In The Big One, Adam Gopnik argued as follows: "The last century, through its great cataclysms, offers two clear, ringing, and unfortunately, contradictory lessons. The First World War teaches that territorial compromise is better than full-scale war, that an "honor bound" allegiance of the great powers to small nations is a recipe for mass killing, and that it is crazy to let the blind mechanism of armies and alliances trump common sense. The Second teaches that searching for an accommodation with tyranny by selling out small nations only encourages the tyrant, that refusing to fight now leads to a worse fight later on, and that only the steadfast rejection of compromise can prevent the natural tendency to rush to a bad peace with worse men. The First teaches us never to rush into a fight, the Second never to back down from a bully."
What lesson should we take from these lessons? How does it impact your thinking about the foreign policy challenges of today with Russia, the Middle East, etc?
Joint Resolution Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq
House Vote
96% of Republican, and nearly 40% of Democrat, members of the House voted for the war resolution.
Senate Vote
98% of Republican, and 58% of Democrat, members of the Senate voted for the war
resolution.
And did President Bush lie? Arguments from the two sides:
No comments:
Post a Comment