Quote:
|
Next the collapse of the USSR has encouraged a dangerous boldness by the US to adopt itself as the champion of the free world, the crusader of righteousness, and saviour of civilisation. In my opinion, it has pounced on a chance to assert itself in strategic positions to meet it's own ends.
|
Nations always act in their own self-interests. But the rules have changed. In the old days, you'd use your military to conquest and then suck the trounced nation into your own. (In the really olden days, you'd put them to use as slaves, taking their land as a colony and taking their resources as your own.)
Lest we forget, the US/USSR "balance of power" was wrought partly on the backs of the estimated 20 million people murdered by Stalin so that he could maintain control.
Frankly I prefer the new rules, which say that if you are a dangerous tyrannical asshole, harboring other dangerous assholes and/or basically making trouble, you will be removed [if possible] to make way for your population's freedom and self-determination, and so that the resulting wealth generated by that freedom enriches both that nation and all who will trade with it.
The notion that it's done with all-volunteer armed forces and checked off via democratic means whilst a free media whines about the dangers and possible deaths is a huge bonus.
Of all the dangers in the world, the idea that a nation with huge power is running rampant freeing the peoples of the world is not high on the list.