Unilateralism: Good or Bad?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TheEnemyWithin, Jun 19, 2005.

?

Unilateralism: a good thing or a bad thing?

  1. Good thing

    42.9%
  2. Bad thing

    14.3%
  3. It depends

    42.9%
  4. Don't know

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. TheEnemyWithin
    Online

    TheEnemyWithin Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Bullypulpit recently posted some rambling diatribe about the Bush camp being "unilateralist, isolationist buffoons." And for once, I think he's right. :D What are your opinions on unilateralism? Good, bad, etc....? (IMHO, it kicks ass. :teeth: To hell with Euro-schmucks!!!)
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,163
    I put it depends. mainly because unilateralism is good if we are doing whats right and no one else will. but if we are unilaterally like commiting genocide that would be bad.

    Regardless, we havent done anything unilaterally in centuries. so the whole question is moot anyway.
     
  3. nosarcasm
    Offline

    nosarcasm Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    931
    Thanks Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ratings:
    +68
    unilateralism is bad currently (not in general) because the US cannot afford
    to fight the Islamist alone. Europe needs to face them too, now our enemies
    laugh while we argue over the Invasion of Iraq. The West has a common
    finanicial and economic interest, the multinationals make their money
    here and in Europe and Japan. The enemy opposes freedom maybe
    not as Bush defines it, but they want to have an Islamic type of state
    everywhere. Thats why Christians and secularist should barry their
    hatchet and recognize the enemy.

    We need a new type of crusade (not religiously motivated but based
    on our culture and morals (which are based on christianity even
    for a nonbeliever like me))

    The united west so my vision shares the burden of warfare establishing
    democracy (individualism) in muslim countries.

    These bastards want to take us all down. Once the conservatives
    will take power in Germany I hope the balance in Europe will go toward
    this stance, and they will have my vote.

    Syria has to be the next target the goverment is weak and with the plo
    on the defense we can establish an area of democracy in the middle east.
    Israel will have to make concessions so what. Once Lebanon, Palestine,
    Syria and Iraq are tipped the rest of the dictators over there cant
    get away with blaming the Us and the West for their failures.

    But Europe needs to arm up, this is not a talk talk diplomacy way.

    We have to kill them into submission. Then like in Japan and Germany
    after WW2 the people can take over and just represent their own interest
    without racism.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    Ok, I would go along with that, if EUROPE did align the way you hope. Truly I chose unilateral ok, simply because France made the choice in UNSC vote. I find it mindblowing that the US is accused of unilateral action after what France pulled and others backed up. Considered in light of the Oil for Food, well shi*!

    You are right, the assault from extreme Islam is aimed at Western Civilization, if Europe wishes to continue to ignore it, well unilateralism become synonomous with self preservation of the US.
     

Share This Page