Implications of the Bush Doctrine: Coalition of the willing to free the west bank

[korn469]

Ok the situation as it stands now is that the US is trying to get 9 yes votes in the U.N. security council, and then if and when france vetos the US resolution the white house is going to try and argue that france or russia is hindering the will of the U.N. and then lead a coalition of the willing against Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp

Well using that logic, couldn't Syria, France, and Russia for example propose a resolution saying that they were going to lead a coalition of the willing to "liberate" the west bank, and then if the US vetos it, as long as they have 9 votes have the same justification for was as the US has in Iraq?

Granted nobody with the power to actually defeat the IDF will propose this, so it is truly a hypothetical situation, but isn't that the precedent being set?

Another example is if China could pass a resolution along the same lines authorizing force to reunite China and Taiwan. It seems to me that this policy has some major drawbacks.

Hell I see little use for the U.N. the far majority of the time, but if you are going to goto the U.N. for approval, and then fail, to me you look far more unjustified in going to war than if we just went unilateral on saddam's ass to begin with.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The precedent is not 'being set'. The precedent is being FOLLOWED. That precedent is the basic rules of international relations since the beginning of time: Might makes right.

[Drake Tungsten]

I love how people bring up the idea that, if the US ignores the UN and goes into Iraq, China will suddenly be able to take back Taiwan. Does anyone really think that international law and not US military power is what keeps the Chinese from attacking Taiwan?

[Shi Huangdi]

China won't invade Taiwan, the economies are too inter-related. China conquering Taiwan would cause a massive economic catastrophe the level of which could threaten the Beijing regime.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, US military power is the last thing, just about, especially now, when it's overcommitted playing with the "Axis of evil."

First is the simple logistics of it - that's a hell of a lot more amphib action than the PLA has the nuts for, at least for another ten years or so.

Second is the loss of foreign investment that would accompany any destabilization.

Third is that the threat of invasion, coupled with the economic lobbying against recognition, has been adequate to deter Taiwan from asserting independence.

Fourth is that it wouldn't do much good to "invade" a smoking pile of rubble, which is about what would be left if the Taiwanese put up a serious defense on the ground.

I think korn has a good point - going unilateral in the first place fits Imran's might makes right view, but it is "interesting" to say the least, to see what kind of posturing may be done by other countries in the future to try to claim some mantle of international legitimacy.

[monkspider]

Korn raises a very interesting point, I think that you could even argue quite persuasively that if one were to follow the Bush doctrine to it's logical conclusion, any country could attack any other, at anytime, for virtually any reason, forever. Needless to say, such a doctrine can only lead to mankind's utter destuction.

[Drake Tungsten]

Point taken, MtG. I still stand by my statement that respect for international law has nothing to do with it, however.

[Shi Huangdi]

MtG: "Actually, US military power is the last thing, just about, especially now, when it's overcommitted playing with the "Axis of evil.""

The USA still has naval/aerial assets in the region that could provide a problem for any Chinese invasion.

[DuncanK]

Does China have an amphibious capability yet?

[Az]

what Imran said.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The precedent is not 'being set'. The precedent is being FOLLOWED. That precedent is the basic rules of international relations since the beginning of time: Might makes right.

Indeed power flows from the barrel of a gun. The UN has no realistic guns, therefore it has no realistic power, therefore it is a place for lawyers to gallant around and talk about "international rules of war" which don't mean a spit in the bucket when real war breaks out.

The UN has been the tool of the US since it's inception, and now that it doesn't go along with the US, the US will dump it, and it will fall apart.

It was a worhtless organization anyways.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I love how people bring up the idea that, if the US ignores the UN and goes into Iraq, China will suddenly be able to take back Taiwan. Does anyone really think that international law and not US military power is what keeps the Chinese from attacking Taiwan?

If the Chinese wanted Taiwan they could take it, but they are willing to wait it out and simply annex it once the old gaurd has died off.

They are 10 times as old as us... basically China is just going to let Taiwan culture flip.

If you don't beleive, most young people in Taiwan think their government is a bunch of old guys who still dream about one day taking back China.

[Sloth]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Might makes right.

This line of thinking is EXACTLY what scares me.

It is the same philosophy that produced Nazism...
Not to say that the US would commit the same atrocities...but if "Might makes right".....

In other words: if OBL would be POWERFULL enough nuke and then invade the US...he would be RIGHT to do so???

[Az]

Noone said that, Sloth.

What was said, that this has always been the guiding line of Intl. politics.

[Sloth]

This is NOT true. From the times of Iliad on, some wars have been "right" and some "wrong". And while it is true that power has been an important factor in deciding which is which, there is a lot more to it than that.
Note that while it is in general true that "the victor writes history", in general he tries to manipulate WHAT really happened not the MORAL righteousness of his deeds.