In fact there is such a thing as 'good' imperialism, which should be recognized. Britain, it should be noted was, overall, quite a good imperial power. We can see by the legacy they left behind in Canada, Australia, the United States, etc. that these countries are the powerhouses of their areas. Had the Brits behaved in the same 'imperialist' fashion in the Middle East, rather than allowing despots to take over and rule, we probably wouldn't be having this problem now.
I'm sure every impaire sees themselves as good. Britian is a good example of an empire that despite good intentions, not only hurt other countries, but themselves quite a bit. And Britian contributed to the problems in the ME with their imperialism. they weren't alone by any means, but it is arrogance to believe you can decide for others what is right, what is better, and what they ahve to do.
Yes, there is a legitimate reason to be there now and that is or national security. If you think that other despots aren't going too take over this area then you're as foolish as Jimmy Carter was regarding Iran. Recall that there are still many religious freaks who commonly refer to the US as "The Great Satan".
There was never a national interest that justified invading. And there isn't one for staying. Those depots, whoever you're speaking of, cannot defeat us, cannot do anything differently to us rather we stay or go. 19 individuals can come toegether regardless of what happens in Iraq. And what caused Iran, what followed was not Carter's fault, but every president before him who allowed evil like the Shah to be a partner of ours. You might recall how easily Reagan appeased terroists, while you're misremembering.
To use as we want? Where did I say that? Had we supported the Shah and his policies Iran would be a lot better off today than with the crazed religious fanatics in charge now, pursuing nuclear weapons.
Read what you wrote. Supporting the Shah is what led to where we are. You have it backwards.
This moral equivalence stuff is rubbish and should be abandoned forthwith. Americans are not hanging Gays from lampposts, subjugating women, have death squads murdering dissidents, rape rooms, and so on. In fact the fathers and grandfathers of present day Americans fought against such injustices and never identified with them in any way.
I'm not sure you know what the term moral equivilence means. You don't have to be exactly equal to still be wrong. And if you're the person living under the tyrannt we support, you'd be hard pressed to see our way as better. You don't seem to understand how hate is bred.
Nor have I said Americans are for such things, only that we've turned a blind eye when it suited us to do so. Saddam was brutal, and we turned a blind eye while he was doing it (waited until long after with much suffering before we added injury to injury). We saw no evil while the Shah was brutalizing his people, and were cshocked those people revolted and saw us as the enemy. Not to mention we've used their resources as if they were ours.
America's 'core values' in the broader sense have pretty much disappeared if its become th fashion to idenitfy themselves with despots and not defend the greater good.
But isn't that what you support? You say we should have supported the Shah and Saddam when we did? I'm the one arguing we should ahve some core values, not you.
No, it's for when the security forces decide. If the United States is that easily pushed around then their adventurism anywhere in the world is going to do more than than good. Anyone can then tell them to piss off and they'll just do as they're told. It's back to square one in Iraq quite soon and probably greater dangers ahead in Libya.
None of those countries are ours. You do realize this don't you? Would you like me coming into your home tellign you want to do? And saying I'll only leave when I think you're ready? After all, the only critieria was because I could. Can you really not see that we don't own these countries?
He participated in the murder, without even seeking Congressional approval, of a another world leader, and recognized as such by the United Nations. Who gave barrack Obama the authority to do that?
George Bush gave Saddam Hussein plenty of opportunity to step down and leave, while Gadaffi was not afforded the same offer at all. It was murder, and with no real reason ever given.
Murder? Wow you do make leaps. He worked within the UN, with agreements already signed and in place. This legal framework has been discussed several times. I still disagree with hi9m doing so, but congress saying we're too weak to decide, so we'll you decide as they did with Bush is really no better. Had congress actually declared war, you'd have a point, although we'd still be left without a justifiable reason for war. But they didn't.
And who are we to give anyone notice to step down? Iraq does not belong to us. We do not rule the world.
It was very direct. You may not have read it.
Saying something direct that in no way responds to what is said is not very fruitful. Try again.
