Saturday, December 18, 2004
Links restored- new post coming soon
Thanks for bearing with us, the technical problem with the links has been solved, and all of the links in the previous post (Hate America...) have been restored. In addition, the closing quote from the Asia Times has been expanded to it's original content. I think it is even more powerful this way. I'll continue this thread over the weekend, but in the meantime recommend these two pieces at "American Future", a daily read for me:
US vs. EU: The Use of Force: Reading "Hate America -- Defeat the UN?" at The Daily Demarche prompted me to write the following: I recently started reading Jeremy Rabkin's "The Case for Sovereignty" and think that the following quote is a propos: Since international authority cannot compel the deployment of force, it cannot readily protect nations when force may be needed. And if it cannot protect nations, it cannot readily control what they do to protect themselves . (to read the rest follow the link above to AF).
A Nixonian Moment?: Recalling that Nixon's impeccable anti-communist credentials enabled him to open the door to Red China (as it used to be called), Legal Fiction argues that Bush's credentials would allow him to open the Iranian door without incurring a hysterical domestic backlash.
While this is probably true, Legal Fiction ignores crucial differences. Establishing diplomatic relations with China was a central element of Nixon's (and Kissinger's) triangular diplomacy. That diplomacy was, in turn, dedicated to the strategy of detente, which was predicated on the assumption that the Soviet Union would forever be a powerful force in world affairs. It was this assumption -- that since we couldn't beat them, we had to find a way to live with them -- that Reagan rejected. The rest, as they say, is history.
(To read the rest follow the link above to AF).
You have reached the end (or ned, if you prefer) of this piece-ignore the link below.
12/18/2004 01:47:00 AM posted by Dr. Demarche
US vs. EU: The Use of Force: Reading "Hate America -- Defeat the UN?" at The Daily Demarche prompted me to write the following: I recently started reading Jeremy Rabkin's "The Case for Sovereignty" and think that the following quote is a propos: Since international authority cannot compel the deployment of force, it cannot readily protect nations when force may be needed. And if it cannot protect nations, it cannot readily control what they do to protect themselves . (to read the rest follow the link above to AF).
A Nixonian Moment?: Recalling that Nixon's impeccable anti-communist credentials enabled him to open the door to Red China (as it used to be called), Legal Fiction argues that Bush's credentials would allow him to open the Iranian door without incurring a hysterical domestic backlash.
While this is probably true, Legal Fiction ignores crucial differences. Establishing diplomatic relations with China was a central element of Nixon's (and Kissinger's) triangular diplomacy. That diplomacy was, in turn, dedicated to the strategy of detente, which was predicated on the assumption that the Soviet Union would forever be a powerful force in world affairs. It was this assumption -- that since we couldn't beat them, we had to find a way to live with them -- that Reagan rejected. The rest, as they say, is history.
(To read the rest follow the link above to AF).
You have reached the end (or ned, if you prefer) of this piece-ignore the link below.
