You don't need a good argument to not go there. Not going there is and rationally should be the default reaction to other people's problems. You need a good argument to justify going there.
How exactly did the US start this fire?
But yes, certainly US policy is inconsistent. That's a consequence of democracy. The Bush administration's policies drove the US into two unpopular and horribly expensive wars, greatly diminished US influence abroad, created all manner of controversy at home, etc. The party that embraced those policies was voted out of office, partly because of those policies. Naturally, those policies changed. Why would anyone want to be consistent with policies that didn't achieve the desired effect and produced all manner of adverse unintended consequences? Why be consistent when something doesn't work?
Bookmarks