Teacher's pet

[Cyrus]

Syria has just put forward a draft proposal for the United Nations that all countries in the Middle East should get rid of Weapons of Mass Destruction, if they possess any. However, the United States has rushed to condemn the initiative and torpedo it before it reaches the U.N., with the excuse that the timing is not right and that the action is politically motivated.

The obvious party the U.S. is trying to protect is Israel with its WMD arsenal. The question of course is, On what basis are the standards of the U.S. now different ?

(How many rhetorical questions are we allowed each week, Mason?)

[Clarkmeister]

The Bush doctrine could be most clearly stated with the statement "What's OK for me is not OK for you."

[MMMMMM]

When "they" are totalitarian regimes, this concept is especially applicable--and should be.

[The_Baron]

Our WMD. Locked in boxes, only taken out for formal holiday dinners and then never even completely unpacked.
Their WMD. Likely to actually be used against someone else.

Yep, we can have them, they can't. Seems perfectly logical.

[TAFKAn]

"The Bush doctrine could be most clearly stated with the statement "What's OK for me is not OK for you." "

That's been the U.S. foreign policy since WWII (pursued by both parties by the way) and it's a good policy. It's the only sane approach in a world with nuclear weapons.

We've got 'em. Places like North Korea and Iran should not. Even someone as dim as W can see that.

I'm not saying we've implemented that policy perfectly over the last 60 years (e.g. Pakistan and Israel) but it's definitely the right policy.

[MMMMMM]

All the other governments in the region are totalitarian regimes. No WMDs for them. As the only democracy in the region, Israel should enjoy special protection against the backwards barbarian hordes and dictators and fanatics. These guys won't be allowed WMDs, and that's a good thing.

The concept of balance being desirable does not apply when weighing totalitarian states vs. democracies. All totalitarian, non-elected regimes the world over should be essentially rendered impotent versus democracies in military matters.

[Ray Zee]

m,

i agree that govts. not by the people should not be allowed to have wmd. makes lots of sense. but our govt. has them and we went to war without a poling of the people, so what is the difference. if just the leader makes the decison to attack and use wmd, what does it matter if he was elected or appointed, or just put himself in power.
and if israel decides to use them, will the people of israel get to vote on it or not.

[MMMMMM]

I think Congress last Autumn gave Bush some power to wage war for security reasons. Since our President and Congressmen are elected officials, hopefully they reflect the views of most Americans. Also, some security and military matters can't be open book for everyone to vote on due to considerations of security and specialized knowledge.

Hopefully we elect the best leaders we can and end up with reasonably good people in these positions most of the time. I think we might do well to have a few more referendums than we typically have had, but to have too many would be impractical and somewhat boggling.

We do have some safeguards built into our system which dictatorships don't have. Things like term limits, impeachments and a relatively open news media all help keep things from getting too far out of hand at times. The prospect of the next election also helps keep leaders from going crazy with power. Transparency helps too somewhat, although some kinds of transparency hav been slipping lately.

If our Commander-In-Chief were to decide to use nuclear weapons we probably wouldn't have much to say about it until afterwards. Congress usually is required to authorize war, I believe (could be wrong), and that's why it was an unusual thing for Congress to give Bush so much discretion to wage war or to take military actions for security reasons. I'm not sure about any technical distinctions which might exist between "waging war" and "taking military action", and I'm not sure precisely what powers Congress gave Bush in this regard last Autumn.

We did have an informal polling of the people of sorts, courtesy of the news media who were publishing what percentages of U.S. citizens favored the war or not, and under what conditions. Not exactly a chance to vote, but Bush surely had a pretty good idea of what level of grassroots support there was for the war.

As far as your two questions regarding what would be the differences, I think there would be some differences and some similarities. Good point to ponder, and I'd ponder it longer right now if I hadn't been up for 32 hours already--I think I just hit the wall--it mightt be a tough question in some ways--later and good night;-)

[andyfox]

The idea that democracies treat people of other countries better than non-democracies, is not borne out by history. Descriptions of others as backwards barbarian hordes has been a staple of democracies' genocides.

[MMMMMM]

At any rate it's undoubtedly correct that democracies treat their own people better than do totalitarian regimes. Most obvious example is the scores of millions killed by Stalin and Mao. And if you were given the hypothetical choice somewhow: one of these two guys gets the bomb, the other doesn't...whose hands would you put it in?

Krushchev or Kennedy?

Hitler or Churchill?

Assad or Sharon?

Kim Jong-il or Roh?

As for "backwards barbarian hordes", usng that description doesn't in any way advocate genocide--and the context I used it in was purely defensive, and slightly tongue-in-cheek. However much of the Middle East really does happen to be damn backwards. Fanatical, superstitious, aggressive, barbaric in crime and punishment, uneducated...that = BACKWARDS.

If it was a bunch of redneck hillbilly dumbass white supremacists living in an enclave somewhere in Appalachia, would you object to the term "backwards?" Well, much of the Middle East is that much backwards and more.