Quote Originally Posted by alh_p View Post
I'm not sure I see how this is a self-defeating position. I just said that the US is, despite the beliefs of some (mostly its citizens) out to help itself as best it can -not the world as a whole.
Oh, just because we are discussing whether such intervention can do good. If it can, and the US is doing a bad job, then Europe should step up and do a good job. But shibumi et al are arguing that it is better for Europe to save their cash and let the US do it.

Yes, as long as the dictators are replaced with capitalist "democracies", not (shudder) socialists. Capitalist democracies will get on much better with the US and be better markets & trading partners for the US.
I think the sheer cost of war belies any attempt to make it "all about the [money]".


I'll grant that it doesn't have to be against other peoples' interests, but the prime motivator for US intervention is not to make the world a better place for everyone, but primarily US citizens.
Why do you think that? I think if that were true, we would be more isolationist. Indeed that seems to be Europe's idea. 3 trillion on the war or something? Or it might be 1 trillion directly spent with another 2 in costs, I don't remember.


hmm, how to do this without opening a can of worms re the morality of the war on drugs... I'll side step it and say: The "war on drugs" is most certainly mostly about the US self interest. Surely you'd agree the "morality" of the endaevor is based on a US focused consideration?
I wasn't very clear...I don't think the war on drugs is just. I meant it is moral in the sense that moral beliefs are the driving force. If you think it is about the US self interest then I'm confused about what you mean by self interest