Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the UN relevant, or is it US against the world?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 12 (75075)
12-25-2003 1:38 AM


In another thread, gene90 asked a valid question regarding how much power the UN should have over US national security. While a valid question, I believe it has a very straight forward answer. Let me start though, with some words from my opposition...
Bush answered this question very clearly during his conduct of the Iraq War. He said that matters of national security could not be left to the decision making body of the UN.
Ironically he also said that unless the UN sided with every demand the US made, it would prove itself irrelevant as a governing body. I say ironic, because that very position requires that ALL OTHER nations be willing to sacrifice their national security to rulings of the UN.
In fact, Saddam was essentially using Bush's own argument in fighting inspections processes.
Since the UN went against the US, according to Bush it has proven itself irrelevant. He has gone on since the end of the war to repeat this sentiment (in a bit of hubris before the UN no less).
So the argument runs that if the UN cannot set the national security policy of all nations according to the demands of one nation (one's own), then it must be ignored. The obvious result being that every nation should turn their back on the UN, because no nation will ever get their way 100%.
My answer to this question comes from another angle. What is the UN about? To my mind the UN is a community of nations. This is analogous to a community of individuals... let's say a group of individuals in a town.
People in a town get together and set rules of conduct for interaction between themselves. They are created (theoretically) to protect an individual from being overrun by another. They codify the sovereignty of the individual, and his/her right to defend that sovereignty when the community is unable to come to his/her immediate aid. In this there is a balance between freedom and security.
The UN works the same way, only between nations. It is designed specifically to thwart large countries from bullying smaller countries, just as a town's laws prevents town bullies from picking on smaller citizens.
With Iraq, the US was demanding the right to unilaterally invade a much smaller country that had not made any overt threats at all. It was the vague possibility of a threat at some unnamed point in the future which demanded immediate action (according to Bush).
On the international stage when this vague threat can be blown into very large numbers of lives lost (if nothing is done), the request begins to seem valid.
However, using the town analogy the request starts losing its luster. Would it make sense for a town to accept the request of an individual to form a posse to lynch a neighbor because that neighbor had been arrested in the past, and didn't seem to be up to any good after his release, in fact he may be hiding some weapons (which is against his probation), but he had not actually threatened anyone and there was no concrete evidence that he had these weapons? To make it more accurate I guess we can say he had a history of beating up his family, and they still seem to be pretty bruised.
What would make sense in that situatuion is an investigation. And if the investigation bore fruits worthy of criminal charges, then the community could bring them. But just because a much larger citizen fears what this smaller citizen may do with guns he may or may not have at some time in the future, there is little reason to allow the big guy to go beat up or kill the little guy.
The UN saw through this request and said no. It is not surprising as this was the very reasoning Hitler had used for his preemptive invasions... vague fears of future conflicts. To say to smaller nations that they must give up national sovereignty based on the fears of another country (esp. a much larger country) to the point of invasion, overthrow of the government, and installation of a new one amenable to the first one... can anyone say Viche Iraq?
Quite the opposite from proving its irrelevance by turning down Bush's request, the UN did the only thing a community should do in that situation to maintain its relevance. I suppose the only criticism one could make is that it may have proven itself irrelevant in not being able to stop the US.
In the aftermath of the war, we can see that an invasion was wholly unnecessary for our national security. Bush's claims of Iraq's threat to the world were extravagant and in some cases fraudulent. This should stand as one serious reminder that perhaps it is important to let the UN have a say in national security decisions, when they involve the invasion of another country that has not done anything overtly wrong. It acts as a double check of the facts with one's friends.
I guess the counter to this is to wonder how we can know if other nations are really our friends. Or what if a decision they make turns out costly for us?
I would answer this by asking wouldn't a world where all decisions are made by the toughest country perhaps have many more costs? A community allows smaller countries and even some larger countries to engage in diplomacy to resolve disputes, rather than resorting to violence (exactly what communities of individuals do).
This does come with the risk that a bad decision will be made at some point, or that we won't always get what we's like. But to worry about that to the point of not listening to anyone else opens up a pretty big can of worms. Shouldn't trust in others be the end we are seeking? It is certainly what we are telling every other nation to have in us.
In fact, given the fact that the US is the most powerful country in the world, shouldn't the US be able to give up some control and trust others to make wise choices? If something goes wrong we are the most likely to be able to fix the screwup.
If the US cannot risk security decisions to the hands of other nations, how on earth can we expect any smaller nation to do so (which in this case means every other country)? As soon as we have doubt in a community of nations, or trusting fellow countries, we have just handed that same argument and doubt to everyone else.
The beauty of the UN was its forward vision. A community of nations. Just as the first humans cemented bonds of trust beyond mere family groups to larger communities.
I think the risk of not being able to invade whenever we perceive a threat, and so potentially having to wait until attacked before retaliating, is worth it when the benefits are giving an example of trust that other nations can follow.
Having the US be the forward thinking (and moving) leader toward a world where all nations feel included and so not resort to violence to achieve national goals would be a pretty worthy goal, worthy of some small sacrifices like no preemptive invasions without clear cause.
The only other option I see is scrapping the UN right now. If there is an option where we can keep the UN, and yet never have our national security decisions (if they require preemptive invasion) controlled by others, I would like to hear that scenario.
This to me would be stepping more than a century backward in time. At that rate why not throw out all laws? After all, why should I allow my personal safety decisions be decided by a bunch of yahoos in Washington DC?
The slope from that argument of fearing for one's safety to the exclusion of trust does get pretty slippery.
------------------
holmes

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2003 10:00 AM Silent H has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 12 (75086)
12-25-2003 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
12-25-2003 1:38 AM


The UN works the same way, only between nations. It is designed specifically to thwart large countries from bullying smaller countries, just as a town's laws prevents town bullies from picking on smaller citizens.
Yah sure, like when Stalin's Socialist Soviet Union and other like minded people were busy bloody bullies gobbling up little nations and slaughtering scores of millions of their own citizens who resisted tyranny, all with the UN as their ally and the adversarial critic of the free West. Without the US, the planet would've been theirs, as well as Hitler's Nazis previously.
Now, it is the UN body which favors Islamic tyranny in roughly 30 nations and continues to be adversarial critics of the liberators.
Fundamentalist Islam has been the first foreign invading power to physically bring the war to our own soil in our national history, beginning with our two largest buildings and our Pentagon with our very Capitol in their sites. The free world either engages offensively and pre-emptively from here on in this war or the free world is history in spite of freedom's adversary and fundamentalist Islam's ally, the UN.
As I understand Biblical prophecy, the free world will eventually capitulate to tyranny, thanks to sooooo many of our own citizen apologists of Islam who are either oblivious, or in denial to the fact that the prophet Muhammed both practiced and taught tyrannical religious theocratic rule worldwide by the bloody sword with no less fervor than Hitler or Stalin.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 12-25-2003 1:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 12-25-2003 1:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 12 (75112)
12-25-2003 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Buzsaw
12-25-2003 10:00 AM


quote:
Yah sure, like when Stalin's Socialist Soviet Union and other like minded people were busy bloody bullies gobbling up little nations and slaughtering scores of millions of their own citizens who resisted tyranny, all with the UN as their ally and the adversarial critic of the free West.
First of all I believe most of Stalin's reign of terror (killing mass numbers of citizens) happened before the UN was fully set up (please correct me if I am wrong on this). Second, his reign of terror was conducted in house which is beyond the reach of the UN. Third, for those countries that the Soviet Union was trying to bring under their power there were UN controls which worked both for and against us.
Remember that to other nations it appeared that the US was gobbling up countries too. And to be honest both sides were correct. Both the US and the SU were so preoccupied with makind sure their economic theory was the lead theory in the world many atrocities were commited on smaller nations.
Actually what this does is raise a valid issue that the UN's rules are not perfect. I am unsure why that would mean scrapping the whole deal, rather than trying to improve the community's rules?
The system is outdated, especially at this point and Kofi Anan has called for reform. I wish Bush had thought of that before the Iraq War and taken things carefully. Perhaps creating the necessary instruments of law that might allow the UN to have a say in domestic policy (thus the UN would have the right to stop mass torture or abuse of citizens by a government). Then again that creates a two-edged sword and the US would then have to accept UN control of our domestic policies as well.
This is a tough issue that requires some pretty careful review.
quote:
Now, it is the UN body which favors Islamic tyranny in roughly 30 nations and continues to be adversarial critics of the liberators.
This is an ad hominem fallacy. I would like to see any evidence for this.
As for your "liberator" comment, that's exactly how the SU viewed their meddling in foreign affairs. This is a dangerous idea to hold because it excuses a lot of warfare, for very little reason. In addition to the SU, it was the same mindset which drove the crusades.
These are the next crusades, and your entire post seems a testament to that. A fundamentalist Islamic attack on the US viewed through some religious gauze as some kind of showdown, which requires Xians to liberate everyone from the clutches of Islam.
Perhaps a more rational approach is to look at it for what it is. While you are correct that Islamic Fundamentalists launched a horrific attack on the US, it was a group of Islamic Fundamentalists. And we should not suddenly become caught in the same mindtrap they are.
Focusing on the real threats to lives that terrorist organizations pose is rational. Pretending that the entire Islamic world is in need of "liberation" and that if we don't the entire western world will fall, is not.
Frankly your assessment of the Soviet threat bears the same credulity for western biased propaganda. The US is extremely powerful. It is unlikely that sone smaller nations turning to the SU for support was going to result in our downfall.
We lost Vietnam, and we lost N Korea, and we lost a number of others, as did the SU. All both of our work did was create small despots that tortured their own citizens. Neither were closer to taking over the world.
quote:
The free world either engages offensively and pre-emptively from here on in this war or the free world is history in spite of freedom's adversary and fundamentalist Islam's ally, the UN.
I want to see one shred of evidence that UN is an ally of fundamentalist Islam, and more importantly HOW fundamentalist islamic groups could possibly threaten to dominate the rest of the world.
That is a nightmare scenario I agree (you think I want them running my life any more than fundamentalist Xians???), but it is all in your head.
They have no credible power to change our way of government so that they are in charge. ALL OF THEM are impoverished nations, some with a lucrative oil supply but nothing more. None have armaments or manpower that could conquer a Western power (or Eastern).
Terrorists belonging to a terrorist group hijacked planes and flew them into important buildings which caused major loss of life, and disruption of of daily living for a while. That is the HEIGHT of what they can do.
Even if they managed to set off a nuclear device, it would not mean the end of the US.
So please, if you have some military knowledge of how they can affect a takeover of the rest of the world I would love to hear it. And if it was remotely plausible I would side with you that more aggressive stances should be taken to protect ourselves.
By the way, as an athiest why am I supposed to be less scared by Xian attempts to install a tyrannical Xian theocratic rule? You guys all look and talk the same to me.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2003 10:00 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2003 1:26 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 11 by defenderofthefaith, posted 01-09-2004 2:52 AM Silent H has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 12 (75113)
12-25-2003 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
12-25-2003 1:09 PM


And we should not suddenly become caught in the same mindtrap they are.
But the fundamentalists are caught in the same mindtrap. There is little difference between fundamentalists of any strip. It isn't one religion vs another, or one economy vs another it is one mode of thinking against another. Rational vs irrational, inerrant vs questioning, fixed vs changing is the real battle that the world is starting to sink into.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 12-25-2003 1:09 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 12-25-2003 1:43 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 12-25-2003 3:30 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2003 5:00 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 01-04-2004 12:24 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 5 of 12 (75117)
12-25-2003 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
12-25-2003 1:26 PM


NosyNed
It seems that mankind willhave to actually knock the shit out of itself before fundamentalists clue into the fact that the cost/benefit ratio of modern warfare does not make sense.When nations are tied together economically as we are today it is the proverbial sooting oneself in the foot when we use knee-jerk reaction to answer the challenge of third world nations and emerging superpowers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2003 1:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 12 (75126)
12-25-2003 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
12-25-2003 1:26 PM


quote:
But the fundamentalists are caught in the same mindtrap.
I couldn't agree with your post more. When I said "we" I meant the US as a whole. This will require ignoring fundamentalist forces from the other side within our own community. Interestingly enough, this is the same thing we are asking citizens of the MidEast to do for Islamic fundamentalists.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2003 1:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 12 (75131)
12-25-2003 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
12-25-2003 1:26 PM


But the fundamentalists are caught in the same mindtrap. There is little difference between fundamentalists of any strip. It isn't one religion vs another, or one economy vs another it is one mode of thinking against another. Rational vs irrational, inerrant vs questioning, fixed vs changing is the real battle that the world is starting to sink into.
How many Christian fundies are blowing themselves up, killing all they can with them in the name of Christian Biblical fundamentalism? When are you ever going to get real and over your Christophobic bent?? This is an outright blatant falsehood, and you well know it in your heart, Ned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2003 1:26 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2003 5:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 12-26-2003 1:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 12 (75132)
12-25-2003 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
12-25-2003 5:00 PM


Christophobic ?
How many Christian fundies are blowing themselves up, killing all they can with them in the name of Christian Biblical fundamentalism? When are you ever going to get real and over your Christophobic bent?? This is an outright blatant falsehood, and you well know it in your heart, Ned.
Excuse me, falsehood? Did I say Christian fundies were blowing themselves up?
What I say is the the mind that has to deny truth and reason to stick to an unchanging view of the real world is a dangerous source of falseness and, yes, even violence. Are there no fundies setting bombs anywhere? Is not unreason a perfectly valid way of operating to too many? Are some forced by their worldview to resort to lies to support it? These are symptoms which are not part of a religion but of a mindset.
Christophobic? I know what the majority of Christians believe and how they think. It is not that majority that I have an arguement with or concern about. It is the inturned, Bible worshipping minority that are the concern. This minority looks to my Christian friends more like the islamists than they do like those who share the pews with them.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2003 5:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 12 (75173)
12-26-2003 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
12-25-2003 5:00 PM


quote:
How many Christian fundies are blowing themselves up, killing all they can with them in the name of Christian Biblical fundamentalism?
Although suicide as a method for delivering an explosive device against enemies is not that popular, there are plenty of examples of fundamentalist Xians and Jews killing others in the name of their God and to further the power of their God on earth.
You have abortion clinic killers to name one OBVIOUS group working within the US. You have many antihomosexual Xian groups with followers that beat up and kill gays in the US. You also have racist contigents that kill blacks... and now muslims!
If we want to talk bombs then there was the Jewish Defense League that was ready to blow up a couple of mosques and a US CONGRESSMAN! And of course abortion bombers.
In the MidEast there are also Xians willing to kill Islamic people. It was a group of hardcore Xians that Sharon allowed in to massacre 1000s of Palestinian women and children. Interestingly enough I believe that may have been before Palestinians became desperate enough to start using suicide bombing as a method of attack.
And now we also have Xians, very high level fundamentalist Xians calling on our government to overthrow nations in the midEast and allow in proselytizers. They call it a crusade and admit they are in regular contact with mr Bush.
On the ground in Iraq, we have units that consider themselves part of God's Army and deliver quite a bit of firepower against muslims who they view as evil.
Your own posts show that you are stuck in the same mindtrap as they are. It is an apocalyptic vision with the rallying cry of "with us or against us" and against means that you need to be killed or captured.
The reality is not that dire. The stakes are not that high. In fact it is only Bush's destruction of tools for international diplomacy which are truly raising the stakes for the world.
We need less warmongering and bigotry and fundamentalism from both sides.
------------------
holmes
{This subtopic has been spun off into it's own topic, "Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundametal Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites"}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2003 5:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 10 of 12 (76474)
01-04-2004 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
12-25-2003 1:26 PM


Nosey Ned states that:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the fundamentalists are caught in the same mindtrap. There is little difference between fundamentalists of any strip. It isn't one religion vs another, or one economy vs another it is one mode of thinking against another. Rational vs irrational, inerrant vs questioning, fixed vs changing is the real battle that the world is starting to sink into.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point, Ned. We all debate and discuss issues on this board, and could be prejudged into two camps(or more)...the "irrational" believers of fixed ideas vs the "rational" open to change scientists and logic thinkers. As for me, I am a definite Theist. Some of my beliefs appear irrational, as they can not be "proven." Some of my ideas are also fixed. I see the world this way:
5% of the people own or conrol 90% of the wealth. Dubya may or may not be a moral man. He sees the world as a world where the U.S. is a benevolant empire. As such, this empire must be allowed access to the resources which guarantee a cash/asset flow for our capitalist interests. The argument would be that without access and control of this power, our national economic power base will diminish. I disagree. I think that many of the domestic wealthy would suffer, but that the nation as an entity would survive. Now...although I profess not to be a strict fundamentalist, it is interesting to analyse the supposed endtime scenario proposed by the fundie Christians. An "antichrist": comes along and declares that old, fixed religious ideas are passe, and that the world needs to wake up and realize that god is us...that our inner potential as humans is the only ideal worthy of respect. (He desecrates the Temple and proclaims himself to be God.) Now...from a pure logic perspective, the antichrist makes sense! In fact, this is the supreme irony of History. The Absolutist fixed thinking has always stifled human progress and has been rescued by the science humanists, first with the Rennaissance, and later with the Enlightenment. For myself, I chart a course that incorporates the best of either extreme. I am a Believer in a source of wisdom beyond myself or my fellow humans, yet I am grounded enough to lighten up a little and let nature take its course. After all, if God did create us, He knew how we would be anyway! Lets allow the humanists to be involved in the process and defeat the evil emperor with us, fellow fixed thinkers!.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2003 1:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
defenderofthefaith
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 12 (77275)
01-09-2004 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
12-25-2003 1:09 PM


holmes writes:
First of all I believe most of Stalin's reign of terror (killing mass numbers of citizens) happened before the UN was fully set up (please correct me if I am wrong on this). Second, his reign of terror was conducted in house which is beyond the reach of the UN. Third, for those countries that the Soviet Union was trying to bring under their power there were UN controls which worked both for and against us.
Let's apply the village allegory to your second point. A big bully can't be prosecuted by the town council for serial murder as long as he does it in his own home. Obviously such a town council doesn't work very well, and therefore neither does the UN.
holmes writes:
We lost Vietnam, and we lost N Korea, and we lost a number of others, as did the SU. All both of our work did was create small despots that tortured their own citizens. Neither were closer to taking over the world.
The US didn't lose the Korean War - it was a draw, with South Korea successfully protected from communist invasion. If I remember aright, in both the wars you mentioned the US intervened to stop aggressive nations backed by Communist China from invading their peaceful neighbours. In Vietnam they failed. Nevertheless, I hardly see how they can be held responsible for the tyrants they fought so hard to restrain...?
holmes writes:
Terrorists belonging to a terrorist group hijacked planes and flew them into important buildings which caused major loss of life, and disruption of of daily living for a while. That is the HEIGHT of what they can do.
Even if they managed to set off a nuclear device, it would not mean the end of the US.
So please, if you have some military knowledge of how they can affect a takeover of the rest of the world I would love to hear it. And if it was remotely plausible I would side with you that more aggressive stances should be taken to protect ourselves.
Conquer? Perhaps not. But if they can effect the same horrendous casualties by covert terrorism - which is much cheaper than a war - why would they need to invade in the conventional manner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 12-25-2003 1:09 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 01-09-2004 12:30 PM defenderofthefaith has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 12 of 12 (77340)
01-09-2004 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by defenderofthefaith
01-09-2004 2:52 AM


quote:
Let's apply the village allegory to your second point. A big bully can't be prosecuted by the town council for serial murder as long as he does it in his own home. Obviously such a town council doesn't work very well, and therefore neither does the UN.
No offense, but you mangled my allegory and appear to have missed the point.
In this case it is the responsibility of the people within the village of the big bully to do something, not some other village.
The UN was never designed to... in fact, specifically designed not to by the US... interfere in the internal affairs of nations. It is doing its job when it protects countries from warring on each other, it is overstepping its mandate when it goes further.
Perhaps this should change? How much are you willing to allow the UN to influence the internal affairs of the US in order to get equal control of other nations? Currently we defy any trial of Bullies that are American by the UN.
I have to add to this that you have not addressed that that Bully was put in place by us to murder. I suppose the UN did fail there...
quote:
The US didn't lose the Korean War - it was a draw, with South Korea successfully protected from communist invasion.
Hmmmmm, I suppose its all in how you look at what the purpose of the war was. But I'll give you that it was officially a draw.
quote:
If I remember aright, in both the wars you mentioned the US intervened to stop aggressive nations backed by Communist China from invading their peaceful neighbours. In Vietnam they failed.
This however is incorrect. Remember we lost, so look at what Vietnam is today. It was not the picture that was portrayed it would be. It is not a menacing puppet of China. And by the way, we cranked up the war to fight communists from gaining influence, it was not to halt an invasion (which is probably one of the big reasons we lost).
quote:
Nevertheless, I hardly see how they can be held responsible for the tyrants they fought so hard to restrain...?
Tyrant in N Korea, not in Vietnam. I'll give you that maybe I should have left N Korea out of the list. It's hard to consider it an invasion, rather than a civil war, and I am left cold that it was a worthwhile enterprise. But maybe it's good there is not a unified Korea (if its getting run by Kim)?
quote:
Conquer? Perhaps not. But if they can effect the same horrendous casualties by covert terrorism - which is much cheaper than a war - why would they need to invade in the conventional manner?
You are missing the point of this as well. The conflict we find ourselves in is not a WAR, and the way we are approaching it is not useful. We should not be pretending the threat is greater than it is. This is not to say we should be ignoring the danger, just that we should be prudent in how we address the threat.
A couple years down the line and two invasions later... we still don't have on flight protection to prevent real hijacking scenarios. Isn't this a little strange as that is what started this whole mess?

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by defenderofthefaith, posted 01-09-2004 2:52 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024