|
|
|
| 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?
|
Throughout history a country who attacks another unilaterally is considered the
agressor. this was in the case of Germany, Russia, China, as well as many
others.
Logically, considering that the justifications broadcast by the President and
his administration for Invading Iraq have to date, proved to be utter
fabrications and lies, one can only surmise that the real goal was to line the
pockets of his friends. As time continues and more comes out about "rebuilding
contracts" etc. this latter is appearing more and more to look true. France,
Germany and Russia were profiting hugely from business dealings with the Saddam
regime albeit in violation of the UN Sanctions. Of course they objected to the
entry of the US into the mix, because of all the money they lost, and continue
to lose.
We offered Turkey huge monetary bribes to join in, but they still stood on
principle and rejected all the advances. I strongly respect them for that
stance.
|
|
| 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?
|
I respectfully disagree, mainly because it is not ending a sin, but substituring
one for another.
|
|
| Is it possible for the ends to justify the means?
That is most of the argument, The ends appear to be the enrichment of Bush's
friends and supporters.
More and more Americans, and most of the rest of the planet see this loud and
clear, and rightfully take issue with it.
|
|
| 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.
|
Just about all of the "coilition members" have much to gain from a financial
standpoint by going in with the US. A carrot that the US wields quite
efficiently.
|
|
| >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.
The major problem now, as it was with the original Gulf War waged by his father,
was the worry about who would take over after the Iraq defeat. There was never
any question that they would be defeated. That is the quagmire we find
ourselves in at present. If we just pull out now, then The criminal element
moves right in and takes over, be it Al Quida, or whoever. As long as The US
plays by US rules, that well may happen anyway. Those people have been born
and raised under opression and the successor government, who ever will lead it,
will be required to use the same methods. The US does not have the will to do
what is necessary. We only seek to bribe everyone with piles of dollars.
We are bogged down in Bosnia, Afganistan, and now Iraq. There is pressure to do
the same with N. Korea, and Iran, followed by Syria, and possibly Saudi Arabia.
Can we bend all these people to our "right and perfect" will? Will the rest of
the planet stand by and allow it to happen.
I feel the Bush "adventure" will strap the US economy for many years to come,
and know that many agree with this view. The so-called War on Terror, is highly
selective as to its targets, while the major players are allowed to continue,
and the terror attacks continue.
The $87 Billion (just for the reminder of this year) would go a long way toward
bolstering the US economy, prescriptions for the elderly, helthcare for our
neglected veterans, etc. As it is, it will be pouring US resources into a
bottomless pit, with no benefit.
Our borders are still wide open, the INS still releases illegals into the
streets, the Transportation Security Administration has accomplished nothing but
make airport security more expensive. Lastly, 9+ million people need jobs. I
could go on.
|
|
|
| -----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]
