Do you think the US should act in its best interest or act fair?

Do you think Nazis or Terrorists should act in its best interest or act fair?

 

Clearly they should act in our best interest, but be as fair as possible.

DD

 

The US should act in the 'fairest' manner possible...while being aware of its own best interests.

Do unto others...and all that.

 

Careful... your stripes are showing!

 

I think we worry about what is in our best interest
moreso than being fair

Is it in our best interest to bomb a country into submission
and looking like a big bully to the rest of the world
and maybe have a few other countries thinkinig they maybe next
or
try to be overly friends and risk looking like a bunch of wimps unwilling
to use the big stick

Rocket River

 

I think that acting fair is in the best interest of the U.S.

 

The reality is all people will act in their self- interest. If we don't realize that, if we think the rest of the world is full of people who will love us if only we were nicer to them, then we will be in trouble.

And yes I do think being fair can often be in our self- interest.

 

While no one is a genuine fortuneteller, we should learn the obvious lessons of our past to avoid short term gains (oil supply increases through liberation, uncontrollable budget deficits, etc...) that would impact our long term best interests.

Acting fair has its benefits. It shows that we're genuine to our neighbors and enemies, and it allows the building of bases on foreign lands....

 

I plead Machiavelli on this one...

 

isn't invading other countries and attacking civilians in the best interest of nazis and terrorists?

 

I think US should absolutely act in its best interest, as it is doing now. However, maybe US should stop the claim of acting fair. People will accept that better.

 

Strike Two!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

One more and you’re out giddy!

In answer to the question, it is in the United States’ best interest to act fairly. If you think it through there isn’t an either/or situation here. The US has many examples to draw on too. Previous administrations thought it was in their best interest to ally themselves with Saddam, for example. But, when you compromise your principles like that it comes back to bite you, and it surely did with Saddam, and there are countless other examples like this too. I think you’d have a very hard time coming up with an example where, in the long run, it’s in any nation’s best interest not to be fair.

 

I don't think I disagree with you.

I'm objecting to the Nazis and the terrorists being made analgous to the US Military which has freed a nation from the grips of a tyrant and established an election where people actually wept because they were allowed to vote.

What say you to that?

 

well is that what they basically? I thought they illegaly attacked and occupied a country based on manipulated information..

did I just specifically compare what nazis and terrorists to what america did to iraq?

i am just saying that its verry dangerous to let anyone can do what ever for their best interest..

strike three! what you gonna do about it *****!

 

Well, you are taking a very selective view of what happened, of course. If that’s what the intention of this administration was then they should have said that from the start, right? That’s where the first compromise was made, or one of the first anyway. I suspect that they thought it was in their short term best interest to sell the war on the grounds that it was to stop Saddam from using WMD, even if this wasn’t honest or fair. They probably thought that it would be easier to get approval this way, but in doing this they violated the trust of the American public, the Iraqi public, and must of the world, and further they showed that they don’t really understand the bigger, long term, problem. The only way to effectively defeat the terrorists is to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the moderates, and by not being honest or fair and by launching this war on false pretences they all but lost that battle, and therefore the war, from the very start. It would have been better to be honest and fair with what they were doing from the start, says I to that.

 

Someone who supports terrorists like Al Queda are not moderates, IMO. I find it amusing that in threads where the connection between Islam and violence is debated, 99.9% of Muslims (allegedly) are 'moderate' and not only don't support violence/terrorism, but thoroughly denounce it. In threads like this one there is a question of whether 'moderates' sympathize and support terrorists, and if they do its our fault, lol.

As far as the thread question, being 'fair' is too relative an assessment. Should we create a disadvantage for our own population so other populations 'like' us more? I think the answer to that is 'no, unless in such an instance we create a larger advantage for ourselves.' For example, while Kyoto might hurt the economy - it might very well be in our interest to make the transition in our economy away from fossil fuels. Also it certainly is NOT in our interest for global warming to increase. However, ironically any attempt to be 'fair' would either be perceived as weakness, some sort of paternalistic imperialism, or a ploy. This is best exemplified by the criticism we receive when we DO intervene (Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo) and when we do NOT intervene (Rwanda).

 

It would be in our best interest to occupy Canada and Saudi Arabia, wall off the border with Mexico, embark on an assination program to eliminate Wahabbism as a school of thought, preemptivly strike North Korea and Iran..and Pakistan, to amass NATO troops on the Polish Russian border to reign in Putin, assign a 30% import duty everthing coming in from China, eliminate all non public campaign financing, legalize and heavily tax the sale of narcotics to adults, bully Israel into giving up settlements outside of the green zone.

So no, it's probably better to play fair. Atleast then your conscience is clear when the law of unintended consequences come back to bite you in the ass.

 

why do those two things have to be mutually exclusive?