Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
It's all well and good to stand by "the ends justify the means" but so far I have seen very few satisfactory "ends" coming out of American interventionism.
Latin America is a mess in part because of US foreign policy of supporting military dictators
The Middle East is unstable largely thanks to interventions like the coup of an elected government that was replaced with the Shah (orchestrated by the CIA).
I am not saying that America doesn't do good things it's just that saying the ends justifies the means comes across as a bullshit excuse to simply throw your military weight around. There *are* other ways to achieve "ends" and they don't always involve military might.
The problem is they typically take longer to implement than a four-year term.
|
I think you choose your moments. I agree if you go around doing what ever you want based on saying the means justify the ends, that is a problem. I am not saying that. Are you saying the means never justify the ends? Are we talking about degrees of difference in our views or what?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Actually, I don't see any difference at all. Can you elaborate? It seems to me that an aggressive nation by definition is one that uses force to protect it's national interest. A passive nation, the logical antithesis, would not.
|
the historical examples Shakran gave all included empire buiders. We are not trying to build an empire.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."
Last edited by aceventura3; 02-23-2007 at 08:46 AM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
|