Reply #105: See, here's where we get into heavy duty diplomatic trouble. [View All]

[FormerRepublican]

On the one hand we complain when the US goes into a country and forces the regime (usually by military force) to stop doing whatever bad thing it's doing. Yet, on the other hand, we're complaining because the US DOESN'T stop them from doing whatever bad thing they're doing. We can't have it both ways, and I think it's part of what gets us into trouble.

Do I like the fact that Bush has cozied up to Pakistan and Uzbekistan? No. But I'm also enough of a pragmatist to realize that it was necessary (assuming 9/11 wasn't a US gov't op) to defend the country. The only way to go into Afghanistan and get Bin Laden was to cozy up to disgusting countries and get their cooperation so our military could do their job. Do I like it? No. Were there any other options (assuming 9/11 was not a Bush inside job)? No. I certainly didn't want Bush bombing the h*ll out of Uzbekistan to get a regime change first because they boil their political enemies, just so the US could use their bases when we went into Afghanistan. Is that what you're suggesting?

Perhaps when you do your reading about America you should think a little harder about the difficult situations we're sometimes in that motivate our actions. It's not ALWAYS about American hegemony. Sometimes it's just pragmatism and a reluctance to interfere in the affairs of other countries through means other than diplomatic.

I've read quite a bit about the disgusting events of Iran-Contra, and I've suspected that some of what Bush is doing now is related to the collapse of BCCI. Doesn't mean I condemn America because we have bad apples who sometimes do a lot of damage to our country.

I think we need to somehow separate the disgusting things that Bush and his pals are doing, and America and her people. They're two separate things.