>>>Based on everything you know, no country has ever overthrown the dictator of a foreign nation and created a soverign democracy.
>>>
>>>True or false?
>>
>>Mike,
>>
>>C'mon man, you really can't believe this.
>>
>>Here are the facts, Mike. We continue to support and supply foreign dictators. Off the top of my head, I can name a dictator that we've supported in at least four of the last five decades. This includes Saddam.
>
>First of all, the change in foriegn policy to shape a world without dictators was put into practice 2 years ago.

Care to point me to a document?

>Pointing out the inconsistencies between old policy and new policy is not sufficient evidence that the new policy is defective.

What is the "new policy"? Further, where is it documented?

>Second, we continue to support some dictators because the world simply cannot undergo a substantial change over night. Our new policy signifies a new direction from the old. It does not pretend that we can immediately jump to our ideal reality just by coming up with a new idea.

>Get real.


Mike,

This isn't about "new ideas".

>
>
>>We're not the world's police force. We're not the world's judge of what's right and wrong.
>
>If that's what you believe, that's fine with me.

Who elected us?

>I prefer to think that *I* am *my* judge of what is right and what is wrong, and I'm willing to judge what's important, like the freedom of human beings to maximize their potential and acheive happiness, and that somethings are good, like giving the Iraqis that chance.

Yes, I agree. The question I'd have for you is, "Are you willing to take your principles onto the battlefield?" If so, what are you fighting for? Don't say, "To make the world safe from terrorism". This situation, like it or not, isn't about freedom. The jihadists don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us for our presence in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The hate us for our policies on Israel.

What's the reason? Oil!

>If you disagree, I'm sure your reasons are well thought out and based on what you think is important.
>
>
>
>>When we start living up to the principles of this country, maybe, just maybe, we can lecture the rest of the world.
>
>Examples of where we're failing?

When we detain people without due process. Our Constitution clearly outlines this. When our Vice-President wants to make the CIA excluded from the Geneva Convention.

>>Until then, we'd be better off sitting down and shutting the f*** up.
>
>I know a few Iraqis that would disagree with you. I know others from oppressed countries that would say they wished they had been invaded and liberated before the Iraqis.

Then why didn't we in 1992 live up to what we told some of the Iraqis? We said, we'd help you over throw Saddam, but didn't live up to our word.

>But let's not get distracted by that. Before we're allowed, in your eyes, to do things like rescue entire populations of people from the proverbial well of oppression, what must be done? For what great reason does the democratizing of the world remain on hold?

It isn't up to us to "democratize" the rest of the world. We've too many problems here. What about the excellerating difference between the top 1% and the rest of the society? What about the victims of Katrina?

We've plenty to do here. We don't need to be "fixing" the rest of the world.