Bush's new military policy is based on first strikes and unrivaled power. How shortsighted! In the 1930's there was a similar policy of blitzkrieg and conscription. Peace, we should know by now, is brought about by a balance of power. Peace arrived by force can only mask fear and resentment. If I were a young person in another country, I would not be deterred by 'unrivaled power', instead I would be easily encouraged to defeat it.
Comments (2)
Hmmm, but the balance of power is against us now. The world doesn't like us being hegemonic, so what are they going to do, and what is the Bush administration working on by trying to go around UN resolutions if they are too week?
Posted by marc | September 20, 2002 11:14 AM
Posted on September 20, 2002 11:14
Bush needs this war to boost his popularity ratings, we know that. I don't know why he doesn't just go with Baghdad allowing UN inspectors into the country, he should wait until after the inspectors are in before deciding on what to do with Saddam. If Saddam comes through with his promise and all are happy, then there is no need to bomb a bunch of innocents to get to him. But if Saddam is just trying to pull the wool over our eyes, then action (not necessarily military action) should be taken. Bush's military policy is based more on "attack first, ask questions later." I always thought war was the last resort, that the president would want to work on compromising and working things out peacefully before declaring war. But it looks like this president would rather declare war instead of working peacefully towards a solution that all agree upon. How can he advocate for peace in this country if he would rather declare war instead of working out a peaceful compromise?
Posted by lisa | September 20, 2002 12:32 PM
Posted on September 20, 2002 12:32