we don't approve of many places, including Pakistan. but they are NOT threats to the United States. If they were, we WOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Don't let zonder trap you into agreeing with his rhetorical argument that if we "regime change" one despot, we have to "regime change" them all.
He, of course, thinks we have no right to do anything to any of them, including Iraq, because he won't ever admit that any of them are an "imminent threat" to us unless they actually send uniformed troops over here. But intervening with despotic regimes need not be driven only by "imminent threat," however you define it, and it need not directly involve the military at all.
It is in the interest of US security and long-term prosperity (as well as that of France, Monaco and everyone else) to have peace, stability and liberty in all nations.
We should not, of course, use military force unless absolutely necessary. Sometimes it becomes so because of a threat to us or our allies. Sometimes it becomes so because of an ongoing human disaster as in Rwanda or Kosovo (of course, the world didn't think one worthy of intervention).
But in most cases, diplomacy as well as internal pressure for freedom and a chance at prosperity will get the job done over time. On the latter, having a good example can help as I think Iraq will with Syria, Iran, Saudi, et al as it becomes democratic and stable. Iran was making progress already and Syria now seems to be seeing the light as does the PA. Israel needs to see the light, too, BTW.
Bob |
