In which nations should we seek to eliminate oppression? Further quesitons:

[Skip Intro]

How should we seek to accomplish such goals?

Which nations are most in need of our intervention in this cause?

And where should this cause rank among our priorities?

[JeffR]

1. We could start with our own.

If we can ever get that right, then maybe it's time to start thinking about doing the same for other nations.

[Muttocracy]

4. what you said. nt

[Juche]

2. That is complex

The most oppressive nation on earth is North Korea, but there is no truly effective way to address that oppression w/o risking a military conflict.

Fighting for democracy and human rights should be very high in our foreign policy, not just for the moral argument but because liberal democracies that respect human rights generally do not cause trouble on the international stage, in part because the public put up too much of a fuss for them to get away with it (assuming they also have a free media). It is the oppressive dictatorships (islamic dictatorships, communist dictatorships, fascist dictatorships, etc) that end up getting us involved in foreign affairs we'd rather not get involved in. Liberal democracies rarely if ever go to war with each other and generally don't cause the kind of trouble that dictatorships do.

Then there is the fact that if a country has a per capita income below $3000, the chances of successfully transitioning to democracy are very low, while incomes above $6000 have a high chance of making the transition.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002031.html

Like I said, complex. But we should be using our political power to endorse human rights and democratic institutions. But it is a farce when our own are falling apart at home. Our nation is something of a plutocratic autocracy, rather than a liberal democracy.

[mmonk]

3. We need to stop the oppression in and by the United States.

Given it is so dominant in the world, if we do that, other nations would probably follow.

[angrycarpenter]

5. The only way is lead by example.

Nothing would further the cause of freedom better than protecting our own by punishing our own war crimes and finally treating poor countries as potential friends rather than a place to get cheap labor and raw materials. Freedom is spread by inspiration not fear. As long as we are the source of lies and raw deals we will never make one person free, not even our own citizens.

[bertman]

6. Angrycarpenter, that was perfect.

[anonymous171]

7. Intervention should only happen once the natives have risen up against their own government.

[notesdev]

8. Just this one

In case you hadn't noticed, giving priority attention to the needs of foreigners over Americans is one of the big things that got us in the mess we're in.

[pampango]

9. What is this "priority attention" of which you speak?

If you're referring to the "needs" of Iraqis and Afghanis for "freedom" then I agree. (That kind of PA we can all do without.) If "priority attention" refers to some other "need" of a "foreigner", please explain.

[notesdev]

10. All sorts

From rebuilding the infrastructure of countries halfway across the globe while our own rots, to sending US jobs overseas and handing out much of what is left to H1-Bs and illegal aliens, spending outrageous sums on military protection of countries which should be protecting themselves, "free-trade" deals which are great for the other guy but lousy for Americans, and so on, the conclusion is inescapable - foreign interests have had more representation among our lawmakers and policy makers than Americans have had.

[pampango]

14. Other than in Iraq and Afghanistan, where are we rebuilding foreign infrastructure?

In those two countries we had an obligation to help them rebuild after war, as we did in Europe and Japan after WWII. Hopefully, Iraq will be "sovereign" enough to handle their own infrastructure needs.

For decades after WWII India (after independence) and China (under Mao) were not an economic threat to anyone (other than perhaps their own citizens). Now that these two huge Third World countries have developed the ability to compete in the international economy, which we in the US probably could have slowed down or prevented if we had restricted access to our consumer market, we have to come up with a strategy to compete with them in the future.

India and China do have the "advantage" of lots of poor people, but this is unfortunately an "advantage" that many countries in the world have. We here have the "advantages" of not as many poor people, more money (capital), and a better educational and entrepreneurial infrastructure than the Third World has. I don't feel hopeless about our prospects in the world economy. We have certain advantages, as do other countries.

We can certainly wall off cheap imports (good from China, oil from Saudi Arabia, services from India, etc.). Other countries would undoubtedly retaliate by walling off our exports (and we're the third largest exporting country in the world after Germany and China). We would survive, probably in a better fashion than most any other country in the world, because we have the resources, capital and education and entrepreneurial infrastructure to adapt to change. Workers in our export industries could find jobs in businesses that produce things that we used to import. Would we end up better off than we are now? No one knows for sure, though many will have a strong opinion.

[JCMach1]

11. How about we start at home...

:dilemma:

[Greyhound]

12. Exactly, let's clean up our own mess before getting into anybody else's business.

Not only have we failed to live up to our own stated values and goals, we have actually let things get steadily worse for a generation, all the while pretending that none of it is our fault and there is nothing that we can do about it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Anywhere you can do more good than harm; specifically *not* "just the US".

Israel/Palestine, much of Africa (most notably, but possibly not most, Zimbabwe) and arguably but arguably not Afghanistan are all places where external intervention would be a good thing.

The US is the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world; much of that wealth is built on using its economic and military might to exploit less powerful nations; it has an overwhelming moral duty (as, to lesser extents, do all other nations) to do what it can to help the rest of the world rather than adopting a purely selfish foreign policy.

Charity should begin at home only when home is the place most in need of charity.