I don't follow. The first part is what I was saying could be an argument, the second does not follow the first logically (if the UN was successful in deterring the WMD program, then how could that prove he had one?).
You are correct. A minority of agents do still believe that, with little or no evidence to back their position. While the side which discredits it, can actually place Atta in another country(U.S.) at the time the meeting was supposed to have taken place. Just look at the evidence, and if base your decision based on that.
So we went to war over a 'likelyhood' of an intention? I am not sure that we are the independant body assigned the task of removing those we deem to be too homicidal....ceasing to fund them, stopping to put and keep them in power, maybe even reconsidering arming them, yes, these are certainly within our purview...but considering our tendancy to do these, our call to get 'proactive' because we don't like what he's doing might just cause more than one observor to question either our judgment or motivation in this particular area, let alone our authority to act on our judgment in the face of global rejection of our contention that we know best. WMD: Ahhh...the old " Let's invade another country and start a war based on what we consider to be implausible " argument...God, if I had a nickle...There are, of course, all kinds of alternate explanations: That he interfered merely because he's an ornery cuss, to show his neighbors and supporters that he won't cowtow to Western power, however petty the gestures, that he had some to hide but that they were eventually degraded or desroyed as he claimed, or that we overestimated the degree of his obfuscation. But neither are really the point. War is the most serious measure, and should be made on a certainty, not a suspicion. This is a fairly commonly accepted ideal, especially in the rest of the world which has borne witness to a lot more war at home than Norht America in the past 100 years, and as such the rest of the world asked for more than suspicion of WMD, iminent threats, etc...and we produced none, other than falsehoods, and expected it to be good enough. I am on record as saying I expected that Husssein had WMD, and the issue wasn't that we ahouldn't invade because he doesn't have them, but because invasion based on non-proven suspicions is an incredibly dangerous precedent, especially in the face of disapproval of the very body deemed to be the deciding body on the matter in question. I said that we should show the proof and get the UN/world on board, or admit that we haven't any, and are pushing to invade on a suspicion, which would obviously suggest that we have 'alternative' motives for pushing this issue right now, after a decade of 'suspicions' hasn't proven any kind of threat to the US, or anyone for that matter... And that's another element, the timing of the whole thing. So Saddam has a despotic regime for decades...and we support him, and then cut his funding when the USSR collapses...he tries the passive aggressive approach with the UN inspection teams for years...and what was the cost of that? No connection has been made of him using the time to support attacks against the US, no evidence has been found that heas used the time to stockpile WMDs...and actuallu it would begin to appear more and more that the UN inspections were doing exactly what they were designed to do. So, again...why now? What did his little rebellions gainst Western authority cost? Western pride? Was the timing of the whole thing, as some have suggested, at least in part a measure to show the region that the US is the Big Dog? If so, I hope that the dead forgive us our pride... And he was 'unlikely' to reform? Wow, you are a lot more comfortable with taking the ultimate step, ie war, deaths of others, etc. on pretty loose rationale than I am, I'll say that for you. But thinking like that does expalin why we broke from the UN, as they have clearly outlined parameters for when and where to get involved, and what constitutes a necessary action. Our position that it is insufficent would ring a little more soundly were it not for the fact that we helped write it, and held others to it for decades. I am gald we are in agreement on 9-11...But duck, I expect a Czeck report is coming your way... Re: Afghanistan...I either didn't make my point clear enough, or you missed it. I am not saying that the Taliban was a positive...nor am I saying that Saddam Hussein was a positve...I am saying that in both cases we made one case for going in, and when we failed, changed the case afterwards...and those who want to continue to support the efforts because they buy the later case. That those later cases can be regarded as true, or positive doesn't take away from their cost...and first among them should be the same at home in the US as it is abroad...a complete lack of trust in what reasons we give for why we are doing something. Think about it, and forget for a second whether the Taliban was nasty, ect...If you're living in France, or Ireland, or New Zealnd...are you going to trust the Unted States the next time it tells you you need to go to war on their say so and intelligence? Should you? And if you are thinking differently at home, why? And the reason the Un parameters are in place in the first place is that history has shown that the smaller the circle of accountability for actions, the more succeptible those actions are to limited self-serving motivation. The world questioned our motivation before the war...what do you think they think now? And why wouldn't they? When you take Justice into your hands, you'd better be pretty perfect, and we have been far from that. The reason Justice is blind is so as to stay objective and removed from slf-interest...does that sound like the Bush administration to you? Even if we think we are just and objective and fair, and the oil connection is just a coincidence, then what gives us the right to defy the world and take was is not offered us freely? What kind of nation has done that, historically? Only nations which thought themselves corrupt, evil, and selfish?
Not prove that he had one, but show that it was reasonable to believe he had one. If the general premise is that the inspections etc worked far better than anyone believed, then it logically follows that generally people felt they were not working despite what the UN says.
There is no such thing as an independent body that can really objectively assess risks. To think the UN could do this is crazy. They have too many different agendas. I believe they only authorized military acton in very few wars this past century, even though intervention and self-defense have been justified many times. It's not true that we have ignored him for decades. Bush I invaded. The UN then tried all types of resolutions and inspectors to stop him, which didn't work. Then Clinton launched missile strikes and seemed on the cusp of doing more, before the US was called racist in a town hall metting and he backed down. Also, the reason it happened now is because 9/11 woke a lot of people up the reality that the problem of the Middle East (with its poverty, extremism, violence, and access to technology) is not going to go away by itself. It was going to take aggressive military action to topple these dangerous forces followed by reform, stabilty, economic prosperity and democracy. [/B][/QUOTE] I do think you have a point here. The Bush Administration said the threat was imminent, and it seems pretty clear so far that the threat was not imminent. George Will stated that the pre-emptive doctine is in danger. It may be harder to build a coalition in the future. But I don't think the negatives are quite as horrible as you think. To state it bluntly, does it really matter that much if people in Ireland or New Zealand don't trust the American government? I don't support alienating other countries, but they really don't have much say anyways, and even if they did have a say, they don't have our best interests in mind. Why kind of nation has NOT done that, historically? Most strong empires of the past, such as Greece, Rome, or Great Britain did do what was in their best interests and did not ask for permission from the rest of the world. The difference is the US is not the same kind of power, we are not interested in obtaining land and enriching ourselves. What we are really looking for is security, which brings us back to 9/11 and the realization that we are not safe from the extremists.
Interesting. Bash us coming and going. 'The US can't be trusted to make a good decision because they put Saddam in power, kept him in power, and armed him.' Then say 'The US can't be trusted to make a good decision because they removed Saddam from power.' 50 countries joined the coalition. So if your argument is that more opinions make it less likely to make a mistake, what is the problem? Roughly the SAME number of countries said this was a good idea as in PGW1. The underlying principle of your whole UN stance is that more opinions = less likely mistake. Then I guess he miscalculated, eh? And the funny part is that you are making the argument that he was not going to cooperate with the UN, lol. Then again he miscalculated. He could have at any point stopped the whole process by being transparent with, uh, the UN... There was plenty of rationale behind the claim that he had active WMD programs. He was not cooperating, obviously hiding stuff, there are ex-scientists from Iraq saying he will drive for WMD until he has them, there are intelligence reports and his empirical record. All point to the conclusion that he had them. So, this is not some visit to the freakin gypsy fortune teller. There was and still is a reasonable case that intervention in Iraq was necessary for the prevention of WMD proliferation. What was the cost? Strange, but thousands of Iraqis each year that have died as a result of Saddam's genocidal policies would not say there was no cost. As for the WMD cost, the cost of underestimating his WMD development was FAR FAR greater than the cost of an intervention that fails to turn up WMD. Again MacBeth comes with the overexaggerrated and misleading generalizations. Clearly outlined parameters, huh? Last time I checked, the parameters for intervening in another country had changed recently, yes? They include intervention to stop crimes against humanity like genocide. And you are so funny sometimes. In one part of your philosophy you droll on about all the times the US has gone outside international law/convention, and in another you act like this one action removing the lynchpin of the international order that we created. You've got more circles that the Olympic trademark... Absolutely not true with respect to Iraq. From the very beginning part of the case for removing Saddam was that he was a evil genocidal tyrant. That was not a Johnny come lately justification. I am on record, to use your words, as saying in the beginning that this was the only necessary justification for the intervention. Take? Take what? What are we taking? Are we keeping Iraq? I don't think so.
1) Again, you missed my point. Yes, if you want, you can look at this as general USA criticism. But you're either intentionally overlooking the connection between early Iraq-US interaction and present day, or it needs more clarification. It is not, as you so like to claim, that a country need be virginal to have any action with another, and gets criticized when they do or don't do something...it is that past records indicate how a country goes about doing things, and more importantly why. Our use of tyrants who happened to like us more than the USSR in the past...our attempted assassinations of popular leaders...our assistance and/or stimulation with regards to overthrowing popular governments in favor of despotic, but US friendly heavies clearly shows what our priorities are regarding other countries: what do we get out of it. For every Bosnia you claim, i can cite 20 other instsnces where we got involved, not to benefit the people of that country, but to benefit ourselves at the cost of the people of that country. THAT is the connection between our outting Saddam in power, allowing him to destroy his people as long as there were sides to take and he was on ours, and then turning around after we didn't need him anymore and claiming moral outrage at his deeds. If there are alternate explanations for why we want to invade Iraq seperate from humanitarian, our record clearly indicates that they should be taken very seriously indeed, and in this case there are. Add to that the fact that the rest of the world, who are probably at least as familiar with the effects of the regimes of tyrants like Saddam as we here in North America felt that invasion was not the solution...and ask yourself why. Why do you think the rest of the world, while being aware of what hussein has done, saw us as the greater threat? Do you think our history of interfering in their lands, propping up their tyrants, and getting the hell out of Dodge when we no longer had any interests there might be part of it? Consider that region alone...think Kurds. Remember the Kurds? The very fact that pro-war people sicted the plight of the Kurds for a reason why the Good Ol' USA needed to get involved almost made me lose my lunch, considering that we begged and pleaded for them to rise up last time, when it suited our interests, promised them support and another front, etc...and then when that no longer suited our purposes, let them twist in the wind. Kind of like we originally did to Osama and his crew in Afghanistan. Get the point? We get involved, historically, for one reason and one reason only in general: Because it benefits us. Other countries are imminently aware of this, but here in the US you actually have people like johnheath who consider us to be far and away the most altruistic nation in the history of the planet. I do think that individuals within the US can be remarkably giving, but on the national scale we have been looking out for No. 1 for quite a while now. I'm not going to argue whether we should, or not...that's a seperate argument. I am explaining the US's record with people like Saddam Hussein, and why that very record is indeed relevant to the discussion of our credibility on this issue, and further why when we claim humanitarian reasons...along with others which have already been proven false...and others offer other reasons more consistent with our modus operandi, it is a little naive and dellusional to assume that our version must be the truth. Especially in light of all the other crap that we claimed that has already been pretty much abandoned now that it's no longer needed. Let me ask you a question, HS...if you were in another country, and let's say in 2 years Bush says we need to invade, we have our reasons, trust us...would you? Would you trust us? 2) 50 countries joined, amy of whom later claiomed they weren't past of it, many others claimed only nominal support, and the 50 countries comprised a significantly lesser portion of the population than Gulf War One. In Gulf War One they had a global majority, by far...and didn't soend time recruiting less populated minor nations just to have another name on the petition...even if these ones came pretty cheap. It's about the planet..most countries, and most people were against this war...last time most people were for it, and way, way fewer actually came out against it. The lesser nations just weren't asked to take part, as we didn't need them. 3) Whether or not he was going to cooperate...whether or not he was going to serve tea and buscuits, or call us names is irrelevant. The inspections, it would seem, were working. Moreover, the inspections were not not working, that is certain, in that nothing had come of his attempts to obfuscate...and that's worth a little more than a lol to me, when the alternative was war. This whole " he miscalculated, tee hee stuff strikes me as pretty Bush league...we're talking about a war measured in human lives, not a game of chess. 4) I agree that he would drive for WMD until he got them..absolutely. Who wouldn't? What nation threatened by other nations with them, like Iraq is by us and Israel wouldn't want to protect themselves? We have demonstrated that we are not against using them on unarmed foes...what would you think if you were Iraq or Iran? But the UN treaty had nothing to do with wanting...it had to do with having, and the actions in place were designed to stop the latter...I know of no treaty on earth that could stop a country or leader from wanting to protect himself from enemies with bigger guns by getting big gins themselves. 5) the difference in 'cost' is that when one of the two parties, Saddam in this case, kills people, even if he ( Possibly rightly) claims that they were looking to overthrow the government, etc..we call it murder. When we cost lives, we call it collateral damage. You see, I agree with those of us who claim that he has no right to decide that a man dies to suit his purposes...but I don't see how our purposes are any better reasons to those they leave dead. We made a decision, people died. That is cost...if you want to add it up and decide better or worse based on body count, you're doing Stalin's math, and I stay out of that kind of moral rationalization. 6) The parameters, new and old, all include one caveat: UN/global approval. Sort of an impotant one. And I'm not the one going in circles...yes, we have gone against this creed in the past...and yes, we were the ones saying everyone had to abide by the same creed...I'll leave it to you to figure out who was going in circles, and whether that effects their credibility on this issue. 7) "Part" of the reasoning...not the reasoning, not suffiecient to gain public support...not even among the major reasons, more like a backdrop. It's like arresting a guy for murder, rape, arson, and possession of stolen goods, putting it all over the news that he's a rapits, murderer, arsonist, and possesor of stolen goods...putting that argument before a jury, getting a conviction on all charges, and then after the trial and sentencing it comes out that he's only guilty of possession, and the DA claims that he was right all along, and that justice was carried out. 8) "Take" meant the self appointed right to mete out global justice as we see fit. Not land...that's another story...because we're going to leave...we say...and we always thell the truth...Like when we said we wanted to gibve the Iraqi people back their freedom and right to determine their own government...unless it turns out that we don't like their kind of governemnt...ro that the people they want to support have had political affiliations in the past that we don't approve of...freedom....yay....
So, then the war would actually be good in that it validated the UN non-military route of deterring WMD plans (albeit after the fact)? I don't think people would like that outcome. Regardless, of course it was reasonable to believe he had a program of some sort. Nobody was really saying he didn't until post-war made it an opportunistic (and to some degree supported - by a negative) position to take against the current administration. The lack of a smoking gun has become a smoking gun.
What? No. You assume some continuum of ideology and circumstance. Your claim is that past actions somehow give us insight into present actions. Clearly false. We don't have anything like the same foreign policy now as we did in the Cold War, for example. Again putting it in simple terms, supporting Saddam in the past has no relevance to the issue of whether he should or should not have been removed now. Stop living in the Cold War, buddy. Even your tense is wrong. You say 'are' but in the last ten years we've intervened in Haiti (to remove a junta), Somalia (to stop starvation), Bosnia (to stop genocide), and Kosovo (to stop genocide). In NONE of those places do we have strategic or material interests. Lets see eighty recent examples slick. I just gave you four recent examples that go contrary to your position. 4 x 20 = 80. Again, you overstate the 'rest of the world.' Second, there are plenty of other explanations. The PRC, Germany, France, and Russia all had substantial material investments in Saddam to lose, for example. I don't think we've propped up a tyrant recently in any of those countries. In fact, we've helped liberate three of them, lol. What country that protested are you specifically talking about? Why is their opinion more important that those that joined the coalition? Your logic is so backwards. We screwed the Kurds (that was the UN by the way), and so we should just forget it and continue to abandon them? That doesn't make sense. And abandoning them before is not relevant to whether or not to stop genocide. That's like saying 'we didn't really help the Jews during the holocaust, so don't start trying to stop genocide now!' And that is just plain wrong. Your focus on how you determine American altruism is extremely narrow (% of population Canada had in WWII???). Look at the numbers for food aid every year, look at the money and support given to the needy through the IMF and World Bank every year, the majority of which comes from the US, just to name a few. Except if you believe we have alterior motives to intervene in Iraq it would be extremely naive to believe countries like France, Germany, Russia, and the PRC don't. Naive to the extreme. And when discussing our credibility on humanitarian issues, it would be much more relevant to look at Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo, than Cold War Latin America! And again (as usual) you overstate and overclaim. Three justifications were made for intervention: genocidal tyrant (absolutely true), WMD (undetermined), and Al Queda links (most likely false). So your claim that these justifications have been PROVEN FALSE is incorrect, and terribly misleading. My whole point, as I stressed in my first post, is that I don't really even have Bush in my evaluation. Do I believe Saddam was building WMD? Yes. Do I believe he should be removed because he was a genocidal tyrant? Yes. Neither of those have anything to do with Bush. Sorry but there was plenty of recruiting for the first Gulf War. As I have pointed out, both Egypt and Syria, to give two very relevant examples, were given considerations having nothing to do with the situation for their support. They was bought, big guy. How is that more legitimate than this one? Now you are actually claiming most people were against it? How do we determine 'global will'? Is it by country (government) or is it by people? Far fewer people were for GW1 than governments, so was it illegit? You basically are setting up a moving target. You alternate your criteria based on how well your argument is doing at a particular time. Oh, pardon me dear sir. Let me put my 'totally serious' cap back on. I'm not laughing at death, I'm laughing at you. You argument that he was not going to cooperate with the UN cuts the legs out from your main position, that the UN is the way to solve all mankings maladies. War is measured in human lives? Sounds like you're doing some of that Stalin math you keep talking about. Not acting on a reasonable threat of WMD would be measured in many more lives. However, the deaths from the war were themselves far outstripped by the deaths Saddam wrought on his people EVERY YEAR. Hey, here we have MacBeth's anyone should be able to acquire nukes position. Won't try to convince you otherwise, but your stocks going down, down, down. Time to sell MacBeth-ites. I believe you are making a fundamental mistake here. Saddam would continue to drive until he got WMDs. Maybe or probably after inspections were over. Then the solvency you get from your UN claims goes bye-bye. Now in MacBeth's world Iraq is a nuclear power. That is not desirable. Good for you. But people who actually make policy have to sometimes choose between two bad options. In that case they look at the impact of the problem/action, and choose the one with the best outcome. In this case, more lives are saved each year than were taken in the war, which is over. Thousands of lives next year and the year after and the year after are now not forfeit to Saddam's whims. That is the better of the two options, intervening or staying out. And btw your superiority complex is really a downer. You have said previously that the US, for example, was the 'more desirable' of the two sides in the Cold War. I wonder how you got to that calculation? It would seem that you are. Another bad analogy from MacBeth. What a suprise. More like you arrest a guy for murder, rape, torture, possessing a weapon while on parole, and consorting with known criminals (another parole violation). You convict him of murder, rape, and torture. NOONE protests this. Not a single defendant witness to challenge it. You cannot yet prove he had a weapon, although many people around him say he did have it. And you cannot prove he consorted with other criminals (Al Queda). Sure, just like we told the Germans they couldn't be Nazis anymore when we occupied Germany after WWII. It would have made little freakin sense to let them continue on in government, would it?
Hayes Street, just to focus a bit, the altruism thing came up because heathy was shooting off in another thread that the US of A was the most altruistic nation in the history of the universe, in absolute terms, and I believe he did it in all caps, so I guess he really meant it. MacBeth tried to explain how ridiculous hyperbole like this sounds by citing Canada as a counterexample. carry on.
The only argument that was "ridiculous" was MacBeth's lame retort. The three main thrusts of his argument were that Canada never had slavery, Canada contributed more troops for a longer period of time to the World Wars, and that Canadians are more charitable per capita. Firstly, Canada never had slavery only because it was not officially a country when the US practiced slavery. The inhabitants of what would become Canada however, practiced legal slavery after the Northern states of the US had abolished the evil institution. MacBeth was very misleading. Secondly, Canada contributed so mightily to the 20th century war effort because they were fodder for the British Crown. Their interests were tied to a modern Monarchy- not real intelligent if you ask me. Thirdly, Canadians are more charitable than Americans only if you believe that taxes don't belong to the people. I realize that many on the Left don't believe that government outlays belong to the public, and government gives money only with the people's consent,but Sam- it is actually true. Check this out Sam- every dollar we give to the third world comes out of our pockets. Our system has made us the richest country that has ever existed, and we give more money to help the downtrodden than any other people in the history of the world. Comparing voluntary charitible contributions to actual dollars given is just plain stupid. The argument that Canada is more altruistic than the United States is ludicrous.
So judging altruism is gross and not per capita? Maybe you should qualify your statement to reflect that. Why are you dredging this up again? You made a silly hyperbolic claim in the context of a debate about moral absolutism, which you are only able to back up using relativistic and utilitarian means. I think that speaks for itself.
I am responding to another one of your petty one liners. You challeged my assertion, but couldn't produce any logical argument, so you adopted MacBeth's inane argument that introduced the same "relativistic and utilitarian" criteria that you now criticize? LOL, what hypocrisy!
If it really made you laugh, then I am glad, as it was a barb but a lighthearted one...which is why I said not to take it personally/seriously. I just think you need to pay more attention to Strunk & White. By the way, are you very familiar with Paolo Scrivano?
I am not criticizing relativsim and utilitarianism. In fact, I think both of them are far more useful than your preachy absolutism, and I applaud you for using them both. By the way, your logical argument, thus far, consists of a blanket assertion based on vague allusions to the utility of the gifts that we have bestowed upon the universe, unsupported by any data, and by relativistic dismissals of the not-so great things. You made the contention. I'm still waiting for you to support it with legitimate evidence.
I do think you have a point here. The Bush Administration said the threat was imminent, and it seems pretty clear so far that the threat was not imminent. George Will stated that the pre-emptive doctine is in danger. It may be harder to build a coalition in the future. But I don't think the negatives are quite as horrible as you think. To state it bluntly, does it really matter that much if people in Ireland or New Zealand don't trust the American government? I don't support alienating other countries, but they really don't have much say anyways, and even if they did have a say, they don't have our best interests in mind. Why kind of nation has NOT done that, historically? Most strong empires of the past, such as Greece, Rome, or Great Britain did do what was in their best interests and did not ask for permission from the rest of the world. The difference is the US is not the same kind of power, we are not interested in obtaining land and enriching ourselves. What we are really looking for is security, which brings us back to 9/11 and the realization that we are not safe from the extremists. [/B][/QUOTE] 1) As we constantly say re: the US, Democracy, etc...it ain't perfect, but it's the best we got going, and better than the alternative. There are arguments against the Un, and reasons it could be improved...my real beef with Americans now dismissing it is this: We spent decades telling everyone else they had to abide by it...we excercised the veto power more than anyone...we helped shape the Un definitions for justifable wars to prevent our greatest rival from doing as they saw fit merely because they could, thought they were right, and considered the UN irrelevant. Now, suddenly, after the US is opposed for the 1st time by the Un...and with the Un accurately fulfilling it's mandate, ie accurately reflecting the will of the majority of the globe, suddenly we're pulling a Kruschev and calling it flawed and irrelevant. Kruschev himself said we would do this the 1st time the Un stopped being our lap dog, and we have proven him right. the reason I am really pissed about this is that I spent years defending the US and the Un...When many Europeans, Canadians, and tohers claimed that the US saw the Un as merely an extension of it's own interests, I disgreed. I argued for the validity of the global consensus, and disagreed that the US had just pushed the Un because at the time it's enemy , the USSR, was the one trying to bully it's way around the most, and therefore it was in the US's favor to support it. Now we have become the bully and, surprise, surprise, the Un is irrelevant. Exactly the word Kruschv used. Mr. C, you can be objective about these things at times...look at the facts, and consider the US's position re the Un from the point of view of another country...decades telling everyone to listen to the Un, while using the veto more than anyone else...for one the UN, accuratley doing it's job, whatever way you want to microanalyse the motives, it reflected the global opinion, opposes the US...and what do we do? Abandon it, reject it, call it flawed and out of date...honestly, try and look at it from the outsdie...doesn't ir seem just a trifle convenient? Not to say hypocritical? 2) I didn't say we ignored him...I said that the measures in place were effectively keping him from being a danger to us or his neighbors...which was their intent. And they were...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq, aside from what we injected into it. The rest of the wordl saw this attempt to connect the two for what it was, an exploitation of a disaster for a desired means. I say the only connection between 9-11 and Iraq were how our government used the former to achieve the latter. To say that 9-11 'opened our eyes' is scary, really scary, if what we then saw was our duty to tell the rest of ther world hw to behave. 3) But that's just it...they probably don't have our best interests in mind...But they hopefully have the best interests of the commonality in mind, and that has been the point of diplomacy since Louis XIV...that nations surrender a little of their ability to achieve their own immediate wants in order to accomplish the greater good of keeping the peace. Invariably this has been broken when one of the most powerful nations decided it had the strength to do what it wanted, and therefore didn't have to worry about diplomacy or other nations. it is really scary that the US is following in that pattern. Take yourself out of the picture for a second, and ask yourself this question: Why does the rest of the world now see the US as the greatest threat to world peace? Are you really going to dsmiss it all with jealousy? 4) I agree that the US is operating on the same lines of past expansionist powers, although we agree that the ends they are after alter, as did those of the powers before them alter with one another...You are the first pro-war person, that I recall, to admit this much. So where we disagree here is morally and philosophically...I say we were created to stand for more than just doing what all the other supoerpowers in the past have done...remember my Just Another Superpower thread? But I can agree that, if you reduce it to pragmatism and looking out for no. 1, screw the rest, and stop pretending that we're the guardians of Freedom, etc..our position is a lot more defensible. I still think it would be inevitably doomed to fail, as when you make the world your enemy you can never sleep easy again, but it is a much stronger argument than trying to do what we want when we want and at the same time calling ourselves misunderstood heroes... Sorry I missed your post before...
