Maybe "let on" was a poor choice of words, what I meant is that you have the essense of what I'd intended to do perfect. In short I'm just saying you get it.
As to discussion about the merits of criteria I don't want them but it's probably inevitable.
War is wrong, because killing is wrong.
(How's that?)
I would have thought 1. met your criteria as an argument against the war, Craven?
Yes, it did, and the edit made it 100% compliant. Without the edit it was the same ole same ole.
This is like playing netball as opposed to basketball!!
In netball, you can't move your feet once you have the ball - 'tis unnatural and bad for the knees.....heehee....but good discipline, no doubt.
Hey, it was hard for me not to give criteria that supports the war without lacing it with the arguments against it. But that's the point of the whole thing.
PDiddie, if you really wanna go all the way come up with criteria that would support the war.
Quote:You don't have to support the criteria to acknowledge it. The criteria I will detail is not one I support, I use other criteria that supercedes it. But this isn't about my criteria, it's about criteria in general.
IN SUPPORT: American hegemony.
IN OPPOSITION: American hegemony.
IN SUPPORT: To secure the petroleum resources of Iraq for the United States and her allies.
IN OPPOSITION: Greed.
SUPPORT: To establish a democratic (or at least a democracy-friendly) government in the region.
OPPOSE: Arrogance.
SUPPORT: we can
OPPOSE: its illegal
Ultimately I want to see the world war-free like (i believe) everyone). Lot's of different ways of going about that. One of which gives a possible criteria of the war. By invading and conforming an aggressive country, we can strike it of the list of countries disturbing the peace.
That's an ethical criteria as apposed to a legal one though, and as such I'm not sure that it's what you were after. Still coming to grips with what kind of thing is needed here. Any chance of a couple more examples Craven?
I have a nice mixture of might is right and simple utilitarianism.
America is the dominant force and therefore has the right to push everyone else around - might is right.
This is both true and inevitable, and the sooner everyone gets used to it, the better, since once they are used to it they will stop fighting it and less Americans and others will get killed and we will have that pax americana thing - utilitarianism.
Iraq was a smallish and relatively weak country that the USA was gonna beat easily and quickly - therefore few casualties (for a war) - it was a good place for a global lesson, therefore, and its example will mean fewer people will struggle against the inevitable and hurt themselves.
[qoute="Dlowan"]America is the dominant force and therefore has the right to push everyone else around - might is right. [/quote]
Theoretically, it is right. But in real life U.S. is not abusing its military superiority over other countries when no security concerns are involved. I cannot recall in memory any occasion of the U.S. abuse against such countries as, for example, Australia, Kenya, Brunei or Sweden. There are certain regimes that pose serious danger to strategic interests of the USA, and these may get appropriate treatment. All the other countries are being dealt with by means of "conventional" diplomacy.
steissd
Do you mean, 'diplomacy' is a word known to US politicans?
The
American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary defines diplomacy as:
Quote:
[...]
NOUN: 1. The art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements. 2. Tact and skill in dealing with people. See synonyms at tact.
I mean the same thing, and the source I used has the U.S. origin.
Well, there's France, Germany, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Syria (who's missing?) who stood to prosper with Saddam in place. Sneaky, behind-America's-back tactics in supplying Iraq with material to manufacture weapons of mass destruction that our government slowly became aware of. While these countries may not have had the elimination of America as a super power in mind, maybe there's no proof they didn't, either.
Is this proper "criteria?"
Well, I would exclude from this list Palestine (I mean, Palestinian Authority). They did not sneak anything to Iraq, on the contrary, they were recipients of financial aid rendered by Saddam... They merely had nothing to sneak.
