>>>...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.

I get your point. Have always gotten it. In fact, the USSR looked at the US - and most western nations - in exactly that way for 70 years. And they did everything in their power to subvert the governments involved - in many cases for genuine ideological - "moral" if you will - motives. And frankly, I don't fault them for that. And I definitely feel that the "cold war" approach was better than ICBMs falling on American or European cities or tanks rolling across Europe.

And that is exactly the point. Nations will attempt to influence the course of other nations for their own benefit. That is the power game as old as organized society. And historically subversion has caused less human suffering than invasion.

>
>>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.
>

My goodness, you did learn your history from Marxists, didn't you <s> I am not as convinced as you seem to be of historical inevitability. I believe that individuals and their actions are extremely determinative in how things play out. I don't think killing Hitler would have made Europe one whit less anti-Semitic but I think it would have left them with a lot more Jews to hate.

>>>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.

If the theocracy in Iran had no ambitions beyond beating naughty Iranians with sticks I would be content to let them proceed until the naughty Iranians decided they'd had enough. If elements inside Iran wanted outside help I wouldn't see a problem with giving it to them. Mr. Franklin found such help in Paris. And the motivation of imperial Louis was not to promote democracy. Made the French navy no less welcome.

>> 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.
>

Empire is truly an outdated concept. Even in the 70s when "imperialism" was getting thrown around with as little semantic accuracy as "fascism" has then and since, the concept was dead. A nation can use its power to influence - to some extent - the behavior of other nations but the limits a painfully obvious. And even the old style imperialism was a mixed bag. Rhodesia was a nasty place for black Africans. Zimbabwe is worse.

>>>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

I think the possibility of international law on a world-scale is nil, as law must be based on common values. It is difficult enough within the US or the EU. The idea that international law can work for the US, the Sudan, and China is ludicrous.

>- 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.

The intervention in the affairs of others may or may not be a good idea based on circumstances. But the means should always involve the least disturbance to non-power-participants possible and should ultimately result in greater good.

>
>How about the freedom of those same individuals to be safe from foreign governments?
>

I think there are number of places where being "free" of foreign governments would not be a blessing.

>>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.

So North Korea's government should be dealt with as we would deal with that of Norway? With the same set of assumptions about their values, their aims and their legitimacy? I am all for the equality of Norwegians and Koreans - it is the attitude toward their governments I'm talking about - hence my point that any action against a government should target that government with precision.

Von Stauffenberg, not Dresden.

And what of cultures? Am I to have the same respect for the culture of Yemen that I do for Britain? Or for that of the Congo as I do of Finland? This 'people are the same everywhere' stuff sounds great if you are a Miss America contestant, but doesn't hold up if you actually have any interaction with some cultures.

>
>> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'taken seriously'. You deal with those people with whom you must deal to get what you want. There is also a certain realism about alternatives. In most cases, there is something to be said for the devil you know. But you are talking about a world of Realpolitik as if it were not about power. Somosa was a thug and all likely alternatives were thugs. Somosa was *our* thug so for a time he was acceptable (not my personal choice) The Ortegas were thugs who knew how to talk like they weren't thugs. Batista was a thug, Castro was a thug. But Batista never put Soviet missles off-shore of Florida, made a lot of money for the mafia, and pretty much did as he was told. Castro got missles, jailed at least as many Cubans as Batista ever thought about doing, lived off of Soviet subsidies as a colony and did what they told him to do.

I am cynical about those who seek power over others in general. I don't have any particular reverence for any of them. But I think the primary way of judging the legitimacy of any government is the degree to which it leaves its citizens alone while protecting them from harm.

Iran, Iraq, N Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe etc etc very obviously fall short on all counts so I really don't see their 'regimes' as worthy of any respect at all. We deal with them as we must, but it should be without any illusions.