 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
MtG:
"You mean you think there will be a free election in Iraq? I thought much more highly of you. Every candidate in the show will be one of our boys, or in there just as a patsy."
Of course not. I think there will be a half-free election for exactly the reason that the neocons won't tolerate what I described as the result of a free election. Of course that policy adds to the potential of turning Iraq into Lebanon. Also, even your puppets might turn against you - wouldn't be the first time. But it's a virtual guarantee for a fiasco either way.
"The neocons didn't want the stinking resolution - they got exactly what they wanted. The UN was painted into a corner of killing it's credibility by getting on it's knees to US policy demands"
I consider that to be their preferred option, but I might be wrong on this one. It was the goal of the state department side of the issue.
"If the US really needed their approval, the bribe amounts would have gone up until they rolled over."
Why didn't that work with Turkey?
"So they do it out of charity?"
I'll spare you the headshaking smileys.  It's funny that you'd fall for Wall street propaganda on that one.
It's a function of dollar recycling, not some kind of new economy pull. But ok, tell me, how are US investments more attractive?
"Or as a form of "constructive engagement." (I'm dating myself a bit, but I'm pretty sure you'll pick up on that one)"
I don't think constructive engagement or critical dialogue will work with Bush's America.
"As Master Zen pointed out - it is realised by being driven by perception. The underlying accuracy of the perception isn't important."
Until someone shouts that the emperor is naked.
"If it really comes down to it, they get reamed hard. It will just cost the US quite a bit more than it's worth. We do have the capacity to stick it to them, but that really stretches things to the limit and compromises occupation of Iraq."
And I wish you a lot of fun with the occupation of Iran. The Israelis really enjoyed their vacation in the shiite part of Lebanon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
MtG:
But it's a virtual guarantee for a fiasco either way.
|
As long as the fiasco happens after election day, there's four years to find something to distract the public and prep for Jeb. We should rename him to George though, so we'd have our George III all over again.
quote:
"If the US really needed their approval, the bribe amounts would have gone up until they rolled over."
Why didn't that work with Turkey?
|
We could have paid them more. In the end, the US figured the extra loss of life from the delayed entry of those forces wouldn't be that big, and that the war didn't depend on it, so we saved the money.
quote:
"So they do it out of charity?"
I'll spare you the headshaking smileys. It's funny that you'd fall for Wall street propaganda on that one.
It's a function of dollar recycling, not some kind of new economy pull. But ok, tell me, how are US investments more attractive?
|
I can't resist that sort of troll. It gets you every time.
quote:
"Or as a form of "constructive engagement." (I'm dating myself a bit, but I'm pretty sure you'll pick up on that one)"
I don't think constructive engagement or critical dialogue will work with Bush's America.
|
Probably about as effectively as it worked with Botha's RSA.
quote:
"As Master Zen pointed out - it is realised by being driven by perception. The underlying accuracy of the perception isn't important."
Until someone shouts that the emperor is naked.
|
In the US, people would denounce that as unpatriotic, all the talk show types would debate it to death and fuzzify the issue, the admin press secretary would say it's just a new kind of transparent clothing, then most people would go watch the next reality show or pro wrestling.
quote:
"If it really comes down to it, they get reamed hard. It will just cost the US quite a bit more than it's worth. We do have the capacity to stick it to them, but that really stretches things to the limit and compromises occupation of Iraq."
And I wish you a lot of fun with the occupation of Iran. The Israelis really enjoyed their vacation in the shiite part of Lebanon. |
Actually, man for man, Iran wouldn't be much worse than Iraq, but the logistics are a pain in the ass due to all the mountains.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"As long as the fiasco happens after election day, there's four years to find something to distract the public"
Yup. But didn't you say you expect the madness of king George to be corrected in the political process?
"I can't resist that sort of troll. It gets you every time. "
"Get" is exaggerated. But I can't let it stand, that's true.
"Probably about as effectively as it worked with Botha's RSA."
Roughly.
"In the US, people would denounce that as unpatriotic, all the talk show types would debate it to death and fuzzify the issue, the admin press secretary would say it's just a new kind of transparent clothing, then most people would go watch the next reality show or pro wrestling."
The initial point was about perception of hegemonial power, or?
"Actually, man for man, Iran wouldn't be much worse than Iraq, but the logistics are a pain in the ass due to all the mountains."
3 times the population, 3 or 4 times the land area, mountains, a better equipped and motivated enemy. And that's just for starters. Of course Iran is another 3rd world country, but a somewhat tougher one than Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"As long as the fiasco happens after election day, there's four years to find something to distract the public"
Yup. But didn't you say you expect the madness of king George to be corrected in the political process?
|
Hope. Not expect until I have an idea what the Dems will do to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this time.
quote:
"I can't resist that sort of troll. It gets you every time. "
"Get" is exaggerated. But I can't let it stand, that's true.
|
Get is close enough.
quote:
"In the US, people would denounce that as unpatriotic, all the talk show types would debate it to death and fuzzify the issue, the admin press secretary would say it's just a new kind of transparent clothing, then most people would go watch the next reality show or pro wrestling."
The initial point was about perception of hegemonial power, or?
|
The perception about hegemonial power by the outside world. The ass-kissing, etc. The latter is about how the American people would respond to the notion that the US isn't the hegemon we/they think it is.
quote:
"Actually, man for man, Iran wouldn't be much worse than Iraq, but the logistics are a pain in the ass due to all the mountains."
3 times the population, 3 or 4 times the land area, mountains, a better equipped and motivated enemy. And that's just for starters. Of course Iran is another 3rd world country, but a somewhat tougher one than Iraq. |
As far as a war goes, they're still ****. Occupation's another mess, but it doesn't get the news attention of the Fox cheerleading squad, or the American public.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
"The US is the police. Even I can't deny that. Live with it. That is how it is."
It is a sad life in my opinion when people work solely with "woulds" instead of "coulds" and in my case, "shoulds". The US should NOT be the sole global policeman, the fact that it is so, is entirely irrelevant to the argument against, except perhaps for it being a causal necessary condition for its existence.
If people just "lived with it", it being stuff that they presumably thought was wrong, then humanity would be a pretty boring, stagnant, and unprogressive race. Fortunately, that is not the case as there are people around who are not blinded by "woulds", and live by "shoulds". I should form an idealistic movement: The Lennon Ressurection! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
"Well Elijah, I accept it because the US is the valid force there and can enforce things keeping this world safe. Yes they should be the sole global policeman."
It is not the valid policeforce, by the very fact that it is one nation with its own natural unilateral interests. As such, it is subjective, whereas the UN was objective. Instead of disbanding it, I think we should make the UN stronger, changing its form so other nations can no longer circumvent this "court".
"can enforce things keeping this world safe"
My point is that it leaves "safe" and "dangerous" down to the interpretation of one subjective nation, that isnt obligated to take into account the views of others. For example using its logic to go to war with Iraq, the US would go to war with lots of dangerous dictators, and would condemn actions in its past where it collaborated with them, like General Soeharto in indonesia (yet still the two million communists and socialists massacred with the help of the CIA goes largely undocumented in Western circles... it helped GAP after all).
There should be a unilateral, objective force that takes into account all arguments, where unilateralist concerns are not taken into account. You yourself must surely admit that America is a capitalist nation, and is thus open to capitalist interests. As such, as the policeman, or any position of official or practised power in the world, it is very open to corruption, and the people that suffer because of it? The rest of world, especially the poor.
No, the UN and its likes are the way to go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
"Well Elijah, I accept it because the US is the valid force there and can enforce things keeping this world safe. Yes they should be the sole global policeman."
It is not the valid policeforce, by the very fact that it is one nation with its own natural unilateral interests. As such, it is subjective, whereas the UN was objective. Instead of disbanding it, I think we should make the UN stronger, changing its form so other nations can no longer circumvent this "court".
|
The UN are a bunch of corrupt whores who can't even peacekeep their way out of a wet paper bag. UN "Peacekeepers" taken hostage by ****ing African rebels, and the UN having to go in on it's knees and ask nicely if we can please have them back safely?
Or how about the Belgie paras who cut the UN insignia of their uniforms with their combat knives, then stepped on them, as an expression of disgust at how their hands were tied in dealing with the Rwandan genocide?
quote:
"can enforce things keeping this world safe"
My point is that it leaves "safe" and "dangerous" down to the interpretation of one subjective nation, that isnt obligated to take into account the views of others.
(snip)
There should be a unilateral, objective force that takes into account all arguments, where unilateralist concerns are not taken into account.
|
That would be nice, but until we're colonized by benevolent and enlightened aliens, we're kinda SOL here.
quote:
You yourself must surely admit that America is a capitalist nation, and is thus open to capitalist interests. As such, as the policeman, or any position of official or practised power in the world, it is very open to corruption, and the people that suffer because of it? The rest of world, especially the poor.
No, the UN and its likes are the way to go. |
A corrupt bureaucracy paralyzed by a "management by committee" approach? Tell me, how hard has the UN slammed Mugabe, for just one example?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
"I disagree, the UN is the wrong way to go... keep its corruption out of world affairs."
That argument appears to be based on the assumption that wherever the UN goes, corruption and cronies go too (sounds familiar). The difference though is that is not the case. It wuold not take more than a few nuts and bolts adjustments to make the UN immune to such acts. Besides, problems regarding its ability is no justification for ignoring its judgement, and preferring that of a unilateral subjective force. Despite its imperfections, related to the subjective of one nation, the UN (look at the name) is more objective.
"The US is the one with the legiminate force and power to do things in this world. Not the bloody UN and its corrupt cronies."
It is not legitimate though, relative to the UN. No other nation has agreed to the concessions required by the UN, to the US!! It has no right into other sovereign nations, barring their asking entrance. It has the power, that is for sure, it does not have the justification to impose its subjective will onto another equally valid subjective.
I must have used that phrase so many times in the past week, if anyone wants an explanation of this use of subjective and objective, PM me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The UN are a bunch of corrupt whores who can't even peacekeep their way out of a wet paper bag. UN "Peacekeepers" taken hostage by ****ing African rebels, and the UN having to go in on it's knees and ask nicely if we can please have them back safely?
Or how about the Belgie paras who cut the UN insignia of their uniforms with their combat knives, then stepped on them, as an expression of disgust at how their hands were tied in dealing with the Rwandan genocide?
|
And all that you said is based on the fact that nation-states, like the US won;t give the UN more power to act like a world policeman becuase most states around the world would never spend a dime to stop something like the rwandan genocide becuase for most of its voters, it is a non-issue, just funny lokking people with funny names killing each other so why should they care?
The UN is as weak as it members make it, becuase they want a weak UN, because they don't care or whish to keep getting away with murder (literally). Want to rag on the UN , rag on the things that make it up, the 190+ states of this world.
Which just goes to show the main issue of this thread: the American people could give a rats ass about loiberating anyone, making anyones lives better out of thier pocket (look at the lukewarm at best support for actions in Yugoslavia). but get them to think there is a threat..and lets bombd the hell out fo them. The People of the US backed war against Iraq because they believed Iraq to be a threat, an immiment threat, due to what the gov told them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
"The sole reason is that the US has the most power and is quite literally the only nation that can get the job done"
Sorry, but more is needed than mere power. Precidents are set, which can lead to damaging consequences, corruption is entirely possible in both those consequences and the immediate action. Also, the US has final word over what happens to its resources, so if the arguments to do something apply equally to another example, but the US has a different sentiment, then the US is less likely to get involved, although the situation on the ground is the same.
Lets not forget the corruption inherent in placing global security in the hands on one nation, with its own agenda to keep, especially one that is so powerful as the US.
"You have explained nothing, leftist."
"Forget Elijah. You are hopeless."
Fez I can take your usual bull, but I will not stand for personal insults, you keep doing that, I'll report you.
"The US is the nation that has to be the international policeman, not some cheap and worthless organization that has a history of doing every single thing wrong"
What about all the other stuff the UN does? The altruistic work like rights, children, refugees, drugs, landmines, etc etc etc. I'd call that a pretty major success, baring in mind the context in which the UN was formed, I'd call it pretty successful. Id say it was in need of modification, but that goes without saying as international situations change.
"The US is the nation that has to be the international policeman"
Not necessarily. It is not so inclined to do stuff that is not in its own economic interest, as its resources, though huge, are finite, it will logically only use them in its own interest in one way or another. Also, what would nations that dont accept the US think about having it as an international policeman? Undoubtably the same that most Americans would feel about having Iran, China or Cuba as the international police.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-05-2003 07:39
At least he was a man of his word, about two weeks later we were at war. 
|