Decius wrote:
] adam wrote:
]
] ] USA is acting
] ] as a largely unilateral world policeman.
]
] Oh, for the good 'ol days when Republicans were isolationist
] and Democrats wanted to interfere in Eastern Europe.
]
] ] Am I indulging in moral nicities and not real politic.
]
] I don't think we're doing what we're doing for democracy. Bush
] isn't a neocon. We're doing what we're doing for more direct
] strategic reasons. But if the result produces a state thats
] more violent then the one we had before those stategic
] advantages will be moot.
]
] ] Next stop Beijing.
]
] Yeah, good luck!

So direct stategic reasons, real politic is the justification and moral questions are by the way. It sounds like a justification of imperialism to me. Like Nixon in China.
If the result produces a state and world that is less violent then
is Pax Americana justified. Do the ends justify the means? That is itself a difficult moral question. The Roman Empire was violent, built on slavery, warlike, the Republic fell and dictatorship brought stability after a century of civil war. It was also a flowering of civilisation that wasn't surpassed until the Renaissance which was fueled by printing and the publication of classical works.

RE: Iraqis crowd the polls | csmonitor.com