On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:39:25 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Eg. america wants war, but doesn't share information about the iraqi nuclear
> program.
> W often said that he has important information about it, but the UN nuclear
> organization (here in vienna :) has still not received it.
I do not think that even George Bush wants war, although it must seem
that he does want war and that must be frightening. Bush wants peace
and wants America not to be threatened by rogue states with atom
bombs and chemical and biological weapons.
My understanding is that so far the UN inspectors have not found
any evidence of biological, chemical or atomic weapons in Iraq and
Iraq has been cooperating fully with the inspectors. So perhaps
war will be avoided.
Yes, more international cooperation is certainly needed and expected.
And the United States certainly would welcome it, at the UN and with
NATO and the other treaty orgainizations.
I do think that George Bush is more sophisticated than he appears
to be. Certainly others in his administration are capable of a broad
perspective.
And the American President is certainly not free to do whatever he
wants. Congress, the courts and public opinion all act as a moderating
influence--but maybe these forces ae not so apparent overseas.
Absent a real perceived threat Americans will not tolerate for long
the erosion of civil liberties. There is great resistance in the
Federal Appeals Court to treating American citizens as "combatants
without rights". Bush and the Justice department will obey the courts
even if they do not agree with them.
On the whole I am hopeful that democracy and rule of law will prevail
and expand. The alternative is tribal belligerance and continued
small scale fighting of a viscious and persistent nature.
But already the kind of full scale, global war that engulfed Europe
and Asia twice in the last century is unthinkable today. China just
wants to do business. Russia, Germany, England, France, Japan and the
United States are all allies, co-operative and friendly. Who could
have imagined that sixty years ago?
> America has to stop to do "its thing" and take an even stronger part in
> multilateral organizations.
> SE> I'm not saying that America should invade anyone. But, we do
> SE> have legitimate concerns that the world expects us to do something
> SE> about because nobody else can.
> I agree that this is the case.
> But IMO it is more desirable to have an international "army" under a
> multilateral command (with a very strong american aspect)
> More desireable for both sides at the end.
> SE> America needs to grow up, learn more about the world and get
> SE> smarter about how to handle the responsibilities that our global
> SE> strength imposes on us.
> I wholeheartedly agree ...
> But the rest of the world has to change, too.
> We have to think more globally, and we have to emancipate ourself.
> SE> Sam Ewalt
> CU, Ricsi
> PS: apropos Korea (I know ... but I mix up which one is south and which one is
> west :)
> --
> |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
> |~\|(__\| -=> Money makes the world go around <=-
Sam Ewalt
Croswell, Michigan, USA
-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
