Quote:
|
Originally posted by moki: First of all, it isn't exactly news that a nation looks out of its national interests; that's constitutionally what most countries, and their leadership, are bound to do. Now then, as for our policy for the 20th century, for a large of the time, we have been quite isolationist. For more than half of it, we have been fighting this:  (and yes, add three zero's to those numbers, as the chart indicates) ...and here is the corresponding article: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM It's often forgotten, with people in the rush to attack the US, exactly what others have been doing during their tenure in the world... |
First, I would wager that, while it may not be news that the US looks out for its interests, it is news to many the means by which we do so.
Second, the national interest, as you describe it, is not the interest of the general population, but thoe who control the power structure. Ask Joe six-pack if he has any desire to exploit the third world. You'd have to be pathological to concede that. Personally I'm for democracy, and I would prefer to be consulted on issues of aggression in foreign nations on my behalf. We need to clearly demarcate the difference between american policy makers and the american public.
Finally, while it's true that so-called communist regimes have perpetrated their fair share of atrocities, that is no excuse. In fact, it lends ever greater support to the idea that government elites, communist or capitalist, will do whaever is necessary to maintain control. If you are suggesting that America, in combating the spread of communism, did not perpetrate some of the most viscious and vile acts of the century, then again I must respectfully disagree. Either way, it is irrelevant whether the indigenous pseudo-communist regimes in the listed countries commited atrocities, as American intervention in those countries was not motivated by righteous indignation but global economics.