- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,879
- Reaction score
- 12,684
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Having a history is not equal to being right. Respect for rule of law should be one of our values.
Our value should be the rule of the correct law. There is nothing correct about a law that protects the soveriegnty of dictators who murder safely behind their borders. The "Rule of Law" is an excuse used too often by immmoral nations and people. Tell me, how many Rwandans or Sudanes respect us because we adhered to international law? When the Shia or the Kurd was being slaughtered in Iraq by Hussein, how many of them appreciated the high and mighty positions of people who follow the international law? I suppose if the UN simply stated no (as they did with Kosovo and pulled the "moral" support for Somalia) then they would have effectively told us the law? That dead Libyans owuld have died correctly in accordance to the law? I have no respect for laws that were made centuries ago to protect kings and kaisers against each other. It's a dictator's law meant to protect their own. And free nations, who represent everything there is about every level of prosperity and the future, are too concreted in this fantasy of soveriegnty that we are powerless to act on our good morality? It's like insisting that your surgeon operate with the tools fancied by doctors of the 18th century.
You're wrong, it does matter. It matters a great deal.
regardless of the UN, no nation should go around invading countries without justiifcation. Real justification. You can act to stop heavy killing. You can act to stop a imminent threat. But you can act on maybes and what ifs. I've listed the differences, and they matter. It has nothing to do with me feeling better, especially since I don't at all feel better. These things are costly on a number of levels, and no one should feel better when they happen.
Get used to the 21st century. The "evil" of this world is going to force you to change your mind on a few things. We no longer war against our rival Western gentlemen. Real justification is anything that will prevent 9/11s. And this means forcing the very region that breeds these instruments of God to change. It means assisting the rebelling people, who chant for democracy, against our former Cold War fellows. Iraqis had no chance. And because of this, we were forever stuck with that damned UN mission, which meant forever giving the Bin Ladens their excuses. The rest of the MENA is finally voicing out and removing their oppressors on their own. We have an obligation to help. It's in our best interest to deal with democracies (or at least "freed" people) for our oil.
We were wrong to support dictators, and we're wrong when we invade on a pretense and occupy a country. We're not the world police and we can't remake the world in our image without a real and serious cost. You're last sentence is a bit wrong. Again, it is one thing when a people stand up for themselves, and we help. It's another thing when we're so arrogant as to think we can impose ourselves on them, tellling them what is worth what. It is important to recognize differences.
It's important to recognize a lot of things here. We aren't imposing anything on anybody and "democracy" does not equal "America." You may not like it, but we can and we do lean on these governments all the time. Call it arrogance, but the fact is that we can do what others cannot. We should not belittle ourselves just to appease weaker nations who feel shunned by our fast paced power. Just because you don't see Marines charging into foriegn cities on television doesn't mean Washington isn't busy at work pressuring them constantly. We haven't invaded Iran, yet we have the entire world pissing all over Iran. We haven't invaded North Korea, yet we have the entire world ****ting on North Korea. When it came to Iraq, we spent 12 years appeasing the world's need to keep Iraq stable at all cost. We merely handled a problem denied us in 1991 by the same fools who planned 2003 and the same critics who would rather us be chained to the UN's will.
And "World Police" is such a cliche. A complete World Police? No. But at some level we are the World Police and we have done a damned fine job at it as well. Far better than European colonial powers and far better than the Soviet Union. What the hell do you think the Cold War was about? Why do you think we have Marine Expiditionary Units Special Operations Capable (MEUSOC) strategically located all over the world at any given time? It's to protect American interests (embassies, trade routes, allies from bad governments, etc.) whether the average American understands that interest or not. But despite popular bumper sticker protests, we have never injected our military haphazardly around the world and forced anybody to behave in any way other than what they already produced within their own culture. And when it comes to occupation, we have never occupied with the object of conquering and we have never sought to add another star to our flag. We are done with Iraq. We disposed of our thorn and settled in a suitable replacement type of government we can sleep over. We will be done with Afghanistan as soon as they can deliver on securing their future without Taliban oppression and radicalism. Unlike the Soviet Union who sought to Russianize the world, we have no interest in Americanizing anybody. If people associate modernism with Westernism it's because modernism happened in the West first. It has never been about Americanizing or Westernizing anybody in the MENA region. It's about finally allowing them to have modernist opportunity by assisting them at removing our Cold War legacies.
It's always been about our long term security. The dictator was always about our short term security at a time when we were able to get away with it. The future is past here.
And as far as imposing democracy upon people, we aren't imposing anything of the kind. They were wanting democracy at the beginning of European colonialism. They were denied. They wanted democracy after World War II and during the "Age of Independence." They were denied. And they are screaming for it now. Along the way, the radical base has gathered more and more sheep to the desperate crusade of seeking vengeance for God until most of them are completely hopeless. What exactly are we imposing? By not dealing with our Cold War remedies for tribal conflicts throughout the region, we are continuing to hamper what they already want. Iraq was a must since we effectively killed the people's chances for 12 years. The rest of the Middle East merely needed a Tunisia (Arch Duke Ferdinand) to spark it off. For something we are supposedly imposing, the entire Middle East seems more than eager to adopt what we got and have been trying to sell since 2003.