Quote:
Originally Posted by Overpaid Slacker
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
|
First of all, I did not meet any "douchebags" in Colombia. They were mostly hard working, decent people that I mentioned only as a point of reference because many ignorant Americans who have no knowledge of foreigners often make equally ignorant assumptions about those people. These Americans are often the very same ones who like to pretend that they know what is best for the people of other nations. There is a name for people who do that, but since it's not nice I will let you guess it.
Also, what you put "weight" on means even less to me than what my experiences mean to you and I'm certain what you think means far less to the people in those other nations that you seen to want to fuk with because you think that you know what is best for them. Perhaps if you did have some personal involvement it would be a benefit to your thought process. Seeing people suffering (because of our actions) on the 10 o'clock news is one hell of a lot different than possibly realizing that they are real, live humans just like you and me.
Most of what you list is the very reason that our nation gets into these half-ass situations where we can't use the fact that we ARE the most powerful military on the planet. If there really was a situation where our nation is truly in danger we could obliterate that menace in a matter of days if not hours. Yet, we get bogged down in multi-years fiascos where we seem afraid to win. Perhaps you could ponder that for a while and try to figure why that happens.
As for "credibility" surely you jest. We have less credibility around the world than we have ever had in our nation's history. Meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and then pretending that we are doing it for our "credibility" is absurd...at best.