>>...but you're still for it, for a regime change in a foreign country? On what grounds? If not imperial divine rights, international law surely not, then what? What gives any country the right to change regime in another country?
>
>I didn't say the US should engineer the regime change, though I would not be opposed to it if I thought it would work. if the Danish want to do it, that's fine too. I'd prefer the Iranians do it.
This obviously where we differ.
Let's assume that there's another altered reality in, say, whole region from Estonia to Slovakia, and they notice that there's something very wrong with the current American regime - draconian laws being passed, government spying on its citizens, large scale theft legalized, good laws covered by dust, electoral system overgrown by weeds, the country has stockpiled WMDs and goes about in terrorist attacks, the groups of militants are completely legal and wield big money and fat guns, the country is also being gradually taken over by religious fundamentalists... and so these countries come to the inevitable conclusion that precision would save lives. They'd prefer that Americans do it themselves, but if the Hondurans would, that's fine too. The citizens of the country, and even its neighbors, may not see it that way, but, hey, perception means a lot. But it's OK, they'd have every right to end the current regime, better that than destroy the country. They, of course, know that the American people aren't natural enemies of these European countries, but they just can't sit and watch as religious fundamentalists gain so much power, and actively train their own militants, not in a country with so much WMD.
>The precision is extremely relevant. One bullet in Hitler in 1934 would have been a lot more precise than Dresden. Very relevant.
But would it change anything? The pressure was there, he was just the visible end of the PA system. He was on the top of the machinery - but I can't really believe that he made the cylinders and pistons. If he was shot, it'd have been somebody else - maybe a year or two later, but then maybe with even more force. The leaders focus the masses, but don't create them.
>>Then, in your improper opinion, why does Iran have a regime, whereas Israel and the US have governments? All three have grown from movements which were deemed terrorist at their inception, but have managed to establish a new republic.
>
>Elections have something to do with it.
Yep, all three countries had elections. So? If you find any of these elections disputable - just think, in all three cases there was a war or a warlike situation hanging over. Which leaves any electoral system open for manipulation, ergo under doubt.
> I know you think the US is just mindlessly controlled by fatcats that run two identical political parties, but compared to Iran it is utopia. Had you emigrated to Iran rather than the US you would be hanging by your thumbs in a cell being beaten on the souls of the feet just for *thinking* things you say here quite freely.
I don't give black under thumbnail for Iranian government - it's surely among the top ten countries I don't want to visit at all. Any place ruled by a religion, be it Iran or Saudi Arabia or Vatican is very unlikely to be on my itinerary. That's not the point at all. This is about the imperial rights.
>>You either respect them as countries, or treat them like subordinate fiefs - and if the latter is the case, just say so, so we can finish this with a clear statement of facts.
>
>I'm not defending moral posturing by American jingoists or pious internationalists. I do not believe there is international law because law is based on common values. that is why the UN is a tragic joke.
You may want to elaborate on that, because the placement of "because" in the "I don't believe" sentence is so ambiguous that I don't know which one you meant:
- you don't believe the base of international law is a comon set of values
- you don't believe in the existence of international law, and your disbelief is based on the law's being based on common values
- something else that escaped me
>I specifically don't favor rolling over anybody with tanks. Again, it is an issue of precision. The tanks I don't care about establishing democracy - many places are better off without it - but I do care about the freedom of individuals to be safe from their own governments.
If it's only an issue of precision and how many, not whether any, people of any country other than the one on the receiving end of the weapons will be shot at - then you're actually all for the jingoism, you only think it should be done elegantly, Arsen Lupin style, but still should be done. TV series like NCIS,"Heroes" and such are not political PR, they are actually reenactments of humanitarian missions.
How about the freedom of those same individuals to be safe from foreign governments?
>All countries, all cultures and all ideas are *not* equal. Moral relativism sounds very high minded but is a cop out to allow one to not believe in *anything*.
Still, in every legal system, and I seem to remember you mentioned law just a few paragraphs ago, people are _treated as equal_. So, for starters, I'd prefer a belief in all countries are to be treated equally, with equal respect.
> I am not defending a blanket approach of interfering in the affairs of others any more than I respect a blanket policy of not interfering. I think it would be quite moral to shoot Mugabe.
Is there any neighboring country hosting a resistance movement in camps near its borders with Zimbabwe? Just the tone of the reports in the press gives me second thoughts... sounds like the same old "we should all stand against the guy as if we know what he said/did/was" I remember from the time of some purges back in '72.
> I think it would have been morally correct to interfere in the internal affairs of Rwanda. I think the Saudi regime is despicable and has no more right to its oil than the poor of Cairo have.
>
>You have to pick your battles, but I don't accept the idea that there is nothing worth fighting for and whoever the thug of the moment is must be taken seriously as a head of state.
Pinochet was taken seriously here. At some point so was Somosa, and Noriega, and every Saudi prince who came along. Rumsfeld was very cordial with Saddam once upon a time. Sheesh, there are even countries who take GW2B seriously. Not because all of these guys inspire deep respect - but because of the people they, under the circumstances, represent. And until we have a ruling body with Earth in its name, this is the way to show respect to people - respect their countries. Equally.
