Gautam wrote:
You wouldn't? You're awfully certain about which policies are right and wrong on a lot of different issues to agree with what I've written. The two stances conflict.
I have strong opinions on many subjects, but expressing an opinion doesn't equal certianty.
If you want my particular problem with the tests approach to those issues, for example, it kept asking - wouldn't it be best to approach these issues with our allies? Yes, it would be. The problem is the assumption implicit in that question - that our "allies" actually are our allies on these issues. That they can't be bought off (France) or be actively hostile to American interests (China, and maybe also France) or just completely screwed up (Germany under Schroeder). In which case that approach is approximately equivalent to saying "Wouldn't it be nice if I could date Jennifer Garner." Well, it would, but so what?
What are the long term effects of pissing everyone in the world off, Gautam? Even most of the people in the coalition countries are dead set against how we approached the Iraq situation. Countries that are hostile to our interests are sure to be doing everything in their power to insure our continuing involvement in Iraq will drain our resources and our enthusiasm. The more people we piss off, the greater the resources of our enemies. We might be the mightiest nation on the planet, but as our failures in Iraq instruct us, we can't take on the whole world.
It's not really about getting France/Germany/whomever on board as much as it is doing the _right_thing_ and inviting the rest of the world to help if they wanted to do the right thing as well. And IMO, Iraq was never the right thing.
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
