You are not logged in.
Will we continue to grow apart? Will the threat of terrorism draw us closer together (once Dubya's out the Oval Office I mean) again?
This ties into what I was talking about earlier regarding differences between nations. Terrorism could draw Europe and America closer, or wedge us further apart if too many Europeans see attacks on their soil as somehow our fault. In either case, Dubya is irrelevant. Britain isn't with us because Tony Blair likes Bush, France didn't oppose us because Chirac thinks he's a cowboy. Who sits in the Oval Office is not the issue. The Kerry campaign would like us to believe it's all about personal tiffs, but it just isn't the case.
Actually, its more about whether America leads and the world follows (the PromiseKeeper mentality) or whether America can be partners with other nations based on a belief in equal rights for all humans. I fully support spreading American values and one of those values is the conviction that others have an equal right to choose their own values. See Federalist #1:
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.
In other words, JDAMS can never win converts.
= = =
Its also that "empire" word and this Administration has been quite coy on that subject.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092804/]Cheney Christmas card
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092800/]Slate column
= = =
Which nations (other than the United States) can lawfully engage in the military pre-emption of threats? All pigs are equal, yet some are more equal than others.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Which nations (other than the United States) can lawfully engage in the military pre-emption of threats? All pigs are equal, yet some are more equal than others.
"Lawfully" is the key here. Law is a set of rules enforced by an authority. Despite what certain quarters would have us believe, the nation state is the highest authority in our present world. "International Law" is merely a "gentlemanly agreement" between nation states, not law with any binding force. Unless God or some badass extra-terrestrials come down to enforce it, law between nations is largely a function of the relative might of those nations. The very question of legality in international affairs is inherently flawed.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
Like button can go here