[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']Hey man, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that it's every American's responsibility to keep other nations from being destabilized?
The course of the USA should not be directed by foreign policy, but from within. This means we should only get involved in wars that take up whole continents, not overblown morality actions where a country may have a 0.001% chance of being a threat to us in 100 years. Is that what makes America great, being busybodies who start lopsided pussy-"police actions"?
[/QUOTE]
Hey man, where in the constitution does it say we need social security or any safety net? It doesn't yet we still need it all the same.
But getting, please understand on I am not in a complete opposition to you on most of your points, however I will strongly defend that RP's stance on foreign policy is anything less wishful thinking. Secondly, while you may not see destabilization of the middle east as a big deal, I tend to disagree based on recent attacks these countries make on a yearly basis, although they do not attack the US a lot. I agree that the war is
ing atrocious, I disagree that the best way to handle it now that we are knee deep in the shit is just to leave.
As for hellholes with dictatorships and humanitarian issues, do you really think these places are going to get better by us A) Not respecting their national sovereignty, B) Blowing up all their infrastructure, and C) conducting economic warfare against them? If you take Iraq as example, there's more underlying problems than a simple regime or government change will solve; you may in fact need one ethnic group to kill off or dominate another before things can get settled enough for the country to evolve. I mean, in our own country's formation, what would have happened if a British Expeditionary force was in place telling us to play nice with the Indians and the Mexicans? Then we may have never built this "great democracy" or had such a thing as a continental U.S. of A.
Honestly I don't know and we really haven't seen for the full effect of our little foray play out yet. It has worked in the past, or rather partially I would say with South Korea, we did one of our little Democracy runs and it turned out okay for SK I would say.
Here's another thought, it is really ethical for a lover of liberty to dictate the fate of a foreign people? Because so far what I'm seeing is the strategy of a conqueror; we steal their natural resources to preserve our own, with the explicit intent that they'll always be a second-class colony. I say America is better than that; that we shouldn't be wasting time with petty affairs and instead should focus on moving overselves up to the next level.
I really don't like to dabble to much into the ethics of foreign policy, and I will say straight out ethics of foreign policy is something I have never really given much thought to, but I would say, for the most part....... yes it is okay for the US to do exactly that, with a very big pre-requisite.
From the outset it seems that you believe or wish to believe that the US is either liberal or ethical. I am going to make a guess here and say that you believe that this society is one probably based on a basic system of individual right/social safety net/firm justice system. Using that as a general criteria for a liberal or ethical state, and those states that are not those three criteria would be called unethical states. If a state is unethical and does not supply those than I see no reason why we should respect that states rights. Now I know this is over simplifying the situation, but if I kill someone do you still believe I should still have the rights of a person who has not? Of course not, and as suck I would be stripped of most rights and imprisoned. With other nations if they are not "liberal" or "ethical" they do not deserve any respect or toleration from states that are.
That is just a general swing if I take your statement at face value however, based on you previous posts I have read around the site, I suspect you don't think we are either liberal or ethical, so in that case, I would still argue yes, it is okay for the US to do it in certain situations. Mainly based on the assumption that the decision was based on a want to create a better world in some way or to help foster a real liberal or ethical state. Personally I believe that violation of basic human rights can legitimize military intervention especially if non military intervention did not work, an obviously disliked opinion by you.
But beyond all this, I would tentatively agree that that recent wars were started on less than noble grounds, and because of that I am against them. I think for the most part your views are not incompatible with mine on recent middle eastern actions, at least on my end. I just disagree with how we should go forth with other forms of foreign policy and how we should exit from the middle east and future forms of national security policy.
Wrote more than I wanted to here. But thanks for that last part gave me something to think about while grinding in Demon's Souls.
