American Unilateralism

[Amy]

American Unilateralism or Multilateralism? Easy call.

I would like you to imagine a scenario with me. You are in a country where almost every important decision is made unilaterally. America, we’ll say. Every decision the government makes is behind your back. You never know what to expect. Soon people begin to disagree with decisions being made, so the American Government shuts their ears, after all, they make decisions by themselves unilaterally. There is nothing you can do within the law to change the decisions they make. This is what this editorial is all about: American Unilateralism.

There are three reasons why I believe that multilateralism is the preferred option: more individuals are satisfied with the end results; unilateral actions can result in tense relationships between the United States and their current allies; and no powerful country, not even the United States, can effectively deal with all of the world’s issues on its own.

Now, let’s pretend that the world is an extended family. Overall, the family values are placed in the same area. A small minority has different values. They have different beliefs, go about their life differently, and don’t care if it affects the family negatively as a whole. This is like the United States going in to invade a country without the support of the rest of the countries in the world. Multilateralism isn’t perfect, but it is certainly better than going against the majority. In unilateralism, oftentimes only a minority is satisfied with the end result.

As for America’s allies, the long list of issues on which the United States and its Canadian and European allies disagree- including climate change, fair trade, protectionism, the international court and how to confront Iraq- show little evidence of shrinking.

At the moment, Americans are receiving many imports from other countries and through unilateralism America could upset these countries and lose some of their much-needed resources. The United States has also become the world’s cultural centre, exporting its way of life around the globe. The concept of cultural imperialism corresponds with the values and structures of the United States. Many aspects of American culture would be completely unacceptable in other countries. Examples include: tolerance of sexual expression, empowerment of the individual, and religious freedoms.

Polls from the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs show that there has been a sharp decline in American popularity since their unilateral decision to invade Iraq.

“Around the world, from Western Europe to the Far East, many see the United States as arrogant, hypocritical, self-absorbed, self-indulgent and contemptuous of others.”
-Peter Peterson, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations.
With a public opinion like this, I do not understand how the United States can afford to keep invading countries unilaterally and risking international relations.

After America’s invasion of Iraq, a unilateral decision, Iraq was in chaos and the death rate began to rise. America went into a foreign country, looking for weapons of mass destruction when they had no evidence whatsoever, and as an end result found nothing, killed people and were killed, and left the country in absolute madness. Recently there have been car bombs and suicide bombings trying to give Americans the message, but they just don’t get it. Really, are they capable of making decisions to supposedly benefit the whole world when they do things like this? Are they really the people we want ruling the world?

“In an increasingly globalized world where everything- people, drugs, money- travels freely across borders, there is a need for global solutions, but few global solutions are being proposed. This gap between demand and supply is being filled by instability.”
-Moises Naim, editor of Foreign Policy

The United States has trading partners all over the world. The US and their allies rely on each other for many things, goods and services being one example. If these relationships are unstable, there is a possibility that the economies of both countries will also be unstable. This is not in the best interests of the United States or their allies. Although the United States hold less than 5 percent of the world’s population, it accounts for more than 25 percent of the world’s economic output.

Lastly, no powerful country, not even the United States, can effectively deal with all of the world’s issues on its own.

In the year 2003, many countries (including Colombia, Israel, Palestine, Burundi, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Philippines) hosted military conflicts. The United States cannot help all of these countries at once. The United States has to prioritize which countries to invade. They decide which countries are a higher priority, depending on which ones will directly benefit them.

“No great power, not even the United States, can deal with these issues alone. America will have to take a lead in organizing international cooperation.”
-Joseph Nye, political scientist

[Truth Detector]

Amy, it is always amazing to me how given the FACTS in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, people like you will continue to lie and distort the facts in an effort to promote a failed political ideology.

The FACT remains; the USA under George Bush is hardly practicing unilateralism, but in FACT, promoting multilateral agreements to fight the war on terror.

I find it EQUALLY amazing that after 9-11 and the events in the Middle East and it's history, there is a political party, and philosophy, who relishes the idea of an American defeat, and believes this president to be a worse threat than the likes of Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden.

I guess when the Democrats cannot win elections based on their tax and spend philosophy; they have to resort to lies and distortions about their own countrymen to others in the world. It's amazingly dumb, but that is what the Democrats represent this day and age.

It's no wonder an HONEST Democrat like Lieberman can no longer support even his OWN party.
:unreal:

[Tharagor]

Amy, it is always amazing to me how given the FACTS in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, people like you will continue to lie and distort the facts in an effort to promote a failed political ideology.


It's amazing how some factions try to lump Afghanistan and Iraq together when, in fact, the justifications for invading Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with each other.

Afghanistan was invaded after the United States accused Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for the attacks on 9-11-01.

Every point of Bush's original justification of invading Iraq has been proven false.

Finally, Bush leaned on the weakest of all justifications, to protect the people of Iraq from Hussein. Well, perhaps his brutality was what was necessary to keep his country together. Once we toppled his government, Iraq devolved directly into civil war. That is the main reason why his father did not push to Baghdad in the first gulf conflict.


The FACT remains; the USA under George Bush is hardly practicing unilateralism, but in FACT, promoting multilateral agreements to fight the war on terror.


Actually, most countries, and the UN, disagreed with invading Iraq. We made that decision unilaterally.


I find it EQUALLY amazing that after 9-11 and the events in the Middle East and it's history, there is a political party, and philosophy, who relishes the idea of an American defeat, and believes this president to be a worse threat than the likes of Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden.


Perhaps you need to do a little more digging into Middle Eastern history. The supposed acts of terror in the 1700's were acts of piracy by the Moors who were pushed out of Spain. That wasn't terrorism.

The roots of the modern conflict go back to the 1850's when Jews began to migrate to the Middle East from Europe to an already settled land.

Do a little research and learn the history. Here are some key points you'll have to research if you want to truly understand the modern conflict:


Balfour Declaration
The Hussein-McMahon Correspondence
1947 UN Partition Plan
The First through the Fifth Aliyah's
Irgun
King David Hotel Bombing


If you cannot clearly articulate how those pieces of history helped to bring the Middle East to where it is today, you cannot claim to understand the issues.

Hussein was never a threat to the United States. Ahmadinejad never was, and never will be a threat to the United States. He might present a threat to Israel, but we should not let our policies be dictated by such threats.

As far as Bin Laden is concerned, there was never any verifiable evidence that he had anything to do with the attacks. He didn't claim responsibility for the attacks until years later. Our forces were able to locate Hussein in a bunker in the desert, but we have not yet apprehended a 6' 4" to 6' 6" terrorist on dialysis?

What's wrong with that picture?


I guess when the Democrats cannot win elections based on their tax and spend philosophy; they have to resort to lies and distortions about their own countrymen to others in the world. It's amazingly dumb, but that is what the Democrats represent this day and age.


One should not cast stones when one's own party is mostly responsible for the crushing debt now burdening the United States. Both parties spend, the Democrats spend on people, the Republicans spend on business and military.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Well said Tharagor.

I was compelled to post a reply to Truth Detector, but you pretty much said what was on my mind, quite eloquently I may add.

[Truth Detector]

What a convenient and distorted version of history you bring to the table while at the same time ignoring the facts that we have a political party that promotes the idea that Bush is wrong and the terrorists are right.

Here are a few corrections to your distorted views. As it relates to the Middle East, you'll have to dust of your history books a little if you want to debate facts:

The Jews were settled in that land before Christ and long before it ever became a nation, created by the United Nations, so beloved by the Leftists in this country, above the objections of the US.

The root of the modern day politics in the Middle east can be traced to the UN, the British (British Mandate), the French and the people you so lovingly left out of the history, Soviet Union.

Back to the current day; Iraq and Afghanistan, including but not limited to, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and Egypt are ALL related. The terrorists do not know boundaries and it is their desire to take down any legitimate governments in these countries in an attempt to create a United Fascist Islamic state in the Middle East.

I suggest you pay more attention to what these despots say and stop pretending they are no danger. The notion that this region poses no threat to the West and US is absurd in the extreme when you consider the vast oil resources this area contains.

Of course, it is very convenient to live in a bubble thinking that any of these nations can be treated as separate issues.

Now back to BUSH; I guess you didn't read the whole Iraq Resolution so I will copy it here for your reading enjoyment. It is a 1,864 word document where WMD's take up about 204 words. For those of you in Rio Linda that amounts to about 11% of the statement.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

It is also very convenient for Liberals to ignore the FACT that even Democrats supported the resolution overwhelmingly and those on the Senate Intelligence committee believed, as the Bush administration, and the Clinton administration before that, that Saddam was re-constituting his WMD program which EVERYONE knows he had and used.

I know these are inconvenient facts for someone like you to digest in the proper contest. I do hope you don't choke on them.

Now back to my original premise which you so conveniently forgot: It's amazing that there is a Political party in this country that relishes the idea of an American defeat and thinks that Bush is a greater threat to peace than the likes of Saddam Hussien, Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden.
:fight:[hr]Another inconvenient truth; here's what democrats said about WMDs before the war:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
[hr]Another inconvenient truth; here's what democrats said about WMDs before the war:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

[Osborn F. Enready]

Truth Detector....you make this out to be a two party game, when that isn't the point.

Democrats AND Republicans are to blame for the FACT that we went to war in Iraq based on a series of lies, never fully investigated the facts of the 9-11 attack, and have worked together to dismantle the Constitution through removal or regulation of individual rights to the level of "entitlements".

You make it seem like the democrats lying, along with the Republicans, is some sort of justification for acting unjustly, going to war incorrectly, and for the Congress FAILING to exercise their powers regarding war powers.

157 years and counting, of bi-partisan treason to the Constitution and the intrests of American citizens.

[Truth Detector]

Truth Detector....you make this out to be a two party game, when that isn't the point.

Democrats AND Republicans are to blame for the FACT that we went to war in Iraq based on a series of lies, never fully investigated the facts of the 9-11 attack, and have worked together to dismantle the Constitution through removal or regulation of individual rights to the level of "entitlements".

You make it seem like the democrats lying, along with the Republicans, is some sort of justification for acting unjustly, going to war incorrectly, and for the Congress FAILING to exercise their powers regarding war powers.

157 years and counting, of bi-partisan treason to the Constitution and the intrests of American citizens.


Debating someone who doesn't comprehend the difference between a "lie" and "best intelligence" is an exercise in futility; been there, done that. Again, you ignore my original premise which is:

It's amazing that there is a Political party in this country that relishes the idea of an American defeat and thinks that Bush is a greater threat to peace than the likes of Saddam Hussien, Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden.

As far as the rest of your attempts to promote absurd assertions about 9-11; 9-11 was exhaustively investigated. Please spare me your vast conspiracy theories and accept the FACT that Islamic Fascist Terrorists committed a heinous attack on the citizens of America for no other reason than that they were Americans, and the notion that we can continue to bury our heads in the sands another five decades and ignore the terrorists makes about as much sense as John Kerry; been there, done that too.

The United States is not an enemy to Islam. History shows that we are indeed a friend. Islamic Fascists like Osama and Ahmandinejad are the true threats to Islam, to peace and to world security.

[lily]

Back to the current day; Iraq and Afghanistan, including but not limited to, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and Egypt are ALL related. The terrorists do not know boundaries and it is their desire to take down any legitimate governments in these countries in an attempt to create a United Fascist Islamic state in the Middle East.

Congratulations! You've done what no one else in the world has been able to do........somehow you've got all the different religious sects, not to mention the two that are fighting the most the Arabs and the Jews to all come together in a common cause.



I know these are inconvenient facts for someone like you to digest in the proper contest. I do hope you don't choke on them.......

This list has been put out and discussed so many times, I'll let someone else discuss it with you and just mention the dates on some of the statements.

Now back to my original premise which you so conveniently forgot: It's amazing that there is a Political party in this country that relishes the idea of an American defeat and thinks that Bush is a greater threat to peace than the likes of Saddam Hussien, Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden.

I'm really not sure who you are accusinng of "relishing defeat"? I'd also like to know how you think whoever you are accusing of this just how they are doing it?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Truth Detector said:
Debating someone who doesn't comprehend the difference between a "lie" and "best intelligence" is an exercise in futility; been there, done that. Again, you ignore my original premise which is:

I can only assume you are accusing me of not being able to tell "the best intelligence we have" and a "lie" apart?

You would be wrong.

My point still stands. Bad intelligence, faulty intelligence, or incomplete intelligence are all one thing, bad intelligence.... lying about what we "knew", as both parties did, was and still is simply a lie. Democrats and Republicans lied to take us to war, no mystery there. No slam dunk, no WMD, no soup for you. :dizzy:

Truth Detector said:
It's amazing that there is a Political party in this country that relishes the idea of an American defeat and thinks that Bush is a greater threat to peace than the likes of Saddam Hussien, Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden.

Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, yea, both ex-employees of the U.S. backwards ass foreign policy, which has brought us to where we are. Democrats AND Republicans both created and helped execute those backwards ass foreign policies, and both are equally to blame for the blowback it caused, as well as the negligence to address those OBVIOUSLY real, tangible threats.

Bush is obviously a BIGGER THREAT, as Bush controls the worlds most capable, most well armed, land and sea military force, not to mention of course holds sway with the permanent members of the U.N Security Council, and has no compunction about circumventing the U.S. Constitution, the Congress or any other form of law that stands between him and his "vision" of justice, which doesn't resemble Constitutional justice.

Saddam, Bin Laden, and Achmadinejads troops COMBINED don't equal a threat close to just the ground forces of the U.S. military, and you obviously don't recognize what you are saying.

Peace is not a product, and the U.S. is not the sole provider of peace, nor could we ever be.

Truth Detector said:
As far as the rest of your attempts to promote absurd assertions about 9-11; 9-11 was exhaustively investigated.

No, 9-11 was NOT exhaustively investigated, and to say it was is an obvious denial of the facts.

Truth Detector said:
Please spare me your vast conspiracy theories

Who said anything about a "conspiracy theory"? :scared:

Truth Detector said:
and accept the FACT that Islamic Fascist Terrorists committed a heinous attack on the citizens of America for no other reason than that they were Americans,

Why? That would be foolish, and quite incorrect. :unreal:

Truth Detector said:
and the notion that we can continue to bury our heads in the sands another five decades and ignore the terrorists makes about as much sense as John Kerry; been there, done that too.

Well, maybe you could do this, and pay attention to THIS debate, instead of debating where and what you have been and done before?

ADHD?

Truth Detector said:
The United States is not an enemy to Islam. History shows that we are indeed a friend. Islamic Fascists like Osama and Ahmandinejad are the true threats to Islam, to peace and to world security.

Who are you arguing with? Did you even read any posts yet?

[americanpatriotingermany]

This is a stupid debate. The original premise was that multilaterlism is a superior policy because:

"1. more individuals are satisfied with the end results;
2. unilateral actions can result in tense relationships between the United States and their current allies;
3. and no powerful country, not even the United States, can effectively deal with all of the world’s issues on its own. "

#1 says that we should base our policy around satisfying other nations.

#2 says that we should base our policy around pleasing our allies

#3 says that we can't deal with the world's issue on its own