[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Now think in cold war terms... think back at the time when USSR was on equal footing with USA. No one ever predicted of sudden USSR collapse. Everyone thought East and West rivalry will go on forever. US leaders fully believed on the "domino effect", and that revolutoinary movements in American continent must be "contained" by any means (in form of "friendship", economic/sustained development assistance, or in worst case scenario... a CIA mission to "contain" Soviet-leaning revolutionary movements.)

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Cold War. Do you want it repeated? Do you understand what led up to it, and do you realize that the events that we're going through today (including terrorism and many anti-US sentiments) are a direct result of events that happened during the Cold War?

As long as USSR was around, no one give a damn about the grievances against USA. At the end of the day, US is/was seen as the savior of the (free) world every time they "contain" revolutionary/socialist/communist movenets around the world.

This sounds crazy.... but think in Cold War terms to understand this.

Aside from the fact that I don't think that what you're saying is 100% correct, it's irrelevant. Is the US seen as the "savior of the world" today? I'm under the impression that the US is seen as a dangerous nation that is willing to attack other nations even without probable cause. Worse, we have nuclear weaponry and an egotistical mindset that if a country doesn't follow our form of government, they must be "liberated." How do you think other countries feel about that? Do you think they won't feel that they should gain nuclear powers even sooner, for their own security? Creating an arms race for nuclear technology and stirring up negative sentiments against our own country - you don't think that's a risk of national security proportions?

Originally Posted by Mystique

Funny, that sounds like Iraq to me, only they were a "global" risk, what with having weapons that every other powerful country has tucked away in some bunker somewhere. Wonder if that means you were against it?

Yes, I was. When the US initially went into Iraq it was on the premise that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" and that they were going to use them against us. I wasn't following world news so heavily at the time, but it felt a little out of place to me - Saddam panicked and allowed weapons inspectors in and began to swear that he would comply with international rules, but even while the inspectors were in Iraq we (the US) were preparing to attack them. The inspectors were ultimately withdrawn and shortly thereafter we began the attack.

No weapons were found. All reports had claimed that even if there were weapons, Iraq lacked the technology to attack the US with them.

What if Iraq had weapons? I'm sure a number of people would be feeling a bit more smug right now, but I still don't think that I would have supported it. Would you tell me that we should attack anyone who has weapons? That raises a new issue: who gets to decide who has weapons, and who doesn't? Understand that it's easy to feel that no other country should have weapons when yours is the one holding the weapons, but how would you feel if you were in a smaller country or a less-armed country?

But the thing is the West has a more established democratic system than let's say Iraq, so for a foreign country to try to instill new people of power would be difficult, (short of already having links with people in the inside) than a country who's now implementing this system for the first time, I'd think. I'm sure we'd have politicians (even in the opposing parties) who could already take up the posts.

You didn't take my hypothetical example far enough. When I talked about inserting people into the government, that simply meant being ruled over by either foreign people or natives chosen by a foreign power. After all, this is what the US has done in countless countries. America has instilled their own dictators (who were often ousted not long after), and even in Iraq and Afghanistan where democratic systems were installed the initial members of the government were chosen by the US.

So I'll ask it again: if a foreign power came in and "liberated" you from your current form of government, either by replacing the people within it or by creating an entirely new system, how would you feel? Don't make it too hypothetical, either, because you'll lose touch with your true feelings. Pick an existing country - perhaps one that you're already fearful or mistrusting of - and imagine if they set up their current form of government in your country. Even for all of the failings of your current government, would you feel comfortable with your new government?