Bishop has made several good posts in this thread, most of which I agree with. It's not so much that the government ceased serving our "national interests" over the past 20 years, but rather that it was
very nearsighted (due to a lack of adequate consideration, I'd say) in pursuing those interests (i.e., they pursued immediate interests as opposed to our long-term interests); further, our "national interests" are becoming ever more narrowly defined-- you can pretty much read "national interests" in any discussion of US foreign policy these days as "corporate interests". And it's sad that our system of government has been appropriated by faceless corporate entities to serve their own ends, often to the detriment of the American people. Though what is good for business is
sometimes good for the populace, this is
not always the case; in instances of conflict between these interests, the public good
should prevail, yet it frequently doesn't. And anyone who believes that the majority (though not all) of our foreign incursions and policy decisions over the past two decades didn't have more to do with business of some sort (military-industrial, oil etc.) than some lofty idealism (as is commonly posited) isn't looking at the same country that I am.
And make no mistake, we
are reaping what we've sown here, however much I may loathe terrorists and despise their chosen tactics. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming (perhaps not modern terrorism specifically, but a huge backlash to our selfish endeavors)-- actually, no, it doesn't take intellect to see these things, as I'm sure our leaders were all very smart, very capable men. What it takes is
wisdom, and that's a quality (indeed, a skill) that I don't believe a great many of our leaders possess to any significant degree-- certainly not enough to guide the course of the most powerful nation in the world.
That being said, regarding this quote:
When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind
If this is referring to our sanctions against Iraq (I've only skimmed this thread), then allow me to pose the following question:
Person "A" does something wrong/illegal. Person "B", backed by both international law and force (at the time), states that if they do it again, the will face an explicitly stated consequence (sanctions). Person "A" persists, and thus suffers said consequences.
Now, given the fact that we allowed food, medicine, and other necessary provisions to freely flow into Iraq (as far as I understand; if this is mistaken to any significant degree, then I would obviously have to reconsider this argument), and only barred trade and other business from being done (i.e., limiting the influx of money), and also given the fact that during the sanctions regime Saddam funnelled billions of illegal dollars to fund various projects, including building new palaces for himself, instead of helping his people who were suffering--- given these facts, where does moral culpability for the deaths of civilians under sanctions lie?
I would argue that it does not lie with us, but with him. Now, this is not to say that sanctions were the wisest course of action, or that I personally would have done the same (I would never have gotten into such a shitty situation in the first place, but that's besides the point), but speaking strictly of
this particular aspect of the situation, how can one legitimately assert that the US bears all of (or at least the majority of) the moral blame for those deaths?
I'm honestly curious as to how others are reasoning this out, and if it can be shown that blame should be laid at our feet (again,
for this particular instance-- extending some precarious causal chain back through the decades, e.g. "the US propped up Saddam, d00d!!!1", will do you no good), I will be
more than happy to admit as much, as I'm interested in truth as opposed to nationalism. I'm no fan of our government, believe you me.
Anyone care to elucidate their reasoning?
