Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
Forcing a foreign nation to open itself to foreign inspection under threat of invasion is exactly bullying and imposing one's will.
|
I would argue that it is a successful defense strategy. Bullying implies that we are the aggressor. I will submit that we are the defender (more on this later).
Quote:
|
I... think our behavior is analogous. Regardless, Saddam's actions are irrelevant to our current dealings with Iran and Libya. Your point of posting them in response to my comments is lost on me.
|
Saddam's actions were a threat to world stability and, either implicitly or explicitly, a threat to America. It is relevant because Iran and Libya, having seen what the US will do to protect itself from such threats, have reduced or ceased making similar threats.
Quote:
|
once again, the relevance of your points of example are lost on me. Either the government sponsored such attacks (war) or non-government agents did so (terrorism). I don't support either type of behavior, but that doesn't mean I condone analogous acts by my own government to curb theirs.
|
Here again you use the word "analogous."
I disagree that these acts were analogous. Aggression and defense are only analogous to the moral relativist, which I am not. In fact, I'm more than a bit amazed that anyone can equate unprovoked war and indiscriminate terrorism with active self defense.
Quote:
|
First of all, we aren't in any position to dictate whether someone else "needs" nuclear energy. Freedom (which you claimed to be in support of) includes the right to do what one pleases, not what one wants.
|
I agree. However, I don't believe Iran when they say they are pursuing nuclear technology just to compliment the hundred billion or so barrels of oil reserves.
Quote:
|
I also understand the distinction between controlling one's own population and attempting to "control" someone else's.
|
We're not trying to impose gun control laws on other nations. I presented the example as a microcosm. On a global scale, the "individuals" are the nations, and the "guns" are biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
Quote:
|
I explicitly tied the economic well-being of devleping nations to ours and claim that their leaders are aware of those links. It wouldn't serve their purpose to start a nuclear war.
|
First, you're assuming that folks like Kim Jong-Il and Muammar Qaddafi are rational individuals. I'm not sure I would make that assumption. However, if they are rational, they might consider the nuclear threat a strategic bargaining tool and attempt to use it blackmail us into lifting sanctions and providing aid, as Kim Jong-Il did successfully with Bill Clinton.
Quote:
|
[George Bush] is set to secure the interests of the ruling party at cost to the people he likely believes to be insignificant to world affairs.
|
A cynical viewpoint indeed, but one that I can understand given history's lessons. These fears notwithstanding, I feel that his policy of active self defense benefits Americans much more than the alternative policy of appeasement.
12-22-2003, 08:46 AM
