I'm not one to regularly use strong profanities, but fuck 'em. Negotiations are one thing, and the EU/UN can feel free to negotiate until they're blue in the face. But if they want to force the issue, I'm thinking that we should "remind" our foreign allies that a country with our military might cannot and will not be forced. If need be, I highly recommend that the US resign from the UN and see how long it holds together without our monetary support. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The internet ro
The UN was not formed to allow countries to do what they want - even if they supply half the budget or whatever. It was formed so that countries could act together in times of need. I surely cannot see the US resigning from the UN and flexing their military might at other membercountries of the UN simply because they dispute who should control the internet.
And on another note, the US should not necessarily control the internet. It is used by many people around the world. Its not even like the US invented
It was formed so that countries could act together in times of need.
Agreed. Now find me a "time of need" in this situation. All I see is a bunch of member countries who want control of the toys, and have no clear direction on why or how they need them.
I surely cannot see the US resigning from the UN and flexing their military might at other membercountries of the UN simply because they dispute who should control the internet.
If they're going to try to "force" the US, I can certainly see the US resigning. T
...we do carry out UN resolutions, we're censured as being an "empire builders" or "warmongerers".
Regardless of your interpretation of resolution 1441, it is now clear that Iraq was not a threat. Terrorists were not active in Iraq in 2002 so it is not possible to create a justification on terrorist grounds. The blasé attitude of US forces towards Iraqi civilian casualties makes a justification on humanitarian grounds somewhat untenable.
To justify the Iraq war as the "coalition" carrying the will of
Regardless of your interpretation of resolution 1441, it is now clear that Iraq was not a threat.
And now, it never will be.
As a side benefit, the people of Iraq have a chance at self-rule, with many inevitable hurdles to clear - but don't let bringing democracy to 25 million people, removing a murderous tyrant from power, or establishing a beachhead of democracy in the center of the Arab world affect your belief that continued power by the gentle, peace-loving Saddamites would have been the better answe
As a side benefit, the people of Iraq have a chance at self-rule
Well, the 100,000+ dead don't have any chance at self rule, no...and those left have more chance of falling into civil war that, at best, ends up in a theocracy, than of ending up with a stable democracy.
After the way the neocons have fucked things up over there, the very very best we can hope for over there is that in 50 years or so, after a few hundred thousand more people have been killed in the fighting, things will be as nice and stable in Iraq as they are in Northern Ireland [google.com] now.
...affect your belief that continued power by the gentle, peace-loving Saddamites would have been the better answer for both the (fractured) Iraqi people and the rest of the world.
Having screwed that up, the next next best thing would have been a long-term process of supporting reform in Iraq with diplomatic and economic sanctions and rewards, with the definite threat of military force if Iraq again attacked its neighbors. (With a corresponding promise to defend Iraq if its neighbors attacked it.) Yes, it would have taken years, decades even, to bring about change, and Saddam's brtual rule would have killed people in that time. But fewer than have already died, and orders of magnitude less than those who will die before stable democracy comes to Iraq.
the next best thing would have been to not have supported Hussein in the 1980s.
You do realize we supported Hussein as a check against the Iranians who had just turned into that theocracy you are so afraid of? As for the sanctions idea look up oil for food and find out how Saddam was gaming the system. You also seem to be mistaken that any Saddam/Sunni loss of power wouldn't result in a near civil war, or just how effective Saddam's regime was in killing those he couldn't control.
The next person to mention spaghetti stacks to me is going to have
his head knocked off.
-- Bill Conrad
The UN has finally lost it (Score:3, Insightful)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The internet ro
Re:The UN has finally lost it (Score:2, Insightful)
And on another note, the US should not necessarily control the internet. It is used by many people around the world. Its not even like the US invented
Re:The UN has finally lost it (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed. Now find me a "time of need" in this situation. All I see is a bunch of member countries who want control of the toys, and have no clear direction on why or how they need them.
I surely cannot see the US resigning from the UN and flexing their military might at other membercountries of the UN simply because they dispute who should control the internet.
If they're going to try to "force" the US, I can certainly see the US resigning. T
Re:The UN has finally lost it (Score:1, Insightful)
Regardless of your interpretation of resolution 1441, it is now clear that Iraq was not a threat. Terrorists were not active in Iraq in 2002 so it is not possible to create a justification on terrorist grounds. The blasé attitude of US forces towards Iraqi civilian casualties makes a justification on humanitarian grounds somewhat untenable.
To justify the Iraq war as the "coalition" carrying the will of
Re:The UN has finally lost it (Score:2, Insightful)
And now, it never will be.
As a side benefit, the people of Iraq have a chance at self-rule, with many inevitable hurdles to clear - but don't let bringing democracy to 25 million people, removing a murderous tyrant from power, or establishing a beachhead of democracy in the center of the Arab world affect your belief that continued power by the gentle, peace-loving Saddamites would have been the better answe
Re:The UN has finally lost it (Score:1)
Well, the 100,000+ dead don't have any chance at self rule, no...and those left have more chance of falling into civil war that, at best, ends up in a theocracy, than of ending up with a stable democracy.
After the way the neocons have fucked things up over there, the very very best we can hope for over there is that in 50 years or so, after a few hundred thousand more people have been killed in the fighting, things will be as nice and stable in Iraq as they are in Northern Ireland [google.com] now.
The best course would have been for the U.S. to not help bring the Baathists to power [globalpolicy.org] in the first place. Having screwed that up, the next best thing would have been to not have supported Hussein in the 1980s [gwu.edu].
Having screwed that up, the next next best thing would have been a long-term process of supporting reform in Iraq with diplomatic and economic sanctions and rewards, with the definite threat of military force if Iraq again attacked its neighbors. (With a corresponding promise to defend Iraq if its neighbors attacked it.) Yes, it would have taken years, decades even, to bring about change, and Saddam's brtual rule would have killed people in that time. But fewer than have already died, and orders of magnitude less than those who will die before stable democracy comes to Iraq.
Re:The UN has finally lost it (Score:1)