BoatBanter.com - View Single Post - OT for Conservatives who think war is grand

On 28 Dec 2003 17:04:45 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

June 3, 1997
Snipped

*********************************************** *

OK, John. Here we go.

"We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American
global leadership."

As you would discover elsewhere on the site, "American Global Leadership" even
includes extending American religious and moral values to other countries. It
is a process of economic and moral colonization. How do I disagree? I believe
that until we solve our own problems we have no business assuming the role of
the world's military or moral police power. I believe that an Asian, European,
African, or South American individual is as entitled to self determination as
any US citizen of North America. Aussies too. Who the hell are we to presume
that the rest of the world is even interested in having us "lead" them
anywhere? Has to be one of the most arrogant public positions ever taken. Who
are these couple of dozen people to presume to speak for the entire country?

Snipped

Chuck, I'm not going to argue each point with you, at least not in one
post. You stated, "The US should not be the world's military or moral
police power." We already *are* the world's military power. We now
have a choice: We can bury our head in the sand or not. You seem to
favor the 'bury our head in the sand' approach, i.e. we do nothing to
encourage those who act in our national interests or to discourage
those who act contrary to our national interests.

IOW, we would take no action regarding events outside the boundaries
of the US. If we had adopted your philosophy, we would have done
nothing about Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

Please give your attention to the article below. It explains, a
little, the consequences of your attitude. Note the source.

************************************************** ********
Power & Duty: U.S. Action is Crucial to Maintaining World Order

Gary Schmitt
Los Angeles Times
March 23, 2003

As the war in Iraq unfolds, the awesome military power of the United
States is on exhibit for the whole world to see. Despite the real but
mostly tacit support of friends and allies around the world, America
is exercising its power in the face of world opinion decidedly opposed
to the war. In some respects, the very fact that the United States can
do so is even more confirmation to its critics around the world that
American power seemingly unhinged from all restraints -- be it the
United Nations or world opinion -- is as much a danger to world order
as perhaps Saddam Hussein himself.

Critics of America’s preeminent role in the world, like France’s
president, are quick to see the supposed problems related to a
unipolar world. What they are far slower to offer is a realistic
alternative. For example, for all the huffing and puffing about the
need to have this war sanctioned by the United Nations, it goes
without saying that neither Paris nor Beijing is especially eager to
constrain its national security decisions because of U.N. mandates.
Indeed, in the continuing case of North Korea’s violation of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, France and China have actively sought
to push the matter away from U.N. consideration.

The fact is, the U.N. can only operate by majority consensus, and this
means that its decisions will be governed by the particular interests
of the individual member states of the Security Council -- not some
disembodied, benign voice of the “international community.” As the
failure to back up its own resolutions on Iraq and to act decisively
in the cases of Rwanda and Kosovo in the 1990s shows, the U.N. cannot
be trusted to be the sole arbiter of these matters.

No. The unavoidable reality is that the exercise of American power is
key to maintaining what peace and order there is in the world today.
Imagine a world in which the U.S. didn’t exercise this power. Who
would handle a nuclear-armed North Korea? Who would prevent the
one-party state of China from acting on its pledge to gather
democratic Taiwan into its fold? Who would be left to hunt down
Islamic terrorists increasingly interested in getting their hands on
weapons of mass destruction? Who could have contained, let alone
defeated, a tyrant like Hussein, preventing him from becoming the
dominant power in the Middle East? Who can prevent the Balkans from
slipping back into chaos? Who is going to confront regimes like those
of Iran, Syria and Libya as they rush to get their own weapons of mass
destruction? Given how little most of our allies and critics spend on
defense, certainly not them.

As Robert Kagan notes in “Of Paradise and Power,” his seminal
examination of the growing distance between the strategic perspectives
of America and Europe, the United States today is in much the same
position as Marshal Will Kane, played by Gary Cooper in the movie
“High Noon.” The townspeople are more than happy to live in the peace
brought by his law enforcement but are nervous and resentful when the
bad guys come back to town looking for him, to enact their revenge.
The residents shortsightedly believe that if the marshal would just
leave town, there would be no trouble. Of course, the reverse is true.
Without Kane to protect them, the town would quickly fall into an
anarchic state, paralyzed by ruthless gunslingers.

The simple but fundamental point is that it matters more what purposes
our power serves than that we have power. President Bush made it clear
in his address to the nation last week that removing Hussein was
necessary not only because of the threat he poses but also because it
could begin a process of reform in a region long in need of it.
Cutting the nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorists
requires transforming regimes that possess these weapons and cooperate
with or spawn terrorists.

Like the townsfolk in “High Noon,” this naturally makes many in the
world anxious. Change always brings risk and instability. But the
danger in doing nothing -- of pretending that the volatile Middle East
mix of failing regimes, rogue states, weapons of mass destruction and
terrorism can be contained safely if we only let it alone -- is far
greater. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on the floor of
Parliament during a debate over Iraq last week, “What was shocking
about 11 September was not just the slaughter of the innocent, but the
knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been
not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000, and the more the
suffering, the greater the terrorists’ rejoicing.”

But change also brings opportunity. The president’s decision to remove
Hussein from power and his work to create a viable, democratic Iraq
has already led to a number of positive steps in the region. In Iran,
moderates, emboldened by the possibility of a democratic Iraq, are
again pushing to reform that cleric-dominated state. In Saudi Arabia,
the homeland of 15 of the 19 terrorists who carried out the attacks on
the United States, the royal family has for the first time begun
serious deliberations with reformers on how to transform and
democratize the country. In the Palestinian territories, Yasser Arafat
reluctantly agreed to give up much of his day-to-day control over the
Palestinian Authority to a new prime minister. And in Egypt, the
government has just released its most vocal human-rights advocate.

Rest of article snipped.
************************************************** *******

This idea you, Chuck, seem to have, that we should just sit at home
taking care of our poor and sickly, paying no heed whatsoever to the
rest of the globe (because it's arrogant) just isn't workable.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!