see above. and i'm not saying every criticism launched against the president is a blind partisan one...but i am saying there is a rather large segment of society out there...many who post on this board...who so despise the president that no matter what he does, they'll find a reason to dislike him.
What Bush has done to fight Aids in Africa is fantastic. What Bush has done in relation to the situation in Iraq is corrupt.
Max... I took the time to respond to your point, I would appreciate the same courtesy. If you feel that one of the posters ackowledging a certain disdain for Bush dismisses my argument, I don't understand.
Then I don't understand your point...you say simply that, "I don't think their position is merely one of hatred towards Bush." mc mark admitted as such...that was my ENTIRE point. i wasn't saying that you felt that way...or that you made decisions that way...merely that there are is a group of people who do feel that way...and a few of those people post here.
Fair enough, but mc mark doesn't represent both of the people you disagreed with, and in general I was hoping for a response to my problem with our position re: the UN...
reading through your talk about the UN...are you sure you're canadian? you keep saying "our" position when it refers to the united states' position. This iraq situation is certainly not the first where the UN has been labelled as irrelevant...many on the conservative side of the fence have been saying that for a very llong time, MacBeth.
Sorry...I thought you knew. I am American and Canadian. Lived and worked in the US for several years, both as an adult and as a child. NYC and Clearwater, Florida, to be precise. But in terms of our position on it as a nation...we use the veto more than anyone, and then cite that as a cause for UN ireelevency when, for the first time, it is used against us? Among the other issues I raised...seriously, MM, try to look at it as an outsider: Don't you see the incredible convenience of the timing of our objection to things we had previously hailed, used, and compelled others to follow?
sure..but i don't see any other political entity not taking advantage of "timing" in the very same way. i could very well indict this administration for being political...but i could do that of every other administration of leadership in WORLD history. the bottom line is the UN is largely irrelevant. their own inspectors were telling us that iraq was in violation...they issued mandate after mandate...but they had zero teeth. mandates, laws and rules do very little good when there is no one willing to enforce them.
Whether the UN is suited to conflicts such as Iraq will be the subject of much debate. (and many threads) Clinton did not get UN approval for Kosovo. UN approval was not obtained for actions in Yugoslavia. Bush's main failing continues to be diplomacy. He allowed the UN to be perceived as the gauge of representative support. I, like MacBeth, am still not convinced the Iraq war was necessary with the urgency that was pushed by the administration. There are several threads on this issue. (A whole new forum to be precise). But back to the thread and Max's point. Even if self-serving, isn't the involvement of other countries at this time a tremendous step forward? It's about time. If you don't agree this is good news, short of turning back the clock, what would you propose? I agree with Max that critique of this move may be motivated more by a disdain for the Bush administration, or continued frustration with the war, then an assessment of the current situation. There is a mess in Iraq right now. What should be done?
dam lawyers What I meant was even though I have much disdain for him, I could at least have an open mind and try to give him the benefit of the doubt if he at least tried to be a little more inclusive.
i'd be happy to scorn the UN again, if you'd like. the bottom line is, no matter what he (Bush) does, some of you will find a reason to dislike him for it... Madmax. This was repeated three or four times essentially in the thread. Madmax, as usual you attempt to claim the neutral, dispassionate flexible fact finding ground for yourself. Madmax, don't you see how it can seem hypocritical to make frequent posts scorning the UN or the French, support an invasion and occupation against their votes and then ask them to rescue a troubled Bush policy? It should be noted that this is a policy that at this point seems to want to give all the lucrative rebuilding contracts to US firms. Alternatively, don't you realize that it seems, despite your constant attemtps to proclaim yourself neutral, that almost no matter what Bush does you seem to support him? You even do this if it would involve getting what are for you the the hated French and the UN involved?
Not true! Not true and you know it! I've sided againt the president here many times. I would say to many here, I'm fairly reasonable. Whether you choose to believe it or not, I do not blindly support the Republican party and its agenda in the same way you do with the Dems. I have said time and time again that if Bush actually lied on this deal, he needs to go. If we can show he knowingly lied to lead us to a path to war...then it's time for him to hit the road. The hated French? Glynch, you love to create me as this evil Halliburton Republican tycoonesque character...and it just ain't me. Keep trying, but it just ain't me. I don't hate the French at all. When I point our cultural differences...or French solutions to problems that I don't agree with...that doesn't mean I hate them. I don't hate them at all. I don't think or care about them enough to hate them. There are good and bad persons in every country and every culture in the world. France is no different. As for the UN...again...I find it to be troublesome. I am concerned with turning over real governmental authority to any world body...I am concerned about checking sovereignty at its door, particularly among democratic nations. Do I acknowledge it has done many good things? Sure! Absolutely! But do I think it should go without criticism? Absolutely not! Glynch, I voted for Clinton in 92. I was turned off by him very quickly...and by politics in general...because I found he was not true to his word...and it appeared to me he was not even remotely sincere about the very pillars of his election campaign (middle class tax cut being #1). I do not hate Bill Clinton. In many ways I feel sorry for him. I have found my views on many subjects to change over time...as I learn more...as I'm influenced by others whose opinions I respect. Some of those people are right here on these boards. There are certain issues I've been fairly consistent on..like abortion...but even that has changed, somewhat...I'd say my pro-life views are stronger today than they were when I was 18...maybe part of that is witnessing the development of my own son. But stop trying to pin me down as an absolutist who is so staunch in his positions that he can't listen to reason. That's just not me.
I don't remember everyone who scorned it. But I do support our troops. I want them to be rotated out. They've been in combat, and done all the dirty work. They deserve to be releived. The UN can do that. Scorn them if you wish but if this works it will be the UN that gives our troops the break they deserve. The US is already asking the UN for how to do some of the work, so clearly the administration sees the value in the UN. When they wanted war the UN was irrelevant, now they need to know how to handle the peace, the UN is a big help, and the administration wants it to be a bigger help. The UN was never irrelevant. It may not have wanted war, but they are repsonsible for monitoring elections, feeding countless of people in need around the world, sheltering people, keeping peace through agreements etc. I don't think those are things to scorn, no matter how weak they were or weren't regarding Iraqi UN resolutions. To spit on the UN because of one or two areas that they may be less than effective at is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You may not see their value, but when it's convenient, even our current administration sees the value in the UN.
It's not so much that I dislike or hate Bush, I simply don't trust him. I've always said that if we were to hang out that I'd probably find him to be a pretty cool dude. His whole campaign to become president was filled with lies. The amazing thing that confirmed my untrust for him was that when he took office, he immeadiately went back on several promises. It was unbelievable. I remember telling my friend that he had some very large balls to break so many campaign promises within the first 2 months of him being in office. Granted, many of those things were quickly forgotten beacuse of 9/11. They mostly pertained to environmental issues. "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Yeah, rrrright. "I want to do for America what I did for Texas." And what exactly was it that he did for Texas? I don't know. I'd like him to do something that makes me trust him more but it just hasn't happened.
what did you possibly think the president would be able to accomplish, of his campaign promises, in the first 2 months of his term? funny...after I voted for Clinton, I thought the very same thing (in 1992)
I expected nothing in the first 2 months which is why it was so surprising that he wasted no time in breaking some of those campaign promises.
what did you possibly think the president would be able to accomplish, of his campaign promises, in the first 2 months of his term?
