THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Quote:

Timersnake

hardy conducive to rational discourse

0 Replies

Timber, I have been thinking about your recent posts.

If you have any deficiency in the Squad Leader role, it is that you tend to be patronizing. Nuf said. Think about it.

I have my own deficiency. It is that I can see the other fellow's viewpoint to a fault. (This does not keep me from being passionate on certain issues. For example, I think that the death penalty is fundamentally flawed, even if one believes in state-sanctioned murder. Until we see rich people -- like the murderer O.J. Simpson -- convicted and sentenced to death, then I will not believe in the fairness of this penalty. As to whether the penalty is moral, well, that is another issue. Glad to discuss it another time.)

I have read your well articulated viewpoints on the positive moves of the Bush Administration. I would not count as one of them (your WAV's) that we have not had a major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. It could happen tomorrow, or never. The motivations of terrorists are not within our purview, nor within our control. It is a fantasy that our Homeland Security is protecting us from same. The attempt to do so has been a big political point and will provide much fodder for GOP flak against Dem candidates. And this issue may well re-elect GWB. The fear factor is huge. We were "safe" or thought ourselves so until 9/11. We withdrew into our boundaries after that and needed to be protected. We have become a different country.

As anyone here knows, I was against the war. I do not think that we should go to war on flimsy pretexts. I am not totally, (but almost ) against war, but that is another discussion.

I find your sunny optimism about the policies of this adminstration difficult to countenance. There are so many things you do not want to talk about. You toss us a sop...you say that you are unhappy with the after war. There was not sufficient planning, etc. Okay. What is it about a country that rules the world and moves dramatically to protect its interests but does not foreward plan or fumbles the after game?

Are you just tossing this into the mix? Well, we are the good guys and we will always know and decide what is best, and we are benign, and so what if there are a few missteps? Does this not bring to mind Master Chess Players, moving countries around on the chess board of the world?

Quote:

As simplistic as it sounds, Steve, "The Big Picture" to me is the liberation of humankind from the yokes of tyrany and terrorism. I know others don't see it that way, and I know some who do see it that way do not feel the current US course is a reasonable approach. I'm just not one of them.

I want very much to know how you feel that the US approach, which is the PNAC aggressive course, is the way to go. Do you think that wars of agression, to accomplish this goal, are excusable? Do you think that we must force this course on other nations?

0 Replies

Kara, I follow these threads infrequently becuase I have such a low tolerance for STATEMENTS that defy argument or discussion. Once in a while, along comes a sensible question that is expressed in such a way that I realize that I was wondering the same thing. You just asked it. Thank you.

Timber, you have been one of the consevatives that I have always respected because of your ability to enter into a dialogue, but it seems that you have fallen into the trap of extremeism and polarization that I see on both sides.

I wish all of the participants of these threads would slow down and try to understand the other side and try to accomodate those differences while proferring you own ideas. Isn't that what a democracy is all about?

0 Replies

KAra, to start with your last question, the nature of the threat presented by organized but stateless terrorism calls for a pardigm shift in the way of thinking about the justification for war. In 1938, FDR said, reference Germany, "You don't wait for a rattlesnake to strike" ... and I find that perfectly valid 65 years later.

Patronizing, huh? Yeah, I s'pose I do come off that way sometimes ... prolly more than I realize. Still, I do have, and frequently mention, objections to many of the policies and actions, or inactions, of The Current Administration. I take issue, however, with criticisms I cannot consider intellectually valid. I was niot at all happy with the way the attack on Saddam's regime was marketed. I'm not at all happy with the current situation either in Iraq or in Afghanistan, but I do see progress being made, even if I wish it were at once more substantial and more timely, and that it received more ballanced, less emotional, sensationalist, "The Sky Is Falling" media coverage. This is a real war. We did not start it, and it started long before 9/11. It will go on for years to come, and nobody in authority has said or promised anything other than a long, dangerous, arduous task lies ahead. This is a war we cannot contemplate losing. Regardless how or when it started, regardless how we got here, we're here, and we're in it to the finish, one way or the other. The object is to render the opportunity cost of terrorism as a political tool untenable.

0 Replies

Quote:

the liberation of humankind from the yokes of tyrany and terrorism.

Well, shiver my timberlandkos. I really can't believe you said that! Less that you actually think it is so.

Where might this policy goal have been formulated?

It's not to be found in the works of Strauss (neocon guiding light), though one CAN find the notion that political leaders are completely justified in pretending to the unwashed masses that they are engaged in a humanitarian enterprise even while they are really only seeking to consolidate power.

So, what are you referring to here, timber? Whose policy goal is this? Where is it explicated? What sort of scrutiny has it undergone? Are the seeds of it extractable from the constitution?

0 Replies

Another of Bush's brain cells kick in ...

Quote:

[URL=http://]SOURCE AND LINKS[/URL]

0 Replies

The following gets my vote for Irony In The News...

Two or three days past, big story on US government plan to deal with bullying behavior in schools.

Today, US government announces that no contracts for rebuild in Iraq will be given to any nation which didn't support the attack on Iraq.

0 Replies

Biological WOMD found! And guess where... in the mitts of an evangelical american...

Quote:

Only a couple of years ago, Clayton Waagner was one of three extreme-right American terrorists on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, a self-styled avenging angel of the unborn. In the autumn of 2001, at the apex of national fear about terrorist strikes and deadly anthrax attacks, he mailed hundreds of envelopes stuffed with white powder and threatening letters to abortion clinics and and reproductive rights organizations -- all in the name of the antiabortion Army of God. Doctors, staffers, clients and their families were terrified, and hundreds of clinics were shut down. That made Clayton Waagner a celebrity, of sorts, and to some, a hero.

Waagner lost his spot atop the 10 Most Wanted lists when an anti-abortion ally ratted him out, and in a federal courtroom in Philadelphia last week, he was convicted of threatening the use of weapons of mass destruction and other federal charges, more than 50 counts in all. The two-week trial was remarkable not so much for its verdict as for the near-complete lack of media attention that it attracted.

(from Salon)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

afghanistan is a UN operation that was merely spearheaded by US military forces. NATO has failed it's operation responsibilities in Afghanistan.

And people wonder why we don't want the UN to have more control in Iraq...sheesh...

NATO /=/ UN - or am I missing something here? If "NATO has failed it's operation responsibilities", how's the UN to blame for that?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

750,000 in Trafalgar Square ... on a weekday. Doesn't that break the record set a few weeks ago ... by about 700 percent?

Heh - touche ...

0 Replies

perception wrote:

"Trans-Dniester does not see itself as part of Moldova. It is not recognized internationally".

Is this scary or what? This sort of stuff will really get your attention.

Yep, Trans-Dniestr is scary. But as long as Russia considers it an acute interest to keep its troops there, neither the Moldovan government nor the OSCE has a chance in hell to broker out an agreement that would have Transdniester return to Moldova, with whatever kind of limited autonomy. As long as it knows it has Putin's support, the mafia leadership of that tiny neo-communist operetta dictatorship (yes - its that bad) will not yield in any way.

Trans-Dniestr is not the only place like that ... Abkhazia comes to mind. (Check Sofia's thread on Georgia). Meanwhile, these territories live 'outside the law', and dont comply with any international rules either - the ideal transport hubs for illegal stuff, thus.

0 Replies

Kara wrote (to Timber)

Quote:

I want very much to know how you feel that the US approach, which is the PNAC aggressive course, is the way to go.

Does this not bring to mind Master Chess Players, moving countries around on the chess board of the world?

Kara, I'm sure Timber will respond but I'd like to throw in my bit.

I don't know if you were deliberately refering to Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard (I know I keep going on about it) but for me it explains a lot.

My understanding of the Peniacs view is that America must take advantage of the window of opportunity which now presents itself in order to stamp its authority on the world. Otherwise the opportunity will be lost as other countries form power bases to challenge American hegemony. They justify this on two counts - that the alternative is anarchy and that the ultimate goal is a 'benign Pax Americana' for the benefit of the world and in particular of course the US. Its a load of bollocks in my opinion. And dangerous. But there you have it.

[The Peniacs are totally amoral, they deal in pure power terms, war is just an instrument of foreign policy as it was for ancient Rome]

0 Replies

Quote:

The United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show.

Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.

The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in October when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq's oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available for 71 cents wholesale.

This is like the privatization of de-yoking. Halliburton will use this profit more efficiently than would the taxpayers and their government to continue on it's quest to bring freedom to oppressed people everywhere.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10GAS.html

0 Replies

Quote:

Peace Prize winner slams US

Wednesday 10 December 2003, 15:55 Makka Time, 12:55 GMT

Shirin Ebadi: Guantanamo inmates stripped of human rights

Nobel Peace Prize winner and Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi has criticised nations that use 11 September as a justification for violating international law.

In a speech at the official prize award ceremony in Oslo on Wednesday, Shirin Ebadi clearly targeted the US human rights record.

"In the past two years, some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of 11 September and the war on international terrorism as a pretext," the first Muslim woman peace prize winner said.

Ebadi also criticised America's allies, claiming human rights laws are breached not only by recognized opponents, but by Western democracies too.

Guantanamo spotlight

In her acceptance speech, the 56-year-old Nobel laureate highlighted the plight of prisoners detained at a US base in Guantanamo.

"They are without the benefit of the rights stipulated under the international Geneva conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the (United Nations) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

"Why is it that in the past 35 years, dozens of UN resolutions concerning the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the state of Israel have not been implemented properly?"

Shirin Ebadi,
Nobel Peace Prize winner 2003
Chosen for her democracy-building efforts and her work to improve human rights and women's rights in Iran, Ebadi also pointed to selective application of United Nations decisions.

"Why is it that some decisions and resolutions of the UN Security Council are binding, while some other resolutions of the council have no binding force?" she asked, pointing to the different treatment of Israel and Iraq.

Impartial UN

"Why is it that in the past 35 years, dozens of UN resolutions concerning the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the state of Israel have not been implemented properly," she continues.

"Yet, in the past 12 years, the state and people of Iraq... were subjected to attack, military assault, economic sanctions, and, ultimately, military occupation."

Ebadi received the prize from chairman of the Nobel Committee Ole Mjoes at a formal ceremony on Wednesday in Oslo's City Hall.

The prize consists of a diploma, a gold medal, and a cheque for 10 million Swedish kronor ($1.4 million).

King Harald V of Norway, who is usually present at the ceremony, sent his excuses this time, as he is recovering from surgery he underwent for bladder cancer on Monday.
Reuters

SOURCE

0 Replies

It always amazes me the high standards by which the US and it's allies are held.

With all the REAL human rights problems in the second and third world, you would think that maybe we could catch a break. It we were really interested in abusing human rights, I am sure we could do a much better job. Torture and death are much more compelling than food, shelter and the other niceties that we provide.

Seems to me, this Nobel prize winner is just trying to use their 15 minutes to further their own goals, not that there is anything wrong with that, but that's all it is.

Quote:

"Why is it that in the past 35 years, dozens of UN resolutions concerning the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the state of Israel have not been implemented properly," she continues.

Blame Arafat and the Palestinians.

0 Replies

Quote:

My understanding of the Peniacs view is that America must take advantage of the window of opportunity which now presents itself in order to stamp its authority on the world. Otherwise the opportunity will be lost as other countries form power bases to challenge American hegemony. They justify this on two counts - that the alternative is anarchy and that the ultimate goal is a 'benign Pax Americana' for the benefit of the world and in particular of course the US. Its a load of bollocks in my opinion. And dangerous. But there you have it.

As is often the case, Steve, I can add nothing to your comment. Full marks.

0 Replies

Quote:

Blame Arafat and the Palestinians.

McGentrix, there is enough blame to go around....

0 Replies

Quote:

This is like the privatization of de-yoking. Halliburton will use this profit more efficiently than would the taxpayers and their government to continue on it's quest to bring freedom to oppressed people everywhere.

Ah, yes, blatham. I read the entire NYTimes piece and found the company spokesperson unconvincing. There are too many facts that seem to be getting in the way of her statements.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It always amazes me the high standards by which the US and it's allies are held. The 'high standards' are self-assigned..."greatest nation on earth", "we will bring freedom and democracy to the world". God-like hubris doesn't let you off the hook, it puts you right on it.

With all the REAL human rights problems in the second and third world, you would think that maybe we could catch a break. It we were really interested in abusing human rights, I am sure we could do a much better job. Torture and death are much more compelling than food, shelter and the other niceties that we provide. As above. Adding that I too think torture the most despicable of human activities, and sincerely wish the US would cease it's systematic use through third parties.

Seems to me, this Nobel prize winner is just trying to use their 15 minutes to further their own goals, not that there is anything wrong with that, but that's all it is. It's what you are doing in writing this post. The difference is that Nobel winners use not just fifteen minutes, but the major part of their lives trying to make the world a better place. Get yourself a nobel and I'll consider your opinion as worthy as hers.

Quote:
"Why is it that in the past 35 years, dozens of UN resolutions concerning the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the state of Israel have not been implemented properly," she continues.

Blame Arafat and the Palestinians. Do you have any notion at all, McG, how many Israelis think that what you've just suggested here is anything but uneducated and simplistic?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
It always amazes me the high standards by which the US and it's allies are held. The 'high standards' are self-assigned..."greatest nation on earth", "we will bring freedom and democracy to the world". God-like hubris doesn't let you off the hook, it puts you right on it.And we live up to those standards that we set for ourselves. It is others high standards that are impossible to meet. If you don't believe that the US is the greatest nation on Earth, then which country is? Which nation offers the opportunities and freedoms that the US does?

With all the REAL human rights problems in the second and third world, you would think that maybe we could catch a break. It we were really interested in abusing human rights, I am sure we could do a much better job. Torture and death are much more compelling than food, shelter and the other niceties that we provide. As above. Adding that I too think torture the most despicable of human activities, and sincerely wish the US would cease it's systematic use through third parties. Torture? What torture? You have evidence of this toture? I am sure that AI would like to have some of your evidence...

Seems to me, this Nobel prize winner is just trying to use their 15 minutes to further their own goals, not that there is anything wrong with that, but that's all it is. It's what you are doing in writing this post. The difference is that Nobel winners use not just fifteen minutes, but the major part of their lives trying to make the world a better place. Get yourself a nobel and I'll consider your opinion as worthy as hers.I have a best reader award from 5th grade, does that count?

Quote:
"Why is it that in the past 35 years, dozens of UN resolutions concerning the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the state of Israel have not been implemented properly," she continues.

Blame Arafat and the Palestinians. Do you have any notion at all, McG, how many Israelis think that what you've just suggested here is anything but uneducated and simplistic? Nope, should I?

0 Replies

THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know