Should US abide my same rules of international behavior we demand other nations do?

Question

For example, regarding internationally monitored elections, torture, military spending, arms sales, nuclear proliferation and nuclear arms build up, and military actions that are considered dangerous aggression?

If not, why not? Isn't the best way to lead by example?

I remember in the 70s and 80s, there was a lot of right wing talk about left wing "moral relativism" and "situational ethics" yet on foreign affairs, America practices both. Whether something is immoral depends on whether we or someone else is doing it.

I think most Americans believe in all the idealistic stuff we say about human rights, democracy, and mutual respect our politicians talk about, and would like to actually see it practiced.

Dumbuster,
Do the things we do to other countries have anything to do with our NATIONAL interests or serve the business interests of a handful of corporations?

Read Medal of Honor winner & Marine Corps Gen. Smedley Butler's WAR IS A RACKET
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Or the history of the United Fruit Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_fruit_company#History_in_Central_America
CIA Docs on Guatamala coup:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/index.html

Or why we overthrew the democratically elected SECULAR president of Iran in 1953.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadegh

And in the case of Iraq, far from securing cheap oil, big oil was worried about Saddam driving the price DOWN not up.
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/04/new-dsm-bush-told-putin-iraq-war.html

I would prefer that our government act in the interests of all of us and for the good of democracy abroad. But too often, money talks and ideals are tossed.

Answer 1

Are you implying that we don't?

You obviously didn't pay much attention in the 80s, moral relativism means you don't judge the actions of others based on your self interests but relative to their 'culture.' In other words "its okay for him to punch you in the nose because that's his way." Its dumb! and no other nation actually does this either. Iraq was acting in a way that threatened the "rules of international behavior" so we schwacked 'im. We schwacked 'im because we do demand that others behave in a way that isn't harmful to us. Every nation does.

As for internationally monitored elections, we don't demand that of anyone, but since you brought it up our election process is so far ahead of everyone else's - example: the Florida ballot recount demonstrated that we take this very seriously even though we all knew it wouldn't change the outcome (though some were hoping)

As for torture, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than any other country, and now McCain wants to raise the bar again. example: Abu Ghraib - what those soldiers did was unacceptable, and they were removed and some imprisoned, but it's laughable to compare what they did (college frat boy pranks) with what the Vietnamese did, or the Japanese, or Al Qaeda, or Saddam's sons.

As for military spending, we spend more because we protect more. We're the richest country on earth and by a wide margin. As such we're the biggest target on earth, we have the most wealth to destroy, and waging cold wars leaves you with alot of unnecessary crap to maintain. We still spend far less as % of GDP than any of our adversaries. (our allies get a free ride thanks to our strength)

As for arms sales, we are far more responsible to whom we sell arms than any other country.

As for nuclear proliferation and nuclear arms build up, we're stuck with that lousy deal. There is no reason anyone else should pursue it, there are much better and cheaper and more effective weapons available today. Anyone developing nuclear weapons today intend to use them as a terror weapon. You can't compare nuclear weapons in the hands of a professional military commanded by a civilian elected by an open suffrage population with nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists vaguely associated with religious fanatics who appoint dictators to control their population. Unless of course you practice moral relativism.

Name a military actions that isn't considered dangerous aggression by someone.

Answer 2

No. The whole idea of 'rules' of international behavior is just a scam that various countries use as talking points when it suits them.

Now, if there were a 'world policeman' that you could actually go to who would hold other nations accountable for breaking said rules, then, sure, there'd be something to be said for sticking to them.

Answer 3

The United States of America has been captured by the powerful Bush Crime Family.
Please don't hold the citizens of the US responsible for the complete lack of morality and violations of human rights by this administration or his fathers administration.
I don't think George H.W. Bush raised his son properly. I think that he was to deeply involved with the newly organized CIA in 1947 to spend much time teaching his son right and wrong.
He didn't even teach him that when he gives his word that he should keep it.
The president and his administration are not rewarding people for doing the right things but they have rewarded people for doing wrong things.

President Woodrow Wilson gave a speech to Congress in 1918, 10 months before the end of World War I. "The Fourteen Points outlined in this speech served as both the basis for peace and the hopeful establishment of a better post-war world at the conclusion of "the culminating and final war for human liberty."
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/wilson-points.htm

In my humble opinion, the very first point of the speech is absolutely necessary for peace on earth. I copied it below:
"1. Open covenants of peace must be arrived at, after which there will surely be no private international action or rulings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view. "

In 1945 after World War II the United Nations was organized:
50 nations signed the original Charter. The preamble to the Charter is linked below:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

Part of the Means that the nations agreed to in order "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and" was "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and".

That appears to be great. That would solve everything. BUT...
In 1947 the USA started the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to the wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency

There are 3 functions of the CIA. I have serious problems condoning the second and third functions of the CIA. I have copied them below:
"Its secondary function is propaganda or public relations, overt and covert information dissemination, both true and false, and influencing others to decide in favor of the U.S. government. The third function of the CIA is as the hidden hand of the federal government, by engaging in covert operations. This is done at the direction of the President"

This appears to be in direct contrast to what the US agreed to when they signed the charter of the UN. When you read and think about doing "covert operations" in other countries, that to me is not being a goodneighbor that they pledged to be to the United Nations.
I probed more into the declassified documents from our government and there is an FBI memo where a George H. W. Bush as president of Zappata Oil (CIA known business) called an agent on 11-22-1963 and mentioned that he had heard of someone who had mentioned intended to kill President John F. Kennedy when he visited Houston. The memo mentions that Mr. Bush had said that he was reported to be in the Dallas-Sheraton Hotel in Dallas Texas on 11-22-1963 and would be headed home 11-23-1963.
JFK was killed on 11-22-63 in Dallas Texas.
The aledged "Sole gunman" Lee Harvey Oswald had been arrested in a movie theater (owned by a known CIA agent) and was killed in the Dallas Texas Police Department by Jack Ruby. Oswald had yelled out that he was innocent and was being made a patsy by the government.
The new president Johnson appointed a "Warren Commission" to investigate. That Commission report as almost as many errors as the 9/11 Official Report has.

The fraudulent Florida voter treatment during the 2000 elections watch video at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266005172448029956

There has not been a satisfatory answer why the two towers collapsed to dust nor building WTC 7.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

Here is a google video that questions 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=loose+change+2nd+edition&hl=en

There are others available for downloading at: http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

We are currently in the middle of a battle to keep what little Constitional rights remain. Nobody in the government seems to care enough to uphold the oath that they took when the were appointed to their office and/or the military oath that contains that they swore "to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

I don't think the normal citizens realize what is going on because they are not directly affected by the corruption and greed of the Bush administration traitors.

Answer 4

The US used to be a moral leader of the world, but that has all but disappeared within the last 7 years! To answer your question: YES!!! WE SHOULD!!!!!

Answer 5

When their time came to serve, Bush and Cheney both opted out. We have a "don't do what I do...do what I say do" government. They expect others to do what both were too cowardly to do and to die cheerfully for their ego. Now really, have you seen any evidence of humanity from this administration. In a perfect world, yes we could lead by example. But we live in the convaluted reality of Bushbots and lord knows what they will do next. I expect to hear George on tv just any day talking about Canada...."they got em....gonna use em...gonna git us....gotta invade!!!!"

Answer 6

Not implying, Stating

We don't

America has become as much a Pariah as the Israelis we love to emulate

Answer 7

Absolutely. I couldnt agree more, but the current administration believes the exact opposite, or at least does the exact opposite.

We need a President who will have the courage to lead by example in everything you just mentioned.


www.Gravel2008.us

Answer 8

Hey, hey hey. We're the biggest, baddest and worstest. We got a right to bully the rest of the world; no, a responsibility

Answer 9

yes but the current administration thinks that were above the law just because were so much richer at least they are

Answer 10

we do gramps,however national security/national interests rule.what part of the rest of the world are following your dream rules.you are old enough to know better.the strong survive,the weak become fertilizer!By the way,USA is a republic not a democracy and surrendering to the wishes of enemy is kind of stupid(by example is their wet dream).