We've done some wrong things that belie our humanitarian and benevolent nature (or at least what our government may feign as a humanitarian and benevolent nature). The foot-on-the-neck scenerio was in a humorous mode -- should have put a smiley behind it! If you didn't get anything out of it, I'm sorry.
I agree we have a mixed record on standing for anything internationally. I do appreciate your wit, but I felt compelled to challenge the accuracy of the humorous scene you painted. (I am not as humorless as most conservatives! :wink: )
You see, you're a tough sell -- you're not totally buying the pre-emptive strike as a written-in-stone foreign policy. If the matter with Iraq reaches the level that this is necessary because of a violation of disarmament, so be it. I hope you're completely assured by our government's intentions but that is what he debate is about.
No, I am not completely sold on the notion that we have nothing but the best of intentions, but neither am I sold on the notion that we have nothing but the worst of intentions. Which perhaps puts you and me in violent agreement on the heart of this issue; we both think regime change might be necessary in Iraq, but want it to be done only if absolutely necessary, and only for the right reasons. (I hope I am not mis-stating your point of view.)
Nobody wants to believe their elected officials have hidden agendas and often they are never revealed. The Pentagon Papers was an instance where they were revealed to everyone's dismay.
I assume that our elected officials have hidden agendas, I just don't pretend to know what those hidden agendas are. (This last is not
something I am accusing you of, but just a comment regarding some people with whom I have discussed this and other issues.)