Quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
What you seem to be saying Micah, is based on some assumptions I agree with and some I don't. First off you say there are problems in the world - I agree. Secondly you say those problems have to be dealt with - I again agree with you on all of the problems you mentioned. They all have to get sorted one way or another. However you next seem to assume that because these problems need to be sorted out the only way to do them is the US way. Well, you may think that, and I don;t want to deprive you of the right to think that, but I most strongly disagree and threqads througout IW over the years will attest that many other people think the same as me.
I cannot equate thinking terrorists need to be caught with bombing Afghanistan. And because of that people often assume, as you appear to have done, that I actually don't want them caught at all. Or that if I do want them caught then I haven't realised that the US is the only one to do this. I have realised that if we are going to go in with troops then we need the US's help - but I don't think going in with troops is the right answer so I don't think the US is being very helpful. Thats a personal opinion, but this is politics and therefore everyone has a personal opinion. And the Americans out there making foreign policy can't decide to do what they like one minute and condemn countries for doing what they like the next.
I'm just saying that the UN is an admirable idea and criticism comes with it I'm afraid. Just picking up the ball and walking off the field once you've been declared offside is a little bit hypocritical I think.
|
Barry,
I never once assumed that just because it's OUR way that it has to be right.
How would you propose that we catch the Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Politely ask them to pretty please come out of their holes? Be realistic. IMO, going in with ground troops is the only way they are going to be caught. You may not like that solution but offer me a workable alternative. Had the Taliban government NOT been avid supporters of the Al-Qaeda in the first place, I would have been content had the Afghan people / government themselves decided to oust the Al-Qaeda from their country. Unfortunately, the Afghan people were in no postion to have forced the removal of the Taliban. We're not the only country who felt that ground troops were the only solution - remember that it's a multi-national force, predominantly American to be sure, but multi-national nonetheless and supported by the UN.
As for Iraq, Hussein has been given opportunity after opportunity to dismantle his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and weapon programs. These were United Nations mandates, not just US requests. He shows no sign of even attempting to comply with the wishes of the international community. His every step has been designed to mislead, to confuse, to delay. Again, if US troops go back to IRAQ it will be with a UN mandate, perhaps, no PROBABLY a US engineered mandate - but a UN mandate nonetheless. If the troops aren't the right way to solve this problem, then the UN has the option to not grant the mandate for military force - but I'm betting that they do. Again, offer me at least ONE viable alternative to using ground troops to force Iraq's compliance.
I know these may not be an entirely popular position, and i can even be accused of just a little over-ardent patriotism or militarism. Offer me some workable alternatives in these cases.