Countries, of course, can be counted on to protect their self-interest. What, in what I said, made you think I believe otherwise?
Now, can countries "protect their self-interest" in violation of international law? No, and we should expect that they don't, ESPECIALLY where the major powers are concerned. Was the invasion of Iraq in self-defense? No. In what way were the US' interests threatened by Iraq, except in the vague sense that anyone and everyone who doesn't toe their line threatens their self-interest? Should France expect to be invaded next because they oppose the US' actions on the SC? China because we can expect the two to become opposed superpowers in the next few decades? Canada because we don't go along with the missile defense program? All of these could be construed, in your mixed up way, as being against the US' self- interests. So?
That you don't understand this is baffling.
The US has invited the breakdown of international laws which have protected the *general* peace for fifty years.
I expect ALL countries to obey international treaty and obligation. Last time I checked, China, since you seem to think they're a particular favourite of mine (I guarantee you, they're not), hadn't invaded any sovereign nations recently. Not as if they didn't have more provocation for doing so in some instances - Taiwan comes to mind. It seems to me that globally, they have much more sense than the current US administration.
I'm not on the "hysterical left" (nice argumentum ad hominem, though), nor did I take part in this discussion about Iran, so your comment is entirely moot, except to cast personal aspersions at everyone whom you think isn't on "the right". (In more ways than one.)
Finally, how does Iraq connect with 9/11?
OF COURSE the US is allowed - indeed, expected - to consider its security first and foremost. The invasion of Iraq WORSENED their security, by fomenting Arab and Muslim resentment and hatred of the west, in general, and the US, in particular. It has established the act of "preventive war" - not pre-emptive, mind you - as a legitimate tool. In what way is the world of today safer than before the US invaded?
I concur that the US has been perhaps the most benevolent superpower in history. This has not excused some of their behaviour, and is not meant to imply that they've acted entirely selflessly, naturally, but I agree with your statement, in general.
However, recent actions by the current administration have flown in the face of actions by previous administrations. I have noted in a previous post how Bush Sr. was firmly opposed to the invasion of Iraq when he was in power, and how he espoused the view that the UN was the best hope for *continued* global peace. In fact, of course, the Americans were the foremost proponents of the UN for a long time, and built the damn thing in the first place. That Bush Jr. has flouted this view should be disturbing, even to the "hysterical right".
Now, can countries "protect their self-interest" in violation of international law? No, and we should expect that they don't, ESPECIALLY where the major powers are concerned. Was the invasion of Iraq in self-defense? No. In what way were the US' interests threatened by Iraq, except in the vague sense that anyone and everyone who doesn't toe their line threatens their self-interest? Should France expect to be invaded next because they oppose the US' actions on the SC? China because we can expect the two to become opposed superpowers in the next few decades? Canada because we don't go along with the missile defense program? All of these could be construed, in your mixed up way, as being against the US' self- interests. So?
That you don't understand this is baffling.
The US has invited the breakdown of international laws which have protected the *general* peace for fifty years.
I expect ALL countries to obey international treaty and obligation. Last time I checked, China, since you seem to think they're a particular favourite of mine (I guarantee you, they're not), hadn't invaded any sovereign nations recently. Not as if they didn't have more provocation for doing so in some instances - Taiwan comes to mind. It seems to me that globally, they have much more sense than the current US administration.
I'm not on the "hysterical left" (nice argumentum ad hominem, though), nor did I take part in this discussion about Iran, so your comment is entirely moot, except to cast personal aspersions at everyone whom you think isn't on "the right". (In more ways than one.)
Finally, how does Iraq connect with 9/11?
OF COURSE the US is allowed - indeed, expected - to consider its security first and foremost. The invasion of Iraq WORSENED their security, by fomenting Arab and Muslim resentment and hatred of the west, in general, and the US, in particular. It has established the act of "preventive war" - not pre-emptive, mind you - as a legitimate tool. In what way is the world of today safer than before the US invaded?
I concur that the US has been perhaps the most benevolent superpower in history. This has not excused some of their behaviour, and is not meant to imply that they've acted entirely selflessly, naturally, but I agree with your statement, in general.
However, recent actions by the current administration have flown in the face of actions by previous administrations. I have noted in a previous post how Bush Sr. was firmly opposed to the invasion of Iraq when he was in power, and how he espoused the view that the UN was the best hope for *continued* global peace. In fact, of course, the Americans were the foremost proponents of the UN for a long time, and built the damn thing in the first place. That Bush Jr. has flouted this view should be disturbing, even to the "hysterical right".
