posted on Jan, 12 2003 @ 01:41 PM
Fair enough, then. I wouldn't disagree with the view that much of today's major turmoils are related to 20th century communism. I just wouldn't
boil it down to that alone, and I firmly believe in the depravity of human character, thus leading me to believe that conflict, large and small, will
arise despite all of our efforts, and that the same conflicts can rarely be blamed on one particular effect (such as communism).
Any study in international politics shows the natural tendency towards large-scale polarization between opposing views; even if there are
discrepancies within the alliances, the benefit of having an ally is better than adding an enemy (neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact saw complete
homogeneity within member states, for example). To say that one side is good and the other bad is too much of a blind generalisation. I am not by any
means a US-basher (my mother is American, and Canada has far more similarities than differences to bother asking which is better), I just find it
naive to suggest that the United States has set out on a goal of world-rescue, while others are merely nuissances standing in the way of world peace.
The US, like every other nation on the planet, has people with their own ambitions, temperaments, and goals, and will always feel responsible for
their own good (which, in itself is no crime).
That I happen to support the party that is in power in my country right now does not stop me from writing scathing letters if a choice or policy they
adopt is that bad. They may be my party of choice, but I have no illusions about the limits of a human being. Governments and countries are, after
all, just a group of people, and any person is capable of the best or worst thing imaginable.
The maelstrom of human strife will always be aggravated by political agendas, personal ambition, and any other good or bad intention.