It was before the 2000 election. People seem to forget what Bush campaigned on and what Republicans bashed in order to get votes. Being against nation building in 2000 was part of the Republican platform and now being against it is downright un-American. Amazing...
So in other words: Blood for Oil. Volunteers who do good deeds for others aren't supposed to be compensated.
Excuse me but i think I missed the official announcement from the UN stating they authorised war. Exactly!that's why it's called good DEEDS!
So...does it not matter that there is a rift within the US administration itself regarding this issue? Some want the UN to take over rebuilding (Powell & others I can't remember) while others (Cheney and Rumsfeld) want it to be a US-only thing. Should Powell, et al. move to France with MacBeth?
It was the cease fire agreement at the end of the first war against Iraq. There were no fly zones set up in the north and south. There was also an agreement to end hostilities (hence the name, cease fire agreement). I think there was also a provision about weapons inspectors and disarmament. Since then, Iraq has fired uopn American and British warplanes patrolling the no fly zones on a regular basis. They also booted the weapons inspectors. This should constitute a violation of the cease fire agreement and reopen hostilities between the UN and Iraq. So I guess you could say the official announcement was the opening of the first war in Iraq, of which this could still be considered a part.
To me, the French have been consistent in one thing: making sure they get something out of this. Yeah, they wanted it to be a UN thing. They wanted this war to go through the UN so that the French could disregard world opinion and veto the war resolution regardless of the evidence presented and regardless of other nations opinions. Bush had no hope of getting a war resolution because some veto holding countries were going to veto the war anyway. Instead, Bush abandoned the UN playing field, and thus circumvented the French. Now the French are moaning and groaning to ensure post-war decisions are made in the UN so that the French can secure the contracts they want and nix the US out of war compensation/economic interests. Yesterday, I watched a BBC television report (aired on CNN) about how Blair has lead the polls and about Blairs relationship with the US. The report mentions that many European nations want to unify Europe using anti-Americanism as the rallying cry. (France was mentioned as chief among them.) Blair thinks this is absolutely wrong and that isolating the US from Europe would have dire consequences. So Blair is making it a point to keep the US involved with Europe and to get certain concessions from Bush with regard to the Iraq war. I think this scenario adds to the context in which we view this war. Of course this is about more than Iraqi freedom. As many on this BBS have already noted, a lot of nations (not just the US) have a lot riding on who Iraq deals with and how Iraq does the dealing. France, Russia, China, et. al aren't anymore moral about this than the US. The US, under Bush, is just being more agressive about it. The UN is just a tool. I haven't yet done any research into this matter yet, but if anyone here has links or anymore information on this stuff, please share. I'll be sure to post/link anything I find that is relevant.
So it would be fair to say, as you have indicated that intervention outside the UN made this war criminal, that you would support Clinton and Blair being charged with war crimes in Kosovo? How do you resolve the conflict between your indication that the proper move was intervention in that case, with your rhetoric that 'the checks of global diplomacy' as represented by the UN somehow provide the solution to such problems? You at once indicate we should follow the UN because (a) unilateralism endangers the UN and (b) the UN is necessary to solve these problems, while specifically pointing out that the UN was incapable of resolving such a problem. That is quite a conclusion. Also I wonder how you reconcile the ability of one country to block UN resolution (any security council member such as Russia in 94 with Bosnia and France currently with Iraq) with the conclusion that the UN would act to resolve any such crisis. Also, while the first Gulf War, which you supported, was done under the auspices of the UN, don't you think it is likely that the exact same coalition would have been put together if there were no UN? Or if one particular security council member had blocked the coalition forming under the UN? Doesn't the legitimacy of the UN itself come from its position as a multilateral forum? Is so, why is there no legitimacy to the current coalition, which numbers 30+ countries?
Conan O'Brien is doing a running piece on our "coalition" countries. Last night he had one on Ethiopia and Eritrea and how they are putting aside their own border wars to join the battle against Sadaam. It would be funny if it wasn't so obvious that we're buying off some of these allies for their support. A lot of the countries on the list don't even want to be on it apparently. http://www.austin360.com/aas/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V6562.AP-War-Coalition-C.html
Sorry i didn't see this till now.. Okay, one by one... 1) The equivalent would be wanting to see a drug dealer convicted, and being happy with the idea of the cops going in without authorization, but deciding that, for the greater good, ie the validity of the system, and the check on absolute power, I would forgo that one arrst at that time, and hope that the authorization comes...If not, and I had to sacrifice one, I err on the side of omission rather than comission. People who disagree will always re-state this as if that is expressing approval or indifference of what you are letting the drug dealer get away with, but I assume you have too much intelligence to make that kind of knee-jerk assumption. 2) Re: one country and blocking...That system worked for us many many times when we were the only one who blocked things, to point out that the system is irrelevent and/or broken merely when it worls against you for once is pretty obviously biased criticism, and to ignore it on the basis of that criticism when you have demanded that everyone follow it in the past when you 'blocked' what they wanted is down right hypocritical. 3) Re: coalition...This requires a dual answer, as I am unsure if you ask this practically or idealogically. Practically, no, because if you review the circumstances at the time, whether accurate or not, Bush portrayed the US's role in that situation as bearing the heaviest part of the burden for world opinion as expressed by the UN...both at home and abroad...and no one felt threatened by it, nor did anyone really question the validity of the stance, as sovereignty is a cornerstone of UN principle. Idealogically, possibly, as I said before there were 2 idealogical issues in that war, the UN as voice for world opinion, and the issue of sovereignty, and had they been divided it would have presented a dilema...But rather than focus on the ramifications of a what if, wouldn't it make more sense to reflect upon the fact that the one supported the other, thereby legitimaizing both? Fi France, Germany, tc, were so biased against us, why did they back us when we were on the side of world opinion? Maybe because that's the point?
The French want it all, but for free... You can't have it both ways... Fox is the most watchable network...A hell of a lot better than Biased/Liberal CNN... I'd rather see Cavuto than Connie Chung...err...Paula Zahn...
I am responding to you because you have given a thoughtful analysis to the toipc. 1) Went against world opinion? Hardly. Just ask any of the 48 coalition nations. 2) The point here is that it seems more than a bit disingenuous to say that Iraq is fine the way it is one minute, and the very next minute realize that it is going to change and show up at the end to scrape profit off of it.
MacBeth, I assume the "people who disagree" refers to me. And I resent that you call it lack of intelligence and knee-jerk assumption without coming around to answer my argument. If you are still interested to see it again, it is here: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&postid=809757#post809757 I don't see how this answer HayesStreet's point which criticized your assumption that the UN is capable of providing "the checks of global diplomacy." All you have said is that everyone, including the US, has used the blocking privilege to its own ends. That's exactly why the UN is impotant when it comes to resolve conflict. And you still insist that no one should act without the backing of the UN? You know, I find that your posts are very intelligent and informative. But you tend to selectively answer the points which you have answers and just ignore (rather than concede) the others as if they don't exist.
1) Easy..I in no way directly meant you. I would try and respnd to your thread, but am a little too in the cups right now to give it the respect you deserve...but seriously,I had no one in particular in mind, certainly not you...
If this were the standard than even the last 'coalition' (which even MacBeth supports for cryin out loud) was illegitimate. Egypt got debt forgiveness for their support. Syria got a free pass on past 'crimes' and support for terrorism. The list pretty much goes like that for each country except for the security council members and Japan. It would be funny if it wasn't so obvious that people have no idea how the first 'coalition' was formed, even as that is held as the example of how to 'build a coalition.'
I used to think I knew what I wanted more than anything in the world if I was given one wish, but I definitely now know without a shadow of a doubt: For us, the United States of America, to come up with an alternative source for oil so we don't have to rely on these sleazy, can't trust them as far as you can throw them Middle Eastern countries. Even better yet, I would find it hilarious if we hoarded this new alternative source all for ourselves. THEN we'll see if France, Germany, etc could still live without us...f*cking ingrates.
You tend to shape your analogies to fit your purpose and obsfucate the questions. I asked a simple question that I think you are intelligent enough to answer it. If the UN doesn't work on one of the very issues it now recognizes as legitimate to intervene for (genocide), and there really can be no argument it does (Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda), then why would anyone follow your policy worldview, which says 'hey just let it happen and hope the UN gets a consensus the next time it happens'? Why would anyone do that when your main argument against unilateral (even though this intervention in Iraq is being massively mislabeled as such) action is that it POTENTIALLY destroys multilateralism (the UN)? Nice try but it is not a knee-jerk reaction. There is a large body of genocide studies theory that points out that to prevent genocide we must not just concentrate on the genocidal actor, but also on those that stood aside and allowed it to continue even after it has become apparent what is going on. So while you'll try and make it easier for yourself to sleep at night, doing nothing while hoping for some future solution is in fact AT LEAST showing indifference to the plight of those involved. And that is the best case scenario. I find it hard to understand how you can deny that you make a value judgement and put multilateralism, which may or may not work in the future, over the fate of the victims of genocidal policies. And I find that hierarchy unsettling to say the least. You're sort of like Kissinger on acid. A complete non-answer. Easy points this out. If the UN does not function as you assert in your analogies, then it is not the answer to which we ALWAYS defer. You seem to fall back on a Rule of Law concept that simply doesn't apply in this case. Why? Because in this case one of many actors can simply block the system. Those exceptions prevent the legitimacy we strive for in the legal system under the Rule of Law concept. I have no idea what this means. I will say that the UN was never meant to be the exclusive voice of world opinion. That would be true if the system worked that way. Unfortunately the UN doesn't work that way. In MOST cases the intersection of world opinion and sovereignty do NOT happen. So in most cases this crime of genocide, which you will acknowledge is recognized as a legitimate reason weighing against sovereignty, is allowed to continue. And in MOST cases world opinion itself is irrelevant to the mechanism (the UN) you are defending because of the ability of one nation to block action (Russia/Bosnia -France/Iraq). There is no propensity for action regardless of that opinion. As for your assertions about France/Germany, they are exactly that - assertion. There is no reason to believe they supported us then or do not now because of world opinion.
