The US, The UN and Iraq

Roger

Yeah he's been firing those one liners all day--hasn't had a winner yet though

george

Hegemony (American Heritage)... The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

Your repeated protest re 'verifiability' remains misplaced here. If you apply it to your own previous post, you'll see why, because it will appear as:(ps, I'm familiar with Popper).

The London Review article and the NY Review article both detail statements written and spoken by Wolfowitz, Perle and others since as early as 92 regarding their notions that the US ought to prevent any power from arising which might challenge the US. This was duplicated in a speech given by the president approximately three months ago.

Attempting to make some graduated scale along which we might place the imperial powers of history (big yucky to small yucky) isn't an exercise I'm going to attempt. The point is, that the US would be on it. But even that claim itself is not acceptable to many who would rather think of the US on a different scale all together, one that ranges, perhaps, from Camelot at one end to Peter Pan at the other.

Your suggestion that the US has lots of reasons NOT to allow itself to fall under the constraints of bodies such as the World Court and UN make my argument for me. Thus, I owe you a beer or something.

And the following slight of my motherland (or fatherland, perhaps, I'm not sure how one settles on a preference here without some years in Freudian analysis) set me to weeping and teeth gnashing: Whatever are you talking about? Ought we to be less willing to let down-on-their-luck darkies in? Then place a line of Canadian border guards at entry points to the US to make doubly sure your guys don't erroneously assume that Abhul is from Thunder Bay?

haven't suggested killing anyone either perception

but you know how us poets are, sneaking out back to smoke a joint.

That's only when the bad guys are knocking at the front door.

i don't go out when you come in

Though most of you are on this other thread as well, there are two quotes, by Diane and by Setanta which are entirely relevant here...they are found on page 24...
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=52711#52711

Ah---you're warming up-----too bad I've got to go watch my favorite news channel----FOX----be back shortly.

dyselexia

Things have been quite liberal here in Canada for a while now, and are heading even more in that direction. Rather belated, as a government commision advocated legalization more than thirty years ago. There really are no arrests for possession of personal use amounts, and one can walk down the street smoking with little concern.

Blatham
Would you hazard a guess about whether that has increased the useage or not?

perception

This is the sort of question which is really difficult to answer with any great certainty, but I would think it probable. I think a state can go some distance towards discouraging new users through stigmatizing and making illegal.

Of course, that is just a teenie little corner of the whole issue. Some other corners come into view when one thinks, obviously, of prohibition of alcohol where it became evident the cure was far worse than the original affliction. I consider that so with most drugs presently deemed illegal to use in both our countries.

Another comes into view when one sees a generation who have been fed a diet of exaggeration and outright falsehoods by one's govenment regarding effects of usage, and the consequences that has had for the credibility of government pronouncements. The present drug czar in your country is, unfortunately, in this same mold.

It's all a very interesting story and debate. If you or anyone is interested, I can link you (if the series is still archived) to an in depth analysis of the issues, but it is really in depth (printed out, it is almost an inch thick). On the plus side, it's the best analysis I've seen.

Warren Christopher on Iraq...
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/opinion/31CHRI.html

The only remark I'll add here is that there seems likely to be (given DiIlulio's description of how this administration works) pressure by Rove to base policy decisions on vote-getting criteria, and thus to disallow a major reversal of policy on Iraq because it will/might make the President look indecisive or weak-kneed.

Good link, blatham. Christopher is probably correct, and certainly has credibility.

Blatham

Don't bother about the link on drug useage----that's a monster of a different color which is way beyond my limited understanding.

Re the article by Christopher: It is a very well written and logical analysis of the current situation---even the remarks about Rove.
lt's that fact that it comes from a Secretary of State under Clinton and a deputy under Carter that makes the article less than credible.
It was Carter's micro management of the botched hostage rescue attempt that makes any advice from that administration seem like science fiction. When you add to that the appeasment of North Korea by this same man in 1994 and the failure of the Clinton administration to deal with NK back then, you get the idea why I think this man should be laughed out of town for giving any unsolicited advice.

Blatham

I sort of get the idea that you may have a leaning toward being tolerant of marijuana use. You aren't one of the crowd that smoked pot but DIDN'T INHALE are you?))))))))))))

While Chistopher's opinion piece is interesting he, and many others who share his thinking, continue to ignore a key factor in the whole issue of disengagement with Iraq and an engagement with N.K. - North Korea, unlike Iraq, is still at the bargining table AND there is a much larger community willing to engage North Korea.

The anti-Bush crowd has been screaming for months that Bush should be allowing international (i.e. UN) pressure on Iraq work but they don't want to allow that to happen with North Korea. Why should we rush headlong into North Korea while they are still at the table and the UN is holding firm with them?

Good point about the larger part of the international community being involved with NK, fishin'. Still, Christopher makes a solid point about the diversion of attention from Iraq, and he has been in a position to see the how that could affect the entire administration.

Indeed, Warren Christopher was a part of the Clinton administration, though I note he quietly resigned at the end of the first term, with his credibility intact. Something of the sort may be under consideration by Colin Powell, if he has major differences with the current administration, as seems possible.

Perception, I say politely, the drug and body count baiting is wearing thin. Would you consider moving them to a separate discussion, possibly under the Medical News and Health forum?

folks

I won't have time to play today, and just wanted to wish you each a very happy new year.

A particular thanks to fishin and roger for the forum they've produced here.

You had a bigger hand in there than I, blatham. Thanks and a Happy New Year.