>Just pointing out inconsistency. There seem to be good and bad enemies. Sorry, but I have grown believing that any soldier in uniform and armed, outside his own country, will be perceived as occupator. I would never invite foreign troops, unless they wear blue helmets, anywhere.
>
>OTOH, you feel you have a duty to intervene anywhere where... where what? What gives any country the right to intervene in another country?

We tried isolationism pre World War II, and it didn't seem to work out too well. We stood on the sidelines while a madman was appeased. Sound familiar? A country that was supposed to disarm after the last war but didn't. Sound familiar? We had to go over there to defeat him, resulting in our troops on foreign soil, and we weren't wearing blue helmuts. Object to that?

There are a number of things that give us the right to intervene in another country. Among them:

1. Invasion of one of our allies (Kuwait, 1990)
2. Genocide (or as some in your country called it "ethnic cleansing")
3. Starvation (Somalia)
4. Terrorism (Afghanistan, and soon Iraq)

>Why is that that anytime a foreigner says something about US, the first thing pulled out is "why have you come here"? Do I hear a "why don't you go home then"? Is there a trace of xenophobia or what?

No xenophobia here. I welcome foreigners. It's the foreigners who come here and constantly criticize the US goverment that give me a problem.

>And what would be the difference? At least I suppose I wouldn't be bombed here.

Once you get rid of Saddam, your chances of being bombed here go down somewhat. You can also be pretty sure you won't be "ethnically cleansed".

>I didn't like Milosevic's regime at all, yet I stayed there. I liked the people. I like the people here as well; that doesn't mean I have to like the actions of their government. At times when our government was at bad terms with the Russians, we were still good friends with Russians when we met.

I am glad to hear you like the people here.

>You don't know because it's not widely published her. Turkey is an ally. Just watch the events - once this war begins, will the Iraqi Kurds (and I've read recently there are some pro-American factions among them) be offered independence? That's their long term goal. My bet is they won't, because that would raise the aspirations of Turkish Kurds.

And the Kurds are perfect little angels? Somehow, I doubt it. No one, or country, is perfect in this world. The US has made its mistakes, as I am sure Turkey has. You take the good with the bad. For all your criticism of the US government, I have failed to see anything good you have said about it:

Liberation of Kuwait?
Somalia?
Our vast sums of aid to foreign countries?

>Or would you be happier if I was there? I was speaking like this 3-4 years ago, here on UT, while I was at home. I am the same person.

I am quite happy with you here. Had you been in Cuba or Iraq, we would not be able to carry on this debate.

>Communism, just like capitalism, would be good if it wasn't under rule of minority. In socialism, if you wanted to get into power, you had to buy your way up by being nice with a few guys in the Party, attending meetings, volunteering for a few duties and knowing the right moments when to speak. Here, you need $30 million, and have to deal with a few people you'd rather avoid. I think socialism had more vertical throughput - and was at least equally hard to get the will of the people through.

I won't argue the fact that money plays a huge role in who gets elected. But ultimately, it's the people's choice. If people choose to vote for the person who raises the most money, that's their choice. I don't like it, but it's their choice.

>I don't complain in the latter case. You misunderstood - the reason I mentioned the cases when you didn't was to point out the double standards.

We are not a perfect country. But no country is. We pick and choose our fights. Sometimes we pick the wrong ones (Vietnam) and the wrong allies (Saddam). But all in all, we still try to do the right thing.

>Again, not the country, the foreign policy of its governments. You fail to distinguish the two.

I understand what you are saying now. But keep in mind that this same government which you criticize so much has many more good points than bad.

>I agree on this, but let's agree that we disagree on the type of action.

Agreed :-).