>>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?


Are you kidding me?

As a vocal dissenter you should have your documents already in order. It wouldn't make sense to criticize something you've never read. Don't you agree?

Here's a good start:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine



>>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?


In the speeches that the president has given and on his website, not to mention in nearly every other source of political commentary.



>>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".


I suppose if you're not paying attention it might look that way.



>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.


We're invading their lands. They used to have this part of the Earth where they could completely control women and the decisions that rule their lives, that they can legally stone women for adultery or anyone converting to atheism because Allah wrote the ultimate law of that land.

And we're taking that way of life away from them.

Boo-hoo.

Lucky for them you're around because they get no sympthaty from me.



>What's the reason? Oil!


Let's assume it is. If the world's Oil Companies didn't control Iraq's oil, then an unaccountable nutter who lives a decadant life style while his people suffer would.

Hypothetically, if the reason was oil, then I think it is a good reason. I'd rather not have horrible dictators controling an important world resource.




>>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.


What else?


>>>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.


Do you think pointing out what we did wrong in 1992 is relevant to this conversation?





>>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.

Ok. You convinced me George. Screw the rest of the world. We live like kings and they suffer through oppresive governments, genocide, disease, and hunger, but they should be able to fix their own problems and we should focus on ours.

Thanks for convincing me of the right way. We can end this conversation now.