Jagsbch Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 OK I was thinking. I think we can all agree the UN is slow and worthless to our efforts to disarm Saddam in the fashion that we'd like. So it appears that we are just going to go in there and disarm him outside of UN authority. This is illegal mind you. NOw I am Saddam and I see just how worthless the UN is. Do you think for one minute I am going to have them strip me of my defenses so I can lean on them to protect me? Take Kuwait for example by the time the UN got in there their women had been raped their oil well's on fire, dignity taken, the country looted... Would you render yourself defenseless to the point where you had to depend on the UN? Talk about GUN Control. IF the US of all countries can just attack Iraq outside of UN authority whats to stop anyother country from doing so? I mean are we attacking N. Korea? Hence the dictators defense... And the reason why we can't go in without UN authority. What good would the resolution be if we did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 The US foreign policy does not need UN approval. If nothing else, Saddam attempted to assasinate a US President. Thats enough legal justification. BUt there is plenty more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Jagsbch- your dilemma assumes that the UN has moral authority in all policy matters. Any organization that has Libya chairing its human rights commitee, that gives Syria a vote on the Security Council, or gives Iraq - IRAQ! - the chair on the WMD committee has a seriously flawed moral compass. It is merely a forum for debate amongst the international community, and one in which, in the event of a consensus, resolutions condemning or even sanctioning certain countries for conduct might take place. If you want leadership and action, you don't go to the hopelessly torn and factionalized UN. You turn to countries that are willing to do the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Ideally, the UN was supposed to be the coming together of nations to protect each other and provide a forum for solving problems faced throughout the world. Certain UN organizations and functions work, to a certain extent. The US never joined the UN in order to subvert our national identity or policies. It was hoped that the UN would be a voice for American/Western influence dedicated to peace and freedom. It was also intended to confront dictatorships and guarantee that a situation like World War II would not happen again. That was a goal of the security council. The UN has no say in what we deem to be in our national security interests. An invasion of Iraq is not "illegal" just because it is not sanctioned by the UN. The UN could introduce a security council resolution condemning the invasion. We'd veto it, of course, but such a situation would never happen, as the UN has already abrogated its moral authority by not backing up its own resolutions. This country will join no organization or sign no treaty that removes our constitutional powers and gives them to an outside agency. Congress would not ratify such a treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Jag, It's too late now. We must act. We must crush him into the sand. We have made threats that we must back up or else our word will mean nothing in the future. I think the Bush adminstration has backed us into this postion by their cowboy attitude and lack of diplomatic skill. (I still can't understand how they could take the world opinion we enjoyed right after 9-11 and turn it to what it is today) That being said it's time for Americans to unite and attempt to make the best out of what we all know needs to be done. I just hope this doesn't cause unexpected negative consequences that we on the left have been warning. Dam the torpedo full steam ahead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by JackC (I still can't understand how they could take the world opinion we enjoyed right after 9-11 and turn it to what it is today) I think that any action we took after 9/11 would start to turn world opinion. Was the attack on Afghanistan popular in the world community? No. Remember the push to stop the attack during Ramadan, so as not to infuriate the Muslims? Considering that a lot of people and countries in this world of ours thought we got "what we deserved" on 9/11 for our "inhumane" foreign policies, I was surprised at the support. BTW, are some of the Palestinians still dancing in the streets? War can still be avoided, but it's up to the dictator. If he runs or disarms, war will not be necessary. I do agree with you however, that war is almost inevitable. Saddam will not disarm and he probably won't run. Should we continue appeasement until NY or DC is hit with nerve agents or biological weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by JackC I think the Bush adminstration has backed us into this postion by their cowboy attitude and lack of diplomatic skill. This Administration has done a far more skilled and subtle job in foreign policy than our media is equipped to analyze or report. How is it that reinstituting UN inspections that were unilaterally stopped by Iraq four years earlier a cowboy attitude? How is building a coalition of over 50 nations who are supporting an invastion of Iraq in one form or another a cowboy attitude? Bush addressed the UN in mid September, five, FIVE months ago. He has systematically upped the pressure on Iraq and been the moving force behind compelling Iraq to disarm, something that was considered a dead issue just a year ago. What's not to like about this? It's a lot better than being a do-nothing president in foreign policy and allowing tyrants to accumulate their WMD's and decide when and how to force a showdown on their own terms. Sorry, but I ain't going down like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Redman, This adminstration was dragged kicking and screaming to the UN and you know it. Most of the countires that are with us (except Britian our only real frient) are there because they want something in return. They know we are Daddy Warbucks (irony?). I agree we must put all of this to the side now and unite but please don't try to rewrite history this soon. Wait until after we're in Bagdad. My only hope now is Dubya doesn't back us into any more corners from now until he leaves office in 2004! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by JackC This adminstration was dragged kicking and screaming to the UN and you know it. No, actually I seem to recall that what happened was that the Administration wasn't building up forces, constructing a coalition, or forcing the issue with Iraq until after Bush addressed the U.N. but let's pretend you're right for a moment. Who was it that you contend "dragged them kicking and screaming to the UN?" Originally posted by JackC Most of the countires that are with us (except Britian our only real frient) are there because they want something in return. They know we are Daddy Warbucks (irony?). And all of the nations who are opposed to us are opposed for selfish reasons. What a revelation! Here's what makes the most difference to me. I look at the motivations behind the stances the various sides take. For the principal opponents, France and Germany, and to a lesser extent Russia, their primary interest in this issue is not in international peace and security but rather protection of their economic interests and diminution of American influence overall. Heady stuff, huh? Makes me want to get out and protest! I see no motive for us other than to remove a threat to us and our allies. While some of our allies like Turkey are demanding economic aid, it's because they are also taking special risks. That's perfectly fair. But notice how the countries which have perhaps the most credibility on this issue - the Eastern European countries like the Czech Republic and Poland who have finally been liberated from brutal dictatorships - have no self interest in this. They simply want the threat removed. As with people, you can tell a lot about a country by the company it keeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Redman, You know Bush was gearing up for war long before he went to the UN. I will tell you something that may surprise you. I think both the right and the left forced him there. His heart clearly wasn't in it and thus you get what we have gotten. As for Turkey don't you think they stand to gain the most economically and aren't they the ally most threatened (Save Israel) by Saddam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Jack, there's no doubt that for every democratic nation, a UN resolution that is consistent with the leadership's policy works as political insurance, and when it's opposite the leadership's policy and forces the leadership to change its position (something I'm expecting France to do) it works as good political cover. Bush and his team aren't idiots. They would have gone to the UN no matter who asked them. If nothing else they know that going to the UN at least removes one area of criticism from their political opponents: that they failed to try to build an international consensus. However, Bush isn't into international consensus like the prior administration was under Clinton, and so Bush doesn't want to look like he's going to the UN to ask for permission (which is laudible IMHO). He went there as the representative of an important member nation and presented our case against Iraq, and essentially said "Act on this or not, but just know that no matter what you do we're going to act on this, and if you fail to act with us to enforce your 17 previous resolutions on this you're going to become irrelevant." So far they've responded by putting inspectors in there and by maintaining this as a high priority on their agenda. But each additional step they take is at our prodding. I just fail to see what the problem is here. EDIT- regarding Turkey, Saddam isn't threatening to invade them and they aren't really a target but for their alliance with us. They aren't Arabs, and in fact a fair amount of trade exists between the two countries. In addition, the Iraqi's have been trying for years to build an oil pipeline through Turkey with German help. The Turks are at risk because 1) they're cooperating with us and allowing us (at least hopefully) to use bases in their country as invasion launch-points and 2) they have a large Kurdish population who they fear will start an insurrection (as they've done before) to form their own state. Never forget on this last point that the Kurds are the world's largest ethnic group that lacks its own nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Redman, You know Bush was gearing up for war long before he went to the UN. I will tell you something that may surprise you. I think both the right and the left forced him there. His heart clearly wasn't in it and thus you get what we have gotten. I think it's generally recognized in D.C. that Colin Powell convinced Bush to seek U.N. approval before carrying out a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 This is a useless debate. Bush could wait until his 7th year in office and invade and the left would still say he rushed into it. It's the same disease that causes them to use the word "unilateral" to describe a coalition of 40+ nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 "Bush and his team aren't idiots. " Really? That would be hard to prove! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 I would say a Masters from an Ivy League School pretty well proves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 jackC....the Clinton years demoralized the military........the bond of trust between those who served and those politicians elected to command was broken....many in the military no longer trust the dems.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 It's the military's job to take order. I know the military attracts more politically conservative people but I for one was disgusted by the lack of respect show to President Clinton by some in the military when he was in office. They said they had a problem with Clinton because he didn't serve in the military but they love the AWOL Bush, who's daddy kept him from Vietnam? Either way if they can't respect the President from either party than they aren't doing there job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 They hated Clinton because he slashed budgets and put them at a greater risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 jackC...sorry to disillusion you....but the military are not short order cooks taking orders....and your comment reflects the short-sightedness that typifies the democratic mindset toward the military: it's a voluntary force. folks, especially the good ones with scarce skills, can walk. they do walk. they walk even more when they are unhappy, distrust or have no respect for the civilian leadership. retaining quality folks will be a greater problem down the road as demographics change (i.e., an aging population). leadership matters when asking forces to assume a risk. we learned this in Viet Nam. sure, we take orders and execute. if that is the depth of your leadership understanding, then you suffer a greater poverty of disciplined thinking than I first imagined. we won't bother reviewing all the screw-ups, big and small, during the Clinton years. All I can relay to you, as a member of the military, is that I never witnessed the blatant contempt and disrespect for a Commander-in-Chief as I did during the Clinton years. i didn't participate, but it was pervasive. since you are so adept at suggesting long-term consequences flowing from Bush's foreign policies, perhaps you should analyze the damage exacted by your hero. JackC....I actually feel safer knowing that you aren't part of the decision process and that my security depends in no way on you. keep up the good work!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 I still can't understand how they could take the world opinion we enjoyed right after 9-11 and turn it to what it is today They? You should know by now people have short term memories. The world opinion would have changed not matter what we did. It's funny though, support to attack Iraq was up in the 90%s then....now some of the same people who supported any war against Iraq then are talking about being human shields. I wouldn't call them hypocrites...just stupid. As far as Clinton. You mean Somilia didn't help him win support? Or Kosovo? I'm sure almost killing Osama would have garnered support. Or destroying that chemial weaopons factory disquised as a medical factory. I don't understand it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Originally posted by JackC I know the military attracts more politically conservative people but I for one was disgusted by the lack of respect show to President Clinton by some in the military when he was in office. They said they had a problem with Clinton because he didn't serve in the military but they love the AWOL Bush, who's daddy kept him from Vietnam? Either way if they can't respect the President from either party than they aren't doing there job! Respect is a two-way street, and respect didn't exist for the military on Clinton's end of things. He viewed them as the overly rabid dog that he inhereted and prefered to keep penned in on the side of the house where he didn't have to deal with it. What he and others on the left always forget is that our military remains one of the only ones in the western world that has never led a military coup against civilian leadership. They stand for what is right about America and remain one of the few places where federal dollars are, dollar for dollar, effectively spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 They hated Clinton because he slashed budgets and put them at a greater risk. Kilmer, That might be the popular reason they give now but I recall they got disrespectfull to him right away. (for the record most of the military cuts were started under George Bush I) Remember the don't ask don't tell thing? Redmen, In general respect is a two way street but not when you're in the miltary. You simply follow orders and keep your mouth shut. Also there is more waste fraud and abuse of money in the military and defense industry than anywhere else because everyone is afraid to speak up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Actually, Jack, the dollars spent on military offer us the highest rate of return in government spending. Perhaps you're confusing the fraud you're seeing with Medi-Care or wellfare, or countless other government programs. We have the best military in the world, and one every year into which tens thousands of men and women volunteer to receive extremely modest play. What other government program can you say that about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Sorry Jack, I dont think most people remember it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 JackC......I might as well play the roll of the billgerant namecaller....you are so painfully clueless....Clinton's respect from the military took a nosedive because his conduct created the conditions: 1) his immediate foul-ups in attempting to force social engineering before receiving council on the best way to proceed. 2) small things like white house personnel showing up and stealing things during official visits (to carriers, for instance) as well as a general attitude of arrogance (much as you present us with) 3) I have seen multiple underground e-mails from military folks who take notice of the often absent or lazy salutes Clinton gave to military folks (for instance, his HC detail) vs Bush's constant attention to this small act of symbolism and respect 4) getting caught, on camera, laughing and jawing at the memorial service for the Cole sailors 5) the politization of security matters (Vieques Island, for example) 6) the manipulation of the military....I was privy to an overseas visit in which military...who had just returned from a long deployment....were directed to appear for a Presidential visit/speech. white house types then appeared many hours before to coach we short order cooks on when/what to applause and cheer. 7) others have spoken to budgetary matters....and I will give you this.....there was some maneuvering room given the "peace dividend". too bad he guessed wrong. you miss the point entirely....not surprisingly.......orders are followed....respect is earned. riddle me this batman.....asking someone to die for his country requires a certain degree of moral authority. ultimately, there has to be an appeal to a core set of values that all honor and believe in. why should anyone take a Commander-in-Chief seriously who is receiving BJs while holding a phone conversation the substance of which had the potential to impact the lives of those serving in the military? that you obviously don't understand this is not materially important. that the democrats miss the larger issue of trust and shared values is a serious matter and one which can have long-term consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.