- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,879
- Reaction score
- 12,684
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Under civilian control, there is the possibility of self correction through elections or impeachments. Nixon was impeached during Vietnam, and the Republicans lost the presidency during the Iraq war.
Under authoritarian control self correction is not as likely.
truth is that our morality is tied up in our interests.
We obviously were raised differently. My morality doesn't include killing others to make ourselves richer.
That's a helluva accusation.
We obviously were raised differently. My morality doesn't include killing others to make ourselves richer.
Then obviously you haven't read his support of wars for hegemony
Then obviously you haven't read his support of wars for hegemony
Your morality, tied to international laws that dismiss morality and hinge on "stability", is false. Once again, your "morality" has nothing to do with the reality. "Making ourselves richer" has never been a mission. Our mission has been to preserve the American opportunity and lifestyle so that individuals like you can make yourself rich. Insisting that your sense of morality greets the world that you live in does nothing constructive and acts as a wall from understanding. You are free to explain this......
Revolutionary War - Freedom
War of 1812 - Freedom
Civil War - Freedom
War in the Pacific - Defense & Revenge on the Japanese
Afghanistan - Defense & Revenge on Islamist extremists
With these five events aside, explain the rest. Explain what the majority of all our activity abroad was about. Explain what deploying our troops across these oceans have menat to the world. I can explain what each one was about and what it meant to the world. And it isn't as simple as a gaffe like "oil." An entire world hasn't folowed us down the path we paved and guard today because of Exxon.
And my learning and understanding go beyond my early years of being raised.
I am not opposed to defensive wars.
Like libertarians, I support a strong defense.
I do not however support wars for hegemony, such as Vietnam and Iraq, and what the war in Afghanistan has become.
I know this. BUT,.....
...this is where your idea of morality and support contradict. You are hung up on the word "hegemony" and are applying it wrongly.
Nobody is preaching about a march across planet earth conquering everyone, planting flags, and declaring ourselves king of the hill. This has never happened.
And since we have been the lone superpower (hegemony) since the Berlin Wall came down, can you really use the idea of "hegemony" and apply it to a quest in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan?
I assume you support our activity across Europe during World War II, despite Germany not attacking us.
Absolutely, since neither represented anywhere close to a military threat to the US.
Japan attacked us and Germany was invading its neighbors, neither of which Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan were doing.
I will state this again.......Germany was about the region, not just Germany. Iraq was about the region, not just Iraq.
You are closed minded at this point. Even Sunni fighters throughout the region managed to see how bigger Iraq was than you. I have to assume that you choose not to see our history. Nobody on earth has been a military threat to the U.S. since the War of 1812. So...explain the rest. You can't because it means you would have to acknowledge the uncomfortable that your protesting has dismissed.
In fact, where was the military threat to the U.S. in Bosnia and Kosovo? Why would we send our military to deal with such things if they aren't a direct threat to our soil?
So....Germany attacked its neighbor (not us) so we marched to Berlin to take down the dictator, but Iraq invading its neighbor means marching only to the Iraqi border and then preserving the dictator?
Hegemony is an indirect form of imperial dominance in which the hegemon (leader state) rules sub-ordinate states by the implied means of power rather than by direct military force — by intervention and occupation. The problem with your accusation is that we do not seek to rule either one. Democracy and offering people their chance to choose their own leaders tends to strip your obtuse argument away. In fact, we were clear on our eventual departure from Iraq and are clear about Afghanistan now so where's the kind of "occupation" that hegemony defines? Hegemony is also an aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination. Are we seeking world domination or have we dominated since the Soviet Union fell? Truth be told we really dominated the world even before this. The Berlin Wall coming down was merely symbolic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?