Quote:
Originally Posted by WI wide body
Actually in this context, an "opinion" can be just about anything a person expresses as his own thoughts berift of positive proof or absolute knowledge. An "issue" on the other hand is a matter of public concern or a matter of debate, discussion, or dispute. So I respectfully disagree with your opinion!
And that is because we were in fact talking about an "issue" rather than an "opinion" per se.
Also, perhaps my wording was not clear enough per the "interferring in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation" since I most certainly did not mean "at such nation's request -- humanitarian aid, logistics, support, etc. Helping restore power, water..." or anything of that nature. I meant when we use military force to obtain our agenda AGAINST the wishes of the people or the legal rulers of that sovereign nation. Such as we did in Iran when we instilled the Shah and in Iraq when we deposed Saddam and the numerous times we have supported despots around the globe as we do today with the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia and Mushareff in Pakistan. The majority of the people of those nations supported little if any of our actions. That is what I was talking about.
As for Colombia, I spent more than a little time there and got to know the locals quite well. And I can tell you that for the most part they do not agree with much if not most of our actions.
Perhaps you could list which of your family members you would be willing to sacrifice for the "credibility" you mentioned that is so important and that the USA must preserve?
For me personally, although I have many Colombian friends and a great affinity for the nation (since we have done them mostly harm and no favors) there is not a single hair on any of my children or grand children that is worth involving ourselves militarily in their affairs at this time.
|
I'm finding your writing convoluted, but I'll take a crack at the salient points, in reverse order:
I would be willing to 'sacrifice' those of my family that have voluntarily opted to serve their country's interest(s) and to go where and do what the government tells them to do (without the adolescent hubris of 2nd guessing b/c they 'know better' than their employer/government).
I do not care, nor do I think it is relevant, the opinions of those you met in Colombia of the United States. I could surround myself with thousands of anti-American douchebags in Berkeley alone, and my anecdocal information on the "opinions of Americans" would not be interesting or apposite. Your opinion of these matters has been formed by your experiences, however cogently expressed ... but expounding personal anecdote as geopolitical expertise carries no weight with me.
I don't agree with most Colombian's actions... meaning the average Colombian in the street? or of their government? Both. BFD. Our governments have made commitments to each other, and if we don't live up to them the consequences of the failure of our credibility are manifold -- our other allies, who put themselves at risk (or expense) for us, in exchange for our promises, will devalue our promises and take fewer risks for us; those of our adversaries and enemies who exercise any restraint due to our promises to intervene and protect our allies will be more bold.
If, for example, our commitment to protect Israel was seriously in question, how long would it be before there was a large-scale attack against it? The collateral and potential opportunity costs of a failure of the US to follow through on its security commitments could (and I believe would) cost much more than a few ill-conceived (or executed) interventions.
We intervened in Iraq in the Gulf War to push them out of Kuwait and destroy their ability to pull another stunt. Most Iraqis were against us coming into their country and killing their murderous, looting, rapist soldiers. Tough shyt, AFAIC.
BTW, once Iraq had seized control of Kuwait, who spoke for the population in Kuwait? Who espouses the "wishes of the 'people'". Once Iraq controls Kuwaiti territory, does Iraq speak for Kuwaitis?
Further, if they don't ... then who does? The government in exile? OK, the Iranian government in exile wants us to intervene in Iran. It serves our interests, and we've been invited in. Albeit against the wishes of a theocratic government that rules with ruthless vengeance seized control in a bloody coup. But do the Mullahs represent the will of the PEOPLE of Iran?
Well, at the risk of taking this
ad nauseam (too late!) my point is that a lot of the terms you're using permit you a wide swath of interpretation, agenda and opinion. Who the "people" are, what the issue is, whether there is a "clear and present danger" (as I alluded to earlier, that's a standard all but eviscerated by modern Liberalism -- try to get one of them to give you a series of events that would amount to "Treason" nowadays); who or what is to be "sacrificed", etc.
We have put American lives on the line and expended much for our allies. Our willingness to do so, and efficiency when we do, has bought us the cred to be able to avert many flare-ups for our allies because we'll walk the walk. Once we won't do that any more, we've thrown away those sacrifices that have bought us power-by-presence and influence-by-commitment.
Gotta run.
JP