I especially enjoy reading your comment replies. Nice job putting Anon in his/her place.

As to peace and the blobal perspective, when we begin to and sustainably think of the earth as one we will have transformed the jingoists. Unfortunately, their beliefs are steeped in a vile hatred of anything they don’t know or understand (for example, non-christians) and the strong desire to exterminate or coopt those not like them.

it is an angry and violent existence. And rather unfortunate, but not unexpected as they have learned from a long history of Christian bigotry and murder to advance their cause – The Crusades are one example. The Missions (read, virtual annihilation of Native populations) at home and abroad are another example.

Sheanc- I think you grasp what I am trying to imply regarding leading by example. There is nothing wrong with the concept of sharing to create stability and security. It’s just that the money hungry and the idealogues prefer to create situations that benefit themselves at the expense of others and they tend to cloak it in terms of “good and evil.”

Ottman- You make some good points. The spread of freedom is in the best interests of this country. It is also in the best interests of humanity everywhere.
While the UN was founded upon lofty ideals, like so many institutions created by man, it has become corrupted by those who seek to gain power or other tangible rewards rather than serve as stewards of world peace. It is a shame.
As for appeasement, I think you are missing my point. I do not advocate appeasement for the sake of security. Rather, I talk about a more comprehensive system of mutual sharing with the allies that we have…those who don’t want to play along don’t have to. But then we shouldn’t be assisting them in the subjagation of their poeple.
Our role as World Cop isn’t always the right one, even if we are the best equipped from the strength angle. Sometimes the world needs a little chance to work out it’s own issues without being strong-armed by US policy. Sure, we can offer help when it’s asked for, but we shouldn’t always assume that when our help is accepted that it is a sign of approval for our methods.
Finally- European diplomacy may not necessarily be called failure just because it doesn’t have all the US demands attached. Only time will tell if they find a good solution. Sometimes war is the only option, but it must not be used and planned haphazardly.

Dom- the lack of “worldliness” among Americans surely contributes to our perception of superiority. In some cases, it is deserved. Our scientific achievements are one example. But as we become more and more self-important as the rest of the world embraces each other, we become more of a pariah and less of a partner. Not a good thing in the long view…

Tom- thanks. Hope you drop by again.

Anonymous- Perhaps you missed the point. Let me rephrase it in shorter terms…Foreign Relations are best achieved through cooperative means. Period.
I never said that having US bases around the world was a bad thing…FOR US…but rather that our attitudes towards our “allies” could have been better tuned to their needs as well. Those military outposts were primarily for our own benefit, and they served us well. But you have to ask yourself, “Why do so many people in those countries want us to go home? Why have they protested our presence for years?” The answer is not that they don’t value our military support. It is that they tire of our attitude and our superior behavior.
As for the military option, it has it’s time and place, I agree. And in my next post, I will explore that further.
Iraq- this essay, in case you missed it, is not about any single foreign policy issue, but rather a concept in general. But since you mentioned Iraq, here goes: Yes, most people believed Saddam had the weapons. He said it loud and often. Like the playyard bully, someone decided to call his bluff. I am no friend of Saddam, and I have no remorse for taking out his regime. However, this WMD were just the excuse du jour from an administration who was set to tackle Iraq anyhow. Better that they told us their real reasons…better access to resources, removal of a murderous dictator, the possibility of democracy in the Middle East, profiteering from war for their corporate buddies…at least a real choice could have been given to the American people. Since we believe in freedom, we may have still wanted to help the Iraqi’s, but give us the straight story up front. The hindsight that he was more bluster than threat to us would have been less an issue if the original and only reasoning were to begin democracy in the Middle East, a goal that in itself promotes our security. Was war the only way? Perhaps, with Saddam, it finally was. But you don’t go camping without a map and a tent, and you shouldn’t go to war without them either.
Unfortunately, your final comment shows that you have no real concept of the principals of freedom, democracy, or Common Sense. It is because I care about my country that I want it to do better. It is because I care about the world that I want it to be better. It is because I care about my freedom that I tolerate childish remarks like yours.

And what’s with the love-it-or-leave-it stuff? What is this, 1965?

After WWII, many nations believed (rightly so) that being friends with the US and having US bases in their country was a good thing. For many nations, indeed it was and still is.

Sometimes diplomacy doesn’t work as was the case with Saddam. His actions were in his best interest, his people be damned. Saddam gave every indication that he had WMD’s, all the other nations believed it. Plus he violated item after item from the Gulf War I peace tready. Basically, we had no real choice, as the evidence has shown, we couldn’t wait for the permission of ‘the world’ they were being paid off. He wasn’t going to let inspectors do what they were suppose to (he kicked them out time after time, he would stall on allowing them to look at palaces).

To finish, I care about my country first, the rest of the world second. You know, if I have someone MUCH bigger than I about to kick my ass and all I have to do is turn my pockets inside out – I do it. If the kids standing around the fight circle (the rest of the world) says I shouldn’t harm him, even though he says and we all think he has a knife or gun – I don’t care. If I believe my security to be in danger, I’ll take him out.

I am American first, world citizen second. BTW – which country is most of the world trying to go to (come to)? It’s not costa rica, it’s not France, it’s not Canada, the reason we have some many illegal aliens is because this IS the best country in the world.

Personally, I think you’d be MUCH happier in some other country.

One of the reasons America is sometimes described as being an insular country is the low ownership or passports, and thus the low rate of international travel. Which in some ways is fair enough; in comparison to Europeans, for example, popping over to another country is often a bigger deal than jumping on a train. Some sources suggested that only 7 per cent of Americans own passports and wondered where the figure comes from. It seems the statistic varies.
http://travel.state.gov/passport
used to have stats on this subject , but have removed them .

Google this ..
“only seven percent of Americans own a passport”

work it out for yourself!

You wrote a good, thought provoking essay.

I’ll share some of my thoughts on the subject.

In spreading freedom, our government tries to help other nations become self-sufficient on the world stage. Right now it’s happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. The process is long and slow developing over time.

In freeing other countries from dictators and such, we have given their people real hope for a better future in the world. Yes, it is also in our interest to to spread democracy, but not for purely selfish reasons.

The UN was created for facilitating the cause of freedom and preventing genocide, but it has clearly come up far short of accomplishing its designated mission in many areas of the world where people are being slaughtered with no end in sight, as in Rwanda, Sudan and elsewhere even now.

Once we free a nation, it is in our interest to see that it remains so and not fall back to what could result in an even worse situation.

Appeasing regimes that want to do harm to others most always leads to disaster that costs much more to clean up afterward. North Korea is a prime example of our appeasement policy that was used against us by the communist leader Kim Jong IL, and which actually backfired on us, as did Iran in the late 70’s. Notice that both were under a democrat president as was Pearl Harbor.

There is much danger in the world, giving us reason to do what we can to spread freedom, but not to appease radical elements who’s intentions are to take over other nations, government’s or even the world by force or threat.

Are we the world’s cops? Yes indeed we are, and rightly so in my opinion. Who else could do it any better that has any proven track record? Are we perfect? Nope. Progress is the key, not perfection. Nothing comes easy, but don’t bother telling that to a liberal.

Take 9/11 for intance. The terrorists’ were planning it for years before they put it into action because we were not proactive enough and were lulled into a false sense of peace when there was none by an administration too afraid of what others might think of us. Osama bin Laden had declared three times during the 1990’s that they were at war with us, and we sat on our hands hoping it would go away.

Waiting until it’s too late makes zero sense, like trying to be a shining example of a punching bag, but again don’t tell that to a liberal.

The stakes could not be higher than they are now in the Middle East as they were with Russia in the cold war.

If the Europeon’s fail at diplomacy, which is most likely, there will be no other recourse than to use force because the UN has not lived up to its promise even after given the chance so many times, and with the stakes this high it’s too late in the game now to give it another.

Personally, I think that leading by example is a better way to go than forcing “democracy” through massively destructive warfare. Sure peace can be achieved if you kill everyone who disagrees with you, but it’s as if the neocon’s foreign policy was developed by Michael Corleone.

Even liberals like me favor defense and preparedness, for realism’s sake. But “proactive war” against countries who might maybe be a threat, sort of, or might be thinking about it, possibly, or could be dreaming and scheming… it’s neocon madness. America is better off if people around the world see us as a shining example, not as “death from the skies.”

Now, here is where I could be accused of isolationism, but I think of it more as a “tough-love” approach. I think that when the citizens of a country who are under oppressive government become strongly motivated enough to overthrow that government, it is their responsibility to initiate the action. It must be their decision. We can help out (or not) if asked, but unless enough of them them want it, and want it badly enough, it won’t work. I think that’s why the American revolution was so successful. The power has to come from the grassroots.

Of course, I am one of those who believe the neocons are not really trying to “spread democracy,” they are trying to expand their power globally, and are willing to define success in a country as the replacement of an oppressive dictatorship by a puppet regime… but that’s just me