In response to:

Kerry's 'Realism' Slips Into Callousness

Stuart95 Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 10:57 AM
"Americans would "pay any price, bear any burden" in their ongoing defense of liberty and human rights "at home and around the world."* * Except in most of Africa, most of South America, most of the Middle East, Africa, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc, - i.e. wherever skin color is a little off-white. The US has ignored the deaths of millions of people in the above-listed areas, but has spent trillions on failed nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bumbling, blatant hypocrisy of the US protection of "human rights" should be more than enough to make a thinking person consider the principle not interfering in the affairs of other, sovereign countries unless that country poses a direct threat to the US homeland.
Original Saepe_Expertus Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 11:12 AM
STUART...perhaps you would like to apply a little bit of 'luster' to your awkward 'morally-superior' posturing by cataloging for us the efforts you have made to mitigate and reduce said deaths.

Anyone can criticize....get in the arena!
Stuart95 Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 11:49 AM
I am pushing the opposite of moral superiority: the recognition that we can't right every wrong in the world. We can't even right the wrongs in our own country. And if you look at conflicts like Sandinista-Contra, it's clear that we can't always decide what's right and what's wrong.

This is the human situation. Some people think humans can be perfected; some people don't (read Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"). In order to avoid the constant political vacillation on what we should or shouldn't be doing in Country X, perhaps it's better to stay out of Country X's business in the first place.

BTW, a person can have an opinion without personal involvement. I think it's really cold on Jupiter, even though I've never been there.
Original Saepe_Expertus Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 12:19 PM
Stuart.....Good Points!! I find myself in whole-hearted agreement with your synopsis of the dilemma. There are PLENTY of places we should have stayed the hell out! Unfortunately, the urge among politicians, and other deluded do-gooders, to cry out "...we have to do something!" has carried us down many a slippery slope...costing us a grave price in blood and treasure. Washington DID warn us of foreign entanglements.
Original Saepe_Expertus Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 12:20 PM
PS My apology for COMPLETELY mus-construing your post.
nametabs Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 11:01 AM
You forgot all deaths deaths we didnt prevent in antartica, seriously,is there any place where you dont think its all our fault?
Stuart95 Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 11:09 AM
No! None of the killing in those countries is our fault. Kim Il, the Tutsis, Castro - they all kill for their own reasons.

It's just that we can't police the whole world, and our selection of places to police is bad, and our success in those selected places is charitably described as "checkered".

So let's don't say we do; let's save the lives and money for something that matters.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 2:52 PM
We "police" where US interests are concerned.

WHEN IT COMES to foreign policy, John F. Kerry is no John F. Kennedy.

In his 1961 inaugural address, the 35th president of the United States declared that Americans would "pay any price, bear any burden" in their ongoing defense of liberty and human rights "at home and around the world." Like other presidents before and since – Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush – JFK believed that it was America's destiny to advance freedom and democratic self-government, and oppose the world's tyrants. This is the "idealist" approach to US foreign policy.

Kerry sees America's role differently. For nearly...