Such a list of resolutions proposed and resolutions vetoed is unparalleled in United Nations history. The list in itself forms a stunning indictment of Israel’s unlawful and uncivilized actions over a period of 45 years and of America’s complicity in them.
Maybe the veto is due to the difference in beliefs about what a “fair peace” should involve. The UN has been extra critical of Isreal while ignoring the acts of terrorist supporting governments.
**If the United States really wants peace in the Middle East, it must insist that Israel abide by the judgment of the world community as expressed in resolutions by the United Nations. The U.S. can do this at any time simply by forsaking the use of the veto and joining the world consensus. Anything less makes a sham of the peace process, and is demeaning to leaders of a democratic country. **
One major advantage of being a strong leader is the ability to choose what is right over what is popular.
Quote:
"It is thus no surprise that today’s champions of American moderation and international benevolence stress the constraints on American power rather than the lack of them. Political scientist Joseph Nye, for example, insists that “[the term] unipolarity is misleading because it exaggerates the degree to which the United States is able to get the results it wants in some dimensions of world politics. … American power is less effective than it might first appear.”
Just because the U.S. has been unable to create a lasting peace in the Middle East does not mean that peace is not desired. The U.S. is powerful but still unable to get everything it desires.
Actually, people like Gelb have diluted the term “terrorism” by using it to include any military action taken by the US and then crying “isn’t that terrorism too?”.
I’m all in favor of overthrowing regimes that don’t follow the American agenda of not trying to blow up America.
Well, it could if it was willing to resort to the 21st-century equivalent of gunboat diplomacy and start using tactical nukes. There’s nothing physically stopping them from doing so.
Fortunately, the Americans (for the most part) are not savages. If any nation was the safest as a superpower, I really can’t think of a better choice.
Well, except us Canadians. Give us some nukes and we’d really show you how not to use them.
The Western democracies generally are pretty civil to their citizens. Try standing in Riyahd, Beijing, Baghdad or Damascus and complaining about the government’s policies. Go on, I dare you. I double-dare you.
Now, see, that’s just blatant cultural imperialism. How dare you impose your Western value system of not wanting to be blown to smithereens on people from other cultures and traditions, who have different points of view on the question of whether we Americans should be blown to smithereens?
I’ll add that Cubans frequently criticize their government in public.
Back to the original topic, it does seem that there has been a shift in the rhetorical basis for U.S. foreign policy. In the '80s, we pretended that there was a moral basis for supporting brutal dictatorships (promoting democracy), whereas now we are unabashedly an empire. The basis for our current foreign policy is increasing our own power and destroying anyone who opposes us.
The basis for our current foreign policy is increasing our own power and destroying anyone who opposes us.
I agree that “increasing our own power” is a factor in our foreign policy. I do not agree that this is what our foreign policy is based on.
Other nations, many of them oppose us. We have not yet destroyed them. I think an important distinction is between opposing and attacking.
Obviously the U.S. will not hesitate to use its mighty military power when attacked. But opposed - no.
I think one cornerstone of our foreign policy is to increase our influence. I think the U.S. recognizes that it’s agenda will be successful when other nations see mutual interest and benefit from the policy objectives.
The U.S. could destroy all that oppose it. Instead, it chooses diplomatic measures.
It sounds to me like you are living in Fantasy Land, not the USA. We are no more an Empire now than we were 20 years ago. Are we conquering the globe, establishing colonies wherever we go? Are we gobbling up land in Canada and Mexico to create “breathing room” for our citizens? No.
We are an economicaly and militarily powerful nation. As such, we wield a lot of influence around the world. I’m sure that many countries, including China and Russia would love to have that kind of influence around the world.
History has shown us that whether we like it or not, we cannot simply hide here on North America and let the world go on around us. People expect the US to protect them from Nazi or Soviets or Iraqis, broker fair peace deals between Palestinians and Israelis, keep the peace in the Balkans, provide economic aide and in general do all the things that a powerful country is supposed to do. Apparently we are supposed to do all these great things as fairly an impertially as possible. We’ll I don’t think it works that way. The US is not the cop/welfare office for the rest of the world. When we provide help, I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect something in return.
Go walk down to the West Side Highway and look at the 40ft pit where the World Trade Centers stood. That is what “people who oppose us” want to do to us. They should be destroyed.
msmith537, MEBuckner: Getting to the particular question asked by the OP. If the US wants to destroy those who killed their civilians, fine… that could be argued as a moral imperative. But attacking a country to kill this group of people knowing fully well that there will be “accidental” deaths is really saying : “3000 of our civilians were killed by Al-Qaeda supported by Taliban, so let us attack them and the collateral damage, i.e., the death of Afghan civilians is something we accept”. How much ever you accept the Afghanistan campaign, or how much ever you may argue about having no other options, there is nothing moral about this action as it is in essence trading lives. Please let us accept this as as how countries in their self-interest operate (the US could do it with greater confidence given its position) as opposed to justifying it morally.
posted by litostHow much ever you accept the Afghanistan campaign, or how much ever you may argue about having no other options, there is nothing moral about this action as it is in essence trading lives. Please let us accept this as as how countries in their self-interest operate (the US could do it with greater confidence given its position) as opposed to justifying it morally.
The American response to this attack is linked to self-interest, I would agree. However, to let an act of aggression such as this stand without a response would have global consequences.
So if you wanted to organize a pro democracy rally in let’s say Tiananmen Square, with a couple of thousand friends, for a few days straight, that would be OK?
So if you wanted to organize a pro democracy rally in let’s say Tiananmen Square, with a couple of thousand friends, for a few days straight, that would be OK?
Fang, Shall we discuss the level of intent with the families that lost their loved ones as part of the collateral damage? Why is their loss of lives any less wrong than ones who died in the WTC? I don’t see different shades of immorality in comparing these cases. It is one thing to rationalize the campaign, explain it using realpolitik, but the fundamental injustice of loss of lives is the same in both cases.
What greater moral justification does someone need other than self defense? By your argument, we would not be justified in defending ourselves until an enemy has landed on our shores. Should we allow Al Qaeda to operate freely in Afghanistan so that they may continue to scheme and train to kill Americans? Should Israel sit idly by as suicide bomber after suicide bomber blows up their busses and cafes? Where is the moral justification in that? It is a shame that innocent people have to die in war, but that is a fact of life. The “moral” way to minimize the pain and suffering is to end it quickly by overwhelming and destroying your enemy, not to drag it out for decades and allow thousands more to die because you are afraid of collateral damage.
Do you truly not see a fundamental diference between intentionally targeting civilians with the intent to kill and terrorize versus accidently killing civilians while attacking what you believe to be a military target?
I think too often people have tried to find some motive other than enlightened self-interest to justify motives that derive from enlightened self-interest. I think the morality involved here could be derived from honesty.
Al Qaeda attacked us, the Taliban supports them both are going down, that’s the end of that. We’re not good they’re not evil. We are bigger and stronger than them and we are going to stop them from hurting us.
Sometimes might does make right. For instance, when an ant attacks a human because the human stepped on or near it. Well the ant is doing what it feels it needs to do, and the human is doing what it feels it needs to do by squashing it.
Hey Jacksen9, remember the government of Mossadeq in Iran in the 1950’s, which was an admirably progressive move towards Western democracy and human rights? Well, remember how the U.S. overthrew that and installed the Shah, a despot whose secret police SAVAK rank among the greatest human rights violators of all time? Gotta have that oil.
I don’t have a cite, I’ll hunt for one in a moment, but it’s estimated that 60,000 people died in the civil war that resulted from the U.S.'s overthrow of the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1953, and at least 14,000 people were “disappeared” by Pinochet, who was installed by the U.S. after the overthrow of Allende’s democratically elected government. So we’re up to at least 74,000 people. Doesn’t that far exceed 9-11?
Ok, back with a cite on the carnage in Guatemala which resulted from the US overthrow of its democratically elected government. From the Federation of American Scientists:
OH yes, I love these threads… “US BAD! NAPSTER BAD!”
Sheesh.
al Queda intentionally killed 3000 people. They tried to kill many more.
In the course of pursuing the punishment of those that have done this, the US military by accident brought about the death of civilians.
The key difference is intent. We could have knocked down the Taliban and wiped al queda from the Earth if we had resorted to their tactics, and just carpet bombed all of afgahnistan until nothing was left alive.
Then we could have went on the air globally and said how what we did was great, and we surely going to heaven for it. :rolleyes:
I think what the US has done to date has been quite fair, and I also think my way would work better, although then we would REALLY get it from the folks like you who hate us.
Ah well. Next time you have an earthquake in a foreign country, please notice how fast the US offers aid.
Try to look at how much humanitarian aid is given out by the US each year.
Try to look at the long term results of the actions taken by the US, and not short term results, nor at the results of things that are supposedly endorsed by the US. That’s short sighted and foolish.