I'm really disturbed by what we feel is our right to take actions against other countries. At what point do we have the "right" to enforce sanctions or invade other countries? North Korea, Iran and Iraq may be "rogue" nations, but does that give us the right to interfere? This was the primary reason I was against the invasion of Iraq. Some would say that we are defending ourselves, but against what? A perceived threat? What gives the United States the right to have nuclear weapons and no one else? Why is it okay for the United States to finance rebels, but when other countries do this, they are supporting terrorism?

Because we're top dog.

I'm really disturbed by what we feel is our right to take actions against other countries. At what point do we have the "right" to enforce sanctions or invade other countries? North Korea, Iran and Iraq may be "rogue" nations, but does that give us the right to interfere? This was the primary reason I was against the invasion of Iraq. Some would say that we are defending ourselves, but against what? A perceived threat? What gives the United States the right to have nuclear weapons and no one else? Why is it okay for the United States to finance rebels, but when other countries do this, they are supporting terrorism?

 

 

Because we have the military might to impose a double standard and by doing what we can to prevent other countries from having the great equalizer we can mantain the level of power we have.

 

We have used nuclear weapons before only when we had little choice. The American people, with our indoctrinated idealism, are reluctant to use excessive force even when it is needed. As such we are highly unlikely to use them on other countries. There are nations out there that I do not doubt would use nuclear weapons on neighboring countries or even the United States.

 

From a "fair is fair" perspective it is terrible and we are hypocrites. From a reopolitik perspective I am just fine with it.

I'm really disturbed by what we feel is our right to take actions against other countries. At what point do we have the "right" to enforce sanctions or invade other countries? North Korea, Iran and Iraq may be "rogue" nations, but does that give us the right to interfere? This was the primary reason I was against the invasion of Iraq. Some would say that we are defending ourselves, but against what? A perceived threat? What gives the United States the right to have nuclear weapons and no one else? Why is it okay for the United States to finance rebels, but when other countries do this, they are supporting terrorism?

 

 

My questions and sentiments exactly.

 

The USSR held on to Eastern Europe after WW II and we ridiculed them as evil. The truth was that the USSR was protecting itself from an invasion. Having been invaded from Eastern Europe 3 times in 150 years they felt a buffer was a good idea for any future invasion. (In case you're wondering it was Napoleon in 1814, Germany in 1914 and the Nazi's in 1940)

 

I know others call it good strategy. I disagree. Historically those with nukes have not used them even as their government dies. (see USSR and/or Iraq if you believe they had WMD) The cost is elimination if nukes are used. That deterrent worked well in the Cold War but doesn't against nations that can't threaten us.

 

History shows that bullies who invade to protect themselves never succeed in the long run.

WE can that's why isn't that something.

WE can that's why isn't that something.

 

So could Nazi Germany, the USSR, Napoleon's France, et al.

 

I'm sorry but my Christian convictions have great problems with being allied with those guys on this kind of issue. It just smacks of the farthest thing from righteousness I can think of.

 

BTW, it's the same attitude that the govenment had toward Native Americans but it's on a grander scope and scale now.

So could Nazi Germany, the USSR, Napoleon's France, et al.

 

I'm sorry but my Christian convictions have great problems with being allied with those guys on this kind of issue. It just smacks of the farthest thing from righteousness I can think of.

 

BTW, it's the same attitude that the govenment had toward Native Americans but it's on a grander scope and scale now.

 

I meant that as a farse statement. We need our people here to protect us from others.

I'm really disturbed by what we feel is our right to take actions against other countries. At what point do we have the "right" to enforce sanctions or invade other countries? North Korea, Iran and Iraq may be "rogue" nations, but does that give us the right to interfere? This was the primary reason I was against the invasion of Iraq. Some would say that we are defending ourselves, but against what? A perceived threat? What gives the United States the right to have nuclear weapons and no one else? Why is it okay for the United States to finance rebels, but when other countries do this, they are supporting terrorism?

 

IMO we have the "right" to take action when those in power in the other country are treating the weaker members of their country in a sub-human manner: ie - torture. No other reason is valid.

So could Nazi Germany, the USSR, Napoleon's France, et al.

 

I'm sorry but my Christian convictions have great problems with being allied with those guys on this kind of issue. It just smacks of the farthest thing from righteousness I can think of.

 

BTW, it's the same attitude that the govenment had toward Native Americans but it's on a grander scope and scale now.

 

One of the best posts that I have read on BGP. :thumb:

I don’t believe we should be in the business of pre-emptive aggression. Nor should we be in the business of regime change, cover or not. Few cases warrant pre-emptive action, and it should be on a limited scale, such as surgical air strikes. If attacked, we are certainly in a position to retaliate to the extent we see fit. I’m sure this will be greeted with something along the lines of “What then, are we just supposed to sit back and wait to be attacked?!?” Of course not. We should certainly have our eyes open and any and all perceived threats should be addressed previous to an attack. Rather than attack them before they attack us, we will extensively outline to the threatening state what the ramifications of a possible attack will be, and once they “cross the line” we will quell the threat and respond. With the technological supremacy of our military, as well as our overall prowess, I can’t foresee a scenario where a pre-emptive invasion would present any advantage. On the other hand, it can put us at a grave disadvantage when we are wrong.

 

I’ve never been a fan of trade sanctions or embargoes, especially unilaterally. These are best handled with the entire international community, and even then, in the case of non-democratic nations, they punish the people much more heavily than their rulers.

 

As a nuclear power it would be myopic to disarm ourselves and it is only prudent to keep other states from gaining nuclear power. Of course, it would also be hypocritical and unintelligent to allow our allies to pursue nuclear power uninhibited.

International law is changing. The norm of legal non-intervention in sovereign states is changing, being replaced by a norm of humanitarian intervention. The U.S. is probably going even further in extending these principles.

http://www.burneylawfirm.com/international_law_primer.htm

Here is a good international law primer.

IMO we have the "right" to take action when those in power in the other country are treating the weaker members of their country in a sub-human manner: ie - torture. No other reason is valid.

 

I think in principle I can see that but the truth is that in practice we are being too selective about our interference.

 

We step in on this nation but not that nation. IMHO we need to be consistent.

 

There are worse practitioners of human rights violations than Sadaam and Iraq were. We didn't do anything to help those weaker people.

When you all elected Bush.... I certainly didn't.

I think in principle I can see that but the truth is that in practice we are being too selective about our interference.

 

We step in on this nation but not that nation. IMHO we need to be consistent.

 

There are worse practitioners of human rights violations than Sadaam and Iraq were. We didn't do anything to help those weaker people.

 

That is disingenuous and I think that you know that.

IMO we have the "right" to take action when those in power in the other country are treating the weaker members of their country in a sub-human manner: ie - torture. No other reason is valid.

 

Stuff like this is going on in dozens of countries. How much marching are you really wanting to have our troops do?