Why are we obligated to recognize the rights of despotic governments that oppress people? Why should we be expected to co-exist with them peacefully?

Do you have any morals at all? Why are you so eagar to legitimize governments that enslave, torture, and kill innocent people on a whim?

I would like to hear some answers to MerlinX's questions as well.

I have never equated self-interest with world hatred - its all in English, try a little comprehension, please. In a similar vein, Merlin's other questions assume a facetious extrapolated extreme perspective never expressed - how does one (other than foolishly) defend a position never held or expressed? Be reasoned and sensible, if you can, or at least coherent in your line of questioning.

And for yourself - where have I suggested that the 'rights of despotic governments' be recognised? Never. Put your hair back on.

The 'world-hate' which I have identified is evidenced by use of such phrases as 'screw the rest of the world', 'I really dont care about the rest of the world one bit'; hardly the utterances of a philanthropist? A broad minded chimpanzee, it could be argued, would contain less bile (in relation to other chimpanzees!).

I still believe (evidences on these threads notwithstanding) in a generosity of spirit, or a capacity for same, which is particular to our species. The peculiar trend exhibited by some, that cacophony of paranoid Americans expressing some deep-rooted mixture of paranoia/fear/defiance of 'the rest of the world' strikes me as strange. Therefore - I wonder where it comes from? Only a tiny minority of Americans exhibit this morbid world-view, but they are getting noisier.

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Perhaps your grasp of English is not sufficient to make yourself clear. More than one person misunderstood you.

It was implied...if he's wrong, just clarify your position. I got the same impression he did.

When you said this:

The implication being that we should recognize non-democracies as equals. Are you saying we should NOT recognize non-democracies as equals?

Perhaps they are getting noisier because they arent quite as much of a minority as they used to be.

Better late than never.

section merits clarification.

"I invite you to consider" could only be taken as a charge 'to recognise despotic states' by a considerable wilfull leap of determined misunderstanding. Another consideration which may represent a more deep rooted cause for misunderstanding is that you seem to think of the world in terms of nation states (rogues, despots, and one assumes, friends), where I see a world made up of people. I can hate a government without hating any of the people who live there - am I correct to assume you might share this position?

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

You just did. Do you have a short-term memory problem? Let's take a trip in the waybackmachine to 8:36 this morning. Hans posted his opinion that the U.S should look out only for itself....

You responded with your "world-hate" post...

What other conclusion am I supposed to draw then, that you are equating self-interest with "world-hate"?

I am merely taking you at your word. Are you telling me I should not trust what you say?

My questions assume nothing. They are merely aimed at gettng you to clarify your position. Sorry, I didn't realize this was asking too much of you...

So this is NOT your position? Are you now retracting what you said about self-interest equaling "world-hate"? Is it your position then, that it is not unusual for a government to look out for itself first?

In what way are the above questions incoherent? In what way are they unreasoned or not sensible? To use your words...

I refer you to the clarifications above. There is nothing in your latest post which is not dealt with there, unless you wish to read, again...

The 'world-hate' which I have identified is evidenced by use of such phrases as 'screw the rest of the world', 'I really dont care about the rest of the world one bit'; hardly the utterances of a philanthropist? A broad minded chimpanzee, it could be argued, would contain less bile (in relation to other chimpanzees!).

You seem to have a problem in so far as I refuse to defend a position I have NEVER HELD OR EXPRESSED. Very odd, that? And then, (miraculously, Merlin) determine that I am thereby retracting from a statement which I never uttered, typed or printed anywhere.

This is super stuff!

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Here it is again...[sigh]

The quote you chose to respond to (and re-posted) did not mention "screw the rest of the world" - it merely spoke of self-interest. It did speak of not caring about the world. And your right, this is not philanthropy - it's SELF-INTEREST.

So I'll ask again: What other conclusion are we supposed to come to? It sure sounds like you are equating self-interest with "world-hate".

Why dont you just answer my question and remove all doubt?

Is hating all non-democracies the same as hating the world? Do you think non-demopcracies should be treated as our equals?

Why dance around the questions at all? Are you afraid of the answers?

If you say so. Considering how much you seem to think of your own grasp of teh English Language, you seem to have a difficult time making yourself understood.

The views I said you expressed were implied by what you said. If they are incorrect, then clarify. I am getting the definite impression that you are deliberately dodging the questions.

As to Pat Buchanan, I don't think he's a Nazi Sadistic, to me he seems a moral crusader, or a moral enforcer. He seems a good man.
But while I hold very strongly to my on morals, simply put the government is to prevent me enforcing my beliefs on others and them theirs on me.

As to been a liberal, well no I wouldn't be, and its not really an insult over here to be one.
Personally I wouldn't agree with the Neo-Con philosophy, in the end it stirs up resentment against the US which is a bad idea.
As to democracies not fighting each other. Thats not quite true.
Off the top of my head Ireland fought Britain for independence and we both had democratic governments. Oft times patriotism causes wars.
As to trying to topple non-democratic governments, on paper its a laudable goal. But as places like Iraq shows it often causes devils bargains to be struck with dictators and despots. Its best to let people free themselves.
To encourage them to otherthrow their oppressors.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

Spare me your sighs...

A basic requirement of reading comprehension is that you can extract, from within the body of a text, the information relevant to that aspect of the text under examination. Further, through the nature of 'threads' one might reasonably expect that other contributors will be so considerate as to read preceeding posts (and not simply jump in heedless of the discussion which most immediately preceeds their own contribution).

In exercising either of these two facilities open to you, your confusion may have been avoided. If I have presumed too much, either in terms of connecting dots or providing adequate road sign in joined-up-thinking - mea maxima culpa.

Back to my original query - where does this 'world-hate' phenomenon come from? Am I correct in assuming from Sadistic-Saviour's earlier reply that he/she might consider that no bad thing?

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."