Why no peace protests?

[JOEM]

Originally posted by PT409
A world that rallied to America's side in unprecedented demonstrations of support after September 11 increasingly perceives the U.S. itself as a great danger to peace. How did things come to this? The failure of the Bush Administration to manage its diplomacy is staggering, and the price paid, even if the war ends quickly, could be higher than anyone now anticipates
The political effect of this foreign policy imbroglio is already obvious. It can be measured in tattered alliances and global tensions, eroding support for President George W. Bush, and big changes throughout the Middle East. What remains unclear are the economic consequences. In the end, they may be far more significant.

Uncertainty is anathema to investment and growth. Much of the current weakness in the U.S. and the global economy is due to the immediate questions surrounding an Iraq war. Yet the Bush foreign policy of unilateral preemption is so ill-defined and open-ended that it could weigh heavily on the global economy well after the bombing stops. Look at the Administration's agenda. The war in Iraq will be followed by an occupation that could last years, cost many billions of dollars, and involve tens of thousands of occupying troops. That's a big price to pay if bungled diplomacy means that the U.S. bears most of the financial burden. Then there's dealing with North Korea's rush to build nuclear bombs. And Iran's play for nukes.

But the seeds of the current diplomatic disaster were planted in the first year of the Bush Administration, well before September 11. That's when Washington defined its foreign policy, which has come to be seen as the three "D's" -- disdain, disregard, and disrespect for treaties, allies, and friends. In those early months, the Administration managed to insult the heads of both North and South Korea, an amazing policy feat. Bush was quoted as saying North Korea's Prime Minister was a "pygmy," and later said "I loathe Kim Jong Il." And Bush humiliated South Korea's Kim Dae Jung on his visit to the White House by publicly repudiating his opening to the North, a popular policy at home.
. Since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the concept of the sovereignty of states has been sacrosanct. Nations are open to attack only when they actually do something to threaten another country. An imperial America acting alone to spread democracy by the sword may appeal to a handful of neocon ideologues, but it doesn't sit well with many Americans -- and especially not with people around the world.

The Bush Doctrine, laid out in the national security paper, has three tenets: that unilateral measures are better than international treaties and organizations in dealing with global problems; that no country or combination of countries will ever be allowed to challenge U.S. military dominance; and that the U.S. is free to take preemptive action against terrorists and states that have weapons of large-scale destruction. In short, it's my way or the highway. As a foreign policy, it is both arrogant -- certain to generate opposition by even the most friendly of countries -- and corrosive, certain to undermine multilateral institutions and agreements, including those in the economic sphere. Worse still, it is ill-constructed and confusing, making for a more, not less, uncertain and dangerous world.

Uh-huh. After over a decade of refusing to abide with the terms of Iraq's surrender, threatening his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction, directly helping financed 9-11 and other mass-murder terrorist plots, and using unlimited resources to stymie weapons inspectors, Saddam finally got his "foreign policy" cancelled by the Bush administration.

No more uncertainty, right?

Diplomacy failed and has failed with Saddam. When diplomacy fails, military action follows. Unless it does, you become a whining weany nation that no one takes seriously anymore...like France.

You can bet North Korea and Iran are watching all this very carefully. And when we deal with them again, they'll know we mean business. That's why Iran has kept a pretty low profile after Desert Storm, by the way.

Allow other nations to veto our actions? That's what led George Bush to make the disasterous decision to end the first Iraqi war before removing the tyrant from office. We don't have to follow bad advice and we don't have to raise our hand to leave the room when our national security is threatened.

Who was attacked on 9-11? France? Germany? Russia? Uh-uh. We were. That's really why we're over there. And why we won't come back this time until it's over, over there.

[PT "Guru"]

The only mistake that George Sr. made with Saa'dam is to have not followed the lead of Ronald Reagan with his dealings with Al-Khadafi, he did not make it a personal thing. Reagan went after Khadafi, not his military, not the country but the man himself. When you get your address bombed, and nothing else, you stand up and take notice.

Khadafi has not made one peep since, in fact, he is even backing us on this little adventure.............

[QuicksilverDon]

Originally posted by saxonburgcruiser
Where was all the moral indignation about invading a nation that had not attacked us?

Dave

We didn't INVADE the Balkans, we occupied. We were stopping "ethnic cleansing" murders. In Iraq, we're the ones killing innocent civilians.

[4ABRUZN]

Originally posted by Big Kahuna
WAG THE DOG .... must be referring to CLINTON

Wasn't he the President who gave the dog... his bone....

No, you're thinking of the sequel; "Gag the Dog".

[PT409]

Diplomacy failed and has failed with Saddam. When diplomacy fails, military action follows. Unless it does, you become a whining weany nation that no one takes seriously anymore...like France

If we allow international law to be replaced by the law of the fist, under which the strong is always right and is unlimited in the choice of means to achieve his goals, then one of the basic principles of international law, the principle of the inviolability of the sovereignty of states, will be put into question,"

Once this principle is ignored, "no country in the world will feel safe, and the vast hotbed of instability that has appeared today will grow and prompt negative consequences in other regions of the world.

[PT "Guru"]

Originally posted by QuicksilverDon

We didn't INVADE the Balkans, we occupied. We were stopping "ethnic cleansing" murders. In Iraq, we're the ones killing innocent civilians.

How many civilians have been killed so far. I have watched CNN, NBC,CBS, ABC, IBC, WNN, and they have only reported military deaths so far.

Unless Saa'dam is using civilian shields again, the targets so far have been strictly military, unlike Saa'dam who tried to send a couple of SCUDS (Sure Could Use Directions) into downtown Kuwaite City. There are reports right now that shops and stores are reopening in Bagdad, even the lights are still on...

So.....

[JOEM]

Originally posted by PT409

If we allow international law to be replaced by the law of the fist, under which the strong is always right and is unlimited in the choice of means to achieve his goals, then one of the basic principles of international law, the principle of the inviolability of the sovereignty of states, will be put into question,"

Once this principle is ignored, "no country in the world will feel safe, and the vast hotbed of instability that has appeared today will grow and prompt negative consequences in other regions of the world.

"Inviolability of the sovereignty of states"? Then we violated that in World War Two. After all, if Hilter wished to gas millions of Jews and other "undesireables," what right had we to intrude? Once we fought the Nazis back to their borders, we should have stopped right there, correct?

There is no "international law" governing the geo-political actions of nations. There are only treaties and agreements between nations. Such a treaty is the entire basis of the United Nations and many nations have severely limited what the UN can do or not do about their internal affairs and international actions. One of these nations, by the way, is France, which has traded with outlaw nations in the face of UN sanctions, Yet, France occupies a seat on the Security Council as we know all too well by now.

A treaty ended the war in Iraq. Saddam has not lived up to the treaty and has refused to even allow inspectors into Iraq on numerous occasions. It is clear that he will not honor the treaty and the only response that will enforce the treaty is the forcible removal of this child-gassing murderous tyrant from the helm of Iraq. That is what we are doing.

Stopping treaty-breaking and removing outlaws from positions of power when they threaten the peace will quell "the vast hotbed of instability." Count on it.