Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,430
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − No, the United states only has limited resources which are quickly being consumed by the debacle in the Middle east. We should not assume the position of world police where whatever Americans think rules the world, despite its vast ignorance of foreign cultures. This was even to say if i thought communism needed eradication. Communism in the true form would actually interest a lot of people, class distinctions would be eliminated, there would be one flat tax for everyone. Marxism is actually not such a bad thing, however, the possibility of communism actually existing is another topic. Many times Stalinism, or the lesser Leninism exists instead, and even then it is not our duty to "liberate the world"
Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there? (view source)
Revision as of 14:11, September 7, 2007
, 14:11, September 7, 2007Reverted edits by TomLee (Talk); changed back to last version by Smedricksman24
{{debate}}
{{debate}}
Definitely; we're the only world power, after all; it's our job to go in and stop communism there. If we don't, it'll only come here! [[User:CraigK|CraigK]] 22:37, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Definitely; we're the only world power, after all; it's our job to go in and stop communism there. If we don't, it'll only come here! [[User:CraigK|CraigK]] 22:37, 7 March 2007 (EST)