|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-26 04:33:17
I try to be non-biased with my facts as much as possible, thats why I don't believe much of anything i read or hear unless i cross-reference it in several places.
I am mostly against the foreign policies of the great powers, and the US being a superpower, its quite normal that i am opposed more vehemently against their foreign policiy as a whole. When i attack the US government's position in this discussion group, and i bring facts up its because someone is defending their current foregin policy...
I have BIG problems with other powers also, but they don't come in this discussion group, since most people are discussing the Iraq conflict.
If this discussion group start discussing the recent Ivory Coast conflict, I'll be strongly opposed to the position of France, my positions are mostly based on legal facts.
And a proof that I am not anti-US as you seem to state, is that I agree on their attack of Afghanistan, it was legal and quite justified, I was also for the 1991 Gulf War. When Clinton decided to go into Somalia, i also agreed, but it was a fiasco, so from then on, Clinton, like the current US government, only cared about their own interests even if it meant acting unilateraly...
As for Rwanda, its not the US's fault, its EVERYONE's fault, Canada, US, France, the UN and more particularly Belgium... I'm just stating that the US is not without blame here.
The great powers of today should either always be multilateral or completely be isolationist... Not be one or the other when it suits them!!... Thats the current problem with the US, they are both at the same time, which makes no sense! You simply cannot have foreign policy which changes so abruptly...
Reply to this message
|
