Originally Posted by
Easy Street
I think you and SASless are talking past each other somewhat. You see Western intervention as imperialism. He sees it as difficult or impossible for the West to do any good within the operational, legal and ethical boundaries it imposes on itself. The logical end point of both of your arguments is that the West should stay out of foreign conflicts which pose no genuine, direct and immediate threat to national security. Am I right?
Well you not wrong
We have different viewpoints and disagree on lots but genuinely respect his opinion because he has always been honest.
Doesn't mean we won't argue from different points of view in another thread.
A great irony of the wider dilemma is that many of those who are most vociferous about the evil wrought by Western adventurism are just as keen to push Western ethical standards on foreigners and intervene when they refuse to accede. I don’t accuse you of that, but unfortunately it is a commonly-held stance in certain sections of the political establishment.
Western standards suck, the 2 strands that are pushed are the Liberal standards where everything goes or conservatives ones where borrow to the hilt and do as we say and we will be rich. Both destroy a country, enrich a few local people and enrich a lot of western people.
The days of building infrastructure in the country from the West are dead, it is kind of why China has success in may countries, it stays out of lecturing about what people should do and builds the infrastructure.