Great. All I need is more nausea.

[docwebster]

What really scares me is that we seem (note I said seem, not are) to be setting ourselves up as the sole arbiter(sp?) for How Things Are Done. You don't get to decide how you do things, we do. If we decide an attack on a given country is warranted, you either jump in line with us or we pull out our international relations bag of tricks: ignore you, do something as childish as renaming a food Freedom Fries (I mean, how fucking ignorant can you get?), or insult the hell out of you in supposedly civil diplomatic discourse.

Yeah, we helped the French in World War II. Big fucking deal. What we did was protect their right to choose how they govern themselves and live their lives. If they decide they don't feel they can justify invading a given country with us, that's their right and we have absolutely nothing to say about it. Liberating a country and winning a war against a monstrous evil is not about setting up political markers to be redeemed at a future date. What's it about is protecting liberty, supposedly.

Comments

[hiddenmuse.livejournal.com]

Of course, setting ourselves up as the sole arbiter of How Things Are Done does set one up for a great big fall in the end.

I guess that Shrub and his cronies are too hopped up on endorphins from playing schoolyard bully to remember that....

[butisitiambic.livejournal.com]

I totally agree. I think the Bush Regime has a definition of "Liberty" all their own. They certainly don't understand the word "soveriegnty" the way most people do. In fact, I think Dubya would be hard-pressed to spell it.

And if we're keeping score with the French, well we wouldn't be a country without them.

Why do I feel that the US is now acting the way past empires have right before they disintegrate??