From the post below (boldface mine):
The neocon worldview is predicated on the argument that the United States can only be secure if it controls the world and can suppress all of the threats that it contains.
The impulse to try and find security through control is every bit as seductive as security through isolation, and every bit as unrealistic.
So if both are unrealistic, what does that leave? Serious question.
There are some people that cannot be "talked" out of aggression. The U.N. is useless in this mode, and we've seen the sad history of conventional sanctions, which aren't effective against non-state enemies anyway. What is an appropriate level of response? Leaving Iraq aside simply raises the exact same questions for our occupation of Afghanistan, or dealing with any other nation harboring enemies and supporting unconventional or conventional attacks on our interests and territory.
This is not rhetorical. This is unknown territory historically. Never before have so few had the potential ability to do so much damage.
Control and isolation
The whole thread (36 posts)
- Control and isolation
- The mistake in Iraq was Bush's father's.
- Why shouldn't the US control the world?
- Choices are limited
- To be totally secure is to be a total prisoner.
- Yes, it is rhetorical