The US Government props up all sorts of oppressive and "undemocratic" regimes and this behavior has been going on for decades. How does the US Government protect the citizens of another country when that same Government enables the oppression of those citizens? Is it okay that to support brutal and oppressive dictators as long as the Dictator's Government is perceived as stable (i.e. plays ball with the US) and provides some services to the people there?

No, it's not okay. "Stability and services" don't mean a damn thing, but hey, if that is all it takes then why don't we just appoint a tin pot dictator king to every country that doesn't meet our high and exacting standards on these things and is therefor perceived as "unstable". Dictator King can provide services like police beatings and crackdowns while entrenching its protection racket, i.e. becoming stable and legitimate representatives of the people, maybe they will even learn to tie a Windsor knot and keep the peasant blood far away to lower the risk of staining their tailored suits, like true statesman.

Who is responsible for protecting the world from the ambitions of the United States? Who is responsible for protecting the world when the world needs protection from the protectors?

It's called money. We don't have any of it. We're in debt up to our eyeballs.

How do you expect to pay for your nation building crusades?

And if you try to tell me that all the violence would vanish if the Americans left, I would ask you to explain the bombings in Peshawar and Islamabad, the attack on Mumbai, the bombings far from the battlefield in Kabul. Anyone who thinks that's all about the Americans and would vanish if we did is either naive or seriously uninformed or delusional or all three.

The only people saying that are the voices in your head. There will be violence no matter what. You, however, seem to think that your meddling little plans (that Obama ignored) can make the violence disappear. With that said, remind me, who is the Utopian Bullshitter around here?

Nation building requires international peacekeepers and it requires international police and police trainers, and it requires a long commitment. But its the right thing to do. Neither a full scale war to find al Qaeda (which, with some of their virtually identical partners like the IMU actually number in the thousands in Pakistan, not a couple of guys with beards in a cave) nor a full scale withdrawal and never to be heard from again accomplish the responsibility to protect.

How was killing a million Iraqis responsible? How did those actions protect them? How is American Foreign Policy responsible?

But that makes me an uberwarmonger, and I should book my flight while the people who would let the world die of neglect sit at their computers fantasizing about how wonderful the world would be without the United States.

Bingo. So when do you leave for Af-Pak? Oh wait you're not going to Af-Pak!?!?!? REALLY???? You mean instead of putting your money where your mouth is and going to Af-Pak to do what you want to do, you are going to sit at home behind your computer and fantasize about how wonderful the world would be if Obama listened to your plans while whining that some big meanie didn't consider you "qualified" to go do what you want to do? BIG SHOCKER! But that's ok, you get a Chickenhawk Pass trading time in Af-Pak for time volunteering at the hospital. What a hero you are.

If only you could see the big shit eating grin I was wearing when I read your first rant about me this morning. If only you could get cleared to save the world you would do it. If only Obama listened to you everything would be ok. If only the premises behind your meddling plans and blind hubris weren't constantly contradicted by the actions of those that would carry out your plans. If only if only if only.

Ondelette perceives himself as one of the lucky ones with the honor of doing the protecting, blessed with the so-called responsibility to protect the world from evil. The people he supports have all the power, why wouldn't they love using it? Why wouldn't they make up bullshit pretexts for intervening in the affairs of other while simultaneously taking comfort in the fact that the most killtastic military in world history is protecting them for those they wish to protect?

You want to preach about our responsibility when it comes to protecting others while our Government slaughters hundreds of thousands of people? Are you crazy? What a fucking joke. How was killing a million people in Iraq responsible? How did it protect? Do you really expect me to believe that the head of the mafia is going to honestly protect people from the mob? Really? Of course you do, that is why you're arguments are so emotional and absurd.

If the world has a responsibility to protect itself from warmongering rogue states, then why is the effort to protect lead by the most irresponsible and destructive force in world history? Doesn't that seem at all hypocritical to you? Where is the effort to responsibly protect the world from top-down do-gooding schemers who support policies that lead to the death of millions and the pretend it never happened?

Ondelette isn't the one being "protected" by the benevolent American Military, or any foreign military for that matter. But of course he would be perfectly happy with letting the Chinese or some other world power anoint themselves as Globocop Protectors and then proceed to go about "protecting" the less fortunate, say by curbing the ambitions of certain nuclear armed Rogue States.