Yikes, this got a little long on me, sorry. I think you'll find most of your questions answered though. :wink:
dlowan wrote: Yes, Bill, I do -- however, do you see no problem with a fallible - many in the Islamic world, and elsewhere, would say morally deeply corrupt - country daring to appoint itself as the moral arbiter for the world?
D, you have a point with the death-penalty angle, NOT with our deep moral corruption. Complaints about individual's exercise of freewill cannot be given the same consideration as the human rights violations inherent in the consumation of marriage with a nine year old. When it comes to condemning this type of horror, the U.S shouldn't be standing as "the moral arbiter for the world". The U.S. should be standing as the teeth of the civilized world's body united against such crimes against humanity. I would have to agree that the U.S. isn't a perfect role model for anyone... and I'll acknowledge we've made dozens of credibility destroying mistakes in the past. All the more reason the U.N., not the U.S. should be leading the charge, and shaming all it's members into joining forces against the murderous oppressors of the world... not spending the last year carefully not using the term genocide for the genocide taking place in Sudan. I couldn't agree more that we're too arrogant and downright unlikable to be the face of change for some countries... but unfortunately no one else is stepping up to the plate.
Basic human rights and self-determination have to be reasonable, attainable goals for all of humankind. Assuming the contrary is the morally bankrupt position. Problems don't get solved by assuming they can't be.
dlowan wrote: Really - you have never answered a sngl eone of my objections here, you know.
Yes, I know. When you agreed that it wasn't worth it, I didn't see the point in expending the energy, only to be ignored. It seems you've changed your mind, so I'll try my best to accomodate you.
dlowan wrote: Have a go at that one, first - then, mebbe, address the moral bankruptcy of a county acting as a cop with NO right - look at my definition of cop. Apart from avoiding the question by rambling on about what naughty countries migh mean by cop, you made no answer. Use YOUR definition of cop/ Any chance of justifying the US taking on such a role - unilaterally - with no law or control or answerability/ Come on - REALLY think - just for a moment.
Answerability? Until such time as we are no longer the world's only superpower, answerability will be a polite facade, when we choose to play along. That's fact, not arrogance. It has been the same with every alpha nation and would be the same if any other nation were on top today. Look how Chirac behaves despite his nation's glory days as alpha being long gone for good. I submit, we may be no better but we're certainly no worse than any previous alpha.
Aside from that, I don't agree that we did anything unilaterally. We pointed out an outlaw regime, stated he was not in compliance with his obligations, announced our intention to remove him from power, invited other countries to second-etc. our findings (adding all the legitimacy we needed, in my book), and then went ahead and did what we said we were going to do. 50,000 pages of debate here couldn't find common ground on that, so don't let's try it ourselves, eh? Suffice to say the leaders of many nations fall on each side of the argument.
dlowan wrote: And then - actual, practical results - do you actually believe that your ideas, if a regime mad enough to try it, were ever to occur in the USA, were acted upon that the results would be good?
Yes Dlowan, I do. I fully believe that
if a regime were mad enough to try it, it would work. It seems whenever the left takes a break from denying Iraqis are capable of hosting a civilized democracy for themselves, they default to the bi-partisan position that it is imperative that we succeed in Iraq, at least now that the
damage is done. IF we do indeed succeed there, we will have succeeded at many things.
A. Succeeded at proving a ME country can sustain a civilized democracy on their own.
B. Succeeded at proving that the United States will not give up in the face of adversity.
C. Succeeded at proving we are not out to steal oil, or any other propagandized nonsense.
D. Succeeded at proving that we are NOT out to colonize or otherwise take over the sovereignty of any nation.
E. Succeeded at proving that the life of the average Iraqi citizens improve from self-determination.
Credibility? What better way is there to obtain it? IF we succeed here, I believe our next target for improvement would be met with:
A. Less resistance from forces outside and inside alike
as the propaganda will be a tougher sell.
B. Attract assistance from MORE civilized nations, as our intentions will be easier to accept.
As I've pointed out on other threads, my plan would be two-pronged
the carrot and the stick. While our military is raining down inevitably on the forces of murderous despots, those who choose to comply by enforcing basic human rights standards and allowing for self-determination will be rewarded with preferred trade status as our allies, and not be left out like our enemies. Yes, D, I think it would work
and in fact get easier and easier as we progressed.
dlowan wrote: Just as a for instance - the fundamental Islamic regime you criticise in Iran largely came about as Iranians embraced Islamic fundamentalism as a POLITICAL act in outrage at the actions of the American/British installed Shah - after these countries conspired to oust the democratically elected leader of Iran, because they disapproved of certain actions he was taking which threatened the level of oil profits.
Thus - an act of the type you envisage helped lead to the current level of fundamentalist control in Iran.
Not true. Your history is fair enough, but my plan of freeing them from oppression, after providing a shining example next door shouldn't be interpreted as another installation of a puppet regime. Is it impossible for you to swallow the idea that the U.S. could figure out that assisting currently hostile people to freedom really is in our best interest? It is. Our economy, security and even our politicians ability to collect special interest money will only improve by freeing more of the world's citizens. It's the next great frontier!
dlowan wrote:Can you IMAGINE the chaos and reactions that such actions by the US would unleash when undertaken in a number of countries?????
I agree that our credibility needs to improve before we expand our efforts. Where we differ, is I think the results of our current aggression will improve our credibility. Keep in mind too, that the only thing bigger than our carrot is our stick. (Again, that's fact, not arrogance.) Both can be extremely effective.
Moving to your next page:
dlowan wrote: As a for instance - most civilized countries are appalled by America's persisting in murdering predominantly black young men in your country.
Considering how much more likely your indigenous population is to be behind bars, I wouldn't get
too indignant. This is a strong argument but, I don't think anyone should be 1/10th as worried about barbarism towards the guilty as they are barbarism towards the innocent. And when it comes to true scum, like this Peterson fella, for instance, the protective custody of Death Row will likely keep him alive longer than his peers would have in general pop. Both this issue and abortion can be reasonably described as murder or even barbarism, depending on one's point of view. At least with capital punishment, great pains are taken in an attempt to insure the condemned is guilty. I have no answer for a culture that considers abortion murder. Do you? Again, I'm forced to redirect to the center
basic human rights are a bigger issue than either.
dlowan wrote: What say Europe, canada, Oz etc were to get together and attack you to install a civilised regime? Say we are strong enough to do so - you WILL be defeated militarily. . .
How would you guys react? Even those of you who also despise capital punishment?
Assuming you want me to pretend we wouldn't paddle your collective ass
I imagine there would be some applause, some murderous rage and a healthy percentage of people who wouldn't really give a rat's ass if it didn't affect them directly.
dlowan wrote: Then - your country is handed to the Islamic countries, because they , of course, have far better morals than you do - their god says so - just like the whatever that whispers in your ear that YOU know what is morally right for the whole world says to you - the Islamic folk re-establish the rule of god (just as you wish to establish the rule of democracy - your "thing" tells you that this is right).
How would Americans react?
Here it becomes impossible to play along any further, Dlowan, because the answer is irrelevant. You cannot compare delivering self-determination to the brutally oppressed to taking self-determination away. It's unfair to ask me to assemble your Strawman for you.
My "thing" isn't a book full of absurdities that I expect others to believe in or else. My "thing" is a demand that all people be allowed to decide their "thing" for themselves. Basic human rights and self-determination is all I expect from anyone. No more, no less. If you can come up with a hypothetical that will parallel that, I'll gladly play along. But, no parallel can be drawn by juxtaposing self-determination with oppression. That just doesn't work.
) that took place between 1990 and 2003, 3.6 million people died. Now, according to Doctors Without Borders, Kim Jong Il managed a like number all by himself, in half the time. 
At least the hated U.S. didn't have a hand in it though, right?
<shakes head>
