|
 Read-Only Topic
Go |
Find |
Notify |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
|
quote: If the U.N. had not sat on it's hands during the 90's,
the U.S. would not have had the motivation to go in.
tahts Exactly! right |
| |
| Posts: 152 | Location: . | Registered: 07 August 2007 | |
|
Administrator
|
quote: If the U.N. had not sat on it's hands during the 90's,
the U.S. would not have had the motivation to go in.
But why did the U.S. go in? We know now that the Bush administration did not have evidence that nobody else had; they just tried to fit the evidence to suit their desire to go in. There were far greater threats than Saddam Hussein.
Sue N.
|
| |
| Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004 | |
|
|
But what if the Iraqi leadership had decided that it wished to trade its oil in Euro's rather than the dollar? Ooo. One to ponder.
When the world is run by fools it is the duty of intelligence to disobey
|
| |
| Posts: 1723 | Location: Perth, Australia | Registered: 02 August 2001 | |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sue N:
But why did the U.S. go in? We know now that the Bush administration did not have evidence that nobody else had; they just tried to fit the evidence to suit their desire to go in. There were far greater threats than Saddam Hussein.
There was a different atmosphere shortly after 9-11. Waiting and waiting and posturing and empty threats got us 9-11. The whacko muslim terrorists got the time they needed while we were paralized with indecision through the 90's. Saddam became emboldened with no action from the resolutions that were part of the '91 cease fire. In 2000, both dems and repubs made statements that Saddam was without question the worst threat in the middle east. He had a track record and had booted inspectors for 2 years. Combine that with wishful and dated intel that all parties believed. Hindsight is 20/20, but I support decision makers. Bush made what he thought was the right proactive move. If I were Bush, I would have nuked the SOB for the assaination attempt on Bush Sr. Mess with peoples families and pay the price.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
|
| |
| Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006 | |
|
|
|
So, umm, I'm a little confused, now Saddam was responsible for 911 again?
|
| |
| Posts: 3997 | Location: Road Prison 36 | Registered: 05 February 2004 | |
|
|
Never indicated or stated that Ren. But you know that. Saddam was considered the biggest threat to the middle east. He was a part of the "War on Terra". Big part.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
|
| |
| Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by KennyMac:
But what if the Iraqi leadership had decided that it wished to trade its oil in Euro's rather than the dollar?
Ooo. One to ponder.
Oooo, yes me ponder that... ... Yes, a proposition that has no merit. It is merely a non-event drummed up by conspiracy nuts that want to sell you gold. |
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
|
|
quote: Saddam was considered the biggest threat to the middle east.
He was a part of the "War on Terra". Big part.
That's a fairly dogmatic assertion that is very much debatable. Not in my view, nor in many, many other sensible and knowledgeable people's, was that seen as "The Truth" at the time. Many of us did not share the sense of atmosphere you describe. Maybe it helps to have actually been to war to overcome that innate "fear" so many seem to be overwhelmed with when they hear people talk about scary things. As I perceived the rhetoric, it was that Saddam was supposed to have been an immanent threat to the U.S., not the ME, that informed the propaganda and drove the generally mindless haste to invade. And now, with the foreign policy of the three "H"s -- haste, hype and hysteria -- what was not a direct, looming and immanent threat has become in some ways the actual threat to stability in the ME you are claiming it was then, and the breeding grounds for terrorism it was hyped to be. Meanwhile, al Qaeda in Afghanistan has appeared to have regained its potential to threaten in the mountains shared by Afghanistan in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden may still be alive. The "weak kneed talking heads" in the UN did not see the immanent threat either, so they didn't stand behind the invasion. From the world's point of view, from the many different IR theorists point of view other than the Neoconservatives, attacking Iraq was a mistake then, and remains to be seen that way. So once again we have the lessons of history ignored and the ill considered moves in the face of wiser, calmer minds, prove to be the worse choice of the actions. As the saying goes, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. |
| |
| Posts: 3997 | Location: Road Prison 36 | Registered: 05 February 2004 | |
|
|
|
Slab I just have to love the framing that goes on here. Frank Luntz would be proud of such dialogue as well as Soros, Noam and all other nihilistic Marxists.
|
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
|
quote: Yes, a proposition that has no merit. It is merely a non-event drummed up by conspiracy nuts that want to sell you gold.
Right Ronald. You are like an an obediant poodle. Who made money out of the Iraq conflict? US arms dealers? Hell yeah. Biggest spend in 'Defence' ever recorded. US Oil comapnies? Hell yeah. Oil now $60 a gallon. Bush supporters. Hell yeah. Their man in the oval office managed to squeeze the oil price to 60 bucks a gallon. Saudis doing ok. They sell in $s. In your misplaced patriostism you miss the main event. You are being lied to and screwed so some twat in a suit can dodge the draft and rake in the stock options. Nice one. Hope you are proud. Democracy died with you. Do hope it didn't stink out your casket. 
When the world is run by fools it is the duty of intelligence to disobey
|
| |
| Posts: 1723 | Location: Perth, Australia | Registered: 02 August 2001 | |
|
|
|
Kenny what a vacuous response. It was full of ad homs but failed to address what your initial post implied or what I said in response.
|
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by /rén:
That's a fairly dogmatic assertion that is very much debatable.
Not in my view, nor in many, many other sensible and knowledgeable people's, was that seen as "The Truth" at the time. Many of us did not share the sense of atmosphere you describe.
Sure it's debatable. Thats why we have them. Thats why congress didn't object. They looked at the info, same as Bush and concluded that we should go. I didn't see your name in the decision makers column, Ren. Where were you? The U.N. didn't want us to go in because Koffi's kid had a back door deal with Saddam. France, Russia, and Germany didn't support us going in because they were selling Saddam arms during the so-called cease fire agreements that prohibited such sales. "We got snookered" as General Shwartzkopf said.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
|
| |
| Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Slabmaster: quote: Originally posted by /rén:
That's a fairly dogmatic assertion that is very much debatable.
Not in my view, nor in many, many other sensible and knowledgeable people's, was that seen as "The Truth" at the time. Many of us did not share the sense of atmosphere you describe.
Sure it's debatable. Thats why we have them. Thats why congress didn't object. They looked at the info, same as Bush and concluded that we should go. I didn't see your name in the decision makers column, Ren. Where were you? The U.N. didn't want us to go in because Koffi's kid had a back door deal with Saddam. France, Russia, and Germany didn't support us going in because they were selling Saddam arms during the so-called cease fire agreements that prohibited such sales. "We got snookered" as General Shwartzkopf said.
What you are talking about isn't particularly debatable, as far as I'm concerned. From where I stand and analyze things, decisions aren't made on the basis of those notions you just tossed in, which sound to me like something from an old Chuck Norris movie. The UN didn't back the US, that's the facts. Congress voted to give the president the right to use force if he saw fit. That's the facts, and the president did. In the end, it was his faulty decision. That's the facts. Not everyone in Congress was blown away by the poorly picked over intelligence and the propaganda hype that went with it, all devised towards a plan to do something Pappy Bush knew was going to turn out pretty much the way it has. So now, slowly but surely, the people from his era are getting back to where they can influence decisions. I see a hell of a mess for them to deal with, and so do they. You are welcome to all of your opinions, I'm just pointing out that what you saw then wasn't the way I and a lot of others saw it. That's just a simple fact of how it was. That's what I'm referring to by a dogmatic statement on your part. The nation was not in lock step. Congress was not in lock step. So lots of us weren't living in that mind set. Apparently you were. The way I see the situation in the Middle East now is undoubtedly different than the way you do. And that brings the topic back to the thread. This thread is about the small number of UN people in Iraq being cautioned to get out because of a deteriorating security situation. After four and a half years, that's appalling to me. This is occurring after an escalation of troops that began in February, and a so-called new strategy to deal with security and bolster the conditions to help make the government function. It's also happening while the Iraqi government, which the UN has made a Compact with, has begun to show signs of crumbling, and therefore the stated conditions in that Compact are in some serious danger of not being met by that government. That's what I see from all the sources I look at. |
| |
| Posts: 3997 | Location: Road Prison 36 | Registered: 05 February 2004 | |
|
|
quote: Kenny what a vacuous response. It was full of ad homs but failed to address what your initial post implied or what I said in response.
Yup. Was posted around the opening of the second bottle of a really pleasant chardonnay whilst waiting on a software update. Basically went off on one. Apologies for ad homs and such Ronald but I'm sure you'll get over it
When the world is run by fools it is the duty of intelligence to disobey
|
| |
| Posts: 1723 | Location: Perth, Australia | Registered: 02 August 2001 | |
|
|
|
NP with me Kenny. I hope it was good.  But as others here have learned, drinking and blogging can be a dangerous past-time. Anyway I still hold that the Iranian Oil Bourse and any pricing in Dollars, Euros or bar coasters has no affect on the actions of the USA. |
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
|
|
UN steps toward greater role on Iraq quote: By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 10, 5:06 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS - The Security Council voted unanimously Friday to expand the U.N. role in Iraq and opened the door for the world body to promote talks to ease Iraq's sectarian bloodshed.
The broader U.N. initiatives on Iraq — which could begin next month — were supported by Washington in an apparent bid to bring together Iraqi factions and neighboring countries under an international umbrella rather than struggling on its own to bridge the many religious, ethnic and strategic battles opened by the five-year-old war.
The Bush administration is also seeking ways to boost the embattled government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which has been paralyzed by internal political feuds.
-------
The resolution authorizes the United Nations — at the request of the Iraqi government — to promote political talks among Iraqis and a regional dialogue on issues including border security, energy and refugees as well as help tackling the country's worsening humanitarian crisis which has spilled into neighboring countries.
The United States and Britain, co-sponsors of the resolution, believe the world body should do more to use its perceived neutrality to promote dialogue on Iraq.
---------
But Khalilzad stressed that the resolution is not a substitute for the U.S. commitment to Iraq.
"The United States will continue to shoulder all of its responsibilities to assist Iraq's government and people," he said. "We are fully dedicated to success in Iraq, and our commitments to Iraq, to the region, to the U.N. and to the rest of the international community remain."
------------
The U.N. allowed 35 international staffers to return in August 2004, but the ceiling remain low, currently 65, because of security concerns. Last week, the U.N.'s top political official said the U.N. expects to raise the ceiling to 95 by October. Hours later, however, the U.N. Staff Council called on the secretary-general to pull all U.N. personnel out of the country until security improves.
------------
The U.N. mission, established after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, has helped organize elections, draft Iraq's constitution and develop institutions for representative government.
The resolution extends its mandate for a year and authorizes it to "advise, support and assist the government and people of Iraq on advancing their inclusive, political dialogue and national reconciliation."
It also authorizes the U.N. to facilitate "regional dialogue, including on issues of border security, energy and refugees." It asks the U.N. to help develop ways "to resolve disputed internal boundaries" that are acceptable to the government.
The initial text was revised to focus more on human rights, humanitarian issues, protecting civilians, and promoting the safety of humanitarian personnel.
China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said "history has shown the United Nations has its comparative advantage and abundant experience" to meet these new responsibilities "and it should have a lot to do."
|
| |
| Posts: 3997 | Location: Road Prison 36 | Registered: 05 February 2004 | |
|
|
|
that's the facts??? quote: The UN didn't back the US, that's the facts.
I guess there were no UN resolutions? Actually I thought it was not just the US against Saddam. quote: In the end, it was his faulty decision. That's the facts.
That is clearly an opinion. quote: That's what I'm referring to by a dogmatic statement on your part. The nation was not in lock step. Congress was not in lock step.
When has the nation ever been "in lock step" on any issue? Or even Congress? Of course I do remember Kyoto going down 95-0 to get further discussions. quote: That's what I see from all the sources I look at.
Maybe you need different and more sources... |
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
Administrator
|
quote: I guess there were no UN resolutions? Actually I thought it was not just the US against Saddam.
 You mean, Bush wasn't the decider? I seem to recall that a few countries, including, to our shame, my own, decided to go along with the superpower, but there certainly was not an agreement in the UN that the situation warranted an invasion at that time; inspections were still going on.
Sue N.
|
| |
| Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004 | |
|
|
quote: Under the Charter, all Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to Governments, the Council alone has the power to take decisions which Member States are obligated under the Charter to carry out.
quote: Membership in 2007
The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end):
Belgium (2008)
Italy (2008)
Qatar (2007)
Congo (Republic of the) (2007)
Panama (2008)
Slovakia (2007)
Ghana (2007)
Peru (2007)
South Africa (2008)
Indonesia (2008)
link
---------------------------------------------------------------
"if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got."
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006 | |
|
|
UN Governing BodiesWhen we read a news item about the UN, or a critique, we need to figure out which of the governing bodies did, or should have, taken action.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got."
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006 | |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sue N:
I seem to recall that a few countries, including, to our shame, my own, decided to go along with the superpower, but there certainly was not an agreement in the UN that the situation warranted an invasion at that time; inspections were still going on.
33 countries I believe. I still get a chuckle when the left rants about how we "went it alone".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
|
| |
| Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Sue: but there certainly was not an agreement in the UN that the situation warranted an invasion at that time; inspections were still going on.
I believe that is true enough but that was not what I suggested... quote: The UN didn't back the US, that's the facts.
"Back" in this context is very vague. Thus the UN did back the US in some of the resolutions. And that is all that I had to imply. Thus my response was: quote: I guess there were no UN resolutions?
|
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
Administrator
|
quote: 33 countries I believe.
Do you have a list, Slabmaster?
Sue N.
|
| |
| Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004 | |
|
|
Sorry I missed all this, Stupid inner ear virus keep me fairly on my back since thursday night. quote: Do you have a list, Slabmaster?
48 countries. 49, but Costa Rica bowed out. List is herequote: The UN didn't back the US, that's the facts.
That Fact REALLY is that we backed the UN, UN failed when the time came. We were the ones who gave the 12 years of UN threats teeth.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
|
| |
| Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005 | |
|
|
|
Loganthor, Hope you are feeling better now.
Take care.
I'm depressed, life sucks...
|
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Loganthor: quote: The UN didn't back the US, that'
| |
