humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 19, 10:27 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article <8300e7e3-4fde-4319-a4bb-b19b5f068bc4
> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, cbel...@bellsouth.net says...
>
> > On Mar 19, 6:44 am, Reggie Perrin wrote:
>
> > > So what? The Bush Doctrine is not needed -- that's the point.
>
> > The POINT is that it is a highly disputed and contentious issue, and
> > the Bush Doctrine is needed because it allows for leadership on the
> > issue and provides a foundation of rational discourse on U.S.A actions
> > around the world that may one day actually invoke the Bush Doctrine.
>
> The Bush Doctrine is relevant to U.S. actions around the world only
> because Bush is still in the White House - which mistake will be
> corrected soon.  What the Bush Doctrine is *not* is a rational principle
> for adoption into international law.

You and the other anti-Bushites should get our stories straight. On
the one hand, the U.N. and international law is sufficient to cover
little problems in anticipation of events like the attacks of 9/11,
but on the other hand a foreign policy designed to prevent events like
the attacks of 9/11 is contrary to international law. Like Perrin in
response you stretch the meaning of Bush's "preemptive action" to mean
other than what he ever meant.


> The Bush Doctrine does two things:
> (1) it changes the "necessity" requirement of the Caroline Doctrine into
> a "requirement" that resolves any uncertainty, no matter how small, in
> favor of a preemptive attack;


No. It does not. That is a lie.


> (2) it leaves the determination of this
> uncertainty entirely to the discretion of a single state.  


Yes, it leaves the ultimate decision of self-defense to a single
state, which you claimed is in Article 51. Which is it? Besides, to
you everything is "uncertain" so you are rather buffoonish in your use
of that word here.


> This cannot
> be a rule of law, because all it says is that a state may do as it
> pleases.  Perhaps a modification of the Caroline Doctrine is needed, but
> the Bush Doctrine is not it.


Sure, the U.S. should sit and wait like a good puppy while the smart
master does his job.



> This is nonsense.  The Bush Doctrine is a doctrine of preemptive attack.  


In the context in which it, "preemption", was given -- only against
Iraq, Iraq and N. Korea with respect to any plans that they might have
had for WMD. Show me otherwise. I think it *ought to* mean more than
that, but there is no reason to actually believe that Bush could have
used it in a different, as yet unspecified, way.