Machinesworking wrote:M. Bréqs wrote:
sweetjesus wrote:the USA and Britain need to stop supporting sides of governments within countries and especially need to stop trying to support dictators that are in alignment with their interests. that creates problems in the middle east.
Fair enough on this point. But China is doing the same thing (Sudan, Western Africa, Tibet). And the Soviets did too. And the Persian empire; didn't they sponsor dictatorial puppet states? Of course they did. In fact, every nation that has economic or military power / influence uses it similarly. My point is that the Western societies have done LESS harm and more good in the balance, and Western dominance is preferable to any contemporary alternative.
You just named some of the least democratic nations on the face of the planet as justification for our own support of dictators......
You make my point for me here, no dominance of other countries is a great contemporary alternative to trying to dominate. Consistent war and global chess games have consequences, and that would be terrorism. Blaming religion is weak, any religion of any country will be used to gather support against what the people feel is an invader or aggressor, period.
Actually, I think our points are starting to converge here; the US, being a democratic state founded in liberal principles, is LESS damaging in its hegemony than China, Russia, or others. Ultimately, it can be described in terms of Game Theory; If the US didn't play this "global chess game", then worse states or civilizations would achieve a level of global dominance that would be even worse for world stability. Because of China, Russia, et al, the west (as is every civilization) is forced to participate in this harsh business. And I believe that the world is better off for it. Now, if you could get every society to give up manipulation and colonial ambition, that would be great; but I doubt it's going to happen in our lifetimes. Until then, a realist must concede that the West must continue to influence global affairs and maintain a strong presence worldwide.
Machinesworking wrote:Your consistent support of any move by the west makes it difficult to imagine how you got such a pair of mental blinders? Are you willing to admit any wrong doing on our part or is it all the nasty muslims fault? What about Iraq is right, just and good for instance? I'm not seeing anything personally.
My consistent support for the West is based on a rational assessment of the alternatives. In the absence of a strong Europe and North America (both heavily influenced by the Reformation and Age of Enlightenment), the world would be far worse off under the yoke of a less liberal civilization.
I have always admitted western failings. But I temper that admission with western achievements, most of which you choose to ignore. And, even in consideration of these failings, the West comes out with the moral high ground considering the good it has done for the world, not just in terms of real contributions to medicine and the sciences, philosophy, economic development and politics, but also in terms of preventing worse societies from dominating.
