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

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by GePap

...

The US is not an empire, nor does it have the power to be an empire. Our basic founding notions invalidate the idea of empire. Many people keep refergin to Rome: perhaps the lesson to learn is not that the Empire lasted for so long, but that once Rome begun to think as an empire, the Republic fell.

Why would a non-empire have aircraft carriers?

[Az]

You wanna trade destinations?

GePap: I agree. but that my and Imran's points still stand strong.
We already had a debate about this, didn't we?

[Imran Siddiqui]

GePap: What do you think it means when we say 'it is not in our interest' to go to say Rwanda, but it is to go to Serbia? What is 'our interests'? It's a nice way of saying that we won't get any gains in power or resources by going somewhere.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Why would a non-empire have aircraft carriers?

To project air-power on the Ocean.

States currently having aircraft carriers or helicopter carriers:

The US, UK, France, India, thailand, Spain, Brazil, Italy, Russia.

Argentina had an old one which might no longer by commisioned.

Azazel: I think that argument has many invalid points;

Once you became an Ottoman subject, your alliegence was to the master, and most medeival thinkers did believe that a subject had to, unless something trully dire was afoot, to remain loyal to their sovereign. All the long lasting empires sought to create a common identity: The Aztec's are a poor example in that they were a short lived empire, more of a confederency of tribe who had many enemies. The Inca were much better at creating a sense of unity, which is why Inca ressiatnce lasted for over 150 years while aztec resistance went away right quick. Napolon's empire did not last cuase he never sought to create anyting like a united identity: he did not annex huge portions of land to France but instead kept lands as associate powers.

As for Imran's points about Machiavelli: he enevr says might makes right. All he says is what you can do to remain in power. And his rules are not that difficult to understand. It is better to be feared than loved cause love is fickle, but remeber.. never be hated, cause hate oercomes fear. May I point out that machiavelli ends his discourse to the Prince explaining why Republic is the best form of government. Tha doies not sound like a ight makes right guy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

he [never] says might makes right. All he says is what you can do to remain in power.

Well no duh! But he undoubtably says 'might makes right', you simply have to hide it. And why would backing a Republic over a Monarchy make you ANY less of a 'might makes right' guy? If you really understand international politics, there is only one conclusion: might makes right underlies everything. The mighty make the rules that everyone else lives by. The weak follow.

[PLATO]

There are several points that I want to make:

1.) The US is NOT the agressor in Iraq eithier legally or morally. The 1991 cease-fire agreement was just that...the coalition would cease attacks if Iraq took specific actions. The UN validated the cease fire agreement. No one disputes that Iraq violated the terms of this agreement. Since Iraq was the original aggressor and the cause of the conflict, then by definition, they still are.

2.) 17 UN resolutions have called for Iraqi compliance with the mandates of the cease fire agreement. One has mentioned "all necessary means" and another "serious consequences". The international legal justification for war exists now. Upholding UN resolutions when authorized (yes, one could debate the meaning of "serious consequences", but the US made no secret of their interpretation before the resolution passed 15-0), cannot be called aggression as Iraq is a member of the UN and subject to the security council's mandate to maintain security in the world.

3.) Iraq is known to have attacked neighboring countries. Iraq is known to have manufactured chemical and biological weapons. Iraq is known to have used chemical weapons both internally and internationally. Iraq is known to have supported terrorism. Iraq is known to have attempted to assasinate foriegn leaders. Iraq is known to have summary execution of its own people. These facts are not in dispute. This is a moral justification for war.

4.) The proposed security council resolution is being proposed only due to the popular outcry against war, (Which is understandable-no one wants war.) and to clarify time limits for action that has already been approved . The dispute continues to be weather the time is now or later...not weather action might be necessary or not. Does anyone think that the French honestly believe that Iraq will come into full compliance?

5.) Ignoring a French veto will NOT set any kind of precedent. The legal basis for attack already exists under UNSC authority. This would not be the case in the scenario's discussed earlier in this thread.