Reply #79: Your view of American interventionism needs refinement

[0rganism]

It appears you have good intentions, but lack insight into the specifics.

> I believe that America should be "world cop" when it can,

The entire notion of a "cop" is based in acknowledged enforcement of applicable law for the common good. What we have done in Iraq and elsewhere is certainly niether upholding law, nor for the common good, nor do we have a mandate from the world to do any such thing. That turns us into a bully, not a cop, and invites assymetric response from those we opress.

Indeed, the USA is practically the lone holdout against establishing the international criminal court system, as it would be equally applicable in its laws to USA actions and our government sees that as potentially ruinous to the ability to intervene at the beck and call of corporate interest. That is not the role of a good policeman, but of a mafia thug.

> and should stamp out evil people, when it can

Who defines evil? Is Ken Lay evil? He's hardly been stamped out by America, after ruining at least two state economies.

Is Dick Cheney evil? His (evil?) company, Halliburton, receives $1.7 Billion in contracts for logistical support of the Iraq operation. This ensures he receives his annual stipend, in the million$, on schedule. How will America "stamp him out"?

Was Katherine Harris evil? Most here would say she is, but maybe she was simply a tool of corrupt nepotism. Either way, both she and her former boss have been richly rewarded for their actions.

When America can't even "stamp out evil" in its own garden of democracy, our actions abroad stink of hypocrisy and small-mindedness.

> I'm glad Clinton went into Bosnia when he did,

Whatever else one may say about this, and there is much disagreement still about the particulars of how it was carried out, it was done WITH THE SUPPORT AND BACKING OF THE UN, not against the advice and wishes of our closest allies.

> I wish the US would have made a stronger showing in Liberia

You wish the Liberian intervention was something other than tokenism? I agree, but unfortunately our military was already overcommitted in its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

> I wish Bush I would have gone into Baghdad when he could have,
> it would have prevented many a Iraqi slaughter.

Actually, it wouldn't have prevented a slaughter, it would have unleashed the scenario we're seeing unfold now. Remember how you wanted the humanitarian intervention in Bosnia? We intervened because of the social disintegration in post-Tito Yugoslavia. The same thing will happen in Iraq if we leave now. A strong totalitarian leader was the only thing keeping the various ethnicities from one-another's throats.

Furthermore, the UN directive was to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, not to remove Saddam Hussein from Baghdad. Bush 1 may have been "evil" by my reckoning, but at least he knew how to read a UN resolution.

> I'll stand up for the poor, the oppressed, and for removing
> ruthless dictators and leaders wherever they may be found

Be very careful. You may think your idealistic views are noble, but other people are defining "ruthless dictator" as far as foreign policy goes.

> with the next big removal happening in 2004 when we elect a
> Democrat to the White House

We tried that in 2000.

Don't trust an evil oligarchy with the definition of evil!