Solution in IraqFollow

Yet Bush still lost more jobs. It really is stunning when you put in that context. Bush is presiding over an economy that's not 1/10th as bad as the one Carter had to deal with on both a global and local sclae, yet Bush still managed to loose more jobs.

It would seem almost intentional. I almost can't believe anyone could simply be that amazingly incompitent, but you've gone a long way towards convincing me. Good work!

NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER allow the UN complete control of any US troops! That is the most ludicrous things I have seen you type Smasharoo and you have typed a lot of ludicrous ****. Gbaji - I can not believe that you would agree with Smasharoo about giving complete control of US troops to the UN.

I would say bring in the UN but with 1/4 of the current US troops and the other 75% being from the other UN Countries. So long as US command remained in US Hands.

I agree with about 90% of what Bongo says though nice to see another right thinking American posting on the boards.

Why?
I realize giving the UN controll over US troops is the boogeyman of the white supremiscist, "new world order" conspiracy theory belivers, but what, exactly, is the danger?

Right thinking being defined by you as "in agreement with me", correct?

Implying that everyone who doesn't think like you is wrong thinking, is, in the words of Michael Jefferson "ignorant, that's ignorant."

And yes, we have to find a way to relinquish control of pretty much all aspects of the occupation in Iraq. Our credibility as a nation has been damaged beyond repair in this arena.

edited to add: When even Smash and Gbaji are in agreement, you may want to think hard before dismissing what they're saying.

Edited, Thu May 6 17:57:30 2004 by Yanari

Not at all, it was actually meant to mean he was conservative and worded precisely the way it was to provide an opportunity for one such as yourself to respond the way you did. I actually expected Smash to catch that and make a remark about conservatives, unfortunately he dissapointed me.




Actually when they are in agreement I want to make sure that they have both put down the crack pipe and reread what the other stated. Though there are times when they both may agree it does not by any means make a conclusion that the thought is correct. It is when I am in 100% agreement with both of them that you may want to think hard before dismissing what they're saying.

Shall we play a game?

executive summary of PDD-25

Good way to open dialogue call the other side an ignorant *******, I always respond well to name calling.

Ok. Just want to point out an inconsistency.



Ok. So it's not supposed to be a police force. Why not?



Ok. So are you saying that the UN is not a police force (let's just be honest and say "world military force"), specifically because it has nations like the US who will take that military action when the UN decides not to? I'm just verifying this, since it's got to be one or the other. Either the UN enforces it's own resolutions with military force, or it defacto assumes that other nations will in their place.




Here's where you lost me. If the UN is not supposed to use force to enforce its initiatives (or even presumably pass initiatives authorizing proactive force since they can't command non-UN troops), but there's an assumption that nations like the US will, then what on earth are you complaining about?


What happened is exactly what you said is supposed to happen. The UN passes resolutions saying that nation X is being bad. Nation X refuses to comply. The UN keeps passing more resoltions against nation X. At some point, a nation like the US uses those resolutions as a justification to take military action. Um... That's exactly what happened in Iraq. Do you know how many resolutions the UN passed against Iraq between 1988 and 2002? I don't know either right off the top of my head, but IIRC it was somewhere around a dozen or more.


If the UN wont do it, someone has to. It's really that simple. I'd much much prefer that the UN would step up and start passing resolutions that authorized pre-emptive force against nations that don't comply with their previous resolutions. But to this date, the UN has never done that.


My parallel between states and early US federal government, and todays nations and the UN is relatively accurate (at least in terms of military use). The original US military charter basically said that the US as a whole could draw up state military forces on a request-and-send basis as needed, for defense of the union. Period. That is almost exactly the same restrictions that UN forces currently operate under.


Your objections to US forces being under UN command are probably exactly the same ones people in Massachusetts would have had about their armies being under US command. While I understand the lack of desire for that, I'm forward thinking enough to see that someday we're going to have to let go of that sort of provincial thinking about world governing. Iraq is a great example of how a single nation should not and really cannot enforce the ideals of a world upon a single people. In exactly the way that a single northern state would have a very hard time enforcing a slavery ban on a single southern state prior to the civil war in the US, no matter how much the politicians debating the issue in Washington agreed that slavery was bad. Think about it...





If the words coming from the UN are "No one attack anyone for any reason", then yeah. I suppose so. Um... But if we're supposed to be the guys who enforce the UN rules that the UN choses not to, then that whole argument kinda falls appart.

Thevious has the most reasonable answer. I agree 100%. Kill 'em all and let whatever God you worship sort it out.

However...

The most realistic answer is this: It never will end. People, orginizations, political powers, countries, nations...they are all far too greedy and power hungry for any war to ever truly end. This version of the Iraqi war is nothing more than an extension of when his father did it.

Countries will only present the appearance of peace because for one clear moment, both sides realize that it is pointless to prolong the death parade. But...inevitably...one side or the other will do some stupid **** like 9-11 and it's on again...as soon as someone finds a legal reason.

If you do not think the US should be enforcing UN sanctions then who is supposed to? Canadians?

When was the last time the Canadians did anything to support the US or any country in a crisis where the world look to Canada expecting they are supposed to help?

You go ahead and blast the US all you want, your colors are showing bright and the color is Yellow.

Afghanistan?



Why don't you let the international community decide that, instead of the US making all the decisions.



I actually respect the US for many of their actions, and by no means do I dislike the US. I think they need to change their conception, of their role, in the international community.

I appreciate this reply, however who would fill the role of enforcing the sanctions and/or set the standards for the rest of the UN? The US is not perfect nor do I agree with everything the US government does, however I prefer that the US takes the leadership role other than France, Russia or China of course the other permanent member of the Security Council the United Kingdom would be an acceptible leader for enforcing Security Council Resolutions.

So with the US being a major player on the World Stage it is our Role in the international community to ensure that sanctions are enforced and to make the hard decisions in politics that not everyone is in favor of, it's called Leadership.

I think the US should try taking more of a support role within the UN. Other nations will not be able to make accusations about the American governments ulterior motives for their actions. I think it would be a fantastic PR move on the part of the US in the international scene.