I know these are tricky questions, but the answers should be pretty simple:
What is the weight of principal; if you ask people and they disagree, and
you think their reasons are not enough, what do you do. Do you continue with
your actions because you feel they are right, or do you stop because others
disagree?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but would agree that at some point it becomes
necessary to sin if by some chance it can put an end to other sins?
Is it possible for the ends to justify the means?
This could have been a multilateral force, and in many respects it was, sure
France, Germany, and Russia didn't participate, but a number of other
countries did participate in many different ways. Spain gave money, and they
continue to do so. Poland supplied troops. At one point I heard there were
troops from as many as 30 nations operating in Iraq as part of this. Just
because three countries didn't participate does not make unilateral.
>From the start it wasn't unilateral; it was always the US and the British,
two countries. I'm grasping at straws here, but it is the truth. People call
it unilateral action by the US, but when there are 30 countries involved, at
some point you gotta give it up.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:42 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re:fair and balanced more on the Fox Survey
7. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a
disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever.
I think everyone, left and right, D and R, young and old, American and
foreign would agree that the Bush Administration is under more scrutiny on
its foreign policy. (And its domestic policy, and its fiscal policy.) Not
that the Administration is necessarily wrong (there is much disagreement on
_that_), but that it is being questioned and monitored more than at any time
since 9/11.
If you don't think there is a Bush Doctine that has "a preference for
unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy", then
this is a straw man you can't agree with. On the other hand, I have heard
too many people in the administration and major supporters of the
administration admit that this is, in fact, their policy. They think it
_should_ be the policy. They are unapologetic about it. They revel in it.
And I don't know that they are wrong in doing so. I haven't made up my mind
on this one, yet. I think only the results will tip my hand on whether it
was a good thing or not. I certainly (along with most Americans, I think)
was sick of all the hand wringing and wishing things weren't so. I am glad
we took a stand for our vision of the world. I just hope we create a more
coherant foreign policy, where everyone can figure out before-hand where
America will fall on a given issue, rather than basing our forieng policy on
what is good for us (and our foriegn corporations) at this moment with no
long term understanding of consequences.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
