[Chefranden]

Originally posted by Undertoad
....Frankly I prefer the new rules, which say that if you are a dangerous tyrannical asshole, harboring other dangerous assholes and/or basically making trouble, you will be removed [if possible] to make way for your population's freedom and self-determination, and so that the resulting wealth generated by that freedom enriches both that nation and all who will trade with it.

The notion that it's done with all-volunteer armed forces and checked off via democratic means whilst a free media whines about the dangers and possible deaths is a huge bonus.

Of all the dangers in the world, the idea that a nation with huge power is running rampant freeing the peoples of the world is not high on the list.

Outside of West Germany and Japan at the end of WWII what country have we gone to war in that we allowed to have freedom and self determination? We are more often agents of the opposite in the name of national interest. Iran and Chile come to mind do they not. The US government in general and this administration in particular has not and is not interested in self-determination. After we devastate Iraq there will be no power given to the people, because the people just may decide that the oil belongs to them. And what the hell do you mean "possible deaths"? The Pentagon own estimates are for 30,000 civilian deaths and the Pentagon always underestimates cost by factors of between 2 and 5. Are you volunteering to be a soldier or collateral damage?