Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Iraq might not have been a could example for pre-emption, but the principle in of itself is both righteous and necessary. THe country has a duty to protect its citizens and I agree with Bush when he said waiting to get hit first is suicide.
The U.N. showed through this whole fiasco that it has no authority or legitimacy. Iraq had disobeyed 17 resolutions over the course of 10 years.
Also I think your parallel of pre-emption to violating due process is completely off base and doesn't factor in to matters of National Security.
|
I'm not going to bicker with you.
I'm not arguing over the legality of our actions. The notion of due process is that we follow a set process.
The crime occurs-->the suspect is apprehended-->the suspect is tried and either acquitted or convicted
Your concern that waiting until someone strikes first being suicidal notwithstanding, our core legal and democratic principles mandate that we wait until a crime occurs before we apprehend or attack.
The U.N. is showing that it has both immense political power and is extremely relevant. I find it odd that one would argue for aid from the U.N. but then argue for its irrelevancy once it refuses to grant such aid. The members are exhibiting exactly what it is in place to do--to constrain unilateral/pre-emptive action that potentially creates a destabalizing effect.
If the various nations don't step in soon our economy will continue to crumble. Economists from both sides of the ideological spectrum have been arguing that our long-term economic prospects are dire, despite what may occur in the short-term.
Our own actions are creating the circumstances of our own global decline--the U.N. merely has to wait us out until we self-destruct and we are plodding along true to historical trends.