Stephen Harding wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:

There are many policy differences between the US and Europe.
When you become an American citizen you can indeed ask that
question, and use your freedoms to promote your ideas of
what government should do. Until then, its an internal matter
for the US to decide. Tough luck for you.

Kind of like how the US left countries like Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Chile,
Argentina, Grenada, Egypt, and many others, to chart their own course
when they were democracies?

Not certain when most of these listed countries were actual democracies,
but never mind.

They were. In many cases, the newly-elected government was either
hostile to US economic interests, so the US arranged to get rid of them,
or supported US economic interests, so the US helped keep them in
office, even though they were thoroughly corrupt, and the population
wanted to boot them out. The US couldn't help but meddle in other
countries' political systems when it suited the government's purpose.

The policies of the Bush government have only increased that likelihood,
by acting unilaterally, and in continuing the biased treatment of Arab
countries in the region. At one time the US had a moral standing in the
world that was envied. It was the belief that diplomacy was the most
important approach to a problem, and violence was only the last resort,
when all other peaceful avenues had been exhausted. The attack on Iraq
has eliminated that unique position, and lowered the US to the ranks of
other bullies around the world. It was so unnecessary, and it will take
many years to regain the confidence of the rest of the world.

How could this be given "Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Chile, ..." listed above?

There was a shift in policy over the last 40 years, where the US
intervened less an less on its own, instead working as part of NATO or
the UN. The attack on Afghanistan is a case in point.

The attack on Iraq, being essentially unilateral, without UN sanction,
is a step away from the more global strategy.