Moderator: coldharvest
when was the last time you saw a war between two stable democracies?
the idea that the US system is the best possible of all democratic systems
which, by extension, seems to lead them to think that everything their elected government does in the world must be done at least for honourable (even if mistaken and to some extent partisan) reasons,
that the US is necessarily a force for good in the world
that anyone who disagrees or criticizes is in some way malign and anti-American
that it must be a good thing that the US has overwhelming force and is the only superpower
the majority of people feel this way about their own system in any stable democracy. Don't you feel the same way about the British system? its the old "well, it isn't perfect, but its the best thing we have going" argument.
In foriegn affairs ... Like most Americans I tend to feel that the people in charge are trying to do the right thing. Call it faith in enlightened self-interest.
It would be awfully fatalistic of us to see ouselves as an evil force in the world, now wouldn't it? Like I said above, everbody likes to think they at least try to do good in the world.
Seriously though, when you bring up reasoned disagreements with US policy, how many times have you been accused of malignant anti-Americanism? (here, now, On the new BFC where FUG seems to have been permabanned)
Can you blame American for trusting their own government more than we trust other governments (or the UN)?
Once again, on principal, wouldn't you trust the Spanish or British governments more than any other government (or the UN)?
You don't honestly believe all that crap about liberating Iraqis, providing them with the gift of democracy, being a beacon to the region, do you? Didn't I read you're a university student, Aegis? Sharpen up.
Well, yes, I can (or at least suggest they think a bit harder) in the face of all the evidence. Have you ever considered that it might not be anti-Americanism that persuaded the UN not to back the US (and UK) in this crazy venture, but concern that it was not the best way forward? Could be more dangerous to the peace of the region? Why not trust the UN? 150 heads (for the sake of argument. I'm not going to look up the figures) are better than one puppet of a bunch of neocon maniacs.
I think that educated people with democratic freedoms have a responsibility, where possible, to keep themselves informed about what is being done in their name and do what they can to hold their governments to account. In times of war and major international crises, this is even more essential in the case of citizens (or subjects ;)) of the countries most involved.
I think world powers have analogous responsibilities: it’s not good enough for their policies to be based on crude self-interest. Good government takes account of the interests of the rest of the world, both countries and peoples, and pays special attention to the needs of people in countries where they do not have those democratic freedoms (in other words, it’s not good enough either to say you’re taking into account the views and interests of corrupt elites in charge of autocratic or otherwise totalitarian regimes, even more so if those regimes were installed or otherwise kept in power by and in the interests of the world powers). That is enlightened self-interest. It’s in everyone’s interest (apart from arms manufacturers and related interests) for the world to work towards the greatest good for all. I’m sure I don’t need to spell out the contrary effects of war, terrorism, gross inequalities etc. They’re not hard to see.
The United Nations and other international institutions, for good or ill, are the bodies we have that best represent the nations of the world (with all the caveats about how they represent the governments and not necessarily the people, and how some are massively skewed in favour of the major powers) and should not be sidelined or ignored. There is even less justification for powerful countries to refuse to consider themselves bound by their decisions, since they hold so many of the levers – and as we found in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, are quite prepared to abuse them.
It can be argued that the US at least tried to do these very things in Iraq. In theory, its not just the wealthy elite in Iraq (and the US) that would benefit from a successful ouster of Saddam and a the rebuilding of Iraq into a stable, western style state. The Average and poor Iraqis would be better off as well as foriegn investment (and the jobs that come with expanding industry) came into the country, and the world as a whole would benefit not only from the opening of Iraq to trade, but also from having a liberal democracy in the place of a stalinesque despot. In fact, one of the biggest gripes a lot of Americans had with the war was that aside from the executives of Haliburton and a few munitions manufacturers, very little of the gain for this campaign will ever be seen here in the US.
The US was at least ostensibly operating within the bounds of UN resolutions regarding Iraq.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 37 guests