Pedantic... And you are the one saying so? Haha people will judge by themselves then. I will take your last statement as your way for saying let's keep going.
First about your *previous* signature, I didn't know about that movie. Found some shirt on google, didn't find that movie though. Anyway.
So I got your point about Agent Orange. According to your definition of what is a weapon, it makes sense. -although I do no agree with you, but let's keep it simple and stick with your definition-. So let's not call it a "chemical weapon". Then what about white phosphorus, it's an incendiary chemical compound, used by the US and Israel. Or is it also not a weapon? I'm very curious to hear what you got to say on this one.
I've heard views like yours before...that America dictates to other nations, that we do whatever we want, that we're arrogant, that we're hypocrites, that we're an empire. The list goes on. I've heard these views expressed by the President of the United States. If only America would be more humble. If only we'd step back and let others lead. If only we'd not get so involved. I mean, who are we, right? The problem with all of that thinking is the very basic truth that the world is better with strong American leadership than without it. The question is not "who are we" but "if not us, who?" When America is weak, it leaves a power vacuum. That vacuum will and is being filled by others. Many of these nations are not liberal democracies at all. Many have horrific human rights records, support terrorism, or are embracing military expansionism to re-establish a new regional hegemony (I'm looking at you, Russia). This has been played out on the world stage over the past 5 years, from the Arab Spring, to Benghazi, to the Ukraine. The views you espouse are held by President Obama and many in his administration. They are sophomoric theories given credence by academia over the past 50 years. And they've been shown to be disastrous when applied to the real world. As several commentators have stated recently, Obama lives in foreign policy "fantasy world." Well, reality is now smacking us in the face.
I understand you are a very proud and patriotic american. That's great, patriotism is an extremely important value, and I also am very patriotic french, probably as much or even more than you are for your country. But loving your country should also mean looking the facts as they are.
So this strong american leadership makes the world a better place? Maybe. I won't argue with you on this point, only God knows. But, who is the best support in the world for dictator, terrorism and all those nation with horrific human rights record? (I'm looking at you, 'Murika). Who is the best friend and support of the al-Saoud in Saudi Arabia? The basic truth is as long as they comply with the Us govt, they can do anything they want with their people. Human's right situation is horrific there, on the contrary you should take a look on a so called "dictator", Muammar Gaddafi (may he rest in peace), where is population has (before 2011) the highest standard of life on the whole Africa. Evil is not always where you think it is.
Democracy seems to be an important value for you. That's great, its also the case for me.
Then what about Pinochet? Thanks to whom was he able to do his coup?
What about operation Ajax?
Is the world a better place when America is overthrowing democracies which are not of their liking to put instead dictator? Is that what you mean? And that's only 2 examples.
Let me tell you. If America was the leader and support of freedom, of democracy, in the facts, I would die for America. Being ally with the Saudi? I can understand the argument that you cannot overthrow all dictature. But overthrowing... elected government? How can you justify that, and say America is defending freedom and democracy?
Now, my point is that America is not worse than the other. But it is certainly not better than the other.
1. Sure, it can. But for what reasons is it done? By that measure, the US destroyed the Soviet Union, too. Was that wrong?
The USSR destroyed itself, so I'm not arguing anything.
2. It's pretty absurd, actually. Yes, we went to war with Iraq...twice. Neither was unprovoked, though the latter was error-prone due to faulty intelligence and perhaps an overreaction of sorts to 9/11. We certainly did lots of damage through military action, just as we and our international partners did a lot of economic damage through 10 years of sanctions. However, it's not as if we said "hey...let's blow some crap up in Iraq." It's not like Iraq's government was innocent. We didn't go into Iraq for expansionism or colonialist reasons. We also stayed for a decade to rebuild the country. We lost thousands of lives and spent trillions of dollars rebuilding Iraq. You can certainly disagree that we should have gone in, but simply stating that we "destroy" countries? Not to insult you, but that's third grade-level thinking.
Wow. I mean, really. Wow. The 2003 war in Irak was "error prone due to faulty intelligence" and "an overreaction"... but yeah, you lost thousand of lives, spend printed money, rebuilded the country with your own companies, and after all Saddam was not completely innocent! How dare you Iraki, complaining about us!
...Are you even serious? Could you try, for ONE moment, trying to figure yourself as an Iraki, seeing your country completely blowed up after 10 years of war followed by civil war, (with peace still being far away), and listening to yourself, like if they should almost thank you? Seriously? Hell yeah your bombs made a lot of damage in Irak, killing thousand over thousands of people, directly or indirectly, destroying the economy and opening an avenue for mercenaries. You lost thousand of lives and printed money? What about the iraki lives, are they less valuables than yours? You are the one who invaded that country! Could you imagine for one second your country being the one invaded?
Let's be clear on the vocabulary. You didn't "go" to irak. You invaded Irak. But it wasn't for expansionism or colonialist reason? Wow i'm so relieved. For what then? I do have my idea on this, and it's certainly not about "hey let's blow up some crap", even if you got a McCain who can sing "bomb bomb bomb Iran" like it's just a funny joke. No, I am perfectly aware that 1/you never do something like that without a clear purpose, 2/the given reason are never the real motive, and 3/you do have the best intelligence in the world and it certainly wasn't faulty -just needed to come up with some crap to justify their actions-. So what's your thought on the purpose for that invasion?
Yeah, it's not really my job to do that. Understanding the real, concrete meaning of basic geopolitical terms is really your responsibility. You should probably fulfill it before getting into discussions like this.
Gosh, who is talking about pedantism. Or you got a serious problem with irony.
Rogue State: A nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations. Oxford Dictionnary.
As for breaking international law, we only need to take a look at the invasion of Irak, or the USA-Israeli relationship. Not even mentioning torture, no trial secret jail, the list goes on and on and on and on.
As for posing a threat to other nation security, do I need to remind all the above? Operation Ajax, Pinochet, Irak...
I don't see how USA is not a rogue state according to their own definition. We need to stick to the facts.