Selective intervention is a means, not an end.

Post #120,906 by marlowe 10/11/03 9:37:37 AM Reply	Selective intervention is a means, not an end. If we select wisely, that simply means we prioritise our targets according to both urgency and strategic considerations. Which - guess what - is more or less what we're doing now. And if we keep intervening, that amounts to being the world's policeman. You can't police the world halfheartedly. It doesn't work. That's what led to 9/11. Domination is as domination does. I can see you enjoy semantic games, but I'm more of a practical sort. So I'm calling it what is. A benign world government, securing peace, dignity and freedom for the individual of all the world, headquartered in Washington, DC. Unless you'd prefer a "balance of power" between all this and its opposite: petty tribal wars, contempt for human rights, and brutal dictatorships. That is, the status quo ante in the sort of places in which we intevene. Moral equivalence is morally indefensible. It's the real simplisme. The ultimate non-thought. Oh, and by the way: The Roman Empire and the British Empire both lasted an impressively long time, and traces of their influence remain to this day. If you're going to discuss history, do at least try to note the time scales involved. They also both left the dominated parts of the world in better shape than they had been in to begin with. I should think that counts for something. Also, to say that these empires destroyed their countries is quite a stretch. For all you know, they may have prolonged their lives. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEAL WITH IT. "I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites." - Bill Whittle Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
Post #120,918 by JayMehaffey 10/11/03 1:20:49 PM Reply	I would agree Marlow, if Domination is as domination does. I can see you enjoy semantic games, but I'm more of a practical sort. So I'm calling it what is. A benign world government, securing peace, dignity and freedom for the individual of all the world, headquartered in Washington, DC. I would agree Marlow, if I thought there was any chance of the above actually happening. But history shows quite well that world dominating countries don't do it to spread the common good. That can be a side effect in some cases, but certainly not all. Look at the US's own history in South America, overthrowing democratically elected governments because the elected government wasn't pro-US or threatened US buisnesses. If the US is to dominate the world, we will do the same thing again. Jay
Post #121,037 by marlowe 10/13/03 9:18:11 AM Reply	Shame. Look at US history in Germany, Japan, Panama... France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Korea, Israel and yes, even the Philippines. (I'm sure I left some out, but you get the idea.) Then contrast to the sort of regimes you would prefer we leave alone. Like Saddam's for instance. Is there a neigboring people he didn't invade and either slaughter or try to slaughter? And then see if you can muster the grace for an abject apology. Or maybe you'll shame yourself further by using the old "but we did it for selfish motives" canard. If the US had been out for itself, there were far more obvious ways to go about it. Like occupying and looting all these countries instead of giving them democracy and a Marshall Plan. Beneficient is as beneficient does. The United States is the most selfless hegemon there has ever been, as even the most cursory comparative review will show, and the most detailed will verify. Oh, and then look at the Chile case a bit more closely, and tell me if you've been fair even there. That regime was as democratic as Hitler's. He came into power by democratic means too, ya know. Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame. You try to defend the worst scoundrels of the world by carping on the smallest errors of their betters. Is there an honest bone in your body? ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEAL WITH IT. Compromise is for suckers. Seeking a middle ground is what led to 9/11. "I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites." - Bill Whittle Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
Post #121,067 by JayMehaffey 10/13/03 2:01:31 PM Reply	What? Shame. Look at US history in Germany, Japan, Panama... France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Korea, Israel and yes, even the Philippines. (I'm sure I left some out, but you get the idea.) Then contrast to the sort of regimes you would prefer we leave alone. Like Saddam's for instance. Is there a neigboring people he didn't invade and either slaughter or try to slaughter? What? When did we invade France, Italy, Belgium, Holland or Israel? I imagine you are taking about the aftermath of WWII here. There is a huge difference between WWII and the sort of war of domination you are supporting, we where dragged into WWII against our wills. Or maybe you'll shame yourself further by using the old "but we did it for selfish motives" canard. If the US had been out for itself, there were far more obvious ways to go about it. Like occupying and looting all these countries instead of giving them democracy and a Marshall Plan. Beneficient is as beneficient does. The United States is the most selfless hegemon there has ever been, as even the most cursory comparative review will show, and the most detailed will verify. Neither country had much worth looting left. And both where needed to serve a much more important role, allies against Russia. The issue of why the reconstruction went so much better in those countries then what we are facing now is a whole different argument. Oh, and then look at the Chile case a bit more closely, and tell me if you've been fair even there. That regime was as democratic as Hitler's. He came into power by democratic means too, ya know. What did you have in mind? I have never seen anything against Allende that stood up to scrutiny. And in any case, even you have to admit that Pinochet was far worse. Pinochet probably can't be 100% blaimed on the US, as the US probably didn't pick him. But the US had been encouraging the military to stage a coup for some time, and was more then willing to work with him afterwards. Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame. You try to defend the worst scoundrels of the world by carping on the smallest errors of their betters. Is there an honest bone in your body? You have to get the idea that I am defending people like Saddam out of your head. Your trying to polarize the sitatuion, either I support invasion or I support Saddam. The reality is that I support neither. Remeber Marlow, it's among the people you are supporting that you will find the people that helped Saddam. Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!