1
   

Old Story, may have some teeth after all! Check this out!

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:02 pm
McGentrix wrote:
The people weremn't the ones threatening to veto, it was the governments of France and Russia.


McG, the other nations do not have the power to veto. Hence the not threatening thing.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:05 pm
Would you argue against the idea that a lot of the coalition was convinced by this very fact? (money)
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:05 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
we'll never know if Bush would have been able to secure it.


Bull, anyone who follows the UN knows. UN votes are rarely surprises. In fact I do not remember a single vote that has ever been a surprise.

Before going in to vote, everyone knows the outcome as this is a long negotiating process.

That's why the US did not propose a second resolution. We were hoping to get enough votes to have it pass with France vetoing it.

Then we'd say the world agrees but France is playing the fool.

It didn't work and the second resolution would not have had to be vetoed to fail. That's why it was not proposed.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:07 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Would you argue against the idea that a lot of the coalition was convinced by this very fact? (money)


Very very much so.

The US dangled monetary retribution to all parties. Far more than what was at stake.

To France and Russia the US offered a guarantee that their financial interests would be taken care of.

To Turkey we offered a package.

To Syria we offered to sell them oil at the illegal prices they were buying it from Iraq from (as they depended on it).

We offered far more than any of them had to lose.

Signing onto the war would have meant profit for all of them. The rebuilding contracts were dangled and assurances about Iraq debt were offered.

The argument that the opposition was about money is absurd on its face and I would argue against it any day.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:08 pm
I find my reaction to many of craven's posts are unduly influenced by which avatar I get. Right now it is a Groening drawing of Bill Clinton. I am going to refresh and see if I get a less offensive AV out of Craven...
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:14 pm
Craven: There were no doubt dozens of reasons considered other than "right and wrong". I'm simply stating that the potential embarrassment of having these things revealed could have been a mitigating factor in the decisions made. Do you really think thats impossible?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:28 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
If I were leading Russia, quite frankly I would have told America that a unilateral invasion would result in nuclear war.
This may be the most extreme thing I've read from you. Did you notice that despite all of the grand-standing; not one civilized Nation even suggested they might oppose us Militarily? A threat of this magnitude would have been ridiculous. Why would you suggest threatening extinction to protect a tyrant?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:32 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven: There were no doubt dozens of reasons considered other than "right and wrong". I'm simply stating that the potential embarrassment of having these things revealed could have been a mitigating factor in the decisions made. Do you really think thats impossible?


No, I do not think it's impossible. But since I don't think anything is impossible it's a meaningless distinction if ya ask me.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Why would you suggest threatening extinction to protect a tyrant?


Not to protect a tyrant Bill. And I'm not going to continue this line of discussion. When you tell me why you like beating women I'll tell you why I support tyrants. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:36 pm
It's impossible to fold a peice of 8.5"x11" peice of standard copier paper in half more than 7 times.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:38 pm
Yet Japanese make origami cranes out of a piece of paper that's the size of a grain of salt. The swans are so small they can hide within the ridges of your finger prints.

Yes, McG, it's possible. ;-)

Quote:
Square 1mm by 1mm used to fold a crane using a microscope and sewing needle by Assistant Professor Watanabe at Nigata University, Japan. See British Origami, No. 119, page 22.
Lluis Bigas, a Spanish watch maker, has folded a pajarita from paper measuring .36 millimetres by .3 millimetres using a 20 times magnification lens, and two pairs of tweezers! The photograph, shows the tiny pajarita along side a flea. The pajarita is about as large as a full-stop!

A. Naito, Japan, folded a flapping bird from paper a mere 2.9mm (about 1/10in) square in response to a 'smallest flapping bird competition'. The bird was only about 2mm from beak to tail. To display it, Naito mounted it on a needle inside a transparent globe. However it was still very difficult to see so Nigel Keen fitted a contact lens to the outside of the globe through which it could be viewed. See page 160 of Complete Origami by Eric Kenneway (ISBN 0-312-00898-8).
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:54 pm
Actually, 80% is probably not too high. It may be too low. I remember reading a Lewis Lapham article in Harpers a few monthes ago where he stated that there was no nation outside Europe and North America in which more than 10% of the population supported the war. That alone would have to place the global total somewhere around 80% or more. I also remember several stats of European nations where around 90% of the population opposed the war. Spain, France, and Germany, for example - and they are our traditional allies and cultural bretheren.

Further, most of the people withen America who did support the war were grossly misinformed. Initially, thier support rested upon an assumed connection between Saddam and 9/11. I think the figure at one point was 70% of Americans believed in a direct Hussien-Sept 11th connection. It was also based on a firm belief that there were WMD's in Iraq. Among more informed people, support for the war was always tenuous at best.
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:15 pm
Quote:
If I were leading Russia, quite frankly I would have told America that a unilateral invasion would result in nuclear war.


What purpose would such a threat serve? Would it be only a bluff? How would you justify the act to your people who might very well die in a nuclear exchange. Would you think your country would actually survive such a conflict?

Quote:
Not to protect a tyrant Bill. And I'm not going to continue this line of discussion. When you tell me why you like beating women I'll tell you why I support tyrants.


Don't worry Bill. He got me like that not too long ago. It helps keep us on our intellectual toes.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:18 pm
How much of the population of the world is under 18 and care?

What percentage of the world is embroiled in it's own war and doesn't care?

What percentage of the world doesn't have radio, TV, Newspapers and don't care?

What percentage of the world has never even heard of Iraq?

What percentage of the world was for the war?

80%? Please.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:26 pm
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:

What purpose would such a threat serve? Would it be only a bluff? How would you justify the act to your people who might very well die in a nuclear exchange. Would you think your country would actually survive such a conflict?


C.Q.

It was an indication of the passion I have against the abuse of "pre-emption".

I followed my statement by saying: "Yes, extreme and foolhardy."

I think here you are trying to convince me of something I'd already said in the post you reference (i.e. that it is an extreme and foolhardy emotion), I'm sure that I'd not really have done that, not the least of the reasons being that nobody ever lets me control nukes.

But that would definitely have been an impulse. I was pissed that nobody has a strong enough military/economy to stand down what the whole world does not believe in.

But that is the way I felt. I am furious that the name of my nation is sullied through the corruption of the preemptive strike. I wish someone had the balls to stand up and prevent this modern precedent.

Quote:

Quote:
Not to protect a tyrant Bill. And I'm not going to continue this line of discussion. When you tell me why you like beating women I'll tell you why I support tyrants.


Don't worry Bill. He got me like that not too long ago. It helps keep us on our intellectual toes.


It was a loaded question. I have no problems with disposing of Saddam and had no problems with regime change.

My qualms center on the very transparent corruption of the "pre-emptive strike". I think that was an unforgivable blow to international stability.

Saddam's biggest sins in the realm of geoplotics were his breaches of sovereignty. The invasion of Iraq was a complete disregard for sovereignty as well.

These ideals may seem trite to others but toi me they are the foundation of modern geopolitics and conflict resolution.

It's very easy to make a pretext for war. We sure as hell wouldn't accept India launching a "pre-emptive" war against Pakistan and they actually have a case for self-defense.

It was a flaunting of the very principles we hold others to and we can only count ourselves as fortunate thet the US will be powerful enough in our lifetimes that we will not see such adventurism on our soil.

Such disregard for "inconveniences" like sovereignty are only possible when you hold all the cards. Nobody holds all the cards forever.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:30 pm
IronLionZion wrote:
Actually, 80% is probably not too high. It may be too low. I remember reading a Lewis Lapham article in Harpers a few monthes ago where he stated that there was no nation outside Europe and North America in which more than 10% of the population supported the war. That alone would have to place the global total somewhere around 80% or more. I also remember several stats of European nations where around 90% of the population opposed the war. Spain, France, and Germany, for example - and they are our traditional allies and cultural bretheren.


Almost all the stats you cite are far from what I've read.

Jordan was at 90% to give you an example. Israel was the strongest in favor (more so than any coalition participants, even the US at 85%).

80% might be high but that's not the point anyway so I let them have that.

No matter how they argue the percentage, they know that billions of people opposed the war, and that it's not possible for all to have had a financial stake.

So no matter what the poll argument comes down to, there are still people who opposed the war for motives other than greed.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:33 pm
It does seem to be rather inconsequential. Craven is right. Billions of people were against the war. But, may I point out that billions of people also smoke. I guess billions of people can't be right all the time...
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:35 pm
You'd be surprised whoall has transistors! I am actually absolutley serious.

And what is this about under 18? Many young people are extremely passionate about politics - I, just as one example, was very aware of wars and politics from about 5 up - but teenagers are very aware.

However, be that as it may, do you two agree that a very large percentage of the world's population was against the war?

And NOT to protect a tyrant - to attempt to protect the delicate fabric of civilised international law and custom against a superpower at large with no balancing force left against its power, and using it to do what it wanted, based on obviously tissue paper excuses and outright lies.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:37 pm
The anguished appeals re the removal of the formerly US sponsored tyrant were a small addendum to the reasons before the war - and now loom large as a post hoc no-weapons-found-dammit fiddle factor.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:40 pm
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

But again, you are evading the point. The point was not about being "right" as this is subjective. But about the implication of monetary motivation.

Haliburn stood to gain. But this does not eman I think the war was motivated by this gain (it's just silly math).

Nor do I think the Bills and McGs of the world are motivated by money in this.

Same goes for the French and Russians. By rubber stamping the war they knew to be inevitable we would have agreed to ameliorate their loss.

They refused and did not want to be rubber stamps.

The offer was clearly presented to them. They chose the path of more financial loss.

To say it's about money is as silly as the claim that the US attacked for money.

The numbers just don't add up. Both sides took acts that made this a losing deal in terms of money. To say that nations like Turkey might have been influenced by economic considerations is one thing, but the main players were dealing in different currency.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:43 pm
dlowan wrote:
You'd be surprised whoall has transistors! I am actually absolutley serious.

And what is this about under 18? Many young people are extremely passionate about politics - I, just as one example, was very aware of wars and politics from about 5 up - but teenagers are very aware.

However, be that as it may, do you two agree that a very large percentage of the world's population was against the war?

And NOT to protect a tyrant - to attempt to protect the delicate fabric of civilised international law and custom against a superpower at large with no balancing force left against its power, and using it to do what it wanted, based on obviously tissue paper excuses and outright lies.


So if I go down to the local Jr. high school and ask some random kids if and why they opposed the war, they are going to give an answer even resembling this? I seriously doubt it.

If I go to Liberia and ask some of the people there that have just been through a civil war if and why they opposed the war, what answer will they give?

If I go and ask an average teenager in Japan if and why they oppose the war, what answer will they give?

If I go to Brazil and take a boat ride up the amazon stopping and asking people if and why they opposed the war, what will they say?

If I go through the peasant farms in China asking people there if and why they opposed the Iraq war, what will they say?

If I go to a mosque in Palestine and ask some of the members of Hamas if and why they oppose the war, what will their answer be?

Do I need to keep going with this?
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2019 at 01:39:07