Bush Sees the Light (Blue Flag)

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by DmdMac
If I find the time and the motivation to learn more about poli sci I will, but it's low priority because I'd rather not become so frightfully insipid.

It's not so much a matter of finding the time to learn about political science; I'm sure you'd find it as dull as many other disciplines that don't interest you and probably every bit as dull as I'd find computer science or literature.  It's more a matter of realizing that you know little about it and thereby saving yourself from appearing ignorant by pretending you do.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Toad]

Hmmm, Thrawn.. that's a toughie... let me think an hour or so..

NO! Wait! I know! How about SC 1441?  

Don't like that one? I'm not suprised.

How about if they'd have enforced/put teeth into the various Bosnian resolutions prior to the 1995 NATO airstrikes that were a clear violation of the NATO charter? Had they done so, NATO probably could have maintained its integrity and legality and the killing could/would have been stopped by the UN...... as it should have been.

The problem is that the UN simply won't intervene in a shooting war, civil or otherwise. They will attempt to keep the peace if they can get some sort of ceasefire, but they withdraw if the fighting breaks out again.

Like I said... when the going gets tough, the problem is ugly and civilians are being slaughtered, the UN won't intervene.

Instead, they look to the sonsabeeches that everyone loves to hate; the ones that WILL intervene and WILL use force to stop a slaughter.

There's a time to talk and there's also a time to act. The UN is good for only one of those.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

[Thrawn]

I think the irony in our current debate is I think that you and I would completely agree on the current problems within the the UN system.  However I think we might disagree on how to correct it.  I guess we will see.  I don't have time to get into it now, but I look forward to posting them late tomorrow night.

[Toad]

It can't be corrected. It's an inherent flaw that was intentionally designed into the system (with probably the best of intentions).

The UN has failed to evolve. Just look at the permanent members of the SC that hold veto power. The post-WW2 environment no longer exists and the countries that were powerful then are, for the most part, not powerful now. The threats facing the world have changed significantly. The primary threat around the globe now is more like a "holy war" (OK.. "jihad" if you like) than the previous dictatorial power grabs.

I think it's probably time to tear up the paperwork and start over.

But the fact remains: the current UN is a toothless tiger. It's a debating society that talks while people get slaughtered. And when the blood finally gets deep enough to sicken just about everyone... they send for the sonsabeeches and curse them after the dirty work is done.

I think there's a Zen saying that about sums it up:

"Who will do the hard things? Those who can."

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Toad
Here's what I said that Tronski quoted:



He came up with ONE example, East Timor, and even that involved strong US backing in the SC and some US troops. (I'd have thought a reasonably modern military like the Australians could handle their own comms, but apparently we had some capability they couldn't or wouldn't provide.)

Looks like what I said still stands, unless the US is doing the acting, the UN is a debating society.

Actually it's the first that popped into my head. But then I thought 1 was more than the absolute none.
A quick look around UN mandated peace enforcement missions around the pacific region, this number climbs rapidly.

In anyones language it would be hard to accept the "moral" leadership here was american.
Also there was a reason INTERFET was a primarily an ANZAC mission commanded by Major. Gen Peter Cosgrove. Eventually this force was reinforced by Korean, British and Thai infantry units.

US soldiers were requested but this request was turned down. The American contribution was in the form of transport, certain logistics, and some communications support.

 Tronsky

[Torque]

Is Bush finally admitting he was wrong?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Torque
Is Bush finally admitting he was wrong?

How can he when he wasn't

[Toad]

Originally posted by Toad
The UN has almost NEVER taken any actual "action" anywhere, anytime. The few times it has actually acted, it's been following the leadership of the US.

 

Tronski, I didn't use an absolute.

Note the "almost".

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Toad
Hmmm, Thrawn.. that's a toughie... let me think an hour or so..

NO! Wait! I know! How about SC 1441?  

A rather deliciously ironic example, considering the current US-run Iraqi regime refused to let in UN weapon inspectors to look for WMDs. Are you sure you still want UN member states use all necessary force to enforce Resolution 1441?

[Toad]

Yeah, they should do a quick UN/SC debate and then act decisively.

Should be about another 53 years before anything happens......

[Udie]

santa,

 we had 12 years of "diplomatic action"  12 years or CLEAR CUT UN resolutions.  12 years man.   It was made real clear who was on the side of Sadaam, that would be France, Germany,  Russia and the UN,  among others.

 What a freaking joke.  How long were we in Japan after WW2?  How long did it take to rebuild Germany?  LOL it's only been a few months and people are ready to drop the ball,  that's scarey.

 This is exactly what I feared when Bush gave his "war on terror" speach 2 years ago.  He said it would be a long fight.  When he said that I knew we as a nation couldn't do that.  Not with your tom dasholes and hillar clintons.  Just think about all the crap they do while we are in a 2 front war.  Saddens me that they can't put politics aside for a GD war.  ANY and EVERY time the dems have even thought they saw an opening to chip away at Bush they have taken it.  Borders on treason if you ask me.


sadness

[DmdMac]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
It's not so much a matter of finding the time to learn about political science; It's more a matter of realizing that you know little about it and thereby saving yourself from appearing ignorant by pretending you do.

Very well, I was wrong, but how much more or less pathetic is scouring the forums to find the errors of strangers then lashing out with razor wire or sitting back and giggling with nerdy delight at the mistakes of the general population(this being the other half of the behavior)?

I'll refer back to a portion of your original response:

How'd I miss this gem?

Apparently you lurk much here. Steinbeck described your kind perfectly in The Grapes of Wrath, pegged down to the distant surveillance and congregational nature. And while he was refering to bible thumping christians on the lookout for sin, it's equally appropriate for those who would be self-appointed watchdogs of faults in others.

You should seek a managerial position at your place of employment, if you haven't done so already.  You will excel.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by DmdMac
Very well, I was wrong, but how much more or less pathetic is scouring the forums to find the errors of strangers then lashing out with razor wire or sitting back and giggling with nerdy delight at the mistakes of the general population(this being the other half of the behavior)?

[/B]

Do you actually read these forums?

Apparently you lurk much here. Steinbeck described your kind perfectly in The Grapes of Wrath, pegged down to the distant surveillance and congregational nature. And while he was refering to bible thumping christians on the lookout for sin, it's equally appropriate for those who would be self-appointed watchdogs of faults in others.

[/B]

Apparently I lurk here much?  Ooookay.  Again, do you actually read these forums?

I wonder if Steinbeck has a quote referring to the types of individuals who criticize and comment on things about which they know nothing and, when called it on it, become defensive to the point of hilarity.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[MJHerman]

The true test of US commitment to the Iraqi people will come when the UN, rightly or wrongly, refuses to provide help for an American adventure and the US is faced with a scenario where its military resources are over extended.

You can't keep the Marines and soldiers currently in Iraq there forever.  They will have to be rotated home eventually (I say within 12 to 18 months max.).

On rotation, they will have to be replaced.  Does the US military have enough combat units to replace units 1 for 1?  If not, is calling up the National Guard an option?  Probably not.

And imagine the political cost of reinstating the draft.  Might never happen, but if it did I suspect that a lot of people would suddenly change their tune when faced with the reality that they may have to serve (involuntarily) for a long time in a foreign land.

[Toad]

I personally hope the UN doesn't get involved.

Basically for the reasons in MJ's post. The US public needs a good wake up call about all this "war stuff". It's not like it is in the Hollywood movies, all over in 2 hours.

I'd say we're in it until the Iraqis can stand on their own. We went in, we're responsible. That simple.

And, as I've said before, there's more Americans than just myself that are waiting for the WMD to show up. I'm more patient than a lot of the 90 day wonders that post here for sure.

But I still expect to see the justification for sending the sons and daughters of this nation to war.

If it isn't there, the responsible guy has to be held accountable. I'm not going to be swayed by the line "it depends on what the definition of WMD is" or other BS like that.

I'm not really worried about a "lie". I don't think there was a "lie". It's possible a decision was made based on bad intel or something like that.

No matter. One guys is responsible for sending this nation to war. And, at some point, he's got to be held accountable for that action, right or wrong.