Well, that is their problem. The non-permanent makeup of the UNSC is spread out throughout the world... there have been times where there have been two Arab members - depending on who the Africans elect.
It's not anyone's "problem," I'm simply explaining why they don't particularly care what the UNSC says. I mean, how much do *you* respect the UN when it does something you disagree with? I hope to never see you on the bandwagon talking about how ineffective or illegitimate the UN is. Arab concerns with the UN structure are at least as valid as yours if not moreso, since the US and its allies actually do wield considerable power over the body, which is more than can be said of the Arab world.
Didn't say that. Just raised question as to the cause. I believe it is more a cause of the insurgents not accepting democratic institutions. Otherwise, why are they spending so much time attacking Iraqis, Iraqi infrastructure, Iraqis voting, etc. rather than solely targeting u.S. service personnel?
They wouldn't be attacking anyone period if not for the US invasion. You can assess for yourself whether Iraq is better or worse now than it was before the war, but it's the height of arrogance to suggest that your view on the issue is better than the people who actually live with the consequences. American actions in Iraq obviously haven't made us too many friends in the region. Rather than chalking that up to how unreasonable and pig-headed the people who live there are, you might consider the possibility that they understand their region, culture, and politics better than you do.
And I think that so-called laundry list is for the most part not the U.S.'s fault.
Virtually every item on the list is at least partially America's doing.
Well, your problem, then.
The point is that you can't just pick out a few stupid quotes from Ahmadinejad and declare that Iran is a dangerous threat. How seriously would you take it if an Arab or an Iranian picked out a few stupid quotes from Bush and declared that the United States was a threat? This is exactly what I was talking about, when I said that people all over the world often greatly overestimate foreign threats. You are behaving no differently than the Arabs who you label as pigheaded and unreasonable.
Difference -- Saddam INTENTIONALLY killed innocent civilians... the U.S. it is largely inadvertant...
I doubt that the families of the people who are being killed really give a damn whether it was intentional or inadvertant, especially when it was done to an advance an agenda they may not agree with in the first place. It's the distinction over whether someone who throws bricks off an overpass is "intentionally" or "inadvertantly" killing people...it really doesn't matter because they were showing reckless disregard for others, for no discernible reason.
If China started bombing Taiwan and killed someone you care about, would you care if it was intentional or not? Would you even listen to any suggestion that it might have been inadvertant, or would you naturally assume the worst based on your feelings about China?
and who has killed more civilians, the U.S. or the so-called insurgents?
In Iraq? I'm really not sure. In the entire Arab world over the last several decades? Definitely the United States. And most of the deaths from the insurgency were ultimately caused by the United States anyway.
Look, the world isn't perfect. You seem to have the notion that we live in an ideal world. We don't. I would suggest that it was reasonable for us to support some of these scumbags during the Cold War. It isn't nice and pretty, but Realpolitik was reasonable in the global context.
Listen to yourself. You are justifying totalitarianism, civilian deaths, and occupying foreign countries against their will, under the justification of realpolitik. Read what you just wrote and put those words in the mouth of Vladimir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a justification for THEIR questionable geopolitical decisions. How seriously do you take THOSE arguments?
Then perhaps you should follow the thread of the conversation.
I posted that bombing an Arab state probably angers a lot of Arabs, and you posted some irrelevant crap about American partisan politics. :roll:
So long as they don't attack their neighbors and violate tenants of international law, I am in agreement with you. If they become safe havens for terrorists (a la Hamas and Gaza), there IS a serious problem with that.
The United States has attacked more Middle Eastern countries unprovoked and killed more Arab civilians than anyone else in the last 50 years.
The U.S. started its action in concert with others in Libya at the request of the Arab League
...an entity which is going to need lots of new nametags by the end of the year after the people get through deposing their (mostly) US-backed dictators.
Who elected them again? Libya is a classic example of the United States sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, bombing Arabs "for their own good," siding with some unknown group of people against a leader it doesn't like, and barely even considering the consequences of its actions. If we go and depose the National Transitional Council in 20 years, I'm quite sure that the President of the US will have found a new group of Libyan allies, who are no doubt fully committed to democracy (i.e. supporting the United States). And the casualties of any war will certainly not be the fault of the United States in any way whatsoever! :roll:
I believe the U.S. policy is influnence BOTH by self-interest and altruism. For one, in some cases altruism is in the national interest in the U.S. I am of the belief that other states commitment to democracy, transparancy and human rights is in the national interest of the United States - altruistic or not.
Looking at the state of Arab countries and the fact that nearly all of their governments are immensely unpopular, I see no evidence of any altruism on the part of the United States...or even many good results as a byproduct of self-interest.
As for democracy, transparency, and human rights...I can get behind that. But let's not forget that the United States has been among the biggest opponents of democracy and transparency in the Arab world for many decades, and even today offers (at best) tepid support for these ideals. And as far as human rights go, let's start by correcting the human rights abuses that we actually have some control over (i.e. those which our government is directly responsible for itself).
