a lot of the so-called Ron Paul supporters in this thread have resorted to conspiracy theories and spam the thread with propaganda, but reading "bots bots bots bots" is rather irritating.
|
These republican debates with progressive moderators are so confusing to me. They never ask the questions that republicans want to ask, they stick with a progressive premise. For example, they always ask things like "what are you going to do to help gay people who want to get married?" The average republican voter would much rather ask "what are you going to do to protect traditional marriage?" Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the republican position here. The problem is that the question is essentially the same in both instances, but each one is attempting to drive the candidate toward a specific answer that is in line with the asker's beliefs. Since this is the republican caucus, and the republican voters are the one's actually voting here, then shouldn't the questions be asked from a republican perspective?
I understand they need to be prepared for these questions in the general election, but this isn't the general election. I feel like every other question the moderators ask is essentially "what are you going to do to be more progressive? what can you say to show that you aren't as conservative as your opponent?" And it's not just abc/etc, they did the same thing in the fox debates. Half of Newt's rising popularity a few weeks back was simply the result of him lashing back at the moderators asking the questions.
|
On January 10 2012 02:52 liberal wrote:
These republican debates with progressive moderators are so confusing to me. They never ask the questions that republicans want to ask, they stick with a progressive premise. For example, they always ask things like "what are you going to do to help gay people who want to get married?" The average republican voter would much rather ask "what are you going to do to protect traditional marriage?" Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the republican position here. The problem is that the question is essentially the same in both instances, but each one is attempting to drive the candidate toward a specific answer that is in line with the asker's beliefs. Since this is the republican caucus, and the republican voters are the one's actually voting here, then shouldn't the questions be asked from a republican perspective?
I understand they need to be prepared for these questions in the general election, but this isn't the general election. I feel like every other question the moderators ask is essentially "what are you going to do to be more progressive? what can you say to show that you aren't as conservative as your opponent?" And it's not just abc/etc, they did the same thing in the fox debates. Half of Newt's rising popularity a few weeks back was simply the result of him lashing back at the moderators asking the questions.
To be fair, there are a lot of conservatives who are totally turned off by exactly these issues. So I think this kind of thing can go either way.
|
On January 09 2012 14:54 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 11:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 09 2012 11:37 Rodimus Prime wrote:On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote:
Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle. I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today. Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks. Uh.... You mentioned an example of judging someone you want to marry or date based on their appearances... Do you really judge the people who you want to vote for on physical appearances? I understand judging a potential mate on their physical appearances, but a politician? How on earth could that possibly be a good idea? Actually, physical attractiveness correlates positively with leadership ability, intelligence, good character and good health, all of which are rather important attributes for the "leader of the free world". Just saying.
Except at this point you're simply HOPING they have leadership ability, intelligence, good character and good health. It makes much more sense to judge a person by their actual qualities rather than those ideally implied by their physical attractiveness, otherwise you're asking to be decieved by superficial traits.
|
On January 09 2012 14:54 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 11:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 09 2012 11:37 Rodimus Prime wrote:On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote:
Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle. I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today. Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks. Uh.... You mentioned an example of judging someone you want to marry or date based on their appearances... Do you really judge the people who you want to vote for on physical appearances? I understand judging a potential mate on their physical appearances, but a politician? How on earth could that possibly be a good idea? Actually, physical attractiveness correlates positively with leadership ability, intelligence, good character and good health, all of which are rather important attributes for the "leader of the free world". Just saying.
Eh, wtf kind of justification is that? Even if there are a statistical corralation between those things, it's not an absolute (it's far from true in all cases, you got plenty of examples of this). So regardless it's pretty retarded to use that as a argument for one person over another unless you are really lazy....
Just saying.
|
On January 10 2012 03:36 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 14:54 vetinari wrote:On January 09 2012 11:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 09 2012 11:37 Rodimus Prime wrote:On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote:
Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle. I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today. Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks. Uh.... You mentioned an example of judging someone you want to marry or date based on their appearances... Do you really judge the people who you want to vote for on physical appearances? I understand judging a potential mate on their physical appearances, but a politician? How on earth could that possibly be a good idea? Actually, physical attractiveness correlates positively with leadership ability, intelligence, good character and good health, all of which are rather important attributes for the "leader of the free world". Just saying. Eh, wtf kind of justification is that? Even if there are a statistical corralation between those things, it's not an absolute (it's far from true in all cases, you got plenty of examples of this). So regardless it's pretty retarded to use that as a argument for one person over another unless you are really lazy.... Just saying.
Again, it sounds like the correlations have to do with "perceived" attributes, not real ones (although leadership has a lot to do with perceptions, so that's may work). Humans tend to attribute good things to good things. This is not a strange phenomenon. It's not necessarily something we do consciously. It's just incorrect.
|
On January 09 2012 05:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:On January 09 2012 02:45 kwizach wrote:On January 09 2012 01:22 Kiarip wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act http://www.consumerfinance.gov/the-bureau/It's not enough but it's a step in the right direction, and Republicans (including Ron Paul) of course want to get rid of it (they tried for more than a year to block Obama from ever appointing the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, until he bypassed them). Dodd Frank is a miserable failure just like Sarbanes-Oxley was under Bush Ah, here comes Kiarip with his brilliant rebuttals again. Do explain yourself, I'm sure you have pearls of wisdom to share regarding why Dodd-Frank is not a step in the right direction. By the way, I take your failure to reply to my previous post as an acknowledgment that you were, indeed, wrong regarding the individual rights of the healthcare providers being violated by a right to healthcare. Um no I replied to it. Um no you didn't. The last post in our exchange is this one, which I wrote and to which you did not reply. Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:
You are arguing a strawman the whole way through. No, I'm not. You, on the other hand, are about to straw man the shit out of the idea of a right to healthcare. Let's see... Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:My original post clearly said: The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. This is different than the government having an obligation to provide health-care. If someone has a right to health-care, it means they can receive it at any time regardless of whether they or anyone else is paying the health-care giver. And BAM, there you go - straw man. The idea of a right to healthcare (which, in this discussion, was put forward by Bernie Sanders in the video I linked to) is NOT what you just described.
No it was brought forward by Derez saying that people can vote to decide that people can have a right to get health-care I wasn't responding to you when I first made that statement.
If you want to define a RIGHT differently, then that's fine, however, "a right" already has a definition, as long as the doctor has the right to refuse service, or a company has the right to not sell you or the government the drugs, it can't be a right, it is only a privilege that is ensured by the government.
See? This is by definition a straw man - you are misrepresenting the idea in question to create the illusion that you easily addressed and refuted it, when in reality your argument did not address the said idea at all.
Ummm... no, you're arguing using a complex question, you're assuming that health-care is a right, and then you are asking me how this right is violating the health-givers' rights? Well it's not, but that's because it's NOT a right. Of course the government trying to guarantee health-care socializes a lot of the unneeded expenses, but somehow that's not part of the conversation.
The idea of a right to healthcare, as notably defended by Bernie Sanders, is about individuals having access to treatment because the government has to guarantee their access to treatment. If people can't afford it, the government still has to make sure they have access to it.
What if enough of a particular treatment doesn't exist for everyone? It's not a right it's a privilege. I don't care what Bernie Sanders calls it, you don't have the right to just walk in and receive treatment, because the doctor can refuse. The government attempts to ENSURE that you will receive treatment, so it's a privilege given by the government, or in other words the government takes on the obligation of ensuring your healthcare... still not a right.
At no point does the healthcare provider get his rights violated - he will get paid either by the individual or the government -, just like the right to counsel does not violate the rights of lawyers.
The right to counsel is a conditional right. The government HAS to provide a lawyer in order to be able to legally arrest you.
There's no viable analogy here. If it was the government that got people sick, then it would make sense that the government had to provide you with health-care, but that's not the case.
To sum up, you used a straw man and you were wrong.
no you're wrong.
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:
My entire stance against public health-care is based on HOW it's being paid for, and you try to ignore this.
I'm ignoring this because that is a different argument to the one I was responding to (the rights of healthcare providers being violated). You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the difference between the two, but that's no reason for me to allow you to hijack the discussion by meshing the two.[/QUOTE]
It's not a different issue, because once you realize that health-care can't be a RIGHT unless you're making it ok to violate other people's rights, you have to get into a discussion of whether it's worth to make health-care a government ensured privilege.
|
The right to counsel is a conditional right. The government HAS to provide a lawyer in order to be able to legally arrest you.
There's no viable analogy here. If it was the government that got people sick, then it would make sense that the government had to provide you with health-care, but that's not the case.
How is this different exactly? The government has to provide you with healthcare vs the government has to provide you with a lawyer. It actually is a pretty viable analogy, and I don't understand how you argue differently.
Can a lawyer refuse service if they don't want to represent somebody?
If you want to define a RIGHT differently, then that's fine, however, "a right" already has a definition, as long as the doctor has the right to refuse service, or a company has the right to not sell you or the government the drugs, it can't be a right, it is only a privilege that is ensured by the government.
Doctors have the right to refuse services? Like for no reason? Isn't that against the Hippocratic oath?
You seem to be defining "right" the way you want it to be defined. Technically that's fine, but that's where the argument should be had. But it sounds like you're not willing to have the argument. It's not a right to the best healthcare, the claim is that there is a right to basic healthcare, and that does not necessarily violate the rights of others.
|
Santorum in the most recent debate: “The problem with Congressman Paul is, all the things that Republicans like about him he can’t accomplish and all the things they’re worried about, he’ll do Day One."
I'll read this as an endorsement. Wonder how true it is. To the extent it is true, it's a pretty decent case for him.
|
On January 10 2012 04:40 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +The right to counsel is a conditional right. The government HAS to provide a lawyer in order to be able to legally arrest you.
There's no viable analogy here. If it was the government that got people sick, then it would make sense that the government had to provide you with health-care, but that's not the case. How is this different exactly? The government has to provide you with healthcare vs the government has to provide you with a lawyer. It actually is a pretty viable analogy, and I don't understand how you argue differently. Can a lawyer refuse service if they don't want to represent somebody?
I'm pretty sure that a lawyer can refuse service some particular reason, but since there are those that work for the government, at some point unless all lawyers quit you'll get a lawyer. But if you absolutely can't get a lawyer, then the government can't detain you... that's what that right is about. It's so you don't get detained without having someone who understands that law represent you in court.
Health-care is not like that at all... Health-care is an actual service that people need outside the scope of the rules that the government establishes.
Show nested quote +If you want to define a RIGHT differently, then that's fine, however, "a right" already has a definition, as long as the doctor has the right to refuse service, or a company has the right to not sell you or the government the drugs, it can't be a right, it is only a privilege that is ensured by the government. Doctors have the right to refuse services? Like for no reason? Isn't that against the Hippocratic oath? You seem to be defining "right" the way you want it to be defined. Technically that's fine, but that's where the argument should be had. But it sounds like you're not willing to have the argument. It's not a right to the best healthcare, the claim is that there is a right to basic healthcare, and that does not necessarily violate the rights of others.
the hippocratic oath doesn't explicitly state you always have to help people, although it does suggest that you have a responsibility to, but doctors, pharmacists, or anyone else reserve their right to refuse service, of course if they signed a contract which says they can't refuse service, they will have to abide by the penalties written in the contract.
I'm not defining a right the way I want to be defined. You can't have a right to someone else's service/good, because he has the right to refuse, it doesn't matter whether it's health-care, food, phones, car, home, etc. It cant be a human right at least, if the government ensures that you receive this, then the costs need to be addressed.
|
I'm not defining a right the way I want to be defined. You can't have a right to someone else's service/good, because he has the right to refuse, it doesn't matter whether it's health-care, food, phones, car, home, etc. It cant be a human right at least, if the government ensures that you receive this, then the costs need to be addressed.
But see that's exactly what I mean. A lawyer is clearly a service. We still call it the "right to a lawyer." That's clearly the sense of word "right" in this case. Not a "human right," which is implied to be innate, and not government given (life, liberty, property). Actually, you may disagree on that point, but I would actually say that's rather off-topic.
It doesn't necessarily violate rights of the healthcare industry, because the government could actually provide the healthcare if the private industry does not. Which obviously just means it's a matter of cost and feasibility.
|
Canada11350 Posts
On January 10 2012 02:30 koreasilver wrote:
Can we stop calling each other "bots" in this thread? Obamabots, Paulbots, etc.. It's extremely retarded. There is no denying that a lot of the so-called Ron Paul supporters in this thread have resorted to conspiracy theories and spam the thread with propaganda, but reading "bots bots bots bots" is rather irritating.
I agree with this. A lot of discussion boards I've seen have been shot to hell with bot this bot that. And this is followed by disparaging insults from the Obama or Ron Paul camp. It creates more heat than light regardless of the conspiracy theories thrown around.
|
On January 09 2012 13:02 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 11:41 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 09 2012 11:39 stevarius wrote:On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though...  I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry. Being a non-interventionalist is dangerous? The fuck? What planet do you live on? Aye. It's never worked, it never will work, and trying to make it work has only resulted in bigger, longer, deadlier wars. Earth. It's pretty nice here, most times. Perhaps you've never heard of Switzerland? They have not been majorly involved in any conflict since the formal creation of their country in 1815. They are currently leading the world in many areas, including wealth, education and others.
Switzerland is a small country based in a very large mountain range where military service is compulsory. We are all not so lucky as to be geographically gifted or politically irrelevant.
|
On January 10 2012 06:14 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 13:02 ryanAnger wrote:On January 09 2012 11:41 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 09 2012 11:39 stevarius wrote:On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though... I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry. Being a non-interventionalist is dangerous? The fuck? What planet do you live on? Aye. It's never worked, it never will work, and trying to make it work has only resulted in bigger, longer, deadlier wars. Earth. It's pretty nice here, most times. Perhaps you've never heard of Switzerland? They have not been majorly involved in any conflict since the formal creation of their country in 1815. They are currently leading the world in many areas, including wealth, education and others. Switzerland is a small country based in a very large mountain range where military service is compulsory. We are all not so lucky as to be geographically gifted or politically irrelevant.
Yes we are. We're 5000+ miles away from half the places we decide to invade.
You do realize that if weren't fucking around in the Middle East we wouldn't have had 1/10 of the terroists/enemies we do today?
|
We're also a very large country with a very large, diverse population. We are not landlocked, nor are we shut up in mountains. Nor do we have compulsory military service. Our defense is not guaranteed by anyone else, either. For fifty years Europe has lived under the shield arm of America, and to a lesser extent, Britain. The world would be a much different place right now if America had not decided to provide Europe's defense.
The situation in the Middle East has been going on since before there was an America. I highly doubt that we have one more enemy than we would have had. Probably far fewer.
|
On January 10 2012 06:19 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 06:14 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 09 2012 13:02 ryanAnger wrote:On January 09 2012 11:41 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 09 2012 11:39 stevarius wrote:On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though... I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry. Being a non-interventionalist is dangerous? The fuck? What planet do you live on? Aye. It's never worked, it never will work, and trying to make it work has only resulted in bigger, longer, deadlier wars. Earth. It's pretty nice here, most times. Perhaps you've never heard of Switzerland? They have not been majorly involved in any conflict since the formal creation of their country in 1815. They are currently leading the world in many areas, including wealth, education and others. Switzerland is a small country based in a very large mountain range where military service is compulsory. We are all not so lucky as to be geographically gifted or politically irrelevant. Yes we are. We're 5000+ miles away from half the places we decide to invade. You do realize that if weren't fucking around in the Middle East we wouldn't have had 1/10 of the terroists/enemies we do today?
You also realize the US wouldn't be half as rich as it currently is? Fordism (not named after the president) was based around cheap, infinite oil. That didn't actually ship itself to the US.
|
On January 10 2012 03:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 03:36 nam nam wrote:On January 09 2012 14:54 vetinari wrote:On January 09 2012 11:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 09 2012 11:37 Rodimus Prime wrote:On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote:
Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle. I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today. Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks. Uh.... You mentioned an example of judging someone you want to marry or date based on their appearances... Do you really judge the people who you want to vote for on physical appearances? I understand judging a potential mate on their physical appearances, but a politician? How on earth could that possibly be a good idea? Actually, physical attractiveness correlates positively with leadership ability, intelligence, good character and good health, all of which are rather important attributes for the "leader of the free world". Just saying. Eh, wtf kind of justification is that? Even if there are a statistical corralation between those things, it's not an absolute (it's far from true in all cases, you got plenty of examples of this). So regardless it's pretty retarded to use that as a argument for one person over another unless you are really lazy.... Just saying. Again, it sounds like the correlations have to do with "perceived" attributes, not real ones (although leadership has a lot to do with perceptions, so that's may work). Humans tend to attribute good things to good things. This is not a strange phenomenon. It's not necessarily something we do consciously. It's just incorrect.
No, the correlations are actually real. Good looking people are actually
smarter (the difference is about 10 IQ* between good looking and ugly),
healthier (good looks basically mean that you had a nutritious diet**, little disease/stress while growing up, and have genes that predispose to good health and fertility/virility),
better leaders*** (this is where the halo effect plays a significant role),
better character (the uglier you are, the more likely you are to be criminal),
on average, than average/ugly people.
The mechanism for such a thing is quite simple to explain: intelligent, charismatic male, is successful, marries and has children with a beautiful (healthy, fertile), good (probably will not cheat given opportunity) woman. Children inherit those traits, in whole or in part.
Of course, population wide statistics don't tell you much about any specific individual.
*IQ correlates quite well with intelligence, (people that are regarded as intelligent by their peers score highly on IQ tests. People that are regarded as of middling intelligence by peers score about average, and people that are regarded as stupid perform badly). It also correlates well with educational attainment, income and intellectual achievements. So its not perfect, but its close enough to be useful.
**crooked teeth? blame a deficiency of vitamins A and K.
*** Taller people are perceived as better leaders: two thirds of fortune 500 CEO's are taller than 188cm (6ft 2inches), despite only 12% of males being that height.
|
^^^ Never heard of Elephant Man.
|
On January 10 2012 06:30 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 06:19 1Eris1 wrote:On January 10 2012 06:14 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 09 2012 13:02 ryanAnger wrote:On January 09 2012 11:41 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 09 2012 11:39 stevarius wrote:On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though... I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry. Being a non-interventionalist is dangerous? The fuck? What planet do you live on? Aye. It's never worked, it never will work, and trying to make it work has only resulted in bigger, longer, deadlier wars. Earth. It's pretty nice here, most times. Perhaps you've never heard of Switzerland? They have not been majorly involved in any conflict since the formal creation of their country in 1815. They are currently leading the world in many areas, including wealth, education and others. Switzerland is a small country based in a very large mountain range where military service is compulsory. We are all not so lucky as to be geographically gifted or politically irrelevant. Yes we are. We're 5000+ miles away from half the places we decide to invade. You do realize that if weren't fucking around in the Middle East we wouldn't have had 1/10 of the terroists/enemies we do today? You also realize the US wouldn't be half as rich as it currently is? Fordism (not named after the president) was based around cheap, infinite oil. That didn't actually ship itself to the US.
Maybe, but I'm pretty sure half as rich is a little bit of an exaggeration.
Personally I'd be fine with the USA being poorer in exchange for thousands of lives not lost and decent relations with certain countries.
(That does not mean we don't ever intervene in anything. There are of course special cases.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
