Subject:
|
Why us? and if us, why this way?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:41:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
656 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > So I'm asking with all seriousness and no veil of ulterior motive--what do
> > we do? Justice must prevail, if we are to hold to our own ideals. How do
> > we achieve justice in this situation?
>
> Why is it the job of the US to bring justice to the world?
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson031403.asp
Don't always agree with Hanson but he's right this time. Even if you think
there's a moral obligation (that the US somehow has gotten stuck with ) to
right every wrong (which I do not! I go ONLY as far as saying we ought to
clean up the messes we made...) the way it is being gone about is wrong.
"Nothing is worse for a great power than to ask others far less moral for
permission to use its power; and nothing weakens a great power more than
intervening and intruding frequently but rarely decisively. Had we simply
ignored the U.N. — as Mr. Clinton did in Kosovo — and moved unilaterally
last fall (like Russia and France do all the time), Saddam Hussein would be
gone, and we now would have more impressed friends than we do disdainful
enemies. Instead, we await China's moral condemnation of our unilateral
action — this from a regime that in the last 50 years butchered more of its
own citizens than any government in the history of civilization, annexed
Tibet, invaded Korea and Vietnam, and threatened to annihilate Taiwan.
France hysterically alleges that we will harm the city of Baghdad in its
liberation, but is silent about the Russian destruction of Grozny in its
subjugation. And so on.
The American people are not naifs who yearn for isolationism, but they are
starting to ask some hard questions about the way we have been doing
business for 50 years, and it may well be time to grant the French,
Canadians, Germans, Turks, South Koreans, and a host of others their wishes
for independence from us: polite friendship — but no alliances, no bases, no
money, no trade concessions, and no more begging for the privilege of
protecting them."
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why us? and if us, why this way?
|
| (...) It is all too easy to demonise France, China and Russia; but the reality is that most nations are against this folly. As far as I know, there are only two nations where the majority of the population support the looming war: the USA and (...) (21 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why us? and if us, why this way?
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Canada is in this list? This is why I disdain American political hacks (of course I distain Canadian political hacks as well... ;) ). I don't recall Canada ever 'begging' protection from the US. I don't recall Canada ever (...) (21 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
