Ethics in U.S. / international relations

[sear]

"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams

U.S. President GWB told Afghanistan's Taliban:
- Either you hand bin Laden (UBL) over to U.S., or we'll come in & get him.
They didn't.
We did.

BUT:
"Mission Creep" soon set in, & instead of chasing a lone fugitive, the U.S. was nation-building again.

The U.S. sacrificed substantially to upgrade & uplift the good People of Afghanistan. But apparently for reasons intrinsic to nation-building the U.S. had a stronger commitment to a more modern Afghanistan than the Afghanis.
Biden withdrew U.S. troops, and the government we propped up there folded within hours.
To some this might seem a fluke. I suspect in such scenarios it's a likely outcome.

Bottom line: The Liberty of a People is worth what they are willing to pay for it.

It's not just the U.S. military.
Biden's trying to buy and give away COVID-19 vaccine.

Where in the Constitution does it say U.S. citizens must pay taxes so our liberal president can buy gifts for strangers in other countries?

Surely constructive friendships between nations benefits us all. But where should the line be drawn? At what point does it stop being foreign aid, and become taxing U.S. workers for welfare / charity of those in foreign nations?

 

[mark mywords]

U.S. President GWB told Afghanistan's Taliban:
- Either you hand bin Laden (UBL) over to U.S., or we'll come in & get him.
They didn't.
We did.

on a slightly technical point ObL wasnt in Afghanistan so the Afghani Taliban: couldnt hand him over

I also dont think that a
shooting a sick (possibly unarmed) man in his bedroom is nothing to be particularly proud of

 

[sear]

Tora Bora?
In any case it seems at that time the Taliban wouldn't have helped the U.S. even if they could. But that ambition was bungled from day one, resulting in part in the U.S.' longest War.

Though some might think it's not as bad as you suggest mm #2, turns out it's actually worse.
In the 8 years GWB was president UBL killed about 3,000 innocent Americans, earning himself #1 on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List *.
BUT !! During those same 8 years President Bush (younger) killed off thousands more innocent Americans than UBL did.

UBL gets his head blown off.
GWB gets Secret Service protection for life, and a big fat pension.

So it seems the satirical slogan isn't as far off as it seems:

If you kill one or two, they prosecute & imprison you. If you kill 10 or 20, they put you in an insane asylum. If you kill 10 or 20 thousand, they invite you to a peace conference.

* For many years Uncle Sam displayed mug shots of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted in U.S. federal post offices coast to coast. And iirc UBL was indeed #1 on that list. But I don't recall having seen such list at the post office lately.

 

[Borg Refinery]

"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams

U.S. President GWB told Afghanistan's Taliban:
- Either you hand bin Laden (UBL) over to U.S., or we'll come in & get him.
They didn't.
We did.

BUT:
"Mission Creep" soon set in, & instead of chasing a lone fugitive, the U.S. was nation-building again.

The U.S. sacrificed substantially to upgrade & uplift the good People of Afghanistan. But apparently for reasons intrinsic to nation-building the U.S. had a stronger commitment to a more modern Afghanistan than the Afghanis.
Biden withdrew U.S. troops, and the government we propped up there folded within hours.
To some this might seem a fluke. I suspect in such scenarios it's a likely outcome.

Bottom line: The Liberty of a People is worth what they are willing to pay for it.

It's not just the U.S. military.
Biden's trying to buy and give away COVID-19 vaccine.

Where in the Constitution does it say U.S. citizens must pay taxes so our liberal president can buy gifts for strangers in other countries?

Surely constructive friendships between nations benefits us all. But where should the line be drawn? At what point does it stop being foreign aid, and become taxing U.S. workers for welfare / charity of those in foreign nations?

I take a more Federation and Starfleet style approach of all for one and one for all: all nations should do everything they can to liberate the others, it shouldn't be about who's weak or strong enough to liberate themselves and who's most deserving of liberty, IMHO everyone's deserving of liberty. We can actually liberate everyone in this world with sufficient will - there just isn't sufficient global will to do so. That's the problem. Our governments LIKE corruption and for nations to be stranded / to be run down, thus pliable for international trade and partnership (as our weaker partner); so western govts still do everything they can to destabilise enemy regimes that actually pose little threat to them. Just look at all the recent shit with Cuba. What was the point in that?

The only place we're doing the right thing appears to be Ukraine right now, I can't think of many other countries we are actually trying to help -maybe Taiwan? - past examples of us doing the right thing obviously includes WWII, perhaps the Gulf War, Bosnia/Kosovo - and then after that, yeah, pretty much the Ukraine war.

Our 'humanitarian' intervention in Myanmar with Suu Kyi helped provide cover for a genocide, in part. Our grand attempts in Libya caused total destabilisation for which no apology was forthcoming.

 

[sear]

I take a more Federation and Starfleet style approach of all for one and one for all ...

E Pluribus Uniform?

Some in the U.S. have expressed potentially fatal short-sighted parsimony in whining about the $Billions the U.S.* has provided Ukraine to battle Russian military aggression back to Russia's own border.
What our parsimonious whiners seem to not understand, the War in Ukraine is a contest between autocracy and democracy. And though it's a terrible tragedy that Russia continues the carnage, right-minded Americans understand the correct side of the conflict is the democracy side.
Thus Ukraine is fighting our battle, on their land. Obviously if we allow Ukraine to fail, to fall, we adjust our own security a full increment closer to our own demise.

I believe Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy wanted overwhelming military power to smash Russia in the first week of the invasion, both to send Russia packing not soon to return, AND to spare Ukraine the destruction to population and infrastructure it has subsequently suffered.

There is cowardice in the West's response to Russia's invasion, understandably so. Recent indications substantiate that Putin's emotional stability has degraded.

At least I believe / hope we've picked the right side. Grim bidness if Putin turns out to be the saint here, and Zelenskyy the monster.

* The U.S. is surely not the only contributor to Ukraine's military defense effort. But the skinflint whiners in the U.S. sidestep that.

 

[titan]

"Grim bidness if Putin turns out to be the saint here, and Zelenskyy the monster." sear

Off your meds sear? Russian troops massed on Ukraine's border. They've been busting up Ukraine the best they can for nearly a year. Don't lose any sleep about Zelenskyy.

 

[sear]

Seems like it. I was trying to lead by example, demonstrate objective scrutiny to both sides. In this case it seems I overdid it. Although I will say, for a comedian, the Zelenskyy regime doesn't seem all that amusing. Do what comedians are supposed to do Volodymyr. "Kill" the audience.