re: I don't think its so out of the mainstream. In fact, I think many people feel that that is one of the UN's primary responsibilities (prevent situations like the current one in Darfur), but the UN is failing to execute its responsibilities. If the UN (which should do it) fails, someone else should take up the slack. That leaves us.
No, it doesn't.
Listen, the UN is essentially the Security Council; the Secretariat has very little policy power. If we can't convince the other member of the SC to act, maybe there is a good reason.
Take Iraq, for example. We've spent $200Billion, excuse me not spent, incurred debt for $200Billion. We've alienated the rest of the world, weakened the UN and maybe destroyed NATO, we've lost 1500 of our kids, maimed ~12,000 more, and screwed up emotionally maybe 1/3 of all those who have fought there. We've ruined there lives, and their extended families lives. We've killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians. We've created 10's of thousands of religious radicals trained in terrorist tactics, that hate the US.
And the net result? Iraq is a total mess. It's future is completely unpredictable, but looks like it's leaning towards an Iranian type theocracy with Sharia law, which allows abuse of women among other atrocities.
Now you and the Neo's come along and think this should be our policy? Unilateral preemptive military attacks on governments that don't meet our moral standard? At the sacrifice of our economy, our kids, our respect in the world community?
When are you going to enlist? When are you going to propose a massive tax increase to pay for the adventures? Or is it just OK if it's no skin off your back?
This is not what America is about.
John |
