[palmer]

Our country's moral duty is to protect its citizens. If you want to save people from torture that is your business, not mine. Spreading these details at this point is the substitute for debate over whether we should be involved in this type of nation building. Our experience in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and Afghanistan (so far) should tell us about the folly of trying to enforce human rights upon people who will vote for Islamic law or settle 1000 year-old scores with their neighbors.

[ez]

. Spreading these details at this point is the substitute for debate over whether we should be involved in this type of nation building.

I'm sorry, I thought I answered debate quite clearly.

IMHO, while we should not invade every tyranny on the globe, in such cases where there is an opportunity to protect national security AND remove a tyrant who represses people through barbaric violation of inalienable rights, we SHOULD remove him.

Afterwards, we should not "nation-build" except to the point where we leave the nation no worse than we found it. We should turn the government of that nation over to THE PEOPLE to institute whatever form of govenment seems most likely to secure their futre happiness.

If they blow it and install Islamfascism, so be it.

I think we have an opportunity here In the interests of our national security, I feel we have a real opportunity to bring, at least, due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment to Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

Then step aside and let the people of those countires govern themselves as they see fit.

[ez]

PS The working title of my theory on foreign policy would be Non-Invasive Democratization.