Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JohnM who wrote (45871)	9/21/2002 1:48:58 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 281500

My concern is the great turn in American foreign policy as witnessed by the strike first doctrine and the arguments which lie beneath it. Hey, we agree on something! I'm not convinced that W needed to make a sweeping and controversial doctrinal statement about issues which can be handled on an ad hoc basis. The statement comes off as being much too arrogant and highhanded, despite the language about going through the UN before initiating action. International law gives every state the right to essentially unhindered self-defense. I think that there was no need to make the statement, which is bound to upset allies, when preemptive strikes can be justified as self-defense. Ironic, huh? Using this logic, there is no objection to the Israeli strike against Iraq's reactors, which I applauded at the time for its boldness and foresight.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next