Liberal or Conservative Test

[A Black Falcon]

My point is that saying "we" are superior to "them" usually leads to bad foreign policy. Because when we (humans) act on this assumption, we assume silly things like, "Their opinions aren't worth as much as ours!" or "Their way of doing things is backward!" or "We should take advantage of them because we can!" or, the worst of all, "Their lives are insignificant!"

And the only way we can assume that "we" are superior to "them" is through narcissism. Because, if you think about it, you had the equal chance of being born into "we" or "them." And you had no control in the matter. So the person you think you are superior to could have easily been yourself. And how would you like it if "they" thought "they" were superior to "us"? Is that something you would feel is justified? I try not to assume that I'm superior to anything. It's an extension of the "Golden Rule," and I think it makes sense.

Exactly as I said.... but worded better. :) Sure, it won't hurt in the short term... but might doesn't make right and in the long term it'll come back to haunt you... it did for Rome, France, Britain... we WILL be next if we continue to act without caring about what anyone else thinks. Not for a long time... but it'll happen.

I think ABF's talking about the period DURING the Cold War. In Asia, Africa, and South America, and Central America, we supported (set up "puppet governments" for) any anti-Communist regime, even if it was brutal, violent, undemocratic, and descriminatory. Here are some off the top of my head: Afghanistan, Guatemala, Indonesia, Angola and Nicaragua. I'm 99% sure there were more.

Dozens. Panama, El Salvador, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Grenada, Haiti... there are many more... and pretty much all of those regimes we held up were brutal, murdering dictators who were at least as bad as Sadaam (who of course is one of them).

True, but I believe that taking the duty of judge, jury, and executioner is inherently wrong. While I agree with the ends (deposing a terrible dictator that may threaten our national security), I am troubled by the means. There needs to be some international force stronger than the UN that has no national ties, makes legislature, enforces international law, and acts in the best interest of humanity. Sadly, I think this will not happen until:

a.) the most powerful nation in the world is willing to give up some of its powers, just as states had to give up some of their powers to form the United States.

and

b.) there is a clear and present danger that requires the cooperation of previously warring nations.

All it does is prove we are no better than any other empire before us... which means nothing good based on what we know about empires...

Oh, and we won't have true international law that is backed by LAW and not just convention and agreements that are a bit too flexible until governments agree on that... and that won't happen anytime soon. Not with so many people strongly opposed to even the thought that we might *gasp* give up some soverignty to a bigger orgianization... and unlike when we were states, its gone on for so long that the groups will never agree. Not at the rate we're going... its really too bad too. We desperately need a more powerful world organization...