[mangodrunk]

Your grievance is that we won’t have good cover to pursue our interests when they conflict with the sovereignty and security of others? You think it was good to lie and say that we’re the good guys while we inflict harm on others?

[toyg]

Looking like you are trying to pursue the general interest is how we all get things like international tribunals, supranational organizations where conflicts are discussed and sometimes resolved, coordination to raise health standards and address natural disasters, etc etc. If the price to pay for those activities is sneaking in the occasional spy, or being a bit overzealous when defending certain business interests, I think it's worth paying, yes.

That order was not perfect, but the alternative is going back to the naked power struggles of the XIX century, which ended in global carneficine - and the next time it will be so much worse.

[mangodrunk]

Thanks for clarifying your position. I do see that model as only temporarily possible but eventually reality catches up with the propaganda, the Iraq war being a somewhat recent example. Also, as a citizen the previous model is also essentially requiring the government to lie to us, so I don’t think that as good either, because who will be benefiting from these “good guy” adventures?

[toyg]

> eventually reality catches up with the propaganda

Actually, I don't think that's necessarily the case. Look at the Chagos deal: that's the new reality created by international organizations catching up with the naked power of the original occupation, and pushing it into a corner. Again, far from perfect outcome (why Mauritius, etc etc), but quite a step forward from brutal colonialism. Humanity wins some and loses some, but at least we're still in the game. If we just give up and accept that might makes right, we slide backwards into the jungle.