Jump to content

"If You Liked the Iraq War, You'll Love the Iran War"


Guest BlackJesus

Recommended Posts

Guest BlackJesus

[u][size=3][quote]If You Liked the Iraq War, You'll Love the Iran War
By Cenk Uygur[/size][/u]


If you liked gas at three dollars a gallon, you'll love it at five dollars or more. If you liked fighting 26 million people in Iraq, you'll love fighting 68 million in Iran. If you liked turning Sunni Muslims against us, you'll love turning Sunni and Shiite Muslims against us. If you liked war in the Persian Gulf, you'll love war all over the Middle East.

If you thought things were bad now, wait till Iran retaliates against our air strikes by bombing Israel. When Israel strikes back, the whole Middle East will have to get sucked into the war. And then the fun really starts.

Do any of you have any confidence that George W. Bush knows what he's doing when he contemplates starting a war with Iran? Do any of you believe he has carefully thought out all the possibilities and has a plan for every contingency?

I don't care how Republican you are, that is an inconceivable thought. No one could believe that's true. The man who lost New Orleans and accidentally started a civil war in Iraq is going to have a sound strategy for Iran?

Besides which, there is a very real reason why they actively don't plan for these wars. They don't want word of the worst case scenarios (or even realistic scenarios) leaking out and providing a disincentive to go to war. They think if they can convince people it will be easy, everyone will go along.

If there is a discussion of realistic contingencies, it will be harder to drive people into war. That is why they so fastidiously avoided making plans for "post-war" Iraq (I love that term, did anyone let the Iraqis know we're in the "post-war" stage?). If people realized how hard it would be to occupy Iraq and build that nation from scratch, do you think they would have been as eager to go in the first place?

The Rumsfeld strategy is to start a war with no planning and then complain that you have the war you have, not the one you wish you had. It's ironic because they do no planning specifically because they want the war they wish to have.

Why do you think every retired general is screaming at the top of their lungs to fire Rumsfeld? The generals have seen the mess we made in Iraq up close and it isn't pretty. They realize these guys in the administration have no idea what they're doing.

Right now, they're just getting a volunteer army and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, but if we have to fight the whole Middle East, it's all of us who are going to be dying for their arrogant, foolhardy mistakes.

By the way, is there anything more vile than a Republican telling you that the kids who signed up for our volunteer army knew what they were getting into, so they have no compunction about sending them into war? Yeah, I guess they had it coming.

Bush is a proven liar. Whether he's lying about biological weapons labs, leaks from his administration or warrantless spying, one thing is for sure, he cannot be trusted. He has no shame in continually and aggressively lying to the American people.

No one could have anticipated the breach of the levees? Please. Remember he said that after he sat through a long and extensive warning about how the levees might be breached. The man has no shame.

Would you trust George Bush to baby-sit your kids? How sure are you that he wouldn't fall asleep, or accidentally drop them on their head or forget to feed them? How sure are you that when he screwed something up he wouldn't lie to you about it afterward?

I wouldn't let him within a three state perimeter of my kids (and I don't even have any). And this is the guy we are going to trust to orchestrate a war against a much bigger, savvier, more organized enemy?

What I find really laughable is that in his own head, George Bush thinks he is chosen by God to lead America in perilous times, to bring freedom to the world and to "save" Iran.

He reminds me of a kid who is convinced he is Superman. He makes a cape out of napkins and jumps off the couch thinking he can fly. He crashes and cuts his head open. But little Georgy is so dense he doesn't get the memo. The next day, he's ready to jump again. He's sure it'll work this time.

Bush is the amalgamation of all the hideous and sad parts of the Republican Party. He is a Republican Frankenstein. He has the temperament of Barry Goldwater, the integrity of Richard Nixon, and the brains of Dan Quayle.

And we trust this guy with his finger on the button?

God help us all if he bombs Iran. And if you think he's not that stupid, you haven't been paying attention.

He says the idea of bombing Iran is "wild speculation." He also said we weren't wiretapping anybody without a court order. He says we're trying diplomacy first. That's exactly what he said about Iraq when we found out he was planning for the war all along. He says Iran is a gathering threat ...

Now, who do you trust more - George Bush or General Anthony Zinni? General Zinni is the former head of US Central Command. He said he saw no evidence of Iraqi WMD before the war. He thought we didn't have enough troops to get the job done right. And now he thinks going into Iran is an even worse idea. Is there a single American who really believes George Bush knows better than General Zinni?

George Bush is the kid who was born on third and thinks he kicked a field goal. The slow kid on the short bus wants to drive us into Iran. Do you really want to go for that ride?[/quote]


[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/if-you-liked-the-iraq-war_b_19097.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/i...ar_b_19097.html[/url]



[center] :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: [/center]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, the first liberal radio show to air nationwide. The Young Turks began as Sirius Satellite Radio’s first original program, and, while still on Sirius, is now nationally syndicated and available on itunes and online at www.theyoungturks.com and www.radiopower.org.

Young Turk (n), 1. Young progressive or insurgent member of an institution, movement, or political party. 2. Young person who rebels against authority or societal expectations. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name sounds Turkish.

The "Young" in Young Turk, Young Europe, Young America, etc... derives from either a direct link to, or indirect reference to, the old Massini networks, depending upon what the use of the term is.... BTW, that's another case of a reform movement being used and directed by elites--a sort of pre-20th century version of low intensity warfare. Marx came out of these networks, as did Garibaldi, many of the Transcendentalists in the US, and later there was some feeding/crossover into anarchist networks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
the more i think about it, the more i am against miltary action for several reasons: 1. i don't want another war 2. the iranians are very proud of their country,and the last thing we need to do is give them a reason to unite against us 3. did i say that i don't want another war....

and i am firm in this position and want to make that clear... however, you explain what the fuck we do? i realize that it hypocritical for us to stop other countries from getting nuclear weapons, but none of that will matter if iran does get a military grade nuclear weapon and use it on either us or israel... but i guess a threat doesn't matter... we have to wait until there is a nuclear weapon used on one of us...

btw, if that happened, what do you think the response would be then? would iran be a country on the day after that happened?

like i said and have been saying, i don't support military action at this point, but we better damn well have it on the table, b/c if they use a nuke on us, this country will go fucking crazy and no telling what will happen...

i'd like to hear some realistic answers to this important question... this could be a very important quesiton in the future...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Master Shake
Iran won't be like Iraq...no way Bush or any other president wants to pay the political cost of another occupation, like in Iraq. We'll bomb the shit out of them...set their nuke program back a decade, kill that crazy bastard, hit all the terror camps the CIA has IDed over the last few years, probably even roll some tanks through...will it work? Of course you need boots on the ground to do a complete job, but we'll have to make due without them and our technological advantage will be tested to the limit, because we're not trying to rebuild the whole country like we're doing in Iraq and we won't try that again for quite a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to forget that a lot of the folks here did not grow up during the height of the Cold War. Coming to maturity after the downfall of the USSR represents a kind of paradigm shift in thinking, I suppose.

Is there a possibility that some form of nuclear warfare will break out? Probably less likely than you might imagine, even with folks like the radicals currently in power in Iran. They understand the consequences. If anything, the lesson to be learned is that diplomacy and even-handedness ought to take a more central role in international relations. In other words, nobody should back anybody else into a corner.

It is possible to construct a world order in which mutual benefit becomes the primary objective of nation-states. But, in order to get there, some supra-national influences have to be moderated. Dump the notions of Empire, Globalization, and Corporativism, then we have a fighting chance. If the current elites which back these bad notions are not marginalized, then the danger increases.

That, imo, is the historical lesson to be garnered from current events.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='249266' date='Apr 14 2006, 10:17 AM']I tend to forget that a lot of the folks here did not grow up during the height of the Cold War. Coming to maturity after the downfall of the USSR represents a kind of paradigm shift in thinking, I suppose.

Is there a possibility that some form of nuclear warfare will break out? Probably less likely than you might imagine, even with folks like the radicals currently in power in Iran. They understand the consequences. If anything, the lesson to be learned is that diplomacy and even-handedness ought to take a more central role in international relations. In other words, nobody should back anybody else into a corner.

It is possible to construct a world order in which mutual benefit becomes the primary objective of nation-states. But, in order to get there, some supra-national influences have to be moderated. Dump the notions of Empire, Globalization, and Corporativism, then we have a fighting chance. If the current elites which back these bad notions are not marginalized, then the danger increases.

That, imo, is the historical lesson to be garnered from current events.[/quote]

i have been practically begging you (or someone) to help put this into better perspective for me... thank you for doing that :)

your right, i was born in 1981, so in my lifetime, i didn't experience the cold war... i remember the wall coming down, but it meant nothing to me at the time..

maybe your right, and the nutcase in iran won't use the nukes once he gets them... i wish he would shut the fuck up, b/c its hard to trust someone that keeps telling you that he want you dead...

i truely hope your right about it not being realistic... i am not as confident in that assessment, but i will yield to your experience in these matters... i really hope your right....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Master Shake
[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='249266' date='Apr 14 2006, 10:17 AM']I tend to forget that a lot of the folks here did not grow up during the height of the Cold War. Coming to maturity after the downfall of the USSR represents a kind of paradigm shift in thinking, I suppose.

Is there a possibility that some form of nuclear warfare will break out? Probably less likely than you might imagine, even with folks like the radicals currently in power in Iran. They understand the consequences. If anything, the lesson to be learned is that diplomacy and even-handedness ought to take a more central role in international relations. In other words, nobody should back anybody else into a corner.

It is possible to construct a world order in which mutual benefit becomes the primary objective of nation-states. [b]But, in order to get there, some supra-national influences have to be moderated[/b]. Dump the notions of Empire, Globalization, and Corporativism, then we have a fighting chance. If the current elites which back these bad notions are not marginalized, then the danger increases.

That, imo, is the historical lesson to be garnered from current events.[/quote]

I think that's a huge question that we will have to deal with sooner than most realize... It's always been an unstated assumption among most that what's good for the US is what's good for the world - the shining city on a hill. I still think this is true - I think the world is still dangerous as hell and we need to be as strong as we can no matter what anyone else says. I don't think now is the time to sell out our own interests for the good of the international system. Some people don't want to admit how dangerous and corrupt most of the world is outside capitalist democracies. Those third world nations are way less ready for the transition to your idealised world order than the US is, and the fact that their governments are not tightly constrained by the will of the people, and that one messed up individual or a small group of them can start a war on their own, means that we can't just have faith that they won't stab us in the back.
Right now an all-democratic system is the only tried and true engine of unbreaking peace, so it stands to reason that our best hope for ending large scale violence is global democratization. And the US can do a lot more, through all sorts of coercion and nourishment, as a strong nation towards this end than it can as a weak, restrained equal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BadassBengal
If they attack us with nukes, we'll attack them with nukes. We'll both be dead. Yes, the terrorists and crazy dirkadirka muthafuckas aren't scared to die, but these leaders sure as hell are. This Iranian leader seems crazy as fuck, just like Stalin, but I guarantee you that he wants his life more than he wants us dead. There's won't be another cold war with THEM, however, because their country isn't stable enough to be in that type of stalemate with us for very long. Shit, I doubt this group of people will be in control of Iran for much longer....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bengal_Smoov
[quote name='Master Shake' post='249262' date='Apr 14 2006, 10:07 AM']Iran won't be like Iraq...no way Bush or any other president wants to pay the political cost of another occupation, like in Iraq. [b]We'll bomb the shit out of them...set their nuke program back a decade, kill that crazy bastard, hit all the terror camps the CIA has IDed over the last few years, probably even roll some tanks through[/b]...will it work? Of course you need boots on the ground to do a complete job, but we'll have to make due without them and our technological advantage will be tested to the limit, because we're not trying to rebuild the whole country like we're doing in Iraq and we won't try that again for quite a while.[/quote]



You say this like it's that easy, just bomb them and they will go away. Have you not paid any attention to what is going on in Iraq? Are you signing up for active duty? If you think the muslim world will go for US aggression against another arab nation without armageddon breaking out then you aren't in touch with reality.

How many nations have used nuclear bombs against another? one, the united states of america. Who are we as nation to tell another nation what they can and cannot have, especially given our track record? Who are we protecting if we attack Iran? Israel. Do you want more Americans to die for the sake of a illegitimate country that is Israel?

Your views are scary because you really believe that "America is invincible" bullshit, "what is good for America is good for the world" bullshit. I don't know you but I assume you've never left America so how could know what is good for the rest of the world if never visted the country or even had real interactions with them?

America is one country out of 152 in the world, a great country but still only one. We have far too many problems domestically to even begin to worry about Iran or protecting Isreal.

First we have to start with cleaning up our own government, it's filled with people who have no morals or ethics and they are using their positions of power to manipulate the people of America for their selfish gain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Master Shake
[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' post='249287' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:18 AM']You say this like it's that easy, just bomb them and they will go away. Have you not paid any attention to what is going on in Iraq? Are you signing up for active duty? If you think the muslim world will go for US aggression against another arab nation without armageddon breaking out then you aren't in touch with reality.

How many nations have used nuclear bombs against another? one, the united states of america. Who are we as nation to tell another nation what they can and cannot have, especially given our track record? Who are we protecting if we attack Iran? Israel. Do you want more Americans to die for the sake of a illegitimate country that is Israel?

Your views are scary because you really believe that "America is invincible" bullshit, "what is good for America is good for the world" bullshit. I don't know you but I assume you've never left America so how could know what is good for the rest of the world if never visted the country or even had real interactions with them?

America is one country out of 152 in the world, a great country but still only one. We have far too many problems domestically to even begin to worry about Iran or protecting Isreal.

First we have to start with cleaning up our own government, it's filled with people who have no morals or ethics and they are using their positions of power to manipulate the people of America for their selfish gain.[/quote]


Like I said, it's something we're all going to have to think about sooner rather than later...of course our government is filled with people with no morals and ethics, but they have to answer to the people every 4 years so they needs to show enough morals and ethics in their governance to be able to win re-election.
What's a lot scarier than assuming America is a force for good is recognizing these gangsters that hold their own people hostage as legitimate governments. The kind of people we're talking about are a bunch of criminal cartels who only represent the interests of a tiny fraction of their people, but have been able to control a coercive arm (military, police) to stay in power, the whole time extracting from the people and keeping them poor for their own gain.
Now, if you think we don't have an obligation to try to help any of these millions (billions?) of people from this prison of tyrrany and void of human rights, then that's your opinion. But we have it pretty damn good here, and we take it for granted...they have it pretty bad, and take it for granted, so maybe they don't know any better...they don't understand how democratic freedom will help them. But just because their oppressors have kept them ignorant doesn't mean their human rights shouldn't be guarded to a standard becoming of the modern world - INCLUDING THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN.
If I was in charge of the world, I wouldn't let any non-democracies have nuclear weapons, because they don't have accountable leadership. This would include Iran...do you really want this crazy having a nuclear bomb? Why SHOULD we let him build one???
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
[quote name='Master Shake' post='249300' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:33 AM']Like I said, it's something we're all going to have to think about sooner rather than later...of course our government is filled with people with no morals and ethics, but they have to answer to the people every 4 years so they needs to show enough morals and ethics in their governance to be able to win re-election.
What's a lot scarier than assuming America is a force for good is recognizing these gangsters that hold their own people hostage as legitimate governments. The kind of people we're talking about are a bunch of criminal cartels who only represent the interests of a tiny fraction of their people, but have been able to control a coercive arm (military, police) to stay in power, the whole time extracting from the people and keeping them poor for their own gain.
Now, if you think we don't have an obligation to try to help any of these millions (billions?) of people from this prison of tyrrany and void of human rights, then that's your opinion. But we have it pretty damn good here, and we take it for granted...they have it pretty bad, and take it for granted, so maybe they don't know any better...they don't understand how democratic freedom will help them. But just because their oppressors have kept them ignorant doesn't mean their human rights shouldn't be guarded to a standard becoming of the modern world - INCLUDING THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN.
If I was in charge of the world, I wouldn't let any non-democracies have nuclear weapons, because they don't have accountable leadership. This would include Iran...do you really want this crazy having a nuclear bomb? Why SHOULD we let him build one???[/quote]

well put... where you been at all this time? especially about the part where only governemnt w/ proper accountablilty should have nukes... b/c the effects of a nuke being used on another country would be unbelievably bad for everyone...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bengal_Smoov
[quote name='Master Shake' post='249300' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:33 AM']Like I said, it's something we're all going to have to think about sooner rather than later...of course our government is filled with people with no morals and ethics, but they have to answer to the people every 4 years so they needs to show enough morals and ethics in their governance to be able to win re-election.[/quote]

So what about when these same people who everyone knows has no morals and ethics fix and rig election results so that stay in power regardless of what the people decide? What should the people do then?

[quote]What's a lot scarier than assuming America is a force for good is recognizing these gangsters that hold their own people hostage as legitimate governments. The kind of people we're talking about are a bunch of criminal cartels who only represent the interests of a tiny fraction of their people, but have been able to control a coercive arm (military, police) to stay in power, the whole time extracting from the people and keeping them poor for their own gain.[/quote]

Are you talking about the Bush admin. or some thrid world nation, unfortunately for us it's hard to tell the difference between the two these days. Sad isn't it.


[quote]Now, if you think we don't have an obligation to try to help any of these millions (billions?) of people from this prison of tyrrany and void of human rights, then that's your opinion.[/quote]

I would say our obligation lies to the people in America first, how can try to fix all of the problems in the world when we have so many problems in our country that desperately need help?


[quote]But we have it pretty damn good here, and we take it for granted...they have it pretty bad, and take it for granted, so maybe they don't know any better...they don't understand how democratic freedom will help them. But just because their oppressors have kept them ignorant doesn't mean their human rights shouldn't be guarded to a standard becoming of the modern world - INCLUDING THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN.[/quote]

We do have it damn good here in America compared to the majority of the other countries in the world, but what makes you so sure that Democracy is the best thing for everyone. You can force your beliefs and values on others because you believe it is the best thing, especially when you don't even understand the culture and a way of life of those who you are trying force democracy upon. It's very arrogant to be convinced that your way of life is the best for everyone in the world, unfortunately very American.

[quote]If I was in charge of the world, I wouldn't let any non-democracies have nuclear weapons, because they don't have accountable leadership. This would include Iran...do you really want this crazy having a nuclear bomb? Why SHOULD we let him build one???[/quote]

We have a democracy, in name at least, but I wouldn't describe our leadership as accountable. In fact they are the complete opposite of accountable. They start wars without any due diligence or good reason, they lie, steal, murder, and do what ever they damn well please. America has fucked up for a long time, please take the blinders off and study our history with out bias. You will see that America is far from perfect and has absolutely no moral standing to be the world's police or peacemaker. America's hands are stained with blood from innocent people, sorry if that ruffles your feathers but it's true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Master Shake

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' post='249320' date='Apr 14 2006, 12:03 PM']So what about when these same people who everyone knows has no morals and ethics fix and rig election results so that stay in power regardless of what the people decide? What should the people do then?
Are you talking about the Bush admin. or some thrid world nation, unfortunately for us it's hard to tell the difference between the two these days. Sad isn't it.[/quote]

:boring:

[quote]I would say our obligation lies to the people in America first, how can try to fix all of the problems in the world when we have so many problems in our country that desperately need help?[/quote]

Yeah, our problems are paying too much for gas...their problems are things like not having basic social services and getting your head cut off if you question why of if they find your stash of Playboys.

[quote]We do have it damn good here in America compared to the majority of the other countries in the world, but what makes you so sure that Democracy is the best thing for everyone. You can force your beliefs and values on others because you believe it is the best thing, especially when you don't even understand the culture and a way of life of those who you are trying force democracy upon. It's very arrogant to be convinced that your way of life is the best for everyone in the world, unfortunately very American.[/quote]

No democracies have ever fought a war against eachother...that should speak volumes for democracy as the best national system. Those people have had a way of life forced down their throats their entire lives...they're the ones who don't understand the world outside their own country, not us. How can you say any man would choose not to be free??

[quote]We have a democracy, in name at least, but I wouldn't describe our leadership as accountable. In fact they are the complete opposite of accountable. They start wars without any due diligence or good reason, they lie, steal, murder, and do what ever they damn well please. America has fucked up for a long time, please take the blinders off and study our history with out bias. You will see that America is far from perfect and has absolutely no moral standing to be the world's police or peacemaker. America's hands are stained with blood from innocent people, sorry if that ruffles your feathers but it's true.[/quote]

Every nations hands are stained in blood, and no matter how much we minimize it, people like you who already view the nation as a source of evil will always point to it as evidence that we are bad. But what you ignore is the huge amount that we SAVE, many many times greater than the amount we've killed. The US has contributed more capital to the development of the world since WW2 than all other nations combined. US dollars have fed millions of hungry people worldwide that were ignored by their governments. The US has constantly defended people's human rights here and abroad, but you will never give them credit for it, you will only point out the times when imperfect individuals on both sides have resulted in violent action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
smoov, i have a question for you: do you believe that if ANYONE has too much power, they will abuse it? using this as blueprint, wouldn't democracy (allowing the people to vote in their government, while that government still has checks and balances around them) is the best way to take the power out of one persons hands?

if our govenment is so bad smoov, why are we the lone superpower in the world? we are there for a reason, and the main reason is our checks and balances... there are many flaws in these policies, but its the best this world has ever seen....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coupla random points:

1) We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Big difference, even if it seems subtle. If you go by the looser usage of the term democratic, then lots of democracies have fought each other in the past couple of centuries.

2) Shining "City on a Hill." I like and agree with this notion, given its roots in Renaissance political philosophy and especially in the Puritan tradition of Milton, et al... But, we have moved away from the Augustinian notion; I'd be more hopeful if folks were more aware of that tradition because if they were, then they might choose leaders and set policies more wisely.

3) While the US has done much good on the international scene, it has also done much harm, too. Not out of the exercise of republican principles, but out of the exercise of power politics. Track our history and it is fairly easy to determine which set of principles is operative at any given moment. Hence, the fundamental difference between the Monroe Doctrine of John Quincy Adams and the Bush Doctrine of national security. I read this recently, by an obviously biased observer, in which he said that if the rest of the world operated according to the Bush Doctrine, then most countries could make an argument for pre-emptively attacking the United States. Now, before people automatically reject that notion, it would be worthwhile to try to understand why folks might think that way, and whether or not there is any basis for such thinking.

4) International relations: We do not have the right to interfere in the internal politics of another country. Of course, it is done all the time, in sub rosa fashion, but the principle is important. Insofar as nations relate to each other, as nations, then the peculiarities of how power flows within those cultures and nations is less important for international stability than many presume. This has been true for centuries now. When we deviate, then when we tend to have war.

5) If we are a superpower in the world, and I'm less inclined to think so than many folks, then it is on the basis of our military expenditures and not our economy. This was not always the case. Paper Tiger. The trouble with the end of he Cold War is this: many people think that the collapse of the USSR somehow vindicates the activity of the West, as so-called victors. That argument goes a little way, but not nearly as far as some would have it. The truth is, the endemic weakness in our way of doing things is just taking longer to surface. That time is near, now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Master Shake
Homer I agree with most of what you said.
I'm not suggesting anyone forget the violent and indefensible actions the US has committed and probably will commit in the future... I'm just saying that most of those were a result of imperfect people in uncertain situations, and will happen in any system of human beings. The world is a violent place, and many nations that chose not to look out for themselves militarily have paid the ultimate price for it. Of course many US policy decisions have been made with selfish interests in mind, but for much of the history of the US the survival of the republic has not seemed as permanent as it does today.
I know that our form or representative democracy (republic, whatever you'd like to call it) is far from perfect, and someday a better means of government may evlove. But in the meantime, our system is the best of any in the world today, by a number of measures, and the most likely to foster peaceful cooperation among states. And I think that difference is still great enough that self-survival should still enter into our international calculations, and is something worth defending.
It's just my personal opinion that most of those people who are "not ready for democracy" are only that way because their government has controlled their information consumption to the point that they don't even understand the concept. I think that, all things being equal, people will always want more freedom to make choices rather than less.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, Shake. I think [b]firm[/b] defense if called for, but I'd organize it somewhat differently. I'd build an economy in-depth (a la WWII) and not in-width (a la the Germans in WWII.) I'd make sure that our fundamental principles were clearly communicated to other nations at the diplomatic level, emphasizing that while we have no interventionist desires, we also won't be pushed around.

Many nations do have a long way to go as they develop rational and forward-thinking internal forms of governance. We've been around 400 years and formal colonialism has been eradicated only in my lifetime. Taking the long view, if the US acts like it ought, economically, diplomatically, and in the interest of its founding principles, then we get a better world. If we act like the Romans, then we get a more rude awakening down the road.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[center][img]http://www.claybennett.com/images/archivetoons/liberation.jpg[/img]


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [/center]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...