Suppose it is millions killed by a nuclear weapon. Is that still ok with you, or would it be ok to pre-empt such an action?
Do you need a doctrine to act on such a disaster? The problems with pre-emption as the admin states it is that it also goes with pre-eminence, or the order of supremacy. This is not the basis for cooperation with the nations of the world. It's all a pattern as you see later.
What is wrong with unilateralism if you are doing a good thing?
If it's a good thing, chances are others will agree and join.
You mean the same UN that handed Libya the chairmanship of Human Rights Commission?
No, the same UN that bush bashed and he is now asking to help pay for Iraq reconstruction, while we refuse to give it any say over its future.
French?
How quickly we forget that we could not get a simple majority to support our resolution in the UN...even countries that are strong supporters saw no wisdom in this one. Want a few more? Canada, Mexico, Germany, Russia, China, Peru, India, Pakistan, and a number of (needy) African nations....and yes, France too.
What exactly is enviromental order?
The recognition that the environment is not a national topic, rather it is a world concern. And a recognition that America needs to lead the fight to protect it for it's future generations...and a recognition that what is good for industry is not always in the best interest of the earth. bush exited Kyoto and promised a substitute. That was three years ago almost, and the world is still waiting.
I think the founding fathers guided by religious faith did much better job at protecting liberties by the US constitution than most other countries
They also created a clear distinction between matters of faith and governing a nation.
I could see a president from your party doing exactly the same thing, without any complaints from you,
You are reaching far beyond your knowledge. The former president was from my party, and he delivered 8 years of peace, prosperity, environmental responsibility, cooperation with the nations of the world, and more. Unfortunately he transgressed on personal matters, and for that I have been critical of him on this forum.
which is that it is the obsession with the person on your part, rather than ideology.
This is convenient, lazy and false. I have given you many reasons where ideology has translated into concrete action, and it is that to which i object.
Al |
