Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Saddam got caught!!!?!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cartman: [QB] David: You're right, those are the major issues I have beefs with. I don't have time to reply to each point in detail, so I'll agree to agree to disagree with you on most of them, but I do want to thank you for responding with such civility. I wasn't expecting that, to be honest. 1) No, I suppose not. But it does illustrate how strained US-EU relations have become, and I don't think that's a road we want to go down further. 2) That's a dangerous stance to adopt. What is considered legitimate by one nation might not be by another, and I don't very much like the idea of nations being judge, jury, AND executioner. It sets precedents that are undesirable at best. What good are international laws if they can be arbitrarily broken without reprisals? 3) When motivation becomes irrelevant, so does justification. See 2). 4) I think the population of Iraq is too diverse for that to happen in a few weeks (if ever), wether Saddam is out of the picture or not. 8) No, but it reeks of a double standard to only go after a select few, play the human rights card along the way, and then ignore the rest. 10) That's not how it was spun by the administration, though, and it bugs me greatly. 12) Fantastic essay, even if I don't share Fukuyama's conclusion that: [QUOTE]Nor is it possible to argue in principle that if a nation is threatened with terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction it does not have a right to defend itself unilaterally. It is legitimate to argue over whether such a threat exists. But if it does, it would be irresponsible for any government to depend on international law for self-defence.[/QUOTE]But this echoes my sentiments exactly: [QUOTE]First, if the United States is going to shift to a preemptive policy towards international terrorism, there ought to be a thinking-through and enunciation of a broader strategy that among other things indicates the limits of this new doctrine. What kinds of threats, and what standards of evidence, will justify the use of this kind of power? Presumably, the US is not thinking of unilaterally attacking at least two of the three legs of the axis of evil; if this is the case, why not at least spell this out? The United States is in the process of scaring itself to death with regard to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. A more realistic appraisal of future threats will raise the bar to preemption, while keeping it in the arsenal. Second, the US needs to take some responsibility for global public bads like carbon emissions. The Kyoto Protocol is a very flawed document for any number of reasons, and the link between carbon emissions and observed warming has not been conclusively proven. On the other hand, it has not been disproven, either, and it would seem only prudent to hedge against the possibility that it is true. Apart from global warming, there are any number of good reasons why the United States ought to tax energy use much more heavily than it does: to pay for the negative externality of having to go to war every decade or so to keep open access to Middle Eastern oil; to promote development of alternative energy sources; and to create some policy space in dealing with Saudi Arabia, which does not seem to be a particular friend of the United States after September 11. Americans may not ever be convinced that they should make serious economic sacrifices for the sake of international agreements, but they may be brought around to an equivalent position if they see sufficient self-interest in doing so. Finally, there should be a walking back of the steel and agricultural subsidy decisions taken earlier this year. No one in Washington ever pretended that there was a reason for making them in the first place other than pure political expediency, and there can be no US leadership on any important issue related to the global economy in their wake. Now that Trade Promotion Authority exists, the United States needs to use it as a mandate to act forcefully.[/QUOTE]13) This was meant more in jest over Bush's not-so believable plans to announce a renewed push into space than anything else, but yes, I'm interested... so long as it's a (sorry) multilateral effort. :) Omega: "I'm sorry, but what exactly are you referring to?" Nice bait, but I'm not biting. Better luck next time. "You're suggesting we hold a country responsible for the actions of criminals because they just happened to be born there." No, I'm suggesting you hold the country responsible for those actions because they were endorsed or at the very least encouraged by its government. Also note that "severing ties" does not equal "invading to change regime". You make a lousy devil's advocate, you know that? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3