Quote:
|
Originally Posted by webwench
Of course I wouldn't, because then we'd be talking about my homeland  But if North Korea had the power and the motive to take us out, well, there wouldn't be much I could say to stop it!
This is why I added that caveat that I'm not arguing morality or rightness, I'm just answering that question of'who gave you the right?'
In any case, I think there is room for idealism in this country, but that it should not be dictated or even swayed by what everyone else in the world thinks we as a country should do. Our decisionmaking isn't happening in a democracy in which every other nation out there has a vote. Internally, I think we've become so tied up with partisan bickering and finger-pointing that we have for the moment forgotten about even the possibility of developing some sort of national consensus or moral code that we can use to guide our decisions, and that is unfortunate.
Leaving aside the fact that morality is unlikely to ever be a major consideration when it comes to career politicians making international-policy decisions (see? my internal cynic simply will not shut up!), I'd like to see people and politicians discuss the circumstances under which waging war is acceptable to us. Genocide? Political oppression? Murder of dissidents? Our own financial interests? Defense against violent actions? Defense against the threat of violent actions? Defense against the capability of another nation to threaten violent actions? Which causes suffice, and which do not?
My internal cynic asks, if this conversation hasn't been had by now, why and how would it happen now? |
Well, I do think that we still have to live in this world, and if you believe that what other people in the world think about our actions is irrelevant, then I guess you have subscribed to the Bush doctrine ("You're either with us or against us.") I agree that the rest of the world should not dictate our actions, but we should engage in such actions, I believe, in heavy consultation with other countries. There should be dialogue; there should be diplomacy. Under G. W. Bush, diplomacy has pretty much been non-existent, Colin Powell serving as basically window dressing when Bush needs a moderate image now and then (as when he put on that dog and pony show at the U.N. to justify the Iraq war).
We should lead by example. If, for example, we think it would be wrong for a North Korea to start a war based on the doctrine of pre-emption, we ought to abide by that rule ourselves. If we think we are justified in enforcing U.N. resolutions (one of our many and often changing rationales for the Iraq war), we ought to not be hypocrites and violate the U.N. charter in doing so.
I agree that a conversation about the conditions under which we, as a people, think war would be justified is long overdue. Even our (alleged) elected representatives in Congress barely discussed Iraq before giving Bush carte blanche. Is it too late for such a conversation to ever take place? Your cynicism is probably not misplaced, but I still hold out hope.
Joe B.