"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Toller" wrote:

Had we done something to stop Hitler (or Hirohito for that matter) in
1939,
instead of waiting for Pearl Habor over three years later, we could have
saved 40,000,000 dead. But no, public opinion was too strong against it.
Thank God the Japanese were stupid enough to attack PH.

But with that thinking, Toller, the world would be in a perpetual state
of war. Who's to make the determination that a country's leader is a bad
and/or dangerous guy who needs to be taken out? It's dangerous thinking
to believe we're (USA) always in the right with our foreign relations
decisions - history has and will continue to prove this statement
correct.

Castro has been considered an enemy of the US for half a century - would
it have been better to declare war on Cuba in '60 with the resulting
deaths or to do as we've done and allow them to co-exist in a world of
their own making? What of the leaders in Africa who are complicit or
complacent to the genocide within their own borders? Why are we
tolerating their behavior for decades and not removing them?

Like it or not, cynical or not, most of our military decisions to enter
a war come down to matters of economics. Until a foreign conflict or
threat impinges on our ability to make money or significantly affects
our trading partners we aren't much interested.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

Actually, your typo of stating that "history will continue to prove this
statement correct" ( I believe to be a typo based on context) is pretty much
the context of the current administrations arguments. We've been correct and
incorrect in the histories of our foreign policies. It's democracy dummies.
We have a current government that believes spreading democracy worldwide
will quell and dissuade the repression of all peoples worldwide. They
believe this will bring on a perpetual state of peace. A domino effect
worldwide, in their minds.

Is this feasible? It's hard to discern for the folks not tied to a
particular ideology around the world. Is it the right course for the world?
Other than the immediately excused idiot in the thread, it seems to be
unresolved. How could anyone who has enjoyed the freedoms of democracy,
state that they believe in anything other than a form of government where
they are not repressed? It seems illogical.

However, many in the world feel that the democratic forms of government have
resulted in their repression.

What's the answer?

To answer with my feelings about some of what Owen has stated, a good
measure is whether or not a "bad" guy tries to export his "danger" on
others. A couple of your examples have tried that in physically attacking
neighboring countries for the sole purpose of expanding territory to become
part of their empire. That is trying to take by military force another
sovereign land to make one of their own. That's well defined as a move that
should be met by military resistance.

Castro and the government of Cuba isn't one of those. Nor are the leaders in
Africa in a position to do so.

The latest round of world issues seem to come not from established
governments wanting to expand their territories, (other than Iraq into
Kuwait), but an ideological struggle.

I am somewhat confused about the reference to the matters of economics.
While I agree that many conflicts in hostory come down to economics, I just
can't find it in this current unrest and issues in the Middle East. The
economics angle just doesn't play out on so many fronts. I've looked and
wanted to beleive that oil was the issue and that governments in the
"Coalition" would see economic benefits from this just doesn't pan out.

It just seems to me that this is a struggle of ideologies.