I’m not interested in flame wars either.
I have a problem with simple moral equivalency as a default position. America is truly unique in history.
So, I don’t accept without question that we never should interfere in ‘democratically elected governments’. Pure democracies devolve, often quickly to tyranny. We have many examples of the ‘people’s choices’ for government that were horrible for them and the world.
Like it or not we have power, we had an unusual amount after WWII. Power brings responsibility. I’m glad we didn’t isolate and let the world’s peoples figure out their futures.
I’m not a huge interventionist nor an isolationist; I think I’m a realist.
In short, going to a bottom line that they elected Mossedeq, doesn’t carry near the same weight for me; they elected Immanutjob too.
It counts, but the other factors, what it means to their people, America and the world counts also.
I think we’ll remain somewhat where we were prior, but I greatly appreciate your posts and courteous reply.
So, I don’t accept without question that we never should interfere in ‘democratically elected governments’.
I am comfortable with this point, and actually don't take an absolutist position on this either. Since I can't be sure of what may be happening out there somewhere I will allow that interference like you describe may be wise in some situations. However, I think our instinct on these things should be the conservative one, and that means to be cautious and keep interference to a minimum, only doing so in very extreme situations. Iran in 1953 hardly seems such a situation, and I think our decision then has borne much bad fruit.
Like it or not we have power, we had an unusual amount after WWII. Power brings responsibility. I’m glad we didn’t isolate and let the world’s peoples figure out their futures.
Perhaps, but such is only good if we do the right things for the right reasons. If we argue that we are right in what we do simply because we are America, and I don't say you are doing this but such is common in the GOP today, how then can we be responsible? Without a willingness to be self-critical and see our mistakes for what they are there can be no responsibility. That is to tread the primrose path of dalliance and surely recks not our own rede.
This is why I have often been disappointed by the arguments by GOP candidates in the past. They argue that any criticism of American policy is "blaming America" and this is to refuse to be responsible and is the opposite of what conservative values require. Strength is only a virtue in a cause that is right. If we see ourselves as unique to a degree that we cannot believe we are capable of error then our strength will simply be oppression. The founding fathers struggled precisely because they knew they were fallible men subject to human failings, and we certainly are no better.
I think we’ll remain somewhat where we were prior, but I greatly appreciate your posts and courteous reply.
I thank you for yours as well. It has been a pleasure.