Isolationism

[Rockon]

I never said there were 'specific' policies. There aren't any. The United States isn't going to be foolish enough to publicly declare its intention to manipulate the political landscape of the middle-east in order to protect its supply of oil. But it would be foolish to think that the oil has nothing to do with our interest in the middle-east. Oil is the U.S.'s lifeblood.

True enough. That's why we try to have alliances with countries that produce oil. It's not immoral for a nation to have friendly relationships (which might include military aid) with the countries it has established trade with.

Also, if terrorist just hate us for what we represent to them, then why aren't they attacking other prosperous, democratic, non-muslim nations? Why aren't they blowing the hell out of Switzerland?

So because the Germans didn't blow the hell out of Switzerland in World War II their attack on the rest of Europe was justifiable?

Tim

 

[shanek]

So when the warlords of Somalia use food as a weapon and literally starve hundreds of thousands of people to death we shouldn't take sides against them?

Nope.

The US has suspended habeas corpus and begun holding its own citizens without charge or legal counsel; should others take sides against the US government?

The sword cuts both ways.

 

[shanek]

Also, if terrorist just hate us for what we represent to them, then why aren't they attacking other prosperous, democratic, non-muslim nations? Why aren't they blowing the hell out of Switzerland?

I've been asking that question since 9/11. I have yet to get an answer.

 

[Rockon]

Nope.

The US has suspended habeas corpus and begun holding its own citizens without charge or legal counsel; should others take sides against the US government?

The sword cuts both ways.

Agreed: the sword cuts both ways.

But that means your answer should be "Yep" instead of "Nope."

Tim

 

[shanek]

Agreed: the sword cuts both ways.

But that means your answer should be "Yep" instead of "Nope."

Why? That's hardly a refutation—or even an acknowledgement—of my argument.

 

[Rockon]

Why? That's hardly a refutation—or even an acknowledgement—of my argument.

Well, I assumed you meant that because the U.S. is just as guilty (in some respects) as other countries that we should expect other countries to line up against us, just like we might line up against countries that *we* feel are oppressive or immoral. I was agreeing with you. But I don't think we have to make sure our own house is completely in order (although that would be nice) before we take sides in international disputes.

So...we take sides in Somalia because we think they are engaging in genocide *and* other countries take sides against us because they think we are ignoring due process (or whatever).

Tim

 

[shanek]

Well, I assumed you meant that because the U.S. is just as guilty (in some respects) as other countries that we should expect other countries to line up against us, just like we might line up against countries that *we* feel are oppressive or immoral. I was agreeing with you.

Then why did you say my answer should have been "yep" instead of "nope"?

 

[Rockon]

Then why did you say my answer should have been "yep" instead of "nope"?

Maybe I don't understand your point.

Question 1: Should the U.S. take sides against an immoral government? (E.g. The Somalia problem)
Answer: Yep.

Question 2: Should other countries take sides against the U.S.? (E.g. The suspension of habeas corpus.)
Answer: Yep.

As you said, the sword cuts both ways. If the answer to #2 is "Yep," then the answer to #1 should also be "Yep."

In other words, the U.S. should hold itself to the same level of accountability that we hold other countries to. We should expect other countries to apply trade sanctions, restrict travel, etc. if we are behaving in a way that is perceived as immoral to them.

Tim

 

[Scorpy]

So because the Germans didn't blow the hell out of Switzerland in World War II their attack on the rest of Europe was justifiable?

Why are these terrorists singling out the United States?

 

[shanek]

As you said, the sword cuts both ways. If the answer to #2 is "Yep," then the answer to #1 should also be "Yep."

And if the answer to #2 is "Nope," then the answer to number one should also be "Nope."

Now all you have to do is explain why it is right to answer both questions with "Yep" instead of "Nope."

 

[Rockon]

And if the answer to #2 is "Nope," then the answer to number one should also be "Nope."

Now all you have to do is explain why it is right to answer both questions with "Yep" instead of "Nope."

We're going in circles.

It doesn't *have* to be "Yep." I was merely trying to point out that if it's ok for a foreign government to take sides against the U.S. (because of our flawed application of habeas corpus) then its also ok for the U.S. to take sides against another country that is practicing genocide.

Or the reverse: regardless of our own "crimes and misdemeanors" it is still reasonable for the U.S. to take sides in international disputes, especially if those disputes involve crimes against humanity.

Tim

 

[shanek]

We're going in circles.

It doesn't *have* to be "Yep."

That's what you said. "But that means your answer should be 'Yep' instead of 'Nope.'"

I was merely trying to point out that if it's ok for a foreign government to take sides against the U.S. (because of our flawed application of habeas corpus) then its also ok for the U.S. to take sides against another country that is practicing genocide.

Well that, at least, is consistent. (It's not, however, happening, nor would Bush ever tolerate such a retaliation against the US.)