| Author | Message | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1340 Registered: 3-2002 |
art, i am not consciously trying to avoid any issues, so here goes: best idea i've heard for easy payment of this latest bill, is that of sen harold ford, that we forego the tax cut this year. that should cover it and it would be bipartisan. extended duty; we should rotate the troops. we have about 130,000 troops in iraq, we have a standing military of about 500,000, and probably that much again in natl guard, so rotate them and give leaves of absence. foreign troops; we may still get some from pakistan, india, malaysia etc. doubtful we will get any that speak arabic. the benefits would be good since it would obviously reduce the burden on our men and money. but we should not however be quick to take foreign troops in exchange for concessions of determining the future of iraq - we have already fought and paid for this privilege in dollars and lives. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2654 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: You have continued to avoid the issue: how do you think we are going to pay for this? how do you think our troops are going to be able to put up with the extended duty terms? What would the benefits be with an international force, some of whom would speak the language? Those are realistic questions, and they deserve honest, straight answers. Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1336 Registered: 3-2002 |
james, calm down a little so that you can actually read what i say without the 'red mist' clouding your vision. i obviously was not including the uk (or australian or polish) troops in my generalization of 'those other countries', because they were members of the 'coalition of the willing'. as for looking at the situation in a calculating manner, i believe that is what we should all do. heated rhetoric and name calling, a la ted kennedy, doesn't really assess the situation sufficiently or accurately. it is also the only rational way to refute some of the arguments that you and art and amir have brought up that i disagree with. it doesn't mean that i don't feel compassion for our soldiers - of course i do; but protest marches against the war after the fact, ridicule of the president and the military by senior senators, and doomsday bias and misreporting in the media do not solve anything. you are also comfortably seated i imagine, but you are the least comforting type of person for our soldiers. ask them and they will tell you, i have. | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 114 Registered: 6-2003 |
Ross, what in gods name are you talking about? Where in my postings have I said I would be happy if Iraq slipped into anarchy? Where in my postings have I said I hate Bush? The UN is neither uncapable nor unwilling but is a little unhappy with the terms that the master of the world, the US has laid down. The US bleats about the UNs lack of resolve while laying down it's own terms as to how it wants the UN to behave. The UN is never going to do exactly as the US wants, how can it? I am not for a moment suggesting that the US pulls out Vietnam style and leaves the place to degenerate into anarchy, merely that other soldiers from other countries under the auspicies of the UN could do the job. "as far as enlisting those other countries to help out w/ money and troops - well troops (if you can call them that)" What are you talking about? The British lost more to friendly fire courtesy of the US DoD than they lost to the Iraq forces. So the US has to be there because they have the greatest soldiers in the world? I cannot believe the rubbish you spout. Simple fact is that if you stuck an arab or an african soldier under the UN banner at a checkpoint in Iraq he is going to get a lot less sh*t thrown at him. We don't need cruise missiles or laser guidance in Iraq or all the other tricky sh*t the US military has at its disposal we just need some basic foot soldiers. "i would prefer we go it alone" Nice, you're sitting there in your comfy chair thousands of miles away from any marines out on street patrol and all the while you're preaching percentages and contracts. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1335 Registered: 3-2002 |
art, you are starting to show some reasons behind your bias....but we'll let that slide for now. i have been speaking to iraqis that are in a position to benefit by the new situation for sure. i do not have the opportunity to talk with too many saddam fedahim, or shiite clerics. but the iraqis i have spoken with do represent the whole spectrum of religions and regions. as for our country being bankrupt (and i'm sure this tangent will lead to many people chiming in), we are probably not much different than we were in many other instances in the last 50 years (on a time/dollar/gdp adjusted basis). the reagan years spring to mind first. and we managed to dig our way out of that pretty effectively. and before all of you clamor that clinton got the deficit to zero, well its easier to do that when you don't have 9/11 etc hanging around your neck to deal with. but all this is another argument entirely. as far as enlisting those other countries to help out w/ money and troops - well troops (if you can call them that) they have. but money, is short for them too. they are all facing recessionary economies, with 10pct unemployment, and overvalued currencies and see themselves dependent on an american economic revival before they can offer much financial help. this unfortunately gets us into a huge catch 22 situation with these people. for arguments sake lets say they were willing to kick some money into the kitty - how much do you think it would be? going by their generosity (more like lack therof) for the afghan reconstruction, we could at best hope for $1-2 billion from europe as a whole. so no matter how much we would suck up to them in your scenario, we would get maximum about 10-15% of the money we are putting up for reconstruction - for which of course they would demand about 50% of the reconstruction contracts. so given the choice, i would prefer we go it alone. we don't need to apologize for anything. we did the right thing. apologies for diplomacy's sake would only encourage our enemies further. bush is on the right track. you might even live long enough to admit it someday art; or are you one of those people who still thinks reagan was a fool for playing hardball with the russians and forcing the end of communism? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2645 Registered: 6-2001 |
Whether this was justified or not, its done. How we resolve this will determine how the rest of the world deals with us later, and our own economy. As a nation we are broke. Hugbe deficit, insufficient taxes to pay our debt. If we were an individual, we'd be bankrupt. We buy more abroad than we sell. All of those issues are important when we try to figure out what we need to do in this instance. The bottom line is that we, the USA, cannot, without substantial damage to ourselves, provide the assistance that Iraq needs. We need the assistance of other wealthy nations, not the •••• poor countries of Eastern Europe, African Nations, etc. We need France, Germany, etc. to provide money, troops, technology, etc. to make this work. The problem with that is that George W. Bush insulted some very proud people, and despite what they say, they heard him, and their not going to do anything substantively until he makes the equivelent of an apology. That is giving up some authority, some of the various rebuilding contracts, and getting some authorization from the United Nations. For some reason Bush isn't willing to do that. Since this is supposed to be an act of kindness, why wouldn't we allow that: simple: MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. I'd be willing to bet that certain people have been promised contracts, money, power, etc., and because of those promises, Bush cannot do the right thing. If we don't get European aid on this matter, we will not get the job done, or if we do, it'll take our economy 10 - 15 years to recover from the disaster. I think that this war was indeed made up, and frankly think that there should be war crimes trials for our leadership. However, that does nothing to solve the promble: what do we do with Iraq. We can't just leave, we'll end up with another festering area, and it'll produce terrorist after terrorist who will come to visit us. We have to ensure that Iraq is rebuilt, and to that end, we have to make friends with our rich ex-friends. My question is Bush man enough to do that? I suspect he hasn't been beat up enough to make those hard choices yet. Give him another 10, 15 percentage point drops in his popularity and maybe the little rich boy will see the light. Ross: I've been in the lovely US military, the army, in war time. I know how it operates. We have a great set of rules, guaranteed this and than. In practice, no one, and I mean no one, followed those rules, but when the brass showed up, we all admitted that we did indeed follow the rules. If you're talking to Iraqis, are they the ones coperating with us, or are they the ones demonstrating in the streets? I would bet you'd get two different stories from them, just as you'd get two different stories from the Repubs and Democrats, watching the same thing? Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1332 Registered: 3-2002 |
james, if we left in haste we would risk leaving behind a worse situation than we currently have. that would please you no end i would imagine, but it would not be the right thing to do. there is a timetable for leaving over the next 12 months, not too long in the big scheme of things. the un is both incabable and at the moment unwilling to take control of the situation immediately, and no other volunteers have stepped forward. and as i have said numerous times, i have spoken with iraqis and they are happy to have the usa there for the moment, and understandably happy there is a timetable for our departure. regarding the destabilization of the economy, well i suggest you take some courses in the subject. you will see that political flare-ups and extreme commodity price fluctuations do cause economic instability, especially when you are the world's largest consumer of energy. its just obvious. i don't think i am the one on a tirade. i have tried to calmly counter each of your contentions and those of the other dissenters, with logical argument. i still maintain that people like yourself would be against anything bush or the united states does simply because we are the ones doing it. i consider that irrational. | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 113 Registered: 6-2003 |
If you actually believe that everyone is happy with the outcome then I still think the Americans should have no trouble handing over control to the UN. And getting out in numbers. Now. Sadam is gone, American soldiers should not still be over there dying. For what Ross? It is not worth it whatever it is. Spare me the tirade about how he could have destabilised the US economy, that is utter crap. You go and fight wars, lose sons and daughters against enemies, not against people who don't like you and you policies. Pearl Harbour was the act of an enemy, not a bunch of weapons inspectors hunting through empty canisters. "lets face it, the only people who do not like the outcome of this issue, are people who simply do not like george w bush" No lets face it, the US invaded and occupied another country and now they won't leave. The US spent years throwing out the English from their own soil centuries ago and now they are wondering how the Iraq people can't feel a sense of happiness that they are still there. Occupying. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1330 Registered: 3-2002 |
amir, all i can say is that i have spoken with iraqis since the end of hostilities. they do have some issues (some very legitimate) with the usa's handling of things in the war and thereafter. but on balance they are are overjoyed that we took saddam out and are very optimistic about their future. i never said that we liberated iraq for the iraqis. that is indeed a fortunate side benefit for them, but that is not why we did it. we did it to protect ourselves from future problems with a totalitarian despot sitting on huge oil reserves (which he could use to destablize our economy) and who financed many terrorist acts against us and our allies (he paid every 'martyr's' family in palestine $25k after he blew himself up, for example). the net result by any measure you want to take, is positive. if you are a humanitarian then fewer people are dying now than before. if you are a liberal then a despot is gone (you can't be a liberal and accept totalitarianism). if you are democrat then at least a republican president has doen the dirty work so that the next democratic president won't need to. etcetc lets face it, the only people who do not like the outcome of this issue, are people who simply do not like george w bush, or conservative thinking of the moment. you call me a hypocrite? hardly, i believe everything i say, and say everything i believe. if clinton were the one in office today doing this, i would support the effort because it makes sense. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 130 Registered: 2-2003 |
ross, we were never concerned with the well-being of the ordinary Iraqi, Rwandan, or Afghan. To say that we did it for them is hypocritical and self-serving, and the rest of the world is not so easily deceived. If we maim or blow a few civilians to smithereens with an errant bomb, we just shrug and say, oh well. Sometimes we even go through the motions of an "investigation". If the Iraqis are more free now (debatable), then that is a by-product, not the mission objective itself. That was supposed to be American security. Which has not been enhanced, and which was never threatened by Iraq. Iraq had the most educated population and one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East before the first Gulf War. Our 10 years of sanctions reduced the population to scrabbling through dirt just to survive. They did nothing to Saddam, whom we were supposed to be targeting. Now, we are claiming that everyone there is tasting freedom as if they were just dying to hop a flight to Disneyland. You think there's any less corruption when applying for coveted jobs? You think that a whole new manufacturing economy is going to sprout up and everyone's going to live well and thank the Americans? Or do you think we are going to self-righteously lay claim to their oil to "pay" for the "liberation?" Sad reality is that Iraqis are no better off than before. And Americans are no safer than before. But Halliburton and the Carlyle group sure have some nice revenue to divvy up amongst the partners. Iraqis mayb be able to speak more openly and god knows they have the time to do so since there's no jobs there. But it's a hollow victory for us Americans. Also, why go on about the war being a resounding success when we knew before going in that Iraq's military was a complete shambles? Is it really so amazing an achievement when you pit F-16s, stealth bombers, armored Humvees, and cruise missiles against rusting Soviet-era tanks and a conscript, barefoot army. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1066 Registered: 8-2001 |
Ross, I agree with some of your viewpoints but don't forget...... ...they said the same thing after we helped the Afghan rebels kick the Soviets out.... ....it was going to be a much better place!! The Taliban didn't agree. Regards, Jon | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1326 Registered: 3-2002 |
sorry to disappoint art and james but i have a pretty good idea of what i speak of since i am closely involved with iraqis at the moment in their rebuilding efforts. james, if you think that ousting saddam was a political expedient for bush, you must not understand what has happened at all. 12 months ago bush had the highest approval rating a president has had since reagan, but he put that all at risk to do what he (and many of the rest of us) thought was right - since then he has gained zero political leverage in doing so, despite the outcome being better than what every doomsayer predicted. that is not the act of somebody wanting to improve his own personal situation; that is the action of a man being true to his convictions. someday in the future, you and anybody else who can lay aside their political frustrations, their personal bias, and any other national prejudice, will see and recognize that iraq now and in the decades to come, is a better place than it was 12 months ago or in the 30 years before. to not admit to this (even just to yourself, i have no interest in public recantation), is to deny the truth. it doesn't matter whether you are a pacifist, an american liberal, or even a staunch member of the arab league - this new iraq is better than the one before and the cost is considered worthwhile by the soldiers who fought it and by the iraqis who now enjoy their first taste of freedom in a generation. go ahead and ask them, i have. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2644 Registered: 6-2001 |
James: You get a lot of this drivel from the privileged kids who've never been shot at, who've never seen their friends dead, who have little or no idea of what their talking about. Art | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 112 Registered: 6-2003 |
Sorry, for those of you who may have forgotten Cavatina was soundtrack for 'The Deerhunter' | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 111 Registered: 6-2003 |
Ross, with all due respect the outcome is far from satisfactory. The reason that the US gets a hard time is because every time the economy looks bad at home your govt launches into something that involves patriotism and idealistic views to divert public attention. Both of which this planet seems to already have a little too much of. And now I understand because the economy isn't too hot and Iraq isn't an open and shut book, Bush is laying into China over devaluing the Yuan and the "apparent" effect it is having on the US economy. I haven't heard a single US financial institution say that unstabilising the Chinese economy would be a good thing. In fact I haven't read one article that fully understands why he is doing this. If someones got something then please post it here. If it's all about people dying in Iraq because of Sadam then it should be no problem to the US to hand it over to the UN asap, give themselves a pat on the back for a job well done and leave it at that. And then US wouldn't still be losing soldiers there. BTW, I have to side with Art here. Went to a classical recital last night and in amongst it all listened to Cavatina. Thought about when my dad took me to the movie all those years ago and all the thinking that has gone on since. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2642 Registered: 6-2001 |
This is simple: The war is not over, and we need their money, and their young bodies in uniform. We will need to activate about another 20k of reserves if we are to provide some relief for those on active duty. The level of disruption in those kids lives has probably been dramatic, they are now making a lot less than they did in civilian life, perhaps some have lost their homes, marriage will break up, all sorts of dislocations will occur as a result of this endeavor. It's easy to sit back and point fingers, make noises, but there is a human cost in going to war, and the final bill hasn't gotten here yet. We need, perhaps desperately, help from our rich European friends, and that means an authorization from the UN, because without it, they won't provide that assistance. Call them all the names you want, but we need them, our troops need them, and therefore we must deal with them, and that means the UN. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 2897 Registered: 1-2002 |
Jack....whatever you want to believe & convince yourself is fine. Ross & Jon...RIGHT FRIKKING ON!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1325 Registered: 3-2002 |
some of you guys need your heads examined. it doesn't matter what you thought about the prospect of going to war 6 months ago. the war is over. the outcome is better than anything anybody ever predicted. now what is your beef? if you are a bleeding heart and it hurts your soul to see people mistreated and killed, then you cannot honestly still be protesting the war or its aftermath given that by any body count you want to quote, fewer people died during hostilities and in the aftermath, than perished on a monthly basis when saddam was in power. so figure it out; if you are a humanitarian person you should now be happy. this specifically applies to jack given that he has the idiocy of equating saddam's invasion of kuwait with our taking out saddam. how moronic can you be. the only reason anybody is still giving the usa a hard time is because they want to give the usa a hard time for anything and everything. if saddam had been ousted by anybody else in the world the liberals would be happy. hate the usa all you want, i couldn't care less, but then at least be honest with yourself, check your gut, and admit that things are better now than they were a year ago, and get on with your lives. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1061 Registered: 8-2001 |
Article 41 "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations." Economic sanctions are the dumbest and most unsuccessful means of removing dictators from power. Has never worked. Look at Iraq, look at Cuba, look at the sanctions against South Africa during the Apartheid years. My father worked at UN for 12 years, serving first in department that tracked enforcement of South African sanctions and then as a special officer of the Security Council during the Gulf War. You can see some of his work here: http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/spec-coll/MSC/ToMsc550/MsC529/MsC529.htm And his book which was published a few years ago available at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1571050590/002-2613474-5200841?v=glance Economic sanctions are frequently put into place in hopes that economic conditions get so bad that the general population overthrows those in power. Has never worked anywhere in 100 years of use. Castro is still in Cuba and everyone in his country is starving to death. Same in Iraq until recently. People couldn't get a loaf of bread but Saddam's sons had the finest filet shipped in everyday. They were making almost as much money selling illegal oil through Syria as they were in the legal market before the Gulf War. Those who incorrectly point to the end of apartheid in S.Africa and the demise of the Soviet Union seem to credit the UN sanctions but those systems crumbled because of the lack of structural institutions needed to promote economic growth. It wasn't the sanctions, it was the screwed up systems they were using. Article 42 "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations." I think this pretty well spells out the purpose of the United Nations (besides human rights type issues), and the authority that it SHOULD have, and utilize to make its policies realized. I also heard a good idea - maybe limit membership in the United Nations to only countries that have a Democratic Government. Very simple Roman saying that is so true..... You want Peace, plan for war, you want War, plan for peace!!!! The UN and their stupid articles were the prime motivation behind their efforts to get us to dis-arm our nuclear arsenal. What the hell do you think the Russians would have done had we just listened to the UN and dis-armed. We'd be one big ass crater on the globe. And do you folks honestly believe that the Russians would do likewise. Both sides would end up doing everything possible to show that they were disarming while in actuallity they would be lying and waiting for the other side to disarm. Some of you may be familiar with game theory (used in economic modeling and military modeling). The best outocme for peace during the cold war was to have both sides fully armed and assured of mutual destruction. The UN lives by the moto.....PLAN FOR PEACE The US lives by the moto.....PLAN FOR WAR The Iraq issue is a pre-emptive strike against a soveriegn country and doesn't fit the PLAN FOR WAR theory which doesn't advocate attacking someone, but merely be ready to do so as a deterrent. Amir No, only some of it was political. A lot of it was simply based on the evidence submitted. Evidence which was outright lies. Evidence which was proven false yet repeatedly cited. That is totally false!!! The decision to oppose any war with Iraq was made long before any evidence was submitted. An in fact word of an invasion WAS LEAKED BY THE NY TIMES on July 6th of 2002 when they got hold of the now famous Pentagon Papers that detailed the invasion plan. The evidence that would be submitted to the UN in the plan was NOT SHARED WITH OTHER INTELIGENCE COMMUNITIES INCLUDING FRANCE OR GERMANY. But after talks between the UN and IRAQ broke down that same day Kofi Annan called a secret meeting between Putin, Schroeder, and Chirac during a conferrence call between the four of them. According to my father word leaked out among some staffers who were present that Anan and the rest would need to formulate a plan to oppose the war at any costs and to discredit whatever evidence the US submitted. BEFORE THEY EVEN KNEW WHAT THE EVIDENCE WAS!!!!! The UN never had any intention of authorizing any war no matter what the evidence would be. That is total bullshit. If you read any of my other posts you will also know that the UN refused to include any language in their new resolutions with the phrase "use of force" instead it used the loosley worded "grave conseqences" which was quite arbitrary. Had the UN kept an open mind and first looked at the evidence, AMIR, I wouldn't have been quite as critical of their oppostion to the war, as I myself have been critical of the war. But the UN never had an open mind and the evidence was irrelevant as they all (UN, France, Germany, Russia) all had alterior motives for opposing the war and none of it had anything to do with mistrust of the Bush administrations findings. Case in point, the UN constantly touted the successes of the UN inspectors and their belief that the inspection process was working and THAT INSPECTORS WERE CLOSE TO FINDING WMD's. So the UN believed that WMD's did actually exist in Iraq. I honestly believe that had we decided to attack Saudi Arabia for their role in 9/11 (never mind the fact that it isn't politically feasible to do so) and showed the UN the evidence that clearly shows their direct involvment in 9/11 the outcome would have been the same....they would have opposed the war. The idea that some of you think we should transfer some of our soveriegn power to this organization scares the hell out of me. Regards, Jon | ||
| Adam (Fasttalk)
Member Username: Fasttalk Post Number: 283 Registered: 8-2002 |
Oh, now I get it, I thought you were talking images, JPG, GIF, TIF, ETC... DUhhhhhhh | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 775 Registered: 4-2003 |
Israeli Defense Force The rifle looks like a Galil  | ||
| Adam (Fasttalk)
Member Username: Fasttalk Post Number: 282 Registered: 8-2002 |
LOL Mark. What is an IDF? | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 774 Registered: 4-2003 |
Right now I can only wish to have as well a stocked garage as Adam. The pic looks like IDF to me. | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Intermediate Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 1089 Registered: 4-2003 |
Adam, are you the alter ego of MarkPDX? :-D Jack | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 110 Registered: 6-2003 |
Dave, I thought some guy with a penchance for Jodie Foster came closest to murdering your President. Why can't the rest of the world just bend over and take it from the US? | ||
| Adam (Fasttalk)
Member Username: Fasttalk Post Number: 281 Registered: 8-2002 |
No flowers, just...  | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Intermediate Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 1087 Registered: 4-2003 |
But dear Dave, We talked about this issue before but somehow you maintain: Invading Kuwait = NOT OK Invading Iraq = OK Your leader had his justifications for invading Iraq, Saddam had his reasons for invading Kuwait etc. Did the world agree to the invasion of Kuwait? NO WAY! Did the world believe Saddams "justification" for invading Iraq? NO WAY! Did the world agree to the invasion of Iraq? NO WAY! Did the world believe George's "justification" for invading Iraq? NO WAY! Now, YOU might believe somehing else... but these are the simple facts, stripped of all sentiments... Bottomline: they were both forceful invasions which makes them both "states proven to be aggressive attackers of other states" no matter what justifications you come up with. Good huh? I practice what YOU preach! :-D Jack | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 2892 Registered: 1-2002 |
Back up, Jack. Who invaded Kuwait? Who used poison gas to murder hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen who happened to be in a different religious sect? Who also used this gas when at war with Iran? Who attacked Israel? Who came this close to assassinating a US president? All these questions have one answer. And that is what 11 years of UN resolutions were aimed at. You Europeans lecture us all the time on the fact that Americans doen't know much history. Practice what you preach this time, Jack. | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Intermediate Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 1086 Registered: 4-2003 |
>>>aim to disarm states proven to be aggressive attackers of other states Mmmmm... Interesting point you raised there... Who invaded Iraq you said? Jack | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 2890 Registered: 1-2002 |
Michael, it doesn't. But when they pass resolutions that say force will be used to enforce agreements that aim to disarm states proven to be aggressive attackers of other states and savage oppressors of their own people, and then they back down, they are ineffective. And pu$$ies. And when they employ tyrants & thugs in leadership positions (see Jon's post that started this thread; also, Iraq & Libya leading the UN Human Rights Panel? come on), they have no credibility--plain and simple. | ||
| Michael Basic (Sensational1)
New member Username: Sensational1 Post Number: 24 Registered: 2-2003 |
I like how people say that the United Nations is ineffective and unproductive because they are not in favor of a war. Isn't the whole reason for their existence to promote cooperation and stop things such as wars?...Why is not being in favor of a war make them "pussies?" | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 2886 Registered: 1-2002 |
Andrew, that would mean that 60% do want us there & are grateful (which actually mirrors real polling numbers). When you get tired from spinning like mad, you'll understand that this is the first vestige of democracy in Iraq... Oh, and on general principle:     | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 109 Registered: 6-2003 |
Syria, Saudi, Sweden.... why doesn't the US just invade another country and try the poll again. Law of averages says eventually someone will say "thanks, nice of you to come, glad you could make it". | ||
| Andrew (Mrrou)
Member Username: Mrrou Post Number: 520 Registered: 3-2002 |
I am not extremely political..but the polls say that around 40% of Iraqi's dont want us in Iraq, and better yet, they think they were better off before the war! Now I may have those numbers wrong, but those ungrateful iraqi's piss me off..Anyone have more info on this? Andrew | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Junior Member Username: Kds Post Number: 210 Registered: 5-2003 |
John.... I put it down to simple politics. GWB goes to the UN.....now the Dem's don't have another campaign issue to harp about. If the UN does nothing GWB wins.....if they do something......GWB wins. I agree with your sentiments totally BTW. | ||
| Gordo A. (Gordo)
Junior Member Username: Gordo Post Number: 163 Registered: 2-2003 |
Don't forget they were flattened by a couple of H-bombs as well...They had nothing left but the fear of more. I love the US of A and everything it represents. I think however we have to accept on the evidence to date that culture and religion can significantly impact that view. | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 107 Registered: 6-2003 |
Sorry, but no way can I see any parallels between Japan and Iraq. The difference in post war Japan in technological ability, the desire to work together, to endure hardship for the next generation, the lack of corruption, the belief in a democratic system and a zillion other things. | ||
| Gordo A. (Gordo)
Junior Member Username: Gordo Post Number: 157 Registered: 2-2003 |
Somewhere the world has changed since WWII I dont think you are comparing apples with apples. The point is the US is not seen as objective in Iraq. Oil is by some seen as the real reason we are there not to help rebuild a nation, for others purely imperialistic objectives. Japan struck the freeworld, in this case we moved first, a big difference in terms of perception. The UN can perhaps serve as the only objective player here, we may not like it but its reality. What is clear is that the US and UK are not seen as objective, our motives will always be questioned, our troops sniped at and bombed. The parallels to me are more like VietNam where it was impossible to separate the soldier from the citizen, we were fighting an idealogy not an army. To me Iraq is not a million miles away from that.. The US is I fear not making friends by its action in Iraq, do any of you feel the world is now a safer place? I don't. | ||
| Terry Springer (Tspringer)
Member Username: Tspringer Post Number: 808 Registered: 4-2002 |
I agree Mike. But not in 6 months, and not if its done by committee. Everyone acts like the entire thing is Iraq is a proven and total failure. Its only been 6 months folks! Get a clue.... its going to take a bit more time than 6 months. The lefties are so anxious to see any Bush agenda fail that they are fighting tooth and nail to declare the Democratization of Iraq a failure before it even gets off the ground. Pathetic. Oh... and dont take the above paragraph to mean Im a Bush supporter. That whack job "Blank Check George" wont be getting my vote. He is the most fiscally irresponsible president in the history of our nation. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 341 Registered: 12-2002 |
The only thing I would add to the thread is that while some may say the Iraqi mentality is too different from the western one to openly accept democracy, I would submit that the Japanese mentality after WWII was much more polarly opposite to ours than the Iraqi mentality. I think, if we can transform Japan from what it was - a monarchy where the citizens blindly did anything for the emperor (much like Germany), then we can certainly work the same magic in Iraq. | ||
| Terry Springer (Tspringer)
Member Username: Tspringer Post Number: 806 Registered: 4-2002 |
Tom said: "What..you guys didn't see this comming? How can the U.S. possiably rebuild a country on it's own??" Uhhhhh how about Japan? After WWII, in Japan the US and even more specifically Gen. Douglas Macarthur had sole authority over EVERYTHING. He made the decisions. He planned, developed, implemented and finalized all rebuilding efforts. Within 5 years of wars end the Japanese economy was largely recovered. Within 10 years Japan was restored to a world economic power. I Europe, we decided to rebuild by committee. We let everyone "help". The result was a mess that ultimately took 45 years to set straight. Clearly.... history teaches us that going to a body such as the UN is the best solution... NOT. The UN is a good idea. Unfortunately... the only good IS the idea. The real world reality of what they do, how it works and whose interests it represents is hopeless. The UN is corrupt beyond repair. Rikky... want to make the UN really "fair". How about each member nation gets 1 vote for every "peacekeeper" it contributes to the UN effort and 1 vote for every dollar they contribute. As a member nation, the more you contribute and help, the more votes you have. The whole issue about member nations such as Libya heading a human rights commission has been discounted by people here in a way that is shameful. There is no excuse for this. I cannot fathom how anyone would take seriously any effort or idea coming from a commission on human rights being headed by a Libyan representative no matter what the reason given for the Libyan to head it. Its ludicrous, and perfectly indicative of the totaly collapse of the UN as an effective body. Stick a fork in it.... the UN is DONE. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 357 Registered: 5-2002 |
The UN is not completely useless, it actually does much for smaller nations in the issues of human rights and things of that nature. However, that is not the main reason the UN was created (which many will try to lead you to believe in an argument). Many people have told me that the UN is not supposed to deal in major international issues... oh really? "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind..." "...to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples." Article 1 "To maintain international peace and security...to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." Which principles of justice and international law? Well let us look to article 41 and 42... Article 41 "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations." Article 42 "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations." I think this pretty well spells out the purpose of the United Nations (besides human rights type issues), and the authority that it SHOULD have, and utilize to make its policies realized. I also heard a good idea - maybe limit membership in the United Nations to only countries that have a Democratic Government. It is something to think about, but is there really a war that has been between two democratic nations recently? Kind of makes you think about issues of globalization/international/world peace. | ||
| Tom Bakowsky (Tbakowsky)
Member Username: Tbakowsky Post Number: 640 Registered: 9-2002 |
What..you guys didn't see this comming? How can the U.S. possiably rebuild a country on it's own?? | ||
| Gordo A. (Gordo)
Junior Member Username: Gordo Post Number: 156 Registered: 2-2003 |
Some of them belong there and can rot for all I care. Unfortunately there are no doubt more than a handful that were wrong place wrong time. As its Cuba my guess is they just hope everyone forgets about them? | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 105 Registered: 6-2003 |
At the time I thought it was a little strange that the US should launch this heart and minds campaign and talk about democracy. It hasn't been seen by the vast majority in Iraq in 2000 years and I don't think the US wants to spend the next 20 years sorting the mess in Iraq out. I was flamed for suggesting that democracy has no place in Iraq as some would see it as a fundamental right to everyone everywhere. Fair enough. IMHO the US isn't the greatest at anything that requires long term solutions. Not many countries are, election years get in the way. Right now it can maintain the status quo and loose another American life on the streets of Bagdad every day. Or it can sort out something with the other members of the UN which may involve it giving up a little. The US invaded Iraq without a clear mandate, if it had all gone swimmingly and democracy was installed and the Iraq people saw it all as a joyous and wonderful thing then the US would be calling the shots with the UN. It hasn't, and this is the result. They must have known when the went into Iraq that this was one half of the 50:50 outcome? Me, I blame the French. As an aside, since I had completely forgotten about them until the Army Chaplin made headlines, what's the US going to do with all the people detained without charge in Guantanamo Bay? | ||
| Gordo A. (Gordo)
Junior Member Username: Gordo Post Number: 129 Registered: 2-2003 |
The saddest thing of all is that the vast proportion of weapons we are so terrified by were supplied by the US and us here in Britain. The problem today is to a degree of our own making. We have in the past distinguished between 'good' terrorists and 'bad'. Lets not forget that we both backed Iraq and Afghanistan through the 80's when it suited, many of the terrorists we despise and hunt today are products of our own training. Yes there are politics involved, politics from both sides. The question we have to ask ourselves is are we now safer as a result of our actions. Frankly I certainly dont feel we are. The goals of creating a free and democratic base in the Middle East are indeed admirable but they in my opinion are fundamentally flawed. We cannot transplant western ideals and expect them to take root, certainly not overnight,the cultural differences are too vast. I backed the war on the basis we were being given true and honest intelligence. Had it been true we fully in the right to take the steps we did. It has become all too clear however that we were lied to and manipulated by those we elected to serve us and for that they must ultimately answer for. Before someone discounts my statements as looney left my politics are right of center, as far as I am concerned the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. Its the hypocrisy of selectively deciding to support one or another because it suits us that I find so upsetting. That hypocrisy now serves to inspires many more lunatics to hate us even more. The real question is where can we go from here. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 125 Registered: 2-2003 |
...the reasons that many in the Un opposed the war had nothing to do with sound reasoning at the time. All of it was political. No, only some of it was political. A lot of it was simply based on the evidence submitted. Evidence which was outright lies. Evidence which was proven false yet repeatedly cited. And the evidence was shared with (although I am sure not all of it was shared) the intelligence services of the European countries long before the matter was discussed in the Security Council. The disagreement was not leaked, it was reported as it developed. It just came to a head during the Security Council sessions. Also, it has been proven that the European countries were not doing much in business with Iraq. There were some individual French and German companies that stood to lose millions but at a national level there was no desire by any European government to let things continue on for the sake of some trading. Syria was making the most money by helping Iraqi oil to be smuggled out (for a huge profit). I don't think what Syria said counted for much. Next were the Russian smugglers and arms traders. Russia officially denounced them, but it's so corrupt it's hard to say who's controlling who. Chances are, the government officials set up the companies that were trading with Iraq. I highly recommend the books by Robert Baer. I think he is very credible and extremely insightful. There were two main "linkages" created by the war-mongers in the US. And they felt bolder than before because of the tide of nationalism that swept aside all dissent after Sep. 11th. Linkage one was that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda, implying culpability in September 11. Not true and noone fell for it. Bush explicity refuted this last week. Why? Remember all the inuendo about Iraqi agents attending a terrorist summit in Kuala Lampur or meeting with a Sep. 11 hijacker somewhere in Europe? The linkage had been implied throughout and it wasn't true. Linkage two was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and since it was in cahoots with terrorists, they could get their hands on it and unleash an attack that would make Sep. 11 look like child's play. The world body was highly skeptical--again, the evidence cited was weak. The linkage was based on nothing but conjecture, something along the lines of: "IF I was a terrorist and IF I was friends with Iraqi governement officials, and IF they sold me the WMD even though they have always stamped out all previous terror groups who tried to establish themselves in Baghdad, I might then be able to use the WMD on some sort of attack against Americans IF I could get the WMD into a shipping container and IF I could get it to the US." As for Kurt Waldheim, is he still around and did he ever have any clout? Good night. I won't be on till tomorrow night at the earliest. See you then. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1056 Registered: 8-2001 |
.....an organization run by Nazi Really? Who? Secretary Kurt Waldheim of Austria served in the Wehrmacht and was a Nazi party member. He has confirmed this himself though he says it was for a short time only. Read any of my posts on NATO. The cold war is over and yet the Europeans (ex-Britian) stand by and let things get out of hand in Serbia and then we have to clean up the mess. The US and the UK flew 90% of the bombing missions and the US alone provided more than half the troops and bore half the cost of the war (a war we shouldn't have gotten involved in). Same thing in Bosnia, the US had to send in more troops (some of which are still there) and clean up that mess, because of Europe's inability to form a consensus on the matter. As for the UN, this is an organization that promoted the silly idea that peace during the cold war could be achieved through disarmarment of nuclear weapson when in fact it was the prescence of those nukes that kept peace between the Soviet Union and the US. The UN (along with the US and coalition partners) is responsible for the starvation and death thousands of Iraqi's (not that I really care) by imposing non-enforceable sanctions that hurt ordinary citizens and allowed Saddam's regime to feast on lobster and filet mignon every night while the ordnary Iraqi citizen couldn't get a loaf of bread. Lastly, the UN, NATO, and particularly France and Germany never were willing to even look at the evidence against Saddam. We made a case that now appears to be deeply flawed (and possibly blatantly false) but the UN members who opposed the war did so from day one long before the evidence we presented looked weak. Had they simply looked at our case and said they felt it was a "weak" arguement as I did I would have respected their decision but that is not what happened. Even before it became public knowledge that the Bush administration would consider war, word leaked out to the UN and a plan was put in place to oppose the war.... THIS WAS BEFORE ANY EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED OR A CASE MADE! This is akin to a corrupt judge who has already decided the verdict on a defendant before the defense has even presented it's case. The UN was going to oppose the war no matter what because the majority of the Security Council members had too much to lose financially, NOT because our case was weak! These are the people we are supposed to be consulting on how to handle the crisis in Iraq. I am off to bed but will be happy to debate this further with you. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 124 Registered: 2-2003 |
...embarassement of our great country pandering to an organization that has failed miserably at promoting peace anywhere in the world... Yes, but we put ourselves in this position of having to pander to it. We insisted on creating this mess against the will of the world. As the costs mount and the end is not in sight, we have to ask for help to get out of it. ...an organization that is run by some of the worst tyrants from third world banana republics that seek to legitmize their horrible conduct.... No, I don't think tyrants are running the UN. Some of the people in it are tyrants, but they are not running the UN. .....an organization run by Nazi Really? Who? ....an organization that has asked Lybia and Syria to host the Human Rights Commission.. These positions are filled by countries on a rotating basis. Sometimes, weird combinations happen. Would you prefer that Israel was on it? I agree with you that Libya and Syria being on it is laughable, but even the US does not have an untarnished record when it comes to human rights abuses. No country does, except perhaps Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark. I don't really know about them either, but they always seem to have squeaky clean reputations. Point is, Libya being on the Human Rights Commission for a while does not negate the whole UN charter. ....an international organization that provides lifetime employment to many diplomats who do nothing but funnel asssitance money into theor own coffers while civil war and mass starvation ravage their countries..... Yes, in corrupt countries, UN postings are prized perks. Same here, but to a lesser degree. It is considered a plum assignment everywhere. Unless I have taken your post out of context you ACTUALLY think the UN serves a useful purpose??? Yes, it's the only thing we have. Let's work to make it better, not undermine it. Read any of my posts on Iraq, I didn't not support the current adminstration's war. Agreed. I did read them. However, that being said I don't appreciate a bunch of self serving Eueopeans feeding us their bullshit about not wanting a "dear friend and ally" to make a terrible mistake it will regret. How are the Europeans self-serving? All of them except Tony Blair, Bush's poodle, begged us not to go to war. We went against their will. Now we are asking them to sacrifice their sons. On our terms. Except we are not asking. Rather, we are demanding it. And insisting that it would be wise for them to do so, as if there's some veiled threat there. The UN like NATO, has become a useless organization that benefits greatly by our particpation in both money and manpower, but that has throughout the past 30 years sat by idly when we needed it's assistance. I think the UN and NATO are stabilizing entities, and the only one undermining stability is the US. To a lesser degree, Iran and North Korea, but they are not on the Security Council, are they? They also haven't fully developed the weapons yet. And I don't think they can start a world war. Only the US can. If N Korea were to launch, or Iran, how many others would support them? Answer: None. I don't know what you mean by us needing their assistance? IMF loans? Something else? I would be interested to learn more about this. What do you mean by the UN standing by and not helping us when we needed it? | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1055 Registered: 8-2001 |
Amir, It's a free country and you and I have a right to dissent with the prevailing opinion on the war in Iraq. the reasons that many in the Un opposed the war had nothing to do with sound reasoning at the time. All of it was political. Regards, Jon | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1054 Registered: 8-2001 |
We clearly don't need a UN. Amir, My post is not about the war in Iraq it's about the embarassement of our great country pandering to an organization that has failed miserably at promoting peace anywhere in the world... ...an organization that is run by some of the worst tyrants from third world banana republics that seek to legitmize their horrible conduct.... .....an organization run by Nazi ....an organization that has asked Lybia and Syria to host the Human Rights Commission.. ....an international organization that provides lifetime employment to many diplomats who do nothing but funnel asssitance money into theor own coffers while civil war and mass starvation ravage their countries..... Unless I have taken your post out of context you ACTUALLY think the UN serves a useful purpose??? Read any of my posts on Iraq, I didn't not support the current adminstration's war. However, that being said I don't appreciate a bunch of self serving Eueopeans feeding us their bullshit about not wanting a "dear friend and ally" to make a terrible mistake it will regret. The UN like NATO, has become a useless organization that benefits greatly by our particpation in both money and manpower, but that has throughout the past 30 years sat by idly when we needed it's assistance. If I am interpreting your post wrong please correct me. Regards, Jon | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 123 Registered: 2-2003 |
America is the only nation that truly knows the meaning of freedom and democracy and how to be a global statesman and citizen. Americans are also the smartest people on earth. They elect the most brilliant and honest amongst them to positions of leadership. It has nothing to do with wealth, or money funneled by special interests to supporters. Honest. If we say there is a reason for invading a country and waging a war, then that's good enough. If American soldiers lose their lives, we bury them with full military honors. What more could their families want? Any allied soldiers killed by friendly fire should consider it a privilege. Would you rather be killed by an enemy bomb or bullet? Of course not! We did all our allies a favor by allowing them to fight on our side. And look at all the money we gave to people who weren't so keen to join in? Look how much richer their leaders are and how much better off the populations are. Look at Musharraf's palace--why it's just like Saddam's. Oh well, he's on our side. At least he says so. We are even willing to share in the massive contracts to rebuild Iraq. Well, as long as the rest of the world does exactly what we dictate, and does not ask for any piece of the oil business. Look again. Again, dammit! As for the innocent civilians killed, it's easy to dispute any figures put forth by the Red Cross, UN, whoever. No problems there. None. Really, those are not problems or issues. Don't bring them up again, ok? You must give the same response if anyone accuses the Bushies for increasing the ranks of terrorists and the number of terrorist attacks. They were always there, and just go to prove how right Bush was. Understood? Good, let's move on. We clearly don't need a UN. We should do exactly as we want. Why doesn't the rest of the world understand this and fall in line? Now back to terrorism, evildoers, proliferators, homicide bombers, and weapons of mass destruction. They were there. That's all you need to know. Our military might and economic clout means that we don't need to provide evidence to back up what we are saying. We go in swingin' baby! Watch out! There were no lies. There is no mess. If you think otherwise, you are a traitor. Here's a free flag. Sorry it's so small, but you know, we have spent countless billions and we need to spend 80 billion dollars (or was it 87 billion? Oh well) more in Iraq, so there's not much left over for stuff here. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1052 Registered: 8-2001 |
.....sucking up to a bunch of Euro pussies and third world banana republic tyrants. How sad!! http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/23/sprj.irq.int.un/index.html It seems this adminstaration hasn't a clue what to do. What the hell are we going to the UN for?? Another useless resolution that will produce nothing constructive. And to top it off we have Kofi Annan lecturing us on how we should conduct foreign policy. This from a man whose country, Ghana, has seen 5 military uprisings in the past 30 years and 6 adminstrations overthrown by military generals. Hmmm! Is the pot calling the kettle black! And of course let's not forget the stellar list of past secretaries which include Boutros Gahli of Egypt (another hotbed of democracy and freedom), Javier P�rez de Cu�llar of South American power house Peru, ....ah yes let's not forget good old Kurt Waldheim, former member of the Wehrmacht and a confirmed Nazi. Before this winner of a candidate we had someone from Burma whose entire cabinet was assasinated while trying to write the countries constitution. What a standup organization we have here run by people who care. And now we have resorted to asking these g*d d*mn despots for help! Why the hell couldn't those planes on 9/11 have hit the UN instead. Hell it would have wiped out half the despots in the third world. With Sad Regret, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge #23 www.flatoutracing.net |