quote: BRUSSELS, Oct. 16 — France and Germany decided to join Russia in support of the United Nations resolution on the future of Iraq not because they had been won over by new provisions, officials said Thursday, but out of concern over a spiral of violence in the Middle East coupled with a sense that few new concessions could be wrung from the Bush administration.
posted
I'll be interested to see where this goes. The big 3 are all saying that they signed as a gesture of good faith toward their commitment to rebuilding Iraq, but there seems to be very little talk about what they're actually going to do. I know the States wants them to send troops and money, but I really don't know how much of that they're going to see. Frankly, I think it was an empty gesture.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the paper this morning it said that they will not commit any money nor troops. Way to go fellas. Big help.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They don't want to commit their troops to American control. I realize that this resolution makes it American control of a UN sanctioned multinational occupation, but that's in name only. Powell also said he didn't expect any new doors to be opening for troops to come through. Although, I'm a little surprised that they're not giving *some* money. I guess we'll see what happens in Madrid. Japan has said it will pledge ~1.5 billion US dollars, maybe that will encourage other countries?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just want to offer you a foreign perspective:
Here in Brazil (at least in Rio de Janeiro), most people I know say openly how they would want U.S. Troops to die a bloody death in Iraq (or something close to that, with other words). Although I think the decision to invade was misguided, I do not wish for the suffering of iraqs nor american soldiers. The deed is already done, so the rebuilding should start as soon as possible and the country given back to its people.
If the majority here is pro war, my apologies. I guess the subject is closer to your heart than mine (there are americans dying out there, after all).
Nice to be with you all, folks.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'll find pretty much the entire spectrum of opinion on what the US is doing in Iraq, Eduardo. Personally, I wasn't in favor of the war, but now that we're there I think it's imperative that we stay there, and succeed in rebuilding the country's infrastructure and fostering the creation of a stable government. What is the typical Brazilian belief about what would happen if the US were to just pull out?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
After Bush's administration announces for several months how he can invade without Congress or the UN, and then after public opinion wavered he appeared before the UN with an ultimatum but not much proof, and then used trumped up and inaccurate intelligence to invade anyway, and now finds us overextended and undermanned to do the job that the UN advised against doing in the first place, why in the world would the UN be reticient in sending us boatloads of money now, just because we won't give up any control over the situation? There's just no understanding some people. To get any money or support Bush is going to have to take a deep breath and tell them now that we've gotten rid of the threat, we could use some help rebuilding the government. And he's going to have to relinguish some control and some of the building contracts.
[ October 17, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
After the Clinton administration made regime change an official policy, due to its intelligence estimates of WMD capacity (which Clinton still stands by), and after Congress overwhelmingly voted to authorize military action to bring about regime change in Iraq, and after the UN itself passed 17 resolutions calling for Sadaam to live up to the terms of the ceasefire and immediately come clean or be forced from power, and after the US military conducted a rapid successful removal of Sadaam's thugs from power for a largely grateful populace, after which it proceeded to begin a reconstruction which is proceeding faster than any previous similar operation to date (including reconstruction of post-WWII Japan and Germany), but is dealing with minor insurgence from remaining Baathist thugs who would prefer to thrust Iraq back under the sway of terrorists and madmen, why would the UN refuse American security protection in Iraq, pull its humanitarian operations out, and try to obstuct the reconstruction efforts? And why would the Angry Left tie itself in knots taking unsustainable positions while hoping for US failure and the ascendency of thugs? There's just no understanding some people.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.N. had plans and a timetable for dealing with Iraq. Weapons inspectors were in the country. The Bush administration forced the issue, dove into a war that didn't need to be fought yet, treated the U.N. like a hated teacher that had to be alternately appeased or snuck around, and then had the audacity to ask for money without giving up any control at all or ever, even once, admitting that they might have been wrong in their estimations.
I'm not even going to use the standard liberal apologist qualifier "I'm glad that Saddam is out of power, but..." There was simply no reason to attack Iraq just then. None. No more than there's reason to attack quite a few other countries with power-mad dictators and oppressed peoples, including a few we're still friendly with. If Bush launched a cmapaign to bring them all down, one by one, I could see it and maybe even agree with it. But hard as they tried, there was no connection to 9/11, no connection between Saddam and bin Laden. At a time when the leader of our country had to be seen doing something and fast, Bush & Co picked an easy target and hoped no one would notice the card they were palming. Even that, I could forgive, if he took steps to include the U.N. in the government building decisions, or worked to keep the contracted companies from profiteering during the reconstruction. But Bush flatly refuses to admit he was wrong, or his people were wrong. It's not in him, he can't do it. If something goes wrong with his policies, it's someone else's fault. If a bill is passed over his considerable opposition, he takes credit for it. And it's inconceivable for him to oppose big business and gargantuan profit-taking.
Here's my prediction. Within six months, it will be revealed that the companies hired for Iraq reconstruction without any sort of bidding or fair competition will be found to be making ungodly profits in the hundreds of percent over costs. Let's see what happens.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Within six months, it will be revealed that the companies hired for Iraq reconstruction without any sort of bidding or fair competition will be found to be making ungodly profits in the hundreds of percent over costs.
Already happening. Does this mean that Iraq is NOT improved by their presence?
Are the companies that are rebuilding Iraq taking money from the Iraqi people? Are they doing anything unlawful?
I do NOT like the President's hard-line stance that the US alone should have power in Iraq. It's getting us nowhere. I don't blame other countries for not wanting to commit troops to be placed under American leadership-- I don't particularly want US troops put under, for example, French leadership. But there is room for compromise, and unfortunately, no one in the White house seems willing to do so.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does this mean that Iraq is NOT improved by their presence?
Sure. The same way people forced to pay outrageous prices for pharmaceuticals still get better. Doesn't mean that someone isn't cheating someone else, or that the problem shouldn't be addressed.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Open competitive bidding was not allowed in the iniital awarding of contracts. Instead a small number of firms were invited to submit proposals. Amazingly enough, these firms are big supporters of the Republican party and this administration, and the two biggest - Bechtel and Halliburton - are intertwined with this adminstration and received their contracts with virtually no information on how they were selected. Several of these contracts were signed well before the war. Overseas contracting only began after Britain complained.
Bechtel is under fire for poor performance in domestic jobs, such as the "Big Dig" in Boston which was priced at $3.5 billion in 1985 and is just now getting wrapped up for $14.8. One example: an entire arena was left off the plans, which cost the city another billion since workers felt free to lay utility lines across the area where the arena was supposed to go. There were a lot of cost-overrun problems like this, all attributable to Bechtel mistakes, and Bechtel paid for none of them. Here's a rundown of some of the others.. You'd think Andrew Natsios, head of the US Agency for International Development, would know this: between 2000 and 2001 he was chief executive of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the organization with responsibility for the Big Dig. Glad we picked the most qualified company.
Go to a search engine and type in "Halliburton" and "scandal." Bring a lunch. They got the contract for capping the oil well fires, then recused themselves from the big contract bidding, then got it anyway. They're bad about cost-overruns, too, the cost of capping the fires is already triple what was projected at the start. And a May 2 letter that surfaced reveals that the Halliburton subsidiary that has the oil fire deal (Kellogg Brown & Root) also controls "the functioning of installations and distribution of product." Translation: they control the oil. This was supposed to be turned over to Iraqi bidding in August; that's been extended. Halliburton also had the contract for supplying soldiers, which has netted them $425 million so far. Members of Congress are asking for details of this, as this subsidiary was found to have excessively exaggerated invoices when doing the same job in Bosnia. Just this week they were criticized for price-gouging on imported gasoline, charging up to $.50 more per gallon than an Iraqi company would charge. The Iraqi company is not allowed to, of course.
DynCorp was given the hob of rebuilding the police force. Their history of scandals, including employees implicated in buying and selling prostitutes in Bosnia and class-action suits against them for their role in Plan Colombia which involves spraying cocaine crops with pesticides, pesticides which had the annoying habit of drifting over populated areas.
MCI was given the contract to set up telecom services in Iraq. Despite the fact that it wasn't bid, despite the fact that MCI (WorldCom) just came through a major accounting scandal and filed for bankruptcy, despite the fact that companies such as Vodafone, T-Mobile and Japan's NTT DoCoMo all arguably had more experience in setting up green field operations in developing countries. There will be bidding on the complete phone system reconstruction later on, but MCI will undoubtedly have a foot in the door.
These companies were given IDIQ contracts - indefinite delivery and indefinite quantities - which are usually assigned in situations where companies are competing with each other. That's not the case here.
The stuff that's popped up so far is chump change. I'm betting, based on the histories of these companies, that some major profiteering will be discovered within six months.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the exception of delaying the transfer of control over oil to the Iraqi's, I'm not sure that any of those qualify as an exact answer to my question. . .
And were there any Iraqi companies ready to take control of the oil in August?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
By definition Iraqis are being cheated if the best companies are being turned away from the contracts in favor of politically connected ones.
This is the remaking of a country, and to give contracts to companies known to be inexperienced, or known for corrupt practices, is cheating Iraqis out of fair treatment.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott -- you post at Nauvoo, right? Could you please suggest that she checks if the cat has diabetes?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, why the hell are we referring to the french, germans, and russians as the big three? France has never been a powerful nation, they hav eyet to successfully fight a war, germany and russia I can accept, but not france. And frankly, why should we give a crap what the UN says?
posted
By the way, if any of you are interested, the following is a rebuttal I wrote to an article in a local college paper back in April:
quote: In his article in the March 26, 2003 Youngtown Edition, staff writer Adam Ruggiero offers what he calls “A Modest Proposal” for France and Germany. He acknowledges his debt to Swift’s perennial satirical work for the title, but seems to have completely missed the point of Swift’s article.
Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” was a brilliant, despair-ridden attack upon the cruelty of the rich British aristocracy towards the starving Irish peasants who lived on what was at the time British soil. Swift’s proposal: since there is famine in Ireland and you Brits hate us Irish so much, why not kill two birds with one stone and eat the Irish? Swift’s proposal was disgusting and revolting, as was intended. Sometimes, unless we get such a harsh slap in the face, we can get so caught up in our own arrogance and narcissism that we overlook the needs and values of others.
Witness Mr. Ruggiero’s article if you have any doubt about this.
Ruggiero seems so caught up in being a war-monger that I don’t think he’s really thought through what he has been saying. In nearly so many words, he has called the French and Germans cowards, traitors, and selfish. And why? Because they have had the moral integrity (yes, integrity!) to refuse to capitulate to President Bush’s illegal war upon Iraq. If Tony Blair had this much integrity, I doubt very much that the resignations in the British government (including the Leader of the Commons) would have occurred.
Let me ask you: if you belonged to a group of ten or fifteen friends, and two of these friends (let’s call them, say, America and Britain) decided to become vigilantes, break into the acquitted O. J. Simpson’s home, and beat him to death, would you join in? Surely, if you were a good friend, you would, wouldn’t you? I mean, killing Simpson might be illegal, but hey, you’re supposed to help your friends, right? And if you don’t help them, you must be a coward, a traitor, and selfish, right? At least, that seems to be the gist of Ruggiero’s article: support us no matter what we do, or else you’re a coward, a traitor, and are selfish, too.
Regardless of whether Simpson deserves it, killing him would be an illegal act. And regardless of whether Iraq deserves it, launching a war against the will of the international community of which the United States is a part is an illegal act as well.
Yes, Iraq’s hands aren’t exactly clean. Yes, Saddam Hussein probably deserves all this and more, but do the ends justify the means? Bush has refused to let the United Nations weapons inspectors complete their inspections, has chosen to disregard the ruling of the international community, and has chosen instead to go into Iraq with guns blazing like John Wayne, John Rambo, and the Archangel Michael all rolled into one.
I guess it’s all a matter of definitions. When another country invades someone, we call it evil. When the United States of America invades someone, we call it “peace keeping.” (Besides, what’s the point of having all this nifty military hardware if we don’t get to use it occasionally, right, Mr. Ruggerio?)
Oh, by the way, in his sarcasm-dripping article, Mr. Ruggiero said, “If anyone knows [what the French have done for the United States], I’d appreciate being informed because at the moment, I am at a loss.” Since Mr. Ruggiero is at such a tragic loss, I now direct his attention to a little-known historical skirmish known colloquially as the Revolutionary War. You know the one: the British on one side, and the colonial Americans on the other. Yes, that Revolutionary War.
Surely, Mr. Ruggiero realizes, or at least he ought to realize, that the French were extremely instrumental in our fight for independence. Without French troops, arms, and the leadership of the Marquis De Lafayette, it is unlikely that there would even be a United States of America. (I know, Mr. Ruggerio, I know: but what have they done for us lately?)
So, now I have a modest proposal of my own for Mr. Ruggerio: perhaps he should spend less time spewing inflammatory rhetoric, and more time hitting the history books.
quote:And frankly, why should we give a crap what the UN says?
Because the U.N. represents the rest of the world, and because we rely on the rest of the world to win the War on Terror (not to mention our economic reliance on them.) The truth of the matter is, if the rest of the world refuses to fight terrorism to help us out, we can't make them and lose the so-called war on terror. That's why it's essential what they think.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I wrote the following article in response to the letters I received regarding the first one:
quote:
quote: "Why, of course the people don't want war ... That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along ... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader April 18, 1946 - World War II Nuremberg Trials
Consider Nazi Germany for a few minutes and ask yourself how an entire country could turn evil. Were all German citizens evil to their cores, and not good folk like we Americans? Or was every German citizen merely stupid and gullible, much more easily misled than we are? Were they, in fact, very different from us?
These are not rhetorical questions. Take the time to honestly consider them, and then formulate answers. Avoid answering by rote; exercise your right to free thought and come to your own conclusions.
Now ask yourself another question: if a German citizen had spoken out against Hitler, against the death camps, and against the Reich in general, would the Nazis have considered that person a patriot? Looking through the mirror of time at sixty years ago, would you?
What does it mean to be patriotic? Does it mean supporting your government no matter what it does, even when it’s perpetrating evil? Or does it mean trying to steer it away from such evil, even at the cost of you being denounced unpatriotic?
It’s so easy to find good reasons to do bad things. Do you honestly think that the Nazi propaganda machine had said, “Hey, let’s do evil things because being evil is fun”? Or do think they were more insidious about it, wrapping their evil in a cloak of good intentions and lofty goals: we have to protect ourselves, improve the world, fix the economy, stop the menace of oppressors, we must make the world safe for democracy, and so on?
You can see where I’m going with this. As I anticipated, the response to my article in the April 24 edition of the Youngtown Edition has yielded many negative comments that criticized my patriotism. I wasn’t surprised. We’re all programmed from the day we’re born to have a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone questions authority. Someone who questions authority is a troublemaker, not a team player, an obstacle to progress, a stick-in-the-mud, a party-pooper, a traitor, a coward, and a communist.
A communist? Oh, that brings back memories, doesn’t it? Memories of when Senator McCarthy had the nation in the clutch of his sweaty little hands. When once again, those who spoke out against the lemming-like stampede towards the cliffs of ruin were branded unpatriotic. In retrospect, it’s easy to see how misled we were. Obviously, we should have spoken out, should have stopped that rabid Chihuahua from the start.
So why didn’t we? Could it be that what is obvious to us now was only obvious to a few then? What were the warning signs that we missed, the warning signs that the Germans missed in the 1930s and 1940s?
One such warning sign leaps immediately to the forefront: whenever dissent is considered unpatriotic, our liberty is in dire jeopardy.
I received one letter that decried, “I find it hard to read something from someone who has never been shot at, defended [his] country ... Sit back and enjoy the fact that [soldiers] ... give you the right to drive your car, vote, play nintendo as well as have ability to NOT LIVE IN FEAR OF YOUR LIFE.” (capitalization his)
Is pointing a gun at another human being the only way one can fight for one’s country? Does my not being a soldier somehow nullify my rights as a citizen? Isn’t that fascism by the very definition of the word?
And which wars did “President” George W. Bush fight in to defend our country? You know, the ones that gave him the rights that I seem to sorely lack? (You can email the list to me care of the Youngtown Edition, but remember that panty raids and drinking contests don’t count as wars unless there was gunfire and at least one enemy nation involved.)
It’s odd that author of the letter uses the phrase “give you the right”. I’ve heard that a lot, and it always disturbs me. I always thought that, “we hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal. That they are endowed ... with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence)
Maybe Tom and I were mistaken. Perhaps might makes right after all, just like Uncle Saddam always said. Maybe the United States has more in common with Iraq than it cares to admit.
I’ve asked a lot of questions in this article; more questions than answers. I apologize, but I really do think that we should all be asking ourselves these important questions, challenging the status quo.
The absence of doubt frightens me: it usually precedes someone being burned at the stake or imprisoned for life. No matter that you may be posthumously exonerated two hundred some years later as Galileo was; I’m sure it wasn’t of much consolation to Galileo. Whenever you’re certain about something (e.g., the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is flat, that’s William Shatner’s real hair, etc.) that is when you most need to stop and question the very things you are so certain about.
For instance, many of you are no doubt certain that Bush declared war on Iraq to free those poor downtrodden Iraqis. But can you guess one of the chief causes of their misfortune? We are. As Martin L. Haines reports in the March 6 Asbury Park Press:
“During the Gulf War, the United States deliberately bombed Iraq’s water system in violation of the Geneva Convention. After the War it promoted sanctions that would prevent Iraq from importing water-purifying chemicals. These facts are confirmed by documents obtained from the Defense Intelligence Agency. They are available on the Pentagon Web site.
“The documents prove that the United States was fully aware of the consequences of its destruction of Iraq’s water system and its sanctions. They refer to the likely outbreak of disease, especially in children, caused by the pollutants and bacteria existing in the unpurified water. In conclusion, they discuss a strategic plan designed to place blame for the water problems on Saddam Hussein.
“The United Nations estimates that more than 500,000 Iraqi children have died since the war ended; unclean water was a major cause of those deaths.”
So, as you can see, things are not always as they seem. That being the case, I humbly beg your indulgence for just a few more questions.
You see, this isn’t the first time that I’ve questioned Bush’s illegal war and in return have been accused of attacking our soldiers. So one of my last questions is this: since when have the two been synonymous?
The way I see it, our soldiers are doing their duty in this war. I do not blame them, any more than I blame the executioner who gives a lethal injection to a wrongly convicted (note that I didn’t say “innocent”) man. I do not fault our soldiers or even their cause. I only fault the “President” who first decided to attack Iraq, then made up a bunch of reasons --- some of them even valid --- why it was a good idea, and then finally, sent our brave, loyal, and honorable soldiers to sully their hands on his behalf.
Hate our soldiers? Nothing could be farther than the truth. I have nothing but outrage on their behalf, that they should be so misused by the man who stole the Oval Office. I want nothing more for our troops than to collectively embrace them, thank them for being so brave on my behalf, and promise them that I will somehow restore the honor that their “President” has stolen from them.
I have hopes that this quixotic goal can be achieved. Other presidents have purloined the military’s honor (Vietnam, Iran-Contras, et al.) but never for long. You see, the truth always surfaces and the real patriots are exonerated. But in the meantime, we who fight for the honor and integrity of our country --- you with your rifle and me with my word processor --- will have to endure the mudslinging of the McCarthyists among us.
It’s the price we must pay if we are to keep our nation free for people like us to disagree with each other.
posted
The UN is not a powerful force, when in history have they ever made a single, useful, successful or powerful, military operation? NATO is a useful thing, The UN is a pointless community.
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. It's a place where representatives from all nations can be addressed and implored. Just because it's not a powerful military force doesn't make it useless.
The European Union's demonstrations of fiscal strength have shown how powerful the international community can be when it acts in unison. If the companies that comprise the EU can force the United States to relent on trade issues, imagine what happens when you throw in South America, Africa, Australia, and Asia as well.
posted
I'm afraid Rhaegar is right, historically speaking. The UN has been ineffective, fractured, and largely wothless. Countries run to the UN clamoring for unity when it suits them, and scoff at it as a useless and needlessly bureacratic when it tries to issue anything stronger than philosophical reevaluations of its own mission.
Which is not to say that it can't PROVE its effectiveness. Just that it hasn't yet.
[ October 19, 2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to completely disagree with the notion that the UN is useless.
While it doesn't have the military might of NATO, or the US, it has facilitated a number of important humanitarian missions and international conventions. Springing to mind is such treaties as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women ('CEDAW'), the Convention Against Torture, the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and so on.
Sure these conventions are not compulsory, and even if countries break them they may not be retaliated against (for exampled, the US is one of only 2 countries in the world not to have ratified the CRC - the other is Somalia) but I think they still play a very important role in the world community. They codify standards of human rights and provide and legal basis for their protection. This is especially important in countries such as France which have a monist system of law - international law is part of French law.
Furthermore they strengthen the legitimacy of campaigns to reform human rights in other countries: just recently the Arabic countries have instituted a panel to implement CEDAW, in part in response to international pressure.
From the perspective of an international lawyer, the UN is indispensible. On a more practical/tangible note the work such agencies as the Commission for Human Rights and High Commission for Refugees has done is incredible. Peace keeping missions have been (mostly) successful. It's not that UN is perfect, or hasn't had failures, but it is the only representative global body and works to address global issues in a democratic way.
Surely this is better than one country unilaterally deciding what is best for the rest of the world?
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
You mean when Dumya wanted the UN to sanction his war and they refused?
Hans Blix had a great quote when Dumya was asking for more time to find the WMDs. He pointed out that the US was asking for the very time it refused to give to the weapons inspectors when they were there under the UN mandate.
Do you mean that the UN is powerless to prevent an aggressive nation, like the United States, from attacking a country like Iraq? Well, in this instance at least, you appear to be correct. The UN is not powerful enough to stop the world's most powerful country from stepping all over the less powerful nations of the world ... at least not yet.
You express your ideas with such impartial respect for your opponents' positions, with such willingness to believe in at least the genuineness of their own belief in what they're doing, that you just inspire me to consider your well balanced argument, presented with such fair-mindedness. Keep up the good work. Progressives all over the US are furthered by your writing.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
What does your derision add to this discussion, Jeff? I don't mind you attacking the president's position, and actions, but namecalling is just childish. Save it for your college newspapers.
Sadaam broke the treaty he signed with the UN. The UN did nothing. There are very few things more pathetic than a policing body that lacks the power to police. The CRC is a good example of philosophical inaction. Nice words on nice letterhead, but utterly worthless otherwise.
The UN was utterly incapable, and continues to be incapable of stopping human rights incidents in Africa and Russia without backing from the United States.
It would be nice if it were an effective, lawmaking body-- but the requirement to meet that is competence and good will of the delegates. And there isn't much of that going around, these days.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Scott, the question has never been whether or not Saddam broke a treaty, or even if he deserved to be invaded. The question was and is, why now, and why us? Why when there are other battles more pressing, other countries more immediately dangerous? Why when our economy can't handle it, especially since this president has no other fiducial trick besides more tax cuts? Why when in so doing we've alienated every ally we ever had?
As a patriotic American, I feel an obligation to point out that our leader is dragging us down. He can't manage our money, he's pissing off our neighbors, and I don't want him representing me. Neither did half of the country, almost exactly, yet he continues to act as if he has a mandate. Or else he simply doesn't care what half of the country thinks. He certainly doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks, and that's the core reason why the U.N. is holding back.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It would be nice if it were an effective, lawmaking body-- but the requirement to meet that is competence and good will of the delegates.
I agree. But the point is, the United States must be the first country to demonstrate that good will and that competence. Yes, the UN basically owes its existance and its functionality to the US, but that, to me, means only that we should set a good example, not do whatever our election donating corporate interests please.
America has the potential to be a true world leader. We haven't really managed to do a good job of that very often...and sometimes when we try, we get a black eye. (i.e., Somalia.)
Personlly, I think we ought to ask for volunteers who will not stand to gain from anythign in Iraq...no companies will be given contracts, no money will be paid...and allow them to administrate the change...including choosing the companies who do get contracts.
I actually do agree with the removal of Saddam. But it should have been done under UN sanction, and it shoul dhave been done in '91 or in '98, when the inspectors got kicked out. Bush's reasons were weak, are weak, and will always be weak.
At this point, i'll go finish my laundry rather than degenerating into a rant about Bush.
posted
It's better to have a semblance of world order than nothing, at least we have something to work with. The alternative to a crappy organization is not always a better organization. I think many of the goals and mission statements put out by the different departments of the UN are utopian and rediculous in the foreseeable future, but at least they're being put out there. Kofi Annan said it well a few weeks ago.
quote:I stand before you today as a multilateralist – by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty.
I also believe that every government that is committed to the rule of law at home, must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. All States have a clear interest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order.
Our founding fathers, the statesmen of 1945, had learnt that lesson from the bitter experience of two world wars and a great depression.
They recognised that international security is not a zero-sum game. Peace, security and freedom are not finite commodities – like land, oil or gold – which one State can acquire at another’s expense. On the contrary, the more peace, security and freedom any one State has, the more its neighbours are likely to have.
And they recognised that, by agreeing to exercise sovereignty together, they could gain a hold over problems that would defeat any one of them acting separately.
If those lessons were clear in 1945, should they not be much more so today, in the age of globalisation?
On almost no item on our agenda does anyone seriously contend that each nation, or any nation, can fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims.
Only by multilateral action can we ensure that open markets offer benefits and opportunities to all.
Only by multilateral action can we give people in the least developed countries the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty, ignorance and disease.
Only by multilateral action can we protect ourselves from acid rain, or global warming; from the spread of HIV/AIDS, the illicit trade in drugs, or the odious traffic in human beings.
That applies even more to the prevention of terrorism. Individual States may defend themselves, by striking back at terrorist groups and the countries that harbour or support them. But only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all States, with constant, systematic exchange of information, offers any real hope of denying terrorists their opportunities.
On all these matters, for any one State – large or small – choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience. It has consequences far beyond the immediate context.
When countries work together in multilateral institutions – developing, respecting, and when necessary enforcing international law – they also develop mutual trust, and more effective cooperation on other issues.
The more a country makes use of multilateral institutions – thereby respecting shared values, and accepting the obligations and restraints inherent in those values – the more others will trust and respect it, and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership.
posted
In response to qkslvrwlf- you know, I agree about volunteers, or at the very least non-profs. And I was watching C-SPAN earlier tonight and happened to catch Clark talking about his New Patriotism/Service shpeal for 2004, and I think he has an excellent idea. This is what it is-
posted
I would also like to point out that as a base requirement, I do not believe the government should offer any contract to a company that maintains an offshore headquarters or similar tax haven. All the money that goes to Halliburton and Bechtel stays with Halliburton and Bechtel. Such a provision has been suggested several times before and has always been shot down by the more flagrantly bought-and-paid-for members of government. Exactly what reason would there be for rewarding American companies who pay no taxes?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: especially since this president has no other fiducial trick besides more tax cuts?
We have heard much about the Clinton economy, and how well he did with the economy. I want to ask all of you out there who believe Clinton handled the economy well, to explain what it is that he did, that helped the economy.
Bush's tax cuts have brought the economy back up to its full strength, with over 3% growth last quater. Some analysts are projecting 5% growth next quater. I would say that the tax cuts have added money to the economy and done their job.
quote: Why when there are other battles more pressing, other countries more immediately dangerous?
I have heard this argument a lot recently. Which other battles do you refer to? North Korea? Should we have invaded Iran?
quote: yet he continues to act as if he has a mandate. Or else he simply doesn't care what half of the country thinks.
Would you rather have a president that does what he thinks is popular, or what he thinks is right? If you want a pres. who always takes the highest polled position on any topic, why have a pres. at all?
quote: core reason why the U.N. is holding back
The UN is holding back because most of the members would love to see the US fail in bringing democracy to the middle east. Countries like France and Russia have much to lose in this situation. France has already lost a huge amount of trade, legal and illegal with Iraq.
From the Kofi Anan thing:
quote: thereby respecting shared values
This is an illusion. The only value the UN shares is containing the US. What values do the non-elected leaders of east african countries share with the leaders of Eastern Europe? Not many. The idea that because the world agrees on something, that makes it right, is wrong. Multilateralism is good for small countries, with little influence outside the UN. They get an un-fair influence on world events.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the companies that comprise the EU can force the United States to relent on trade issues,
I am interested to know what issue this was. I was under the impression that they had no will to actually fight the US on such issues. The Steel tarrif being the first that comes to mind. The EU complained loudly about that, but accepted it in the end. Let me say, beside the point as it is, free trade is much more important than propping up and unsuccessful industry.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, we've still got Israel. Really, this is a tad bit of hyperbole, don't you think, Chris?
Not really. Who still supports us unreservedly? You can't say Britain. Blair still might, but most of Parliament doesn't. Israel may support the iraq war but they don't seem terribly receptive to Bush's road map.
quote:We have heard much about the Clinton economy, and how well he did with the economy. I want to ask all of you out there who believe Clinton handled the economy well, to explain what it is that he did, that helped the economy.
Is your only argument in favor of Bush's economy the fact that he's not as bad as Clinton? I have a somewhat higher bar for him to reach. Businesses are indeed profiting. Businesses will always profit under Bush, no matter how many school programs have to get cut, welfare programs have to go, veterans programs get axed, or regulatory boards get strangled.
quote:Bush's tax cuts have brought the economy back up to its full strength, with over 3% growth last quater. Some analysts are projecting 5% growth next quater. I would say that the tax cuts have added money to the economy and done their job.
Not so far, there was a dip in September. Still growing, admittedly, but I don't see any signs that this money is going anywhere below management level. Unemployment is still rising. And what happens next year when the state and national budgets are even tighter?
quote:Why when there are other battles more pressing, other countries more immediately dangerous?
I have heard this argument a lot recently. Which other battles do you refer to? North Korea? Should we have invaded Iran?
We should have continued to follow up on known terrorist cells, worked to improve relations with friendly countries so they would cooperate with our terrorist hunt, used the shared dislike of terrorists to improve our relations with previously unfriendly countries, worked to improve our intelligence, issued sanctions against countries that harbored terrorists, and worked at home to build up a war chest to pay for the hunt.
quote:yet he continues to act as if he has a mandate. Or else he simply doesn't care what half of the country thinks.
Would you rather have a president that does what he thinks is popular, or what he thinks is right? If you want a pres. who always takes the highest polled position on any topic, why have a pres. at all?
How does acting against the wishes of half the country translate to the highest polled position? When we were told there was a connection between Saddam and alQueda, we were all for attacking (well, some of us were) and that we'd know what is was soon enough. This connection has never been proven, and more and more people are starting to wonder what they've been sold. I want a president that examines the issues, not one that picks the result he wants and manufactures reasons to go get it.
quote:core reason why the U.N. is holding back
The UN is holding back because most of the members would love to see the US fail in bringing democracy to the middle east. Countries like France and Russia have much to lose in this situation. France has already lost a huge amount of trade, legal and illegal with Iraq.
Some of them, sure. Most? Yes, France and Russia lost big. And now we've gained big. This makes it ethical, that we replaced their profiteering with our own?
[ October 20, 2003, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no foreign policy, just domestic politics played in other peoples countries, with other peoples lives.
The goal of US Foreign policy should be three fold:
1) The security of the United States and its people.
This was the main reason given for invading of Iraq. However, after looking back, this reason is found wanting. Apparently our intelligence was wrong, and the decisions of our leaders was, at best, misguided.
Hussein's Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US, other than to US dignity, for daring to exist despite our best efforts to crush it.
2) The promotion of states that provide for the future security of the United States.
Hussein is definately a leader who, if unwatched, could pose a serious threat to the US, and US interests, in the future. However, the way the war and the diplomacy leading up to the war, and the aftermath of the war have been handled, it has worked to the opposing view point. Now, people around the globe are rooting for our enemies, and see us in an unfavorable light, ranging from annoyed to out right hostile.
3) The promotion of business the increases the internal economic vitality of the United States.
While the business to be gained rebuilding Iraq is nice, our reputation world wide is hurting the US from selling products.
What is not a goal of the United States:
1) Policing the world, accept where it falls into area 2 above. However, as the sole super power we have been forced into this role.
2) Religious or Political Overlordship. Demanding other countries follow our morality is not what we should be worried about. Asking is fine, but, going back to #1, we are not the world police. Stopping Abortions in China, condom use in Africa, or alcoholism in Russia is not our goal. Only when their religion or politics is a threat to the US should we intervene (Saudi Arabia has a few religous leaders we should watch).
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The UN is not a powerful force, when in history have they ever made a single, useful, successful or powerful, military operation?
There are many ways of weilding power without resorting to military invasion. If you'd like a recent example, consider the fact that it now appears that the U.N. successfully disarmed Iraq of its WMDs. We found no operating WMD program in Iraq when we invaded, which means the actions by the U.N. and international community successfully forced Iraq to eliminate it's WMD program (and I say forced because evidence suggests Saddam wanted to have it, yet evidently could not.) This seems to be a smashing success for the idea that the U.N. is an effective institution, when backed by the main powers of the international community. It eliminated a major nation's illegal weapons program without resorting to war (although war ended up occuring anyway, thanks to the U.S.)
quote:Why now, why US? Because the UN didn't have the political clout to get it done.
This is downright false, though. The UN chose not to invade Iraq. This decision was not made on the grounds of being incapable of invading Iraq but rather on the grounds that most UN members thought it was a mistake to invade Iraq.
quote: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
State of the Union, President Bush
I think that even president Bush agrees there was no immediate threat.
Also the UN: The UN is made up of countries who are Socialist or Dictatorships in which slavery runs rampant, human right violations are commonplace and with little to no rights we have here in the US. There are very few truly good countries in the UN. Why should we respect the wishes of countries where a woman will be stoned to death for daring to be rapped? These nations in the UN aren't peace-loving innocents.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why should we respect the wishes of countries where a woman will be stoned to death for daring to be rapped?
Because if Osama bin Laden is hiding in that country, they won't help us catch him if we don't respect their wishes too, and ultimately Americans may die because of it.
posted
So if we do nothing they will respect us? If they allow, or even support, a known enemy of the US in thier country then they don't respect the US; nor do they fear us.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The United Nations is not useless. Nothing is entirely without use. Where I and most Americans rightly take issue with is the idea being floated that the United Nations has much use. Unarguably, it does not. Yes, unarguably. In the world of reality, the UN is an emasculated, hypocritical organization that has wonderful ideals but little practical benefits when it comes to issues such as Iraq.
Note I am not disputing the idea that the UN could be extremely useful. That is as undeniable as its current minimal usefulness. The UN is not designed to be, has never been, and in its current form will never be anything approaching a form of world government. No organization purporting to be useful in reaching just resolutions to international problems can say, with a straight face, "We see nothing wrong with having any serious decision vetoed by five of the most powerful nations on Earth, for any reason whatsoever or none at all."
Such an organization has use, but what is its use? Among its uses is clearly not the capability to enforce its own will on nations, as witnessed by Iraq, North Korea, China, America, France, Sudan, Iran, Mexico, the former Soviet Union, Thailand, Israel, etc. etc. etc.
It does not have the means-lack of resources-or the will (crippled by any number of groups on any given issue) to do what is right, or what the majority decides as has been demonstrated by the state of constant warfare in Israel and Palestine, Iraqi unwillingness to adhere to peace treaties, American unwillingness to give the UN room to work-a decision I agree with since as is clear I don't think the UN can work-continuing world hunger, AIDS epedemics, pollution, etc.
To make a long story short, the UN is not useless but nor is it use[/i]ful[/i]. I do not count rubber-stamping and wrist-slapping among "useful" capabilities. This is not to say the UN should be flouted at will, nor that in its by-and-large impotence it does no good at all. But let's not kid ourselves. The UN is not nearly as useful as you, Chris, and you, Jeffrey, are claiming. Nor is it as useless as some others are claiming. And let's not forget the most important fact when discussing the UN-its impotence and minimal usefulness are congenital and cannot be cured without major surgery.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Who said anything about doing nothing? Listening to them, via their voice in the U.N., when our decisions impact them will lead them to respect us more and be more willing to listen to us when their decisions impact us.
As for your second point, it isn't true. We have enemies of Israel in our country that we allow because we have standards of freedom of speech and freedom of belief. That doesn't mean we don't respect Israel. Other countries may have similar standards.
quote:Is your only argument in favor of Bush's economy the fact that he's not as bad as Clinton?
I said nothing of the sort, please answer my question. I asked what Clinton DID that made the economy do so well during his 2 terms. The economy was clearly much better then, I am asking what exactly he did, that made it that way.
quote: Businesses will always profit under Bush, no matter how many school programs have to get cut, welfare programs have to go, veterans programs get axed, or regulatory boards get strangled.
I wish he would END welfare programs, and heavily restrict spending on all the others you mentioned. The way to control an out of control budget, is to cut spending. We all know that tax cuts add money to the economy and make it easier for businesses to succeed, you admitt this yourself. What formula for economic growth would you have us follow? Would you like businesses to fail? Perhaps we should soak the rich?
quote:Unemployment is still rising.
Not true.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Percent of labor force unemployed
June 6.4% July 6.2% August 6.1% September 6.1%
quote: We should have continued to follow up on known terrorist cells,
Which ones did we not follow up on? In what contries are these terrorists, and how do you know about them even though the DoD does not?
quote:worked to improve relations with friendly countries so they would cooperate with our terrorist hunt
I believe just today or yesterday the philipine army siezed a bunch of terrorists in an al qaida connected group. The Pakistanis arrest terrorists every other day. Which countries should we have closer relations with, and why aren't these countries helping us now?
quote: used the shared dislike of terrorists to improve our relations with previously unfriendly countries
Which ones? You can say this, but without specifics, it is meaningless.
quote: worked to improve our intelligence, issued sanctions against countries that harbored terrorists
These two items are not properly being done, and should be done. Saudi Arabia should be slapped with sanctions until they cough up some more al qaida types.
quote:How does acting against the wishes of half the country translate to the highest polled position?
If 50% of the people support something, that would be a majority. Very rarely is there a 50/50 split on any issue. If one side has 50%, you can bet the other has 47% or 45% or less. But you avoid the question. Would you rather the president make choices based on what he believes is best for the country, which is what his office is designed to do, or should he be windvane for political issues?
quote: And now we've gained big. This makes it ethical, that we replaced their profiteering with our own?
Other than added security, what have we gained? How are we "profiteering"? Is giving the Iraqi people $20 Billion profiteering?
quote: Because if Osama bin Laden is hiding in that country, they won't help us catch him if we don't respect their wishes too, and ultimately Americans may die because of it.
So did we go against the wishes of the taliban when they refused to help us get bin laden? Would we have been better off being friends with the taliban, paying them off, and begging them to give us bin laden?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Well, we've still got Israel. Really, this is a tad bit of hyperbole, don't you think, Chris?
