|02-28-2003, 06:45 PM||#61|
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Local Time: 11:07 AM
I agree. Some very good points. I think we would have the problem of Al Quada with or without the 1991 Gulf War though.
|02-28-2003, 07:32 PM||#62|
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Local Time: 12:07 PM
I was against the Nato Operation in Kosovo, not because i wanted to look at all the terrible things which hapened there, but imho the Nato weakened the UN with this and they tried to find "new work" because they are affraid of becoming meaningless after the collapse of the USSR.
So my point was:Military action in former Yougoslavia:Yes, but with UN approval.
To your heroic picture of the US:
USA did big mistakes in their foreign politics several times, like all countries who had time and the power to do so. Of course they also did good things.
Of course Europe is affraid that the US is going to abuse its superpower (like European countries did when they had the power).New American Foreign policy is "Short time friendships" allies don't have to have the same principles or same morale values, as long as they do what the US wants they get US support. It's a dangerous path and i hope we are more lucky this time than in the past. Pakistan was an example for that, Turkey could be the next, i hope the US don't betray the kurds and give the Turks what they want.
As long as the US thinks they are above international laws europeans will remain verry sceptical.
To the demonstrants: If you take a look on them, most of them wear Levis Jeans and T-Shirts, after the demonstration they meet at McDonalds, they don't boycot the US, they dissagree with the curent decision of your government, but not the US. Of course there are idiots who burn flags and demolish US embasies, but these are the same fanatics like the ones who shoot on arab looking people after 9/11 to take revenge
I share your point of view of boycots - it's ok, if private persons do it, it's an abuse if governments decide that (as long as the other county dosn't violate international laws/human rights..).
Back to the old self defense debate. If you call it self defense Iraq must be a IMMEDIATE threat to the US.
Everything more than that has to be approved by the UN sec.council and is therefore no self defense.
And - as long as so many experts for international law interpret your qoted Res. 678 in a different way than you and the US government does i'd suggest to take the time and convince the other nations in the UN. This would show the world that the US is willing to respect the UN.
If the US looses its standards on human rights, liberty and democracy they are not such a good example for the upcoming democracies who will use it as an orientatetion point how to treat the weak, the poor and the oponents.
From my point of view the full support and the upgrading of the authorities and the power of the UN and their systems (International Court) are the only way to civilize the world - it's a slow and unspectacular way - but at the end there will be less wars.
I want to see Saddam Hussein and Ossama Bin Laden in the same place where Slobodan Milosevic is allready. At a place where everybody who wants to can listen which crimes they did against mankind, and can see that justice works.
The Western world shouldn't be affraid. Our system is good enough to handle barbaric attacs without becoming barbars ourselfes.
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|