Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Indigo5
No, I wouldn't support spending billions and invading another country that was not an immediate threat to us against the wishes of the international
community based on falsified evidence for the agenda of "spreading democracy" by force.
Yah, see, like I said, you are all about the Intl community and not American sovereignty. Are you American?
Your vision is blurred. Are those the choices? Our sovereignty vs. NATO?
This is a false binary argument. It is premised on the idea that taking into consideration any other nations opinions equates to sacrificing
sovereignty. It is a false argument.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So why would you support a "genuine military revolution" in Iran, but not the genuine student revolution?
edit on 17-6-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus
because: (no reason given)
The Obama administration took a long time to come out and support the revolution in Libya, then it went all-in.
Why?
Because American policy in the Middle East has always been security and power in the region trumps "Democracy".
We happily support dictators as long as they do our bidding.
Libya was difficult policy choice and a very important one. It scares the crap out of other American supported dictatorships in the Middle East. The
message is that our support is not limitless and if a Middle East country reaches a tipping point we will side with the people, not the dictator.
The difference between Iran and Iraq vs. Libya is the people revolted rather than the USA deciding the future for them via invasion and occupation.
That is why in Iraq we were attacked not by just "insurgents" but by a huge segment of Iraqi nationals that were opposed to US occupation. People that
hated Al-Qaida were shooting at our troops.
Imagine if we lived in a similar dictatorship and the people revolted...then Russia invaded and toppled our government and occupied us for years on
end? You have to understand the difference.
During the American revolution France supported us by supplying cannons, muskets, powder, shot and other supplies. Do you think we would have
tolerated them invading and occupying us?
It is a huge...HUGE difference in philosophy, cost, cost of lives, time and outcome. No boots on the ground.
You can never "free" a populace via invasion and occupation.
Lastly...you asked what I supported..MY opinion. Congressional approval for those actions is a different question.
And please save the false binary argument of Sovereignty vs. Giving a crap about the rest of the world. It is not an either/or equation and that
simplistic thinking is what turned the global community against us during the last administration.
Our sovereignty is more secure with allies than without.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-6-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)