Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sabre on February 18, 2004, 04:06:38 PM
-
Kerry's foriegn policy thinking seems to be, let the UN handle things. However, didn't we do that with Kosovo after former President Clinton got done attacking that sad place, and without an international concensus (i.e. UN approval)? Does anyone know if we (the USA) still have troops there, and what the state of that area is? The UN still has 18,000 troops there, along with 4,000 international police officers. Is it safe? Is it democratic? Is it economically stable and prosperous? Has ethnic cleansing and genocide ceased there? We never hear anything about Kosovo, yet candidate Kerry's position is that the UN should take over Afganistan and Iraq. Can the UN handle it? Will the UN be more or less capable than the current international coalition overseeing Afgansitan and Iraq?
Kerry has spent a great deal of time disparaging the Administration's handling of the war on terror and the removal of Saddam (a move he sanctioned when he voted to give the President the blessing of Congress to use force). Yet, what does Kerry really plan for Iraq if elected? For the life of me, I can't decipher it, but it seems to involve having the UN take over there. So I ask, in all seriousness: What happens to Iraq, and the Middle East in general, if administration is turned over to the UN? Will international terrorism increase or decrease as a result? Will the world be any safer or more peaceful if we turn our security over to an international body with neither leadership or the will to exercise it?
-
Lets turn over Kerry to Iraq.
dago
-
here's what happens.....
-taxes on EVERYONE get increased (not directly but through trickledown)
-US troop deployments will increase by 300%
-Nothing will get passed through congress AT ALL....compared to the slow trickle now
-Military spending gets cut in HALF all new programs will cease to exist R&D will be a thing of the past.
just my predictions(http://photopile.com/photos/dead/auctions/84121.jpg)
-
lol dago..no he goes to syria..:)
-
Umm, you drew Kerry as a leprechaun?
-
Kosovo was NATO not UN ... do more research.... I'm sure NATO felt within it's rights.....
-
Did he say that now, or is this more Conservative BS drug up from 1973?
-
All the Dem candidates have called for more of an international role in Iraq. Kerry is not alone. Dean was specific about it becoming heavily UN involved, and Kerry has made passing comments on the foolishness of alienating the international community. Edwards has had the least to say about it, but he is for international involvement I believe.
-
Umm, you guys do realize that Kerry is jewish, right?
-
So the made up justifications for the invasion now morph into the made up justificaitons for continuing it. Beauty.
That is the elegance of Bushes militant foriegn policy. He can make messes that others get blamed for cause they didnt clean them up right.
You will not find any takers from the UN to clean it up. If the US army pulls out and Haliburton mercenaries cant hold it themselves then you chock it up to a loss.
Maybe the Japanese will aggree to occupy it for perpetuity.
-
I hear tell that Kerry was in Vietnam. Can anyone confirm this rumor?
As to turning things over to the UN....Emphatically NO!!!
Americans should never subjugate their sovereignity to foreign dictates. The left would have us believe that human nature can be overcome by good will and hugging. Horse hockey. Internationalism, transnationalism whatever...it is all a threat to American sovereignity.
-
Kerry's an idjit.
-
We need help with iraq. Hell bush is already seeking it.
-
Iraq should have been a UN operation to start with. Wasn't that the whole point of forming the United Nations in the first place?
-
We tried to get UN help. They would only crawfish on the resolutions they had already passed.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
We tried to get UN help. They would only crawfish on the resolutions they had already passed.
And it turns out they were right. Hmmmm.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
And it turns out they were right. Hmmmm.
Right about what?
-
That Saddam was complying with the WMD removal. Don't get me wrong, Hussein is a bad,bad man that needed his prettythang kicked.
-
The UNSC in 1441 said he was in breach of previous resolutions, and says specifically:
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Saddam was not complying, as to comply he would have had to shown evidence of the destruction of WMDs to inspectors.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The UNSC in 1441 said he was in breach of previous resolutions, and says specifically:
Saddam was not complying, as to comply he would have had to shown evidence of the destruction of WMDs to inspectors.
wow.
so we invade countries now and kill thousands of people cause they cant prove a negative?
The UN has learned full strength now what appeasing aggression gets you.
-
excerpt from 1441
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Its not proving a negative.... all Iraq had to do was act openly. Iraq was not in compliance, and the UNSC said so 15 - 0
I was just taking issue with rpm371's statement that SH was in compliance when, by international decree he was not.
Ideas not directly related to the specific issue of compliance should not be inferred.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
That Saddam was complying with the WMD removal. Don't get me wrong, Hussein is a bad,bad man that needed his prettythang kicked.
That isn't supported by Kay. If you want to believe the parts in the Kay report that say there aren't any WMD, you'd better be prepared to accept the rest, which says SH and Iraq sure acted as if there were.
-
'Acting as if there were' is generally known as a bluff. I would have thought it would be sensible to expose that bluff rather than use it to further your geo-political agenda.
-
That doesn't make much sense, Dowding. If the whole world thought the WMD existed, you can't blame Bush alone. In that respect Bush has been totally vindicated. Now the WMD were not found, and we need to find out what went wrong, but acting on the belief that was generally held by the world hardly seems unreasonable.
And you should be saying "Our" geopolitical agenda.
-
It depends if you think the bluff was honestly believed by the respective governments, or whether there was embellishment etc. The 45 minute claim for instance, was based on a single source, was not qualified with any detailed information regarding type of weapon, and therefore scale of threat. It was mentioned in the same breath as 'mushroom clouds' and therefore it was rather convenient to let people make the obvious conclusion that Iraq could threaten British interests in the Gulf and Med. I've read the Dodgy Dossier and it seems to try and illustrate Iraq as a direct threat to British (and I suppose American) interests.
As for your/our, I was talking in general terms.
-
I'm all for finding out if there was a lie. However you must confess Bush opponents are already saying it WAS a lie, and much of the debate here is founded on that supposition. I don't think that is proven yet. Smart? No, but he's never been seen as "smart". Dishonest? That's another matter altogether.
-
It's actually a pretty good idea and one I think that the current administration will take over as their own - "Look we overturned the Tyrant, we made Iraq Democratic, we've captured Saddam and made sure he won't threaten the world with WMD's since we've proved he doesn't have any.....now we're going to mend fences with our Allies and hand over the the Administration to the UN!!" - then we don't have to lose any more troops, or spend any more money that that god awful mess that we've created!
-
"Our".
-
Kerry says we should turn over Iraq to UN
NO ! thank you.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Kosovo was NATO not UN ... do more research.... I'm sure NATO felt within it's rights.....
As did the US and British-led international coalition that removed Saddam. And yes, Manedew, the military campaign was started by NATO (because the UN was mired in its usual parallysis), but who's running the show there now? That's one of my main points, that the UN is not only incapable of effective action, it it incapable of overseeing the reconstruction and democratization of troubled regions.
Regarding WMD, Saddam was in non-compliance, period. The world as a whole (including the duplicitous Mr. Kerry) believed Iraq failed to provide evidence that (a) they had fully destroyed existing stockpiles of WMD and (b) had given up efforts to acquire them. While weaponized WMD have not been found to prove (a), ample evidence has been uncovered that Iraq was actively concealing efforts to preserve the capability to make WMD, and to expand they types of weapons it could produce. It is also a safe bet that the UN inspections regime restarted in the months before the liberation of Iraq (inspections that would never have taken place but for the threat of action by the Coalition) was unlikely to be successful in any reasonable amount of time, given those active efforts to circumvent the inspections. The inspections would have dragged on and eventually been discontinued due to pressure by nations within the UN SC to normalize relations with Saddam's government. Such inspections are only effective if, in the case of South Africa, the nation being inspected truly wants to divest itself of such arms.
-
LOL
It is just proving a negative. Period. Show us evidence that your weapons of mass destruction dont exist. Period.
And the testimony of Powell at the UN with the US "evidence" was like the light going on arround the world that in fact there was no evidence that Iraq had WMD.
The japs will be good overlords for the gulf.
"Tokyo A Japanese consortium will develop an Iranian oil field with reserves of up to 26 billion barrels in a deal announced Thursday by Japan but opposed by the United States because of fears the money could go to nuclear proliferation"
-
US wanted to share democracy and freedom particularly in Iraq, now it's the time to do and pay.. UN doesn't want the mess, well.. if I could decide.