On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:15 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, and the US is not a police force. The US is just the strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations can be stronger than the US, but at present these nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, this alliance might form, which might start another cold war.
You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany would prefer a world in which China were the major power?
Naturally not. Germany would prefer a world in which Germany was the major power. China would prefer a world in which Chinese rule is unquestioned. And Kim Jong Il would just love a world wherein everyone wore perfect haircuts.
And was from North Korea.
Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt who suggested speaking softly and carrying a big stick? What ever happened to that philosophy? It really does seem that we've been all stick lately. We've been, as it were, sticking it to anyone we care to. Not literally, but it sure can seem that way some days.
Gautam has listed
4 criteria for a war of choice....which have been ignored by anyone but me.
I think they are a good way to frame the debate, and am not sure why others
would not wish to consider them. A war of choice must
1) Be in the best interest of the nation fighting the war
2) The goals of the war should have a reasonable chance of being reached.
3) Other reasonable means have been tried.
4) The war will, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region.
These are interesting points. By their criteria, I find Iraq (example) even less justifiable than before! ;)
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
