(Untitled)

[my_stro]

George W. Bush is quoted as saying:"Those foolish enough to suggest America should have a lesser role in the affairs of the world should pause and think whether they really mean what they say, because a world without a dedicated, involved America would be a lesser world, a less safe world, a more precarious world

Comments

[my_stro]

True. The same argument can serve many purposes :o) But a dictatorial Bush is not necessarily any worse (or, admittedly, better) than an internationally meddling Bush. Police states and dictatorships are bad. So is any one country having (or being seen to have) too much influence outside its own borders. It's a bit of a lose-lose. The biggest problem is that win-wins are extremely difficult when many parties are involved, be they voters, subjects or other nations.

[my_stro]

wow. i didn't realise i could talk so much while saying so little...

[teleksterling]

Lol!

[my_stro]

I wish I could put it that elegantly *is envious*

Though it does raise the question of where one draws the line between our own problems and someone else's. And whether it's justifiable to conveniently solve your problem with the current regime in country X under the guise of doing the locals a favour.

Next question: is it always appropriate to be clear about your motives when taking military or international action?