Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9
Nu praat je weer over iets heel anders.
Waarom men bepaalde steunt en andere niet is heel simpel: eigenbelang , elk land doet dit.
Zoalng die dictaturen niet te ver gaan en de oprbrengsten groot genoeg zijn kan men veel door de vingers zien.
Echter zoals ik al zei is niet alles hieraan verbonden zoals jij denkt.
|
Saddam ging toch vrij ver dacht ik zo.
de gedachtengang van de neo-conservatieven is : "When its good for the US its good for the world"
Wanneer men handelt in het belang van de VS dan zal dat automatisch ook gunstig uitpakken voor anderen.
De hegenomie van de VS is daarom volledig gerechtvaardigd.
It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace" (p. 76).
"[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership" (from the Project’s Statement of Principles).