0
   

The US, The UN and Iraq

 
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2003 10:52 pm
That's a bold statement.

How is the US responsible for strife between the Arabs and the Jews?

More on US financing of the UN (and every other thing under the sun... ) later...
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2003 11:02 pm
The UN would be a bunch of guys sitting around in their blue hats if it weren't for the extraordinary resources America has given them. They owe us.

Who Owes Whom?
by Cliff Kincaid
Cliff Kincaid is a journalist who writes frequently on UN affairs. He is president of America's Survival, Inc.,
and director of the American Sovereignty Action Project.

Executive Summary

Claims that the United States owes the United Nations more than $1 billion are false. No legal debt exists or can exist. The UN Charter does not empower the organization to compel payment from any member state.

Even the notion that the United States owes money in the sense of a moral obligation is fallacious. It ignores the military and other assistance that the Clinton administration has provided the UN and for which the United States has not been properly credited or reimbursed. Over the past five years, that assistance has amounted to at least $11 billion, and perhaps as much as $15 billion. The administration has been diverting funds from federal agencies, especially the Department of Defense, to the United Nations.

Allegations of debt have distracted attention from a disturbing administration policy of providing resources, personnel, and equipment to the UN without the advance approval of Congress. In effect, the administration and the UN have been conducting important elements of U.S. foreign and military policy and bypassing Congress's power of the purse. That tendency raises grave constitutional concerns.



The entire article.

I want my change!

And, I don't care if this guy heads the Soverienty Project or sells beer on Mars, the figures are accurate.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2003 11:06 pm
Lash, Forget the change. I want the whole $15 billion. Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2003 11:10 pm
I'd settle for a few weeks worth of interest on it. I'm not greedy.



timber
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2003 11:14 pm
dyslexia wrote:
the rhetoric on this thread is underwhelming, nobodys right when everybodys wrong. there are NO clear answers to this issue and anyone who proproses an absolute correct vision/understanding is an idiot. but thats just my opinion, i might be wrong.


Amen. I don't feel like answerng many posts on this thread because often the poster is using nonnegotiable absolutes.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2003 11:28 pm
dys wrote, "the rhetoric on this thread is underwhelming, nobodys right when everybodys wrong." Now, how did you determine that "nobody's right when everybody's wrong?" Why don't you tell us how "nobody's right when everybody's wrong." These are only opinions of the posters. They're not rocket science. When any issue concerns politics or religion, different opinions will be expressed. If everybody is wrong, please show us where. thx, c.i.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2003 11:30 pm
I think he meant that if one thinks they are the owner of the truth and everyone else is wrong debate is stifled and it's as fun as talking to a wall. I agree with him, but didn't have you in mind c.i.
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2003 11:40 pm
The debate seems to be hopping along, IMO.

Agree with c.i.

I was thinking dys was stating the obvious. I don't think there's one person on this thread, who's goal is to change everyone else's mind. The back and forth is fun and envigorating. But, as dys pointed out, could be viewed as pointless. We're all wrong....we're all right...we're all on a discussion board in politics...

Isn't that what these boards are designed for?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 12:20 am
Yes, I do hope that is the end of the Hitler analogies as it seems to cloud up the issues more than clarify them (everytime it's brought up by any side in any debate, it seems to end up as a Red Herring).

I do agree that the U.S. can't established a foreign policy (including making decisions to go to war) based on the opinion of a small faction of countries representing the free world. We don't have a small faction of countries against us here, we have only a small faction of countries for us and only one of those is willing to fight alongside (well, that's not looking so good either). It's uphill all the way to turn this around and establish a coalition of allies that is satisfactory. It doesn't have to be overwhelming and a unilateral attack on Iraq is, in my opinion, a very big mistake. And, yes, we don't need the U.N. if we have some crucial allies to suport the war with men, arms and money. The diplomacy to do so is difficult but that's where Colin Powell comes in -- he was successful to a high degree with Afghanistan and I don't understand why he's sitting in Washington issued press conference sound bites. We don't have the best historical record for unilateral military campaigns -- I don't think we need to add another mistake to our collection.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 12:45 am
For what it's worth, I think dys was singing there a post or two ago ... an old Buffalo Springfield song. I'm surprised nobody else jumped in. That's always been a personal anthem, and says as much to today as it said a to a generation past.

There have been some egos pricked in this thread, by both aimed and random barbs. They've reinflated quickly, and it has been lively. What the heck ... so far, no shots have been fired and no papers have been filed. I've been to rowdier parties.



This is a great group to party with. And a forum like this is probably the only way this group COULD hold a dialog. A room with all of us assembled would likely be a cacophonous babel with much loud talk and little effective listening. At least here we have to take turns ... we can't all talk at once! :wink:



timber
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 01:00 am
Right you are, timber. As for all the participants on this forum, I'd be happy to buy all a round of drinks. Unlike some other chat rooms that have degraded to invectives and personal attacks, nonsensical cussing and sexual overtones, at least we have remained on the subject - most of the time. After all, isn't the purpose of A2K to bring together differring opinions? If we all agreed on every subject, it would be boring, indeed, and I would have sought other pastures for my free time! Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 01:03 am
I'd chew cud or quaff brew wi' ye anytime. :wink:
And who in Hell can bring us back from this silly digression?

(On second thought, segueing from the pasture reference is not worth saying I'll chew cud. The thought is despicable.) Drunk I'll just quaff.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 01:30 am
Lash, You may have all the despicable thoughts you desire. Even I have some, some days...... LOL c.i.
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 01:33 am
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing :wink:
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 11:04 am
timber
re designs towards hegemony
Quote:
Possible. Plausible? I don't really feel allegations sufficient to support the proposition have been substantiated. There are lots of axes out there to grind. I will admit an obvious and not unexpected American tendency to favor soverniegnity ...which does have troubling aspect.
It is explicit in the 92 Wolfowitz/Perle documents. It was explicit in Bush's speech a couple of months ago. Yet aside from that, there is the World Court, abrogation of the missle treaty and Kyoto, and, for example, Lash's response re the UN. Is there any imaginable design for the UN wherein the US would subsume it's authority in the manner it expects other nations to do? Is there any imaginable scenario where the US would accept the presence of, say, Canadian military forces bombing pot farms in Ohio? Sovereignty is a valid principle, but it's less compellingly argued when unidirectional.
Quote:
Here we differ a bit ... Iraq seems to be not separate from "The War on Terrorism" to my estimation. State or Stateless, Terror is Terror. I agree we have shamedly abdicated responsibilty in The Israel/Palestine debacle, and are chief among its causes. For a variety of reasons, the "Holy Land" dispute has been subsumed into "The War on Terror"
These are perilous times indeed. If Civilization is to prevail, it must act swiftly and decisively, damping individual flame spots before the brushfires amalgamate and flash into an uncontrolable, unwinnable conflagration.
Per the above documents alluded to, it seems quite clear that Sadaam was at the top of the list long before 9-11. 'Terrorism' goes on in evey continent and is defined as that or as 'freedom fighting' depending on whose side one is on (Ollie North). The potential problem with US policy on Iraq (this was my point) is that the swift move to dampen may be a cure with consequences far worse than others and, as you know, a lot of thoughtful folks worry the same.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 11:11 am
An article, carefully thought and written, of relevance to all these points from Council on Foreign Relations... http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=4763.xml ...two quotes follow:
Quote:
Terrorism is the poisoned fruit of several forces. It can be the weapon of the weak in a classic conflict among states or within a state, as in Kashmir or the Palestinian territories. But it can also be seen as a product of globalization. Transnational terrorism is made possible by the vast array of communication tools. Islamic terrorism, for example, is not only based on support for the Palestinian struggle and opposition to an invasive American presence. It is also fueled by a resistance to "unjust" economic globalization and to a Western culture deemed threatening to local religions and cultures.
Quote:
Finally, the unique position of the United States raises a serious question over the future of world affairs. In the realm of interstate problems, American behavior will determine whether the nonsuperpowers and weak states will continue to look at the United States as a friendly power (or at least a tolerable hegemon), or whether they are provoked by Washington's hubris into coalescing against American preponderance. America may be a hegemon, but combining rhetorical overkill and ill-defined designs is full of risks. Washington has yet to understand that nothing is more dangerous for a "hyperpower" than the temptation of unilateralism. It may well believe that the constraints of international agreements and organizations are not necessary, since U.S. values and power are all that is needed for world order. But in reality, those same international constraints provide far better opportunities for leadership than arrogant demonstrations of contempt for others' views, and they offer useful ways of restraining unilateralist behavior in other states. A hegemon concerned with prolonging its rule should be especially interested in using internationalist methods and institutions, for the gain in influence far exceeds the loss in freedom of action.
In the realm of global society, much will depend on whether the United States will overcome its frequent indifference to the costs that globalization imposes on poorer countries. For now, Washington is too reluctant to make resources available for economic development, and it remains hostile to agencies that monitor and regulate the global market. All too often, the right-leaning tendencies of the American political system push U.S. diplomacy toward an excessive reliance on America's greatest asset -- military strength -- as well as an excessive reliance on market capitalism and a "sovereigntism" that offends and alienates. That the mighty United States is so afraid of the world's imposing its "inferior" values on Americans is often a source of ridicule and indignation abroad.
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 11:41 am
I know I may be a Granny Clampett stumbled into a think tank, but blatham's second quote on the preceding post seems to say, "If America doesn't do what we want, we don't like them."

We are restricted from playing in global reindeer games, because we are the only ones with a bright red nose. Well, dammit, I like our bright red nose. It may just come in handy....
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 11:58 am
blatham wrote:
but combining rhetorical overkill and ill-defined designs is full of risks.

Sort of a two edged sword, dontchya think?

blatham wrote:
... arrogant demonstrations of contempt for others' views, and they offer useful ways of restraining unilateralist behavior in other states.

So let me get this straight ... Unilateralism is OK as long as it isn't the US's Uni that gets lateralled? I have a little trouble getting that one down ... it needs more chewing.



timber
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 12:09 pm
guys

the piece is well worth reading in its entirety, and with care...quotes were to give a sense of it.

Re your last point timber, and to Lash's post...no, that's not the intention of the writer...unilateralism dangerous EVEN IF it is the US doing it, not that it is the US. It isn't God stearing your ship of state, it is men and women with all the failings of any other culture or historical state. America gets no pass because its apple pie recipes are exquisite and its grandmas endearing.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 12:26 pm
As a 'superpower,' America is having its own problems at home. Most Americans want our government to concentrate more on fixing the economy. Over 500,000 demonstrators in Washington DC, and 40,000 in San Francisco does not want our country to go on the offensive on a war with Iraq. I don't think this administration hears or cares what it's citizens want. This so-called "unilaterism" only exists in the minds of the president and his henchmen. Power really does corrupt. c.i.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/14/2025 at 05:05:55