PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: square_marker on March 12, 2003, 08:32:47 PM
-
Quite frankly, if this new bill is vetoed, I believe we should go to war. Why should other countries have a say in our affairs and stop us from defending ourselves?
-
umm, the war is about "defending ourselves"
iraq is NO threat to the U.S.
-
meh... square_maker, welcome to last month.....
this has already been talked about. the us going to war against iraq is no domestic issue.
-
Long discussed topic. I DO agree that if the new resolution fails, we should go to war (of coarse, I\'ve been saying this for a long time). Now, domestic issue, yes and no. Yes, it is about security. No, Iraq is NOT an IMMEDIATE threat. BUT, leaving Saddam to play with his WMD that the UN inspectors can\'t find unless they "stumble" apon them isn\'t going to help our interest (security, economically, whatever) either.
-
Time to walk away!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call the Vote. Walk Away.
By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A21
Walk away, Mr. President. Walk away from the U.N. Security Council. It will not authorize the coming war. You can stand on your head and it won\'t change the outcome. You can convert to Islam in a Parisian mosque and it won\'t prevent a French veto.
The French are bent not just on opposing your policy but on destroying it -- and the coalition you built around it. When they send their foreign minister to tour the three African countries on the Security Council in order to turn them against the United States, you know that this is a country with resolve -- more than our side is showing today. And that is a losing proposition for us.
The reason you were able to build support at home and rally the world to at least pretend to care about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is that you showed implacable resolve to disarm Iraq one way or the other. Your wobbles at the United Nations today -- postponing the vote, renegotiating the terms -- are undermining the entire enterprise.
I understand that the wobble is not yours but a secondary, sympathetic wobble to Tony Blair\'s. Blair is courageous but opposed by a large part of his party and in need of some diplomatic cover.
But, Mr. President, he\'s not going to get it. Even if you marshal the nine votes on the Security Council by watering down the resolution, delaying the invasion, establishing criteria Hans Blix is sure to muddy and Mohamed ElBaradei is sure to say Saddam Hussein has met, France and Russia will still exercise the veto. You may call it a moral victory. The British left, which is what this little exercise is about, will not. It will not care what you call it but what Kofi Annan calls it, and he has already told us: a failed resolution rendering a war that follows illegitimate.
This, of course, is the rankest hypocrisy. The United Nations did not sanction the Kosovo war, surely a just war, and that did not in any way make it illegitimate. Of the scores of armed conflicts since 1945, exactly two have received Security Council sanction: the Korean War (purely an accident, the Soviets having walked out over another issue) and the Gulf War. The Gulf War ended in a cease-fire, whose terms everybody agrees Hussein has violated. You could very well have gone to war under the original Security Council resolutions of 1991 and been justified.
I understand why you did not. A large segment of American opinion swoons at the words "United Nations" and "international community." That the international community is a fiction and the United Nations a farce hardly matters. People believe in them. It was for them that you went to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002.
And it worked. When you framed the issue as the United Nations enforcing its own edicts, vindicating its own relevance by making Hussein disarm, the intellectual opposition to the war -- always in search of some standard outside the United States\' own judgment and interests to justify American action -- fell apart.
Thus Resolution 1441, passed unanimously, bought you two things: domestic support and a window of legitimacy, a time to build up our forces in the region under the umbrella of enforcing the will of the "international community."
Mr. President, the window has closed. Diplomatically, we are today back where we were before Sept. 12. It is America, Britain, Australia, a few Gulf states, some of Old Europe, most of New Europe and other governments still too afraid to say so openly. That\'s enough. And in any case that is all you are going to get.
Why are we dallying and deferring at the United Nations? In your news conference last week, you said you were going to have people put their cards on the table. I thought it a lousy idea to call a vote we were sure to lose. But having made your decision, you are making it worse by waffling. The world knows you as a cards-on-the-table man. Now you\'re asking for an extension of time and a reshuffle of the deck.
If, for Blair\'s sake, you must have a second resolution, why include an ultimatum that Blix will obfuscate and the French will veto? If you must have a second resolution, it should consist of a single sentence: "The Security Council finds Iraq in violation of Resolution 1441, which demanded \'full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions.\' "
The new resolution should be a statement not of policy but of fact. The fact is undeniable. You invite the French to cast what will be seen around the world as the most cynical veto in the history of the council, which is saying a lot. They may cast it nonetheless. They are, after all, French. But then they -- not you -- will have to do the explaining.
That\'s all you need. No need for elaborate compromises, stretching the timetable, or a tortuous checklist for Hussein to dance around. One sentence. One line. Cards on the table.
No more dithering. Every day you wait is an advertisement of hesitation and apprehension. It will not strengthen Tony Blair. It will not strengthen the resolve of our allies in the region. It will only boost the confidence and resolve of the people you are determined to defeat.
If the one-line resolution passes, the violation triggers 1441, which triggers the original resolutions ending the Gulf War. If it fails, you\'ve exposed the United Nations for what it is: the League of Nations, empty, cynical and mendacious. Mr. President: Call the vote and walk away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Originally posted by Avatarr
meh... square_maker, welcome to last month.....
this has already been talked about. the us going to war against iraq is no domestic issue.
That all depends. If you want to connect the dots:Saddam has weapons, Saddam gives weapons to terrorists, terrorists attack the US. We die!
Ace
-
The world is not ready for an organization like the UN. A grand idea that has failed yet again. Thanks for the article Ace.
-
I have been screaming this over and over again at the radio, but the radio doesn\'t listen. This whole fiasco has proven what a complete joke the UN is. Why make treaties if you aren\'t going to enforce them?
It\'s like playing baseball. It\'s a 5-4 ball game and we are in the 9th inning with the basses loaded. The batter strikes out for the third out, game over. Doh. wait a second. Why should we only have 3 outs in the last inning? Let\'s give them 4. What the heck....
-
It\'s over. The president needs to say thanks but no thanks to the UN. I mean when you have the French going to other countries to lobby against us it\'s time to say see ya later.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
That all depends. If you want to connect the dots:Saddam has weapons, Saddam gives weapons to terrorists, terrorists attack the US. We die!
Ace
yeah like Al-Qaeda has suddenly been hit with the stupid stick & are going to do THAT :rolleyes:
lets face it this is NOT going to make America Any Safe\'r
because Al-Qaeda can just simply get their weapons from earyer sources... like
- Dis Grunteled (sp) Russhian Scientists and Generals
- North Korea
- European Scoures (either through the seal off or stealing)
- US Scoures (through Stealing)
- Etc..etc..etc...
and please try and remember that all Al-Qaeda need to make the biggest terror attack in history was THIS !..............
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.pravda.ru%2Fimages%2Fnewsline%2F01-09-12-box-cutter.jpg&hash=6e9c365650db909f7151b97380fba676d93f93cd)
-
lets face it this is NOT going to make America Any Safe\'r
I hate to sound like an arrogant American, but we will decide that now.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
I hate to sound like an arrogant American, but we will decide that now.
Ace
Well i hate to sound like a level headed European :p , But... God Help us if thats the US attitude to Foreign affairs
-
I knew that would get ya! :)
Ace
-
Ok here is a simple question for you Ace… which country has complained the most about the UN.. Despite the fact that they contributed poorly to the funding of the UN and who have used the MOST UN veto’s.
Answer
The United States of America
I knew that would get ya! ;)
-
Contributed poorly? Heh.. That doesn\'t even deserve a comment. Well, I\'ll give one comment.
Not a single country in the world puts out more funds to foreign countries than we do. I\'d be willing to bet that we put out more funds than all the European countries combined.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
Contributed poorly? Heh.. That doesn\'t even deserve a comment. Well, I\'ll give one comment.
Not a single country in the world puts out more funds to foreign countries than we do. I\'d be willing to bet that we put out more funds than all the European countries combined.
yeah... if the US admin thought it would be WORTH it though ;)
which is far enough... the US Admin has always viewed the UN as something thats "useless".
note the word useless is used for want of a better word.
-
A better word than useless? I can\'t think of one either.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
A better word than useless? I can\'t think of one either.
oh how about
Useless
Futile
Hopeless
Fruitless
Profitless
Vain
Racer
Ineffectual
Purposeless
Unavailing
Unusable
Obsolete
Bankrupt
-
The thread should read : USA unsupported
Play of words.
:p
-
ooseven - just to prove how useless the UN is... the UN DID NOT agree on any resolutions to halt the genocide that was going on in Kosovo or even try and help the situation. The US took it to NATO to find a solution.
-
As soon as the UN doesn\'t agree with us, it\'s seen as useless...
-Eik
-
The UN is not enforcing it\'s own rules. That is why it is useless.
Saddam has gone against 18 resolutions. That is useless.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
The UN is not enforcing it\'s own rules. That is why it is useless.
Saddam has gone against 18 resolutions. That is useless.
what a whole 18 resolutions.. whaooo thats more than Israel then ;)
j/k
if i remember rightly but someone can go and check they are in breach of 8 resolutions.
but thats notthe issue.
Iraq has a Appalling human rights record … closely followed by S Arabia and then Turkey .
-
The UN, which is supposed to be the World Police (not the US) also FAILED to stop the genicide in Rwanda before tragedy hit. If they can\'t even stop this, what good is the UN?
BTW, where IS the UN? South Africa? No. Germany? No. Japan? No. Maybe...France? Nope. The UN is, in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! New York City to be exact, with that nice big building over there. Why? We GIVE the most to the UN despite all the whiners say about us. Which, is the source of probably the MOST anti-American rheteric from all these 3rd World diplomats even though they are, themselves in America and enjoy at all the fine restuarants in New York. Distant second when it comes to funding the UN, is Japan. Which are not even on perminent seats like the security consuel and so forth. In fact, Japan is comteplating reducing their amount since they are not getting the same treatment as nations that pay far less (like...France).
And continue how useless the UN is, who is the current head of the Human Rights Commission on the UN? Lybia. That "shining star" of Human Rights. Also on the commission, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, China :rolleyes:, Cuba, just to name a few of the "great examples of Human Rights" that are on the Human Rights commission. Heck, for a time, the US was KICKED OFF the Human Rights commission. So useless? I think so.
-
Well Simchoy hit on just about everything. If the UN doesn\'t enforce its own resolutions, the US should just pull out. I have been saying this for months and I am sure there are those who sit on my side of the aisle who don\'t agree, but the UN is a bottomless money pit that has no spine to do anything that might "upset" another member.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
what a whole 18 resolutions.. whaooo thats more than Israel then ;)
j/k
if i remember rightly but someone can go and check they are in breach of 8 resolutions.
but thats notthe issue.
Iraq has a Appalling human rights record … closely followed by S Arabia and then Turkey .
Hmmm, Rush said 18 this afternoon. I\'ll have to give that a looksy.
But then again, "8 is enough"
-
Not the issue?
I\'d say thats the whole freakin\' point...
Thats 8 broken resolutions too many...
-
Originally posted by Ashford
Not the issue?
I\'d say thats the whole freakin\' point...
Thats 8 broken resolutions too many...
If i was in the US Admin i would be more inclined to be pi$$ed off at Turkeys and S Arabia human rights Violations.
But Israel should of (and should still) be taken to task over the broken resolutions by the International Community.
-
Well, Turkey is a Democracy. Doesn\'t mean that their human rights abuses should be ignored because of that of coarse, and they should be condemned (which they are not...hmmmmm) but at least the oppressed can do something about it (in theory). Saudi Arabia, our "good" friends the Saudis! :rolleyes: Many conservatives (didn\'t say Republicans, conservative), heck, even liberals (didn\'t say Democrats either. Which, even those who speak out against them, only because they are against Bush) here don\'t see the Saudis as the great friends that they were during the First Gulf War for good reasons. There is a move in this nation to no longer see them as allies. But, in the mean time, we have to deal with them when concerning Iraq.
Which BTW, while improving human rights in Iraq might be the effect, it isn\'t the reason we are going in (even if you are a Bush basher and say this is a "war about oil", well that isn\'t about human rights now is it?).
As for Israel and the broken resolutions...
The many resolutions against Israel (at least 175 of them!), are all condemnation against their attacks in "Palistinians" areas and other Arab land that Israel annex for security reason. While I am NOT saying that every action Israel takes is the right action, many of those actions that were "condemned" by the UN were in responds to the suicide homicide bombers that killed many Israelis. Where are the resolutions against the Palistinians?
"Well, its because Palistinians don\'t have a nation".
One of the reasons why the Palistinians don\'t have a nation is because of all those suicide bombers. Now, you can argue that the PLO doesn\'t have the power. But their "condemnation" of the attacks against Israel are CLEARLY not as strong as the condamnation the world community gives Israel when Isreal kills one innocent boy.
And even then, even if all 175+ resolutions were justified, why does Israel have 175 resolutions against them while other nations (Rwanda, Lebanon, China, Libya, Afghanistan during the Taiban days, Sudan, Zimbabwe now, Syria, heck, even Iraq doesn\'t have that many resolutions) don\'t have even half that many? Double standard? :rolleyes:
More reasons why the UN is irellevent.
-
Okay if the UN is irellivent, why are we pushing for a war because Iraq broke a UN resolution?
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Okay if the UN is irellivent, why are we pushing for a war because Iraq broke a UN resolution?
The more you unravel this the more it gets :confused:ing
Because Saddam has Human rights abuses.
no wait Turkey and S Arabia is just as bad, plus it\'s a known fact that Turkish forces have displaced 1000\'s of Iraqi Kurds over the past 20 years.
ok its to stop terrorest geting WMD.
No .... Intelligence say that’s highly unlikely , and they could just get them easier from other countries.
its due to legal issues... i.e. the UN resolutions .
No wait... it was proven that other countries have violated UN resolutions and we are not going to attack them are we.
anyway all this = :confused: :confused: :confused:
-
Some will argue we should have not even gone to the UN in the first place.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
Some will argue we should have not even gone to the UN in the first place.
Ace
Errrr..... Sorry but if you read my new thread then you will see the reason why.
AT THE MOMENT....the UN is the Forum to decide on such matters.
-
I\'ll read your thread soon. We do not need to go to the UN. We chose to go to the Un.
Ace
-
IMO France, Russia... whatever, can veto whatever they want without having to be threatened.
The US has vetoed other proposals before.
Its only now when other countries go against the mighty superpower its looked upon as useless.
I bet they didn’t think that when the UN wanted to punish the US for her actions in Nicaragua?
-
The UN is like the French Maginot Line. Anyone can go around it or over it.
-
I didn\'t read most of the posts I have to admit but one quote from Simchoy jumped out at me
"One of the reasons why the Palistinians don\'t have a nation is because of all those suicide bombers".
Thats a little wrong methinks, the reason Palestinians have suicide bombers is because they don\'t have a country, it was taken from them, sort of like an Arab IRA.
Sorry, just my tuppence worth in the never ending war/peace debate that\'s starting to sound like a broken record.
-
Hong Kong were under the British rule. The Kantonese, instead of uprising and killing Brits, decided to just work and become among the most wealthy cities in the world.
Now...that may not be a fair comparison to the Palestinians. They had a chance to make their own country but they didn\'t. The Jews were more organized and took back their land they had settles in 5000 years ago. Since that time, they\'d been displaced by many nations long gone. They came back when the Romans took power there....then lost it after Islam took over. In 1947, they took it back. The Palestinians were pretty much ousted from nearly every Arab state in the Middle East they had refuged to.
-
Why are we going to war if its against UN resolutions? Who says that US is going to war with Iraq because of the UN? Bush was ready to go disarm Iraq to stop Saddam WITHOUT the UN until Colin Powell, thinking that going to the UN in the first place was a smart idea, went to the UN to "gain" support from the world community. Which obviously, is not happening.
In fact, like I said before, Clinton DID NOT get UN approval for the Bosnian incident, the bombing of a "drug" plant in Sudan, the bombing in Iraq for WMD that Saddam has. Its only now, with a Repulbican in office, do we here people saying that we should have UN approval. Hmmmmmmmmm.
Iraq has WMD. THIS IS WHY WE ARE GOING IN! UN or NO UN.
The UN is a forum. A forum that, for all intent and purpose, is a failure. In order for the UN to actually work, it shouldn\'t be bias to one group or another (which usually falls under a left/right, Muslim/non-Muslim, dictator/free world) in achieving what should\'ve been the ultimate goal, world peace. Which, with Cambodia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and Somolia (off the top of my head) shows that the UN is pretty much, illrelevent.
I used to believe the UN could\'ve been great. But at the moment, its becoming another League of Nations. Another forum that was supposed to be a place where nations should\'ve worked out their differences to prevent war. Instead, World War 2 was the cause due to their unability to even enforce their own policies. Making them, as the UN appears to be heading in the same direction.
As for the Palistinian bombers, thats still not an excuse for the murder of innocent civilians! :mad: If it was against military personal, "maybe" I\'d have more sympathy for their "plight". But as it stands, their leaders, ineffective, and the bombers are KEEPING THE PALISTINIANS FROM EVER HAVING A COUNTRY!
Not to mention, many of the killers don\'t care that they don\'t have a country. They only care about pushing the Jews out of Israel. Their one and only goal. Not all of them OF COARSE, but many of them.
Which, you mention the IRA, the original goal of the IRA was for Northern Ireland to succeed from Britain and become a part of Ireland. Despite years of terrorism, that hasn\'t happen now has it? It wasn\'t until the violence stopped did Northern Ireland has, some semblance of self-rule. Not part of Ireland nor independant from Britian, but still, some semblance of self-rule is in place there.
You can argue why the Palistinians blow themselves up, the simple fact is, it keeps them from having their nation.
-
NEWS BULLETIN:
UN WEAPONS INSPECTOR HANS BLIX: \'I\'m more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict\'...
Reported on the Drudge Report.
Ace
-
^^^
He seriously believes that? :eek:
:laughing:
Isn\'t 3 of the Great Lakes frozen over in one of THE COLDEST winters on record?
Didn\'t we have RECORD LOW temperatures this winter in the East Coast?
Amazing.
-
I have been freezing my ass off this winter here in the North East. One of the coldest winters ever.
Mr Blix, you sir are a moron!
Ace
-
I think he meant that he is more worried of global warming happening than war. ie. He doesn\'t believe the US will attack Iraq. Stupid statement either way.