Just as the Food For Oil scandal is showing, our interests do not always coincide with those of our "friends". If we require our foreign policy to pass the approval of our "friends", we put ourselves in danger. Having "friends" is fine, but you have to know where to draw the line.
Well the oil for food scandal was not "our actions" gone wrong, it was the UN's inability to manage large programs (after all, they have no real oversight). It has nothing to do with the idea of being able to explain American actions to likeminded countries. Lets phrase it this way
"Any policy that can't be explained and justified to our friends is likely to have serious flaws."
Hell. I think the statement you quoted is nothing short of idiocy.
Really? Well, think of your personal life. If you decide to undertake some controversial, risky action for yourself, and most of your peers with "David Ray values" (<-- THIS IS ONE SCARY GROUP!!) council you against it, do you......
A) Think about whether or not to undertake the action a bit harder? or
B) Disregard these supposed friends, because their interests are occassionally different from your own?
I don't really care about your answer, because you tend to distort questions to fit your preconceived notions, so I'll answer this one for you!
Common sense, and most of the population would opt for A.
And opting for A in your personal life doesn't mean that if you decide to do something that none of your "David Ray values" peers approve of, you have surrended your ability to act to them. If you believe A is correct, you don't HAVE to let the armed burglar rob your house rather than get your handgun and try to kill the armed burglar (for example), you just might want to consider why YOUR actions (risk your life trying to kill the burglar rather than lose your stereo) don't make sense to people that have the same values as you. |
