Before we go any further let's get away from the term "superpower".

I used the term in response to Wisdom_Seeker's post because it was pertinent there. But you're broadening the topic considerably and consequently the status of a nation as a "superpower" is less operative. The United States and the U.S.S.R. are the only nations (or "unions") to which the label of superpower can be accurately applied (although some would argue that perhaps modern China is approaching superpower status).

Desipte that, there are many nations that are guilty of what you're talking about and very few of them are superpowers.

For the purposes of this discussion Portuguese colonial and neocolonial policy toward Mozambique or British policy in Kuwait are just as pertinent as American "meddling" elsewhere in the world.

So having said that...

Essentially you're saying:

"Sometimes colonial and neocolonial policies have been beneficial to small nations and sometimes they haven't.

Sometimes the attention or inattention shown by a larger country toward a smaller country has been beneficial/detrimental.

Sometimes "meddling" by a larger country in the affairs of a smaller country has been beneficial/detrimental."

Okay.

I think it's something that we all can agree on. I'm not arguing about that and I don't have a problem assigning the requsite blame and responsibility for the fucked up situations in some countries around the world to the policies of the west in general but of the United States in particular . Likewise I recognize that the United States and the West have done a lot of good for the world.

But you're response doesn't really answer my question.

Wisdom Seeker said this:

and then I asked this:

What Wisdom_Seeker is implying is that it's perfectly acceptable for third-party nations, some of whom did not call themselves Iraq's ally prior to the U.S. led invasion, to wage wars by proxy against the United States becuase they view the United State's actions in Iraq as "wrongdoing".

Bear in mind that the United States has not actually invaded, attacked, or in any other material way shown aggression toward these third-parties. A little sabre rattling maybe, on the part of both sides, but no attacks by the United States have taken place against these nations (obviously there are places where the U.S. has military forces: Afghanistan, a few skirmishes on the Horn of Africa, drug interdiction and counter narcotics/terror work in South East Asia, South America, etc... but they're not material to our discussion because they don't really apply to Iraq's regional Arab/Muslim/Persian neighbors).

So if it's okay for these third-parties to overtly kill Americans in Iraq because they disagree with American policy and consider it "wrongdoing", then why is it wrong for Americans to kill Iraqis in Iraq because we disagreed with Iraqi policy and considered them to be guilty of "wrongdoing"?

I'm asking if it's okay for one side then it must be okay for the other, right?

And if that's the case, then it pretty much legitimizes the Iraq invasion.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

Yeah, I melded the words from Meditation XVII and the poem which sprung from it. I agree entirely with the sentiment of the verse, I just took a little cosmetic liberty with some of the words.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Soot,

America continues to be a threat to all those peaceful nations in the Middle East. They have not threatened the US in any way shape or form. Has Iran ever threatened to attack the US or bomb the uS? Has Syria ever done that? Has hizbullah ever done that? Has Iraq ever done that? No.

Secondly, I dont understand your last point, its a false comparison, it doesnt work. Those weaker nations must oppose American aggression and wrongdoing IN THE MIDDLE EAST, am not saying they should go over to the US. America came and caused wrongdoing in the Middle East, it came to them, they didnt go over there and messed with the US. So to say that:

"...then why is it wrong for Americans to kill Iraqis in Iraq because we disagreed with Iraqi policy and considered them to be guilty of "wrongdoing"?"

Hmmm hello, America came to Iraq. Iraq never threatened America. Am not even goin to go into the illegality of doing something like that. If Finland decides that Argentina is involved in wrongdoing, it cannot just decide to launch a war on it, especially if the wrongdoing is internal. I was talking about America getting involved in wrongdoing INTERNATIONALLY. If you weigh what bad has been done against good, you will understand what I mean and come to your own conclusion.

Wherever there is a base, presence of American troops, in whichever part of the world, it is for something fishy. Frankly I dont believe America should have bases outside its borders unless that particular country allows it,... just like I dont believe China should have bases in America,... France should have bases in Brazil, Germany should have bases in Portugal,.. etc you get the point.

America came to the region, destabalized it, caused chaos, destroyed a country, caused millions of refugees who now fled to neighbouring countries, the economies of the region are affected, and u kno the rest of the sht that happened. On top of all this, it is fueling the sht happening iin the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and directly financing and supporting Israel while tryin to play a peace broker between the two parties, we are not fkin idiots.

So, the only way this world in general and the Middle East in particular are going to see any peace is by America staying inside its own borders. It will get oil if oil is what shes bothered with, through business and Opec and through its companies doing deals with Middle Eastern countries. But to come to the region and sht all over the place, am sorry but like I said those nations affected directly or indirectly should unite and resist this aggression by all means necessary and do you blame them? I think not. They have every right to behave this way. Americans crossed thousands of miles to the Middle East not to do good, but to do bad and you know this because you watch it every day on your tv. This is reality. I say it how it is.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

With great power come great responsibility and great error and its must be so.
Humans are what they are, we can no more change geo-politics and how it is practiced than change ourselves, if we could, I don’t think we would either, not enough for a majority that is.

There’s tops and bottoms in this world. One earns a seat at the tribal fire and piece of the meat by chewing the leather and contributing to the collective.

We want our leadership to contribute to the tribe by making out lives easier and fulfilling the obligation of putting meat on the table. In short, nothing has changed. The mechanisms are just different. And the needs of the many ultimately outweigh the needs of the few or the one.


10 years 50 years a millennium, children grandchildren great great great great grand children, this will not change, just the way we go about it.

Interestingly enough many of the Asian/ oriental peoples know this, in Wazirastan(sp) an old saying goes; “ I took my revenge early, I only waited 100 years”.

Oriental calendars are cyclical as opposed to linear; you don’t run out time you see.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

no they have not but they are complicit in killing Americans, I think soots question still stands, and as far as the US backing Israel etc.as I said earlier in another thread, that mantle of grievance rests on many many shoulders, including the ussr, AND other arab states as well.

In effect it appears to me that you are making the case that influence equals overt aggression that can be legally answered in kind. I don't quite think it works that way.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

So has Israel! They murdered a bunch of your sailors in 1967 not to mention attacked U.S. targets in Egypt in the 50's but they have been quickly forgiven.


The U.S.S.R. has not vetoed over 30 UN Security Council Resolutions to protect Israel from the consequences of its atrocities.

But Israel has attacked the United States by assaulting U.S. targets in Egypt along with a U.S. warship in international waters during the Six Day Massacre.

Israel has been the only Middle Eastern nation to openly assault the United States in military actions yet is the only state unconditionally supported by the United States.

the 6 day massacre,,,, its only a massacre because the arabs lost eh?

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

oh yes we are goong to take an accident and by applying your all consuming relativisim equal that to hezballah and its operatives etc...yea that will stand up

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

McClatchy thinks the story is bullshit, they're the ones who said, before the invasion BTW, that the US had no evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

yet your guy clinton thought so ............

Only a Zionist or an idiot would view a two hour assault on a ship with both planes and torpedo boats after numerous recon flights prior to the attack as an "accident" and I do not believe you to be an idiot.

Ooops I forgot how things work in America; only Jews are allowed to be the victims in any mideast confict...my bad.

No, I am more of an interventionist. For example, Australia's intervention in the Solomon Islands seems to be very beneficial for that disfunctional nation.

__________________
I sometimes post on OzChess as well, but mostly here

Did Clinton run a newspaper?

I'm just saying that this story is from a guy who reported that Saddam had WMDs, McClatchy (Knight Ridder at the time) reported that the US had no evidence that Saddam had WMDs, they had sources in the Pentagon who told them there was no evidence of WMDs, Clinton didn't have the same sources, apparently neither did Bush (unless Bush is lying).

I'm just going with the people who got it right.
Who are you believing?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address