----
Edit: Mod-Wilshire says: I just had to moderate a post. Lets keep personal attacks to a minimum. Granted, its difficult for me to at once be part of the conversation and moderate it, so please call me out if I'm missing something (including if I'm doing the same thing I'm attempting to moderate against.)
----
Please correct me if I'm wrong MSJ, but it seems your stance is basically that: we, as the US, have the right to topple governments and install ones that we like, then have indefinite military occupancy enforcing Marshall Law until we can 'convince' citizens to believe in the new culture we are installing against their will?
This is the same as IS, isn't it? They are using military might to kill people that have different ideologies than them, then install military enforced occupation of capture regions to force citizens to capitulate to Shariah Law.
What's the difference? (I guess you have already answered this, so asking again will just be irritating. Let me rephrase: You feel that the US version is justified because the conditions we install are better than the ones we removed, right? I'm really just trying to get it straight in my head.)
Our belief structures, though different, aren't necessarily better. This isn't Earwa. There is no objective morality. Until the world can agree on one set of rules to play by, which clearly we haven't, then no one can claim moral high ground. So how can we know, or better yet measure, which state is better?
If we want to just live in a world where the strongest guy wins, I'm on the winning side, so honestly what do I care? With the most advanced and well funded military in the world, I'll never have to worry about losing a war. Heck, I don't even have to worry about going to war - I've got a handful of medical issues that each disqualify me individually, let alone in their sum, from going into battle.
When I see anyone from the US arguing for war, I see people who are scared and want to be in control. Leave altruism out of it, because its not real. Money and power, we take what we want and kill for everything else to stay in power.
To me, the calling card of evil is this: That Means justify Ends, that all who believe differently than you should be killed, and that Objective Morality (God) is on your side.
I see both sides believing this unto death, and both sides, imo, are equally evil. I'm guessing this is where our disagreement originates.
This post is already long enough so I'll think on it a bit more before posting again, but, what's the middle ground here? I think usually in an argument the truth is somewhere in between.