Cowboy Putin

[straffo]

Originally posted by texter:

I have trouble finding any sympathy for Iraqis. Call it a personal fault or failure.

Personal trouble AND failure.

[Toad]

I believe there is a new plan to deal with Iraq's leader in the works right now.

Shouldn't have to wait too long for its debut, either.

But I don't think Dowding is going to like this one either.    

[R4M]

hummmm now we're talking about embargos, and saddams, and the lot...

what about cuba?. IIRC they are still under an embargo, and there is an (unlawful?) american law wich prohibited all commerce with Cuba.

I know, Castro is a piece of toejam, but,hell you MUST know a cuban to hear and understand wich is the situation there. Castro is living as a richman while his people starves under an one-sided embargo (wich, I think, was denounced by the UN as illegal)

...

[straffo]

Just to be more precise : I DON'T support any Saddam or Castro of any kind.
I feel sad to know that some human will die because of a "unlucky" birth.
As I Father I can't stand the idea that a little Boy/Girl is not likely to grow past 5 year just because of a dictator we contributed to put in place.

[Toad]

US-Cuban relations are never going to be "normal" as long as Castro is in charge/ is still alive.

You can debate it all you like but in the end it is simply what Henry Kissinger used to call "Realpolitik".

So the Cubans can either toss him out or wait for him to die. Then watch the relationship bloom; it will amaze you.

While this must all seem like an interminable delay to some, it's merely an eye-blink in the politics of time.

As far as the UN declaring a US embargo "illegal", I'd like to read more about that. Any link?

Straffo, don't forget sometimes a "dictator that we contributed to put in place" was still the best choice to be made at the time. Sometimes the choice is to support the lesser of two evils.

[-dead-]

Here's an inneresting perspective on Putin's visit.

SCMP Business Section

[straffo]

Originally posted by Toad:
Straffo, don't forget sometimes a "dictator that we contributed to put in place" was still the best choice to be made at the time. Sometimes the choice is to support the lesser of two evils.

Sure it is.

In the case of Saddam he was usefull to put preasure on the Iranian and it was a well known fact (even in the 80's) that he never was a boy scout.
Foreign affair have some grey/dark sides and it's quite easy to critic a choice done 10/20 year before with insufisant or no knowledge of the future (as Forrest Gump said : toejam happen).

But I can't stop my critics   it's my anachist side  

[-dead-]

Toad -

Not illegal, just naughty  

[Toad]

So the UN doesn't like the sanctions?

The same UN that put SYRIA on the UN Security Council? Syria, despite being on the US terrorist sponsor list?

The same UN that voted the United States off the U.N. Human Rights Commission? The same UN that gave Libya, Syria and Sudan seats in the commission during the past two years?

Libya, Syria, Sudan and Human Rights. There's a good one! That UN is some serious outfit!


This part is interesting though:

"The nonbinding, Cuban-drafted resolution"

Takes a lot of guts to vote for a non-binding resolution, eh?

 
 

[texter]

Originally posted by straffo:


Personal trouble AND failure.

you are welcome to your opinion sir.

Tex
looked in the mirror lately though?

[-dead-]

Yup the same UN that sanctioned US action against Iraq too.

The same UN that imposed sanctions on Afghanistan in 1999 to force the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US.

The same UN that has had sanctions in place against Sudan since 1996

The same UN that sanctioned Libya.

That the UN doesn't like the sanctions in Cuba may be one of the reasons that the US was not re-elected (they weren't voted off, they just weren't voted back on).
Here's the full list of the 53 voters:
Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay, United States of America, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia.

I figure you have to annoy quite a lot of countries before you don't get relected.

Basically the UN does so much stuff you can make what you like of it - bit like the bible.
If the US gets approval from the UN it's all "the world is behind us" - if the UN doesn't support them, then the UN's been hijacked by islamic extremists or communists or nudists or whatever. Every government does this. But it's a sad indictment of US foreign policy in 2000-2001 to lose out on the Human Rights Commission to Sudan.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: -dead- ]

[Dowding]

Agreed, Straffo.

 

believe there is a new plan to deal with Iraq's leader in the works right now.
Shouldn't have to wait too long for its debut, either.

But I don't think Dowding is going to like this one either.  

Well the old one was sooooo successful. Tell me, is Saddam still in power? I'd assumed it was a foregone conclusion that the embargo had worked, you see.

I'm sure this 'new' one will hit the right target; just like 90% of cruise missiles deployed in the Gulf War.

[Toad]

"...The same UN that has had sanctions in place against Sudan since 1996....But it's a sad indictment of US foreign policy in 2000-2001 to lose out on the Human Rights Commission to Sudan."

Well, you can look at it as an indictment of US foreign policy or you can look at it as an indicator of the intelligence and/or common sense of the nations voting for Sudan and not the US. You take your pick, I'll take mine.

Dowding,

The old one was EXTREMELY successful. Unfortunately, somebody thought "100 hour war" sounded cool and quit right there. Until that time, it pretty well defined success.

Had that not happened, there'd have been no emabargo nor any need for one. We'd have been "nation building" in Iraq instead, IMO.

Somehow I don't think that there's going to be a defined timeline this time. It'll take as long as it takes.

I'm hoping the world has finally figured out that, like Adolph, there comes a time when  we're all better off if we don't ignore Saddam any longer.

...and our cruise missiles are MUCH better now. In fact, we have a lot of things that we didn't have then and they seem to be working very well, thanks.

I personally don't think Iraq is next, however. I think we're going to the Phillipines next to solve that little rash of Islamic kidnapping. We've already sent SOF there.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[Dowding]

I was refering to the UN sanctions. They haven't persuaded Saddam to let the inspectors in, but have actually strengthened his position internally and won him new supporters in the region.

As for the Gulf War, there was no mandate from the UN to go all the way to Baghdad. This was because the coalition wouldn't agree to such a move and would have fallen apart. Too many uncertainties there.

I believe the US will be alone if it widens the 'war' to include Iraq. Blair has already put the brakes on that one. In fact, it seems Bush and Blair are heading for some sort of disagreement; Bush appears to want to have nothing to do with Afghanistan after Laden is 'removed' (Vietnam Syndrome); Blair was pretty much ready to send about 6000 crack British troops into Kabul last week as peace-keepers to try and bring some kind of semblence of civilisation to the place.

Suddenly, this week, in response to suggestions of a rift, there are overtures that the 100 troops of the SBS (Special Boat Service) at Bagrum airport are all that will be deployed. They would be removed once Laden is dead.

I still think Blair wants to commit those troops and 'not forget Afghanistan this time'. Bush wants to kill Laden and 'get the hell out'.

The question is: why cut down the trees but leave the seeds in the ground?

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

[texter]

Originally posted by straffo:


Personal trouble AND failure.

heh, not much sympathy for the French either but I think that's an inherited virtue.  

Tex