[Because this thread is still going strong, I've moved it up to the top of the blog this morning -- Bookworm.]
Zachriel raises a new and very interesting point:
“A strong an prosperous America leading free nations is a good thing. Dominance of one nation by another is undemocratic and inherently unstable. If, as many Americans agree, Washington is detached from the concerns of the people of Aberdeen or Bangor, then why would anyone expect Washington to be able to run the affairs of people in Kandahar or Fallujah.”
I think he’s right that America is ill-suited to run things in Kandahar or Fallujah. Of course, I’ve always been uncomfortable with American intervention in other countries, witness my opposition to the invasion of Iraq. But, if intervention into other countries is necessary to protect Americans against future 9/11s maybe it is a necessary evil even if we don’t run things all that well in Kandahar and Fallujah. Every country has a right to defend itself, a right that, in its execution, may necessarily extend beyond its borders. Israel, for example, should not be required to wait until Iran drops an atomic bomb on it before acting to prevent that from happening.
What do you all think about this?Email This Post To A Friend
268 Responses to “American dominance?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.