Search this Topic:
Member Since: Sun, 3-Mar-02
Apr 26 03 4:13 PM
Member Since: Tue, 12-Feb-02
Apr 26 03 4:40 PM
Quote:Yes it is. You said the "ends do not justify the means." I just happen to think that so far they have done so.
Quote:Quote:Could you elaborate on what the UN has to do with Western nations funding and furthering Saddam's quest for WMD's and his consequent use of such on the Iranians? Or are you trying to say that the US expected the UN to act to save them?I am not really sure what you are saying here. Please clarify. (not your fault, I just don't think I understand your main point.)
Quote:Perhaps it has, Hobbit. In fact, it certainly looks that way. But it is not a doctrine which appeared out of the blue. It is a policy that the United States adopted to protect its citizens from unannounced attacks on our own soil. If terrorists were to pursue diplomatic measures before they decide to strike the US, there would be no need for it. If the Taliban, who harbored, supported, and agreed with Bin Laden was viewed as a threat instead of a perceived threat a few years ago, disaster could have been prevented
Quote:Now, I don't believe that the attack on Iraq was carried out under the doctrine of preemption. Saddam Hussein was a special case. I don't see it as preemption as much as I see it as a diplomatic coalition enforcing a disarmament policy which many countries agreed on years ago. Complicated? Yes. Unfortunate? Perhaps. Preemption? No.Quote:
Quote:Sorry, Hobbit. I got carried away here. Yes, that is my belief, but you are right. For the purpose of this thread, consider the statement retracted.
Member Since: Sat, 1-Mar-03
Apr 26 03 4:54 PM
Apr 26 03 4:55 PM
Quote:What about France and England declaring war on Germany after the German (and Russian invasion... do not recall England and France declaring war on Russia though hmmmm)
Apr 26 03 5:13 PM
Apr 26 03 5:20 PM
Quote:I am pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that the United States has started a "dangerous new" precesent of pre-emptive wars.
Member Since: Mon, 13-Jan-03
Apr 26 03 5:58 PM
Member Since: Wed, 23-Apr-03
Apr 26 03 7:04 PM
Quote:You are justifying actions carried out with an intent to secure some sort of noble goal.. no matter what the means may be
Quote:You had brought up a point, regarding the World trusting the UN and it's capabilities during the past US administrations. In response to my point about US actions in support of regimes like that of Saddam, despite his use of WMD's on other nations (who were also considered enemies). I wanted to understand the reasoning behind your bringing up the UN.. as an excuse?
Quote:While, I can see where your coming from. It seems that the US administration wasn't sure what path to pursue in trying to make this justification of an attack on Iraq. They tried all these avenues
Quote:Now, if the US was so intent on carrying out disarmament and other such LAW & ORDER related crap, they would be in practically every country in Africa... to force people to follow resolutions. What was the overriding reason for them attacking Iraq? Consider this question seriously.Do you really think that the US's urge to obey or enforce UN resolutions was sooo strong.. or was there a more important reason to enforce THIS particular resolution.. to one extreme of the spectrum?
Apr 26 03 10:54 PM
Member Since: Thu, 14-Mar-02
Apr 27 03 12:45 AM
Apr 27 03 1:06 AM
Member Since: Wed, 29-May-02
Apr 27 03 1:12 AM
Apr 27 03 1:13 AM
Quote:"no matter what the means may be?" I find this to be rather discussion. I was simply stating that the long overdue overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime outweighed in this particular instance the "evils" than have come from it. Aside from the Iraqi civilian deaths, which we limited to the best of our ability, most negative outcomes of this policy decision lie in the realm of theory and speculation.
Quote: Dectractors, certain things assumed, will prove that the American foreign policy is hypocritical. I'll allow that. But I don't think that just because we acted wrongly in the past or that our policy during the 80's "contradicts" policy pursued in 2003 necessarily proves that our actions in this c
Quote:The campaign against the Iraqi government was one which finds its justification in U.S. foreign policy. The reasons you cited were mainly advertised to try to gain public and international support from a community which automatically thinks that peace is the absence of war.
Quote:We do not pursue "disarmament and other such..." in every nation in the world, but our policy states clearly where we stand on such issues. The situation in Iraq simply was more closely tied to our national interests than the situation in the numerous other states which are led by regimes that rule by similar means.
Member Since: Sat, 26-Apr-03
Apr 27 03 1:47 AM
Apr 27 03 2:46 AM
Quote:The "evils" (or fallout as I prefer to call it), have yet to be seen. So far as speculation, American support for entities like Saddam and Osama, for the "noble" reason of fighting the communist Soviet Republic had very beneficial fallout for the regions where it was carried out... did it not? People ought to learn from mistakes made, so currently, it might be speculation.. yet when the actual @#%$ hits the fan.. it's gonna be the same old story. AND The past wouldn't be valid proof for making a case, HAD NOT the policy remain unchanged. In this case, the point of view has changed (Saddam was considered a threat and not a friend), but the actions follow the same lines. Short term, narrow minded thinking and implementaiton of policy.
Quote:Ahh, that would be a generalisation. Peace might not be the absence of war.. yet Peace is definitely not the presence of one.Would you care to highlight these justifications that lie within the American foreign policy? AND A very vague response. So in the end, it was a matter of US PERSONAL NATIONAL INTEREST. And therin lies the reason for major protests across the World
Apr 27 03 5:26 AM
Member Since: Fri, 19-Oct-01
Apr 27 03 6:19 AM
Apr 27 03 1:53 PM
Quote:It almost amazes me how much the US is misunderstood, how much people really don't understand the situation over here.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.