Subject:
|
Re: 2 Qs For John
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:14:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3134 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
| |
Respect from whom, Scott? We will do what we believe is in our best
interests as a nation. That is usually in the best interests of the world
as well, because a strong, free America is good for the world (not to
mention a prosperous one as well). We are not intested in pleasing people
or countries, but preserving our way of life, namely freedom, and assisting
others in achieving that goal as well.
|
Well said John. Just keep waving your little flag.
This is what I don’t understand:
Q1. How is supporting human rights abuses in Israel and Saudi Arabia in your
collective self interest if the end result (indirect or otherwise) is 911 and
related attacks?
Q2. How has invading Iraq improved your “freedom”? It appears it has made the
world less safe?
Scott A
|
I know I’m not John but I think these are good points.
Doing thing for the benefit of your own country are fair enough providing you
don’t care what other people (countries) think and you don’t try to present them
as being for the good of the world. For example, if Bush said ‘we are going to
invade all the countries in the Middle East to control the oil supplies for
America’ you couldn’t argue with the fact that he is doing something to benefit
the US. (ignore for a moment the revenge attacks etc.) He might be wrong morally
and world opinion would not be favourable but it would be transparent. Likewise
if the US came out and said, for example, we are on the Israeli side and
anything done to the Palestinians is fine by us (I am by no means saying that
this is what the US thinks at any level) then you couldn’t argue with the policy
from national interest level, it wouldn’t be right morally but that is a
different matter. I think what rankles with many people round the world is the
way things are done ‘in the interest of the world’ when in fact that are done
purely in the interest of the US, and a lot of the time without the support of
many people there. (no quotes as to figure or anything but I bet there are many
that have doubts of one sort or another) The classic example is the much
discussed one of the existence of WMD. It seems like it was fabricated as a
excuse for an invasion by someone who wanted to invade whatever. And so what if
Iraq did have them, after all the US has many more and much more potent, it is
not against using them either, e.g. napalm in Vietnam. What makes it the one who
says Iraq is not allowed to have them? (I’m not ignoring the role the UK has in
the whole affair and it wasn’t with my blessing) The much vaunted ‘Free’
American way of life is something that is mentioned a lot, fair enough if that’s
the way you like it but to many outsiders a lot of aspects do not seem as free
as they are cracked up to be and they see no reason that it should be foisted on
them. Agreed many aspects are good but many are bad and Bush has also introduced
things which to my mind reduce the freedom enjoyed by US citizens. Speaking
personally a state model along the lines of Scandinavian countries seems far
more like freedom than the US model.
Obviously, as with anything, there are two sides to the issue. For example I
would agree that many Iraqis and Afghans welcome the removal of Saddam Hussein
and the Taliban government, I do think that something needs to be done about
terrorism but my problem is with the Bush way of doing it.
Tim Sorry, as per usual when I get on my soapbox I’ve rambled a bit.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 2 Qs For John
|
| (...) Well said John. Just keep waving your little flag. This is what I don't understand: Q1. How is supporting human rights abuses in Israel and Saudi Arabia in your collective self interest if the end result (indirect or otherwise) is 911 and (...) (21 years ago, 9-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
