When do we have the right to interfere with other nations?

[Hatz]

That is disingenuous and I think that you know that.

 

Not sure I understand why you feel it is disingenuous. :confused:

 

I'm raising a clear point.

 

We have done nothing for Darfur where the slaughter was worse than Iraq.

 

In the past we aligned ourselves with military governments in South and Central America that were every bit as bad as communist governments we were trying to keep out.

 

Cuba is still taboo but China was forgiven for Tianamen Square and other human rights violations From George Bush I to today (and that includes Dems under Clinton).

 

I think all of this points to the definite fact that more times than I wish the US puts on a White Hat when it wants to and rides in where it pleases. When public opinion teaters we quickly cry that we are there to get rid of a bloody dictator. If that's the real reason why is it this dictator and not that one? IN fact why do we go so far as to prop up and support some things that act and employ tactics that are far from the democratic ideals we espouse?

[Jim Schue]

Not sure I understand why you feel it is disingenuous. :confused:

 

I'm raising a clear point.

 

We have done nothing for Darfur where the slaughter was worse than Iraq.

 

In the past we aligned ourselves with military governments in South and Central America that were every bit as bad as communist governments we were trying to keep out.

 

Cuba is still taboo but China was forgiven for Tianamen Square and other human rights violations From George Bush I to today (and that includes Dems under Clinton).

 

I think all of this points to the definite fact that more times than I wish the US puts on a White Hat when it wants to and rides in where it pleases. When public opinion teaters we quickly cry that we are there to get rid of a bloody dictator. If that's the real reason why is it this dictator and not that one? IN fact why do we go so far as to prop up and support some things that act and employ tactics that are far from the democratic ideals we espouse?

 

Like Pakistan, to name one of many. :thumb:

[75center]

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

 

Right, we NEVER did before he was elected, now did we?

[HHSDad]

That is disingenuous and I think that you know that.

I don't think so. It pretty much sums up my feelings on U.S. diplomacy over the past 60 years.

[Plato]

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

 

I didn't say we SHOULD, just that we have the right to step in when people are in need of help because they can't defend themselves from their own leaders.

 

IMO - we should take care of our problems here in the US first...

[Hearsay]

Not sure I understand why you feel it is disingenuous. :confused:

 

I'm raising a clear point.

 

We have done nothing for Darfur where the slaughter was worse than Iraq.

 

In the past we aligned ourselves with military governments in South and Central America that were every bit as bad as communist governments we were trying to keep out.

 

Cuba is still taboo but China was forgiven for Tianamen Square and other human rights violations From George Bush I to today (and that includes Dems under Clinton).

 

I think all of this points to the definite fact that more times than I wish the US puts on a White Hat when it wants to and rides in where it pleases. When public opinion teaters we quickly cry that we are there to get rid of a bloody dictator. If that's the real reason why is it this dictator and not that one? IN fact why do we go so far as to prop up and support some things that act and employ tactics that are far from the democratic ideals we espouse?

 

I think you can intelligently argue that the U.S. is hippocritical in its actions on many occasions.

 

However, your statement was that "we have done nothing to help those weaker people." I stand by my assertion that that statement is disingenuous. The U.S. rid the Iraqi people of a brutal, oppressive murderous tyrant with a long track record of horrendous human rights violations, mass rapes, chemical attacks and slaughter. Under ANY standard, Iraq's regime lends greater self-determination to its own people, even if the current situation is highly destabilized.

[Hatz]

I think you can intelligently argue that the U.S. is hippocritical in its actions on many occasions.

 

However, your statement was that "we have done nothing to help those weaker people." I stand by my assertion that that statement is disingenuous. The U.S. rid the Iraqi people of a brutal, oppressive murderous tyrant with a long track record of horrendous human rights violations, mass rapes, chemical attacks and slaughter. Under ANY standard, Iraq's regime lends greater self-determination to its own people, even if the current situation is highly destabilized.

 

My statement: "We didn't do anything to help those weaker people," was in reference to the previous sentence: "There are worse practitioners than Sadaam . . ."

 

There are worse practitioners than he that we have never invaded, boycotted, or held accountable.

 

In my lifetime I can think of Pol Pot, El Salvador, China, Chile, among others. My bona contention is that we did nothing vs. these people for being just as brutal and in some cases we propped them up.

 

I'm not going to argue the horrible tyrant that Sadaam was (I think it's a given), but I will say this, politically speaking when dictatorships collapse the area really does go back into regional and ethnic divides. See the former Yugolsavia for example. As despotic as these people are, they bring a "known" factor to foreign policy that doesn't exist when they are removed.

 

I go back to my question: What is disingenous about my view?

 

Here is the definition: S: (adj) disingenuous, artful (not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness)

 

I don't feel I can be anymore straightforward or blunt to the title of thread.

[Hatz]

I didn't say we SHOULD, just that we have the right to step in when people are in need of help because they can't defend themselves from their own leaders.

IMO - we should take care of our problems here in the US first...

 

 

Just because WE CAN, doesn't always give us the RIGHT.

 

When we say we have a "right" I'm always worried about who becomes the new dictator?

[Hasbeen]

It may not be fair. It may be hypocritical of us. It may even be bullying on our part. But when it comes to nuclear weapons, I throw all debate concerning fair play, trust, or philosophical ideals out the window. Annihilation is too high a price to pay for fairness. It's also an uncorrectable mistake.

 

Look at Israel. Is it "fair" that they have nuclear weapons yet will destroy any neighboring country's facilities that threaten to build such a weapon? Maybe not, but they are alive.

[Hatz]

It may not be fair. It may be hypocritical of us. It may even be bullying on our part. But when it comes to nuclear weapons, I throw all debate concerning fair play, trust, or philosophical ideals out the window. Annihilation is too high a price to pay for fairness. It's also an uncorrectable mistake.

 

Look at Israel. Is it "fair" that they have nuclear weapons yet will destroy any neighboring country's facilities that threaten to build such a weapon? Maybe not, but they are alive.

 

 

Why didn't we have the same attitude towards the USSR? We had the bomb for a while and they did not. What about China who did not develop nukes until the early 70's?

 

Just because a nation has nukes does not mean they will annihate us. Mutual Assured Destruction worked well for 50 years.

 

It's one think to own a few nukes, it's another to pull the trigger and know that the retaliation will be swift and complete. The US has never had a policy of "pre-emptive nuclear strikes" before but now some feel we need one?

[shooter]

When should we intervene?

 

Never solely because when can; only sometimes when we should; always when we must.

[Hasbeen]

Why didn't we have the same attitude towards the USSR? We had the bomb for a while and they did not. What about China who did not develop nukes until the early 70's?

 

Although Russia may yet prove that we made a mistake, I'm more comfortable (that's a relative term) with a stable, proven government possessing a weapon than a small country capable of being overthrown by a radical group. The threat of mutual annihilation works well against governments concerned about their survival. Against groups bent on destruction and martyrism, you can only hope to strike first. I think there are many groups in the world at this time that would happily obliterate the Earth so long as they killed their enemies in process.

[Plato]

Just because WE CAN, doesn't always give us the RIGHT.

 

When we say we have a "right" I'm always worried about who becomes the new dictator?

 

When basic human rights are being defended - dictatorship doesn't apply... imo

[doubledeuce]

Whenever it is to our benefit.

[94 Camel]

Whenever it is to our benefit.

 

:thumb::thumb: