I don't understand what you're saying here. We haven't done anything yet.
I maent in the past. Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Czechoslovakia, Congo, Grenada, Puerto Rico, Libya, Iran, Somaly, etc.
But you will do.
Sovereignty presumes that what happens inside your borders stays inside your borders. In Syria's case, the Assad regime has sought help from Iran (violation of sovereignty against the rebels) and Hezbollah (another violation, not to mention spurring violence in Lebanon), and flouted an international arms embargo by using Russian cargo planes to acquire weapons that they're using to massacre civilians. If you want to cite sovereignty, you have to acknowledge that Assad has voided it in every conceivable manner.
Then the problem is between those countries. US has nothing to do with the problem.
If it affected US sovereignty, with agression, they were legitimated to use the force.
UN exists for that purpose. If the sancions are not working, the way out was to change UNs constitution and accept majority system for votes on the security council.
But "invading" another country is against the principles of justice and international law.
Take the death of Osama Bin Laden on Pakistan as an exemple. US overpassed Pakistan sovereignty to take the terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Even if Osama was a criminal, he had to be judged. But he was just murdered.
And his punishment passed his own personality. His body was vanished, throuwed on the ocean.
Thats agains the human rights. Even a criminal has the right to be judged.
The Russian Revolution was not the least bit concerned with sovereignty. Communism was an explicitly internationalist philosophy, which is why Stalin felt just fine about supplying the Spanish Republicans with arms, taking over entire rebel fronts, and murdering competing factions in the war. Russia also tried to spark revolutions in Western Europe during WWI. Soviet history is a litany of violations of sovereignty.
US tries to spark the democratic revolutions nowadays. Is that right? Why?
Thats something we all need to think about. Is democracy the best for every country? Thats a not obvious question nor an obvious awenser.
Plato wrote about it 380 a.c., and the statement that is the most corrupt system is still valid.
Just see how the US government, trying to save their economic system on 2008 gave all that money... While Henry Paulson from the Lehman Brothers was the Scretary of Treasury, folowed by Timothy Geithner, and that AIG bonuses for the derivatives... Corruption?
Lets just separete things. The russian revolution occured on 1917. Stalin's ascention was on 1924.
The ideals of the revolution had nothing to do with international philosophy. Just read the communist manifest from Karl Marx and Engels and the book Capital from Karl Marx.
The basic philosophy there was to implement positive fundamental rights to the State.
For the real communist philosophy, the is no need for a government or a State.
Although, they implemented a dictatorship socialism, using some of the Lenin-Marx Ideals.
The revolution itself, served to free the people from the old Russian feudalism.
When Stalin forced that regime, it had nothing to do with the real communism (which, btw, is just an utopia).
I'll be the first person to wholeheartedly condemn much of U.S. policy in Latin America during the Cold War, but the world isn't black and white anymore. Without the USSR around, the U.S. is really, truly concerned about fostering democratization in countries where we can help out. If we supported every dictatorship conducive to our interests, we would have done in Egypt in 2010 what Vladimir Putin is doing now in Syria: giving him arms and letting him slaughter his own people. Instead, we told him to step down. Iraq was a truly exceptional and bizarre case, and I'd be happy to discuss it in a separate thread, but suffice it to say it's immensely complicated.
There are cases like Uzbekistan, where we regrettably have to give money to awful people to maintain supply routes into Afghanistan. Or our close relationship with Saudi Arabia, which by any measure is an awful dictatorship. But you have to work and cooperate with the countries that exist, not the ones you wish existed. But when democracies appear, as they did in the Arab Spring, we always support them, even when they don't necessarily jive with our interests (see: Mursi government in Egypt).
You are totally right.
But I think that agression from US is just going to bring more suffering to the people. And more hate on the meadle east.
Ideally, of course we should. We've tried condemning Assad, demanding he leave, providing non-lethal aid to the rebels and the population, sanctions, UN resolutions, and other things. But when we're confronted with Russia's unnecessary, inane obstructionism in the pursuit of realpolitik in the UN Security Council, it doesn't help anyone.
Just as I said. The right way to do it is to change the UN, so the US move would be legitimated. Now, just as is, its not.
What countries are you talking about? I studied Latin American politics as an undergraduate and that's my area of focus. There are plenty of Latin American countries that don't do enough in the way of providing quality education (Chile and Mexico come to mind, although for different reasons), but I don't think any Latin American countries are "democratic dictatorships." Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Paraguay have incredibly weak institutions and party systems, and their leaders tend to be somewhat authoritarian to varying degrees, but I'd be interested to know what you mean by this.
Sorry. language is a big barrier for explaining myself.
What I tried to synthesize can't be written on just few lines.
I can easily point some: Venezuela, Bolivia, and even Brasil.
Point me your work, perhaps we can share some great information =)
