No. of Recommendations: 81
<<First, effective resolution must always be voluntary.>>
What if one side does not "volunteer"? What if one side says that the only resolution they will accept is the extermination of the other side?

<< To force another to accept a unilateral solution not only precludes effective resolution in the current crisis, >>
Um, depends of your definition of "effective resolution". If it's "get the lion to lie down with the lamb", you might be right.
OTOH, if it's "prevent the lion from eating the lamb", unilateral action works just fine.

<<it is just as wrong to flatten a country because of repeated offences (or failure to continue the on the road to resolution) as it is to flatten your next door neighbor because he keeps running his mower on your side of the property line.>>
So, you equate a terrorist attack killing thousands of people (with the goal of killing tens of thousands), flattening two huge skyscrapers, and causing billions of dollars of damage to be the equivalent of a minor trespass with no harm done????

GEESH, what would it take to make you angry?

<<Third, ALL countries and leaders MUST be accountable to the world community before there can be a truly just response to international offences. >>

Error of reification. In fact, there is no such thing as "international (or world) community". Saying so doesn't make it so.

Methinks you need to consult a dictionary and review the concepts, meanings and definitions of things like nation and sovereign state. Here, I'll help you: <>

<<The second great price of peace is to get off our 'what's best for us' trip and commit ourselves to accountability to the world community for our use of resources (threatens our inflated living stand, our use of economics (threatens our sense of security), our use of military (threatens our position of world dominance), our use of intelligence and intelligence agencies (makes us feel vulnerable), our post war country boundaries, our use of foreign aid, our use of media etc....I am first proposing a serious change of attitude by both the citizens and government of America) >>

Why not just come right out and propose that we slit our throats? The end result of all the crap you propose comes to the same thing.

BTW, just why is it incumbent on *us* to change? How come it's never the other guy who needs to be doing any changing?
How come it's he who tries to kill us doesn't need to change one iota, and we, who are just wanting to not be killed, that needs to grovel and accomodate those who have the goal of killing us?

As far as your "what's best for the people of the world" argument----you are flat-out wrong.
I don't want to get into the Capitalism debate, but it is quite clear to the casual observer that Western Culture/Civilization is by far the best means of raising the standard of living of people and giving people individual freedom. Or did I miss something, and there are actually hoards of people banging on the gates & borders trying to immigrate into non-US, non-Western countries? How many boat people risk their lives on leaky boats trying to get into Libya, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, etc?
Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.