Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (109671)	8/3/2003 6:32:38 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Bush Administration declared a new doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive war -- regime change. Unilateral US invasion of sovereign nations in the absence of a threat -- Cheney's "regime change" policy -- is the focus of my critique. The US could have acted under the flag of the UN -- the time was coming to act. But the US chose to reject the international community, chose to adopt the Bush Doctrine, and chose a unilateral go-it-along approach, a "coalition of the willing" with no moral authority. The UN did not reject the US, the US rejected the UN. The US went to the UN and threatened the UN -- go along with us or you will become "irrelevant". The motives were twofold -- to shore up public support for war to to help provide political cover to Blair. But the Us made one thing clear -- the regime change policy would prevail. No other major power would yield to US hegemony and bullying. In view of the lack of a real threat, the UN did the right thing and refused to provide legitimacy for the regime change policy. The problems facing the Bush Administration are self-inflicted. The UN was not at fault. This was a failure of US policy, and the key decisions were taken in Washington, not in New York or in foreign capitals.