JF, The fact that Iraq is unilateral demonstrates that there is not a compelling threat.
No, it means there is a disagreement over the extent of the threat.
If there was a serious threat to the US and/or our traditional allies, don't you (seriously, no crap) believe that NATO would have been on board?
Not necessarily. They might not see what we see (assuming we have a competent CIA doing its job), or they could be conciously denying there is a threat for whatever reason, whether it be economic or political.
Is the monetary and human cost significant? If not to you, it is to me.
It is to me too. The difference is that I think it's worth it. But I have also expressed my desire to see us out of there ASAP, even if it means letting the U.N. have more autonomy. If we're going to repair the damage from being so unilateral, we might start with trusting other nations to do the right thing.
Is there a double standard and is it OK? Yes there is, and it's expedient, especially with this administration. Otherwise Bush would be in Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Sudan... You were the one that was shocked that an organization demonstrated "double standards". You tell me if a consistent standard is important for this administration.
We can't be GloboCop, so we'll need to apply our standards selectively. That's just the nature of foreign policy.
What reason does HRW have when they apply their standard selectively? Human rights are human rights; there should be no double-standard.
Tenchusatsu |
