: : : The US has many treaties with many countries. But when atrocities are commited in those countries by that regime, it doesn't redound to the US.
: : : I understand your desire to do what is necessary to undercut my position, but good golly man, try to maintain a shread of sanity.
: : If you find a poor man, train him how to kill, give him a gun, pay his expenses, send him out to kill someone, and advise him along the way, does it redound to you when he kills his victim?
: Of course. I'd be indicted and convicted of homocide. And rightfully so. But how does that relate to international politics? Are you suggesting that the moral code that individuals live by are the same that nations live by? Do you see a difference in an individual acting in the way you suggest and a nation acting in a way to protect its interests? Care to speculate what would happen to a nation that related to other nations as a personal neighbor? Unilateral disarmament for instance? That's what the Left was preaching in the mid-80's when we were planting the MX in Europe. Turns out theirs was a suicidal course, at least for America.
I'm not inclined to debate the merits of war as a foreign policy tool at the moment. My earlier point to you (and I take it, you've decided to treat me civilly, despite my divinity) is that the actions of U.S. proxies do redound to us. We shouldn't wash our hands of it when our guys in Central America commit murder and mass torture simply because they were not, technically, U.S. soldiers. We should take responsibility for the actions, and atrocities, of our proxies, and if that responsibility turns out to be more than we can stomach, we ought to say so and apologize to the victims of our aggression.