US goes crawling back to UN

Thanks, I really WAS lucky. All those years of being a fan and not ever seeing him, mostly because he quit touring. And I just lucked out. I almost didn't make it that night to Auditorium Shores. My wife couldn't get there. It was karma or something.

You were one lucky dude yourself to see that Feat concert, for New Years, no less. I saw them a few times, but not that one. That must have been great! One of the top live bands, imo.

 

This sounds like it was written by Andrew Card himself. Nice work Hayes. If you think everyone believed he had WMD let me introduce you to glynch. Furthermore, many of those who did believe were simply going off information provided by the current lying liars in this administration. Now however it's not the WMD that are the threat, it's the people wanting to get them that's the threat. By that logic the whole world is a threat, let's invade!

The reasons behind this war are so varied and shifting now that it's hard to keep track. First it was A, then B, then C, then XYZ, and then regroup and see what anyone will believe.

 

Of course we're going back to the UN.

It's the only political move Bush has left.

The only way to save face...

 

The UN must do this carefully. It needs to preserve its credibility as a force for all mankind, not just a toady for the US.

The UN can't just be used to clean up American messes or be a insturment of neocon foreign policy.

 

Of course it can't JUST be used to clean up American messes. It can do other stuff as well. Maybe pass out flyers. Teach English As A Second Language, etc.

Timing,

I honestly don't even know who Andrew Card is. I didn't base my decisions about the war on the SOFTU or on claims of aluminum pipes. I based it on FACTS. INDISPUTABLE FACTS. He was a genocidal dictator. He had a history of acquiring WMD. He was extremely likely to pursue nukes until he acquired them. He would be a threat of the highest measure if he did acquire them. He was a sponsor of terrorism. All of those things are indisputable. I did not see anything that convinced me Saddam was connected to Al Queda. I didn't see anything that convinced me he was within a month or two of acquiring nukes. It didn't matter. The INDISPUTABLE FACTS were convincing enough. It was INEVITABLE that he would become a nuclear threat. Immediate justification for removing him comes from two lines of reasoning: (a) he was genocidal. There was no reason to stand aside and allow that to continue when we had the power to stop it. Zero. Nada. Zip. (b) intelligence could not accurately predict WHEN he would acquire nukes. Waiting until he had them would be too late.

I conceed that Glynch probably believed Saddam was a real nice guy, and that he would never possess WMD. That doesn't get you much.

BTW: NONE of your post even attempts to make a counter argument to my points. Not very impressive at all.

As for 'everyone' being a threat, everyone that is seeking to acquire or has nuclear weapons is a potential threat. Believing otherwise is foolish. How much of a threat varies greatly: England is very low on the HayesStreet Threat-o-Meter. France is very low. Russia is thankfully relatively low. The PRC is relatively low, although that could change in the next 20 years. India and Pakistan and Israel are relatively low. All of those are either democracies or in transition to some semblance of one. None are likely to confront the US and play games of nuclear brinksmanship. Iraq was not in that category. Iraq had no balancing power in the region. Saddam was prone to brinksmanship AND miscalculation (Iran/Iraq War, invasion of Kuwait, concealing the true nature of his WMD program even as the US built up to intervene). That is a bad bad bad combination when you are talking about nuclear arms. Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and others have dormant nuclear programs. None of those countries are a threat to the US (or are relatively low given current geopolitical alliances). Iraq was not like that. North Korea is, but how much more difficult are they to deal with now that they HAVE nukes? Much much more. Luckily there are other great powers (Japan, PRC) in the region with a direct stake in mediating aggressive tendencies of N Korea. Again that was not the case with Iraq.

 

Excellent post , Timing.

Another indisputable fact. It is human nature to defend yourself. If you have to have nukes to do it, you'll try. Hence we see a speed up of by N. Korea and Iran to do so, quick, before a neocon invasion.

Neocon non-proliferation is failing. India, Pakistan and Israel, all countries more likely to use them than most, have acquired these weapons in recent years.

The doctrine of neo-con non-proliferation states "Let's don't ban nukes. Let's just keep them for ourselves and friends so we can use them and threaten to use them when we want". Recent addenda under the Bush variant are let's renege on pledges not to do first strike nukes and let's make some smaller ones so we we can more readily use them and can more credibly threaten to use them, even in first strikes.

However, much as Hayes and others might have bought into the whole wmd thing, when talking about Iraq in particular, it should never be forgotten that Wolfowitz, one of the key architects of the invasion, has stated that wmd or nukes were just a matter of bureaucratic covenience.

 

Convenient except that Iraq was trying to acquire nukes LONG before there was a threat to the regime by the US. Oops.

India and Israel have had nukes for LONG LONG time. At least get your facts straight. And nuclear non-proliferation policies have long been the policies of 'most of the world.' Not just 'neo-cons' who just got in power. You simply have no grasp of what is going on, and statements like these prove it.

Again, non-proliferation has LONG been a goal, not even just for the US, but for most of the major powers on the planet. And what exactly are you arguing here, glynch? That any state should be allowed to have nukes? Do you think it would have been ok for Saddam to have nukes? I'm afraid you're going to lose quite a lot of your support on this one, so do tell.

Again, I didn't need Wolfowitz to make up my mind. He's pretty much irrelevant to my analysis of why it was justified to intervene in Iraq. Stop with the red herrings.

 

Hayes, get your fact straight. US militarists and their latest manifestation, the neocons have always been against arms control. Wanting to keep nukes to use and threaten enemies has always been their thing. You simply have no grasp of what is going on,

The incredible hipocrisy of pushing nukes for us and our friends, while claiming to be for nuclear non-proliferation is transparent. This policy puts power and world domination over arms control and/ or nuclear proliferation. You simply have no grasp of what is going on,

Get your facts straight. The only time the neocons or their predecessors in the US engaged in meaningful arms reduction was when they felt threatened by Russian nukes. Now that cRussia isn't a threat they want to expand and modernize nukes and blow off treaties in the area. You simply have no grasp of what is going on,

Though I am repulsed at the thought, I guess one could argue that it would be best for N. Korea to get enough nukes that it would make the neocons decide that they like arms reduction again. As their central motif in diplomacy fear and force, perhaps they only respond to fear and force.

Again India and Israel as nuclear powers happened during the same mindset. Clever to try to separate those two out. Nothing new about the neo-cons, hawkish as hell, but as they are really the desendants of Scoop Jackson, they're not down with the conservative social agenda and are for a certain amount of economic justice.

BTW as you would argue till the cows come home about Iraq or a country you want to invade, Pakistan or one rogue country is enough to make mushroom clouds all over.

It is simply outrageous spin for you to try to pretend to be a big anti-nuke guy. Hiporcrisy is hipocrisy is hipocrisy. You must get some laughs out of spinning your "war is peace" routine.

 

Glynch, calm down. I can almost see the spittle flying out of your outraged mouth and hitting your computer screen. You skip any counterpoint that you can't handle, and prattle on with flamboyant rhetoric instead of arguments. Get a grip.

Your argument about Iraq was simply wrong. Do you deny this? You said they sped up their attempts to acquire nukes because they were threatened by US militarists, right? But they were trying to build nukes in the early 80s, when they were our allies, right? Remember all your posts about how cozy we were with Saddam then? How does that fit into your theory? Can you deal with it without getting off the point? Can you defend your argument? Don't think so.

As for the hypocrisy of non-proliferation, its not just the 'neo-cons and their friends,' but your good buddy's in the UN as well. Oops. They see the danger of horizontal proliferation. You, apparently, do not. How do you reconcile that with your simplistic opinions? And again you avoid the question: do you think any country should be allowed to have nukes? As I stated before, your support will disappear so quick if you state your true opinion that I doubt you'll be honest about it, or more realistically, that you've even thought about it.

I'm not sure what this has to do with non-proliferation, or this discussion at all. If you want to generically rage on 'neo-cons' be my guest but I would think you'd at least like to make it slightly relevant to the discussion at hand.

It doesn't really sound like you are repulsed by the thought. It sounds more like you are headed down to path of your philosophy, which is that any country should be able to have nukes. Doh.

More rambling. I separated them out because you are being silly, and COMPLETELY incorrect as you sling 'facts' around. As in the Iraq example the ACTUAL timeline of events does not match your interpretation. Israeli and Indian proliferation had NOTHING to do with the neo-cons you are railing on and on about. NOTHING.

Man, you are losing it. What does this mean?

I get laughs when ultra-lefties lose it in the public domain. How could anyone actually trust you to set policy? Big 'anti-nuke' guy. Where is that claim? I am absolutely against horizontal proliferation. I have always said that. I am against backwards ass totalitarian regimes obtaining nukes. 100%. I am fine with arms control to reduce our stockpiles in comparison to other nuclear powers, but have never said I was for total disarmament. I think that would be insane.

As for the CTBT: oh the hypocrisy of it all. Clinton was such a hypocrite for signing the CTBT and not disarming. He was such a neo-con fool. Oh wait. Maybe there is more in the world than black and white...not in glynch's world, but then his world is a pretty scary place too.

 

Now calm down, Hayes. Get a grip. You simply dont' know what you are talking about. Get your facts straight.

We disagree that is all. Your policy of selctive nuclear non-proliferation is failing. Pakistan, India, Israel. The latest reincarnation the neocon version you espouse has encouraged N. Korea and Iran to hurry with their programs so they would be safe from a neo-con invasion.

 

Mimicry is the highest form of flattery.

 

I don't have a policy of selective non-proliferation. I don't want ANY proliferation. You just don't get it. Really. A few FACTS I'll point out and lets see if you can fit them in your puzzle:

India proliferated because it feared CHINA, not the US.
Pakistan got nukes from CHINA, to balance INDIA.
ISRAEL got nukes from FRANCE.

Please explain how US 'neo-cons' are responsible for this?

Re: Iran and North Korea (at least you've given up on your ill-fated Iraq trip).

North Korea was prolifing before and during the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. Please explain how the current neo-cons are responsible for this? Please explain what policy we should pursue instead of non-proliferation? Could it be....total proliferation? Do you really think that would make the world a safer place?

 

Re: Iran and North Korea (at least you've given up on your ill-fated Iraq trip). Hayes.

I dont understand your Iraq remark. It is interesting that you don't want to discuss how threatening to attack N. Korea and Iran might make them want to speed up the acquisition of nukes for defensive purposes. Can't you see a possible logical link between an enemy threatening and a desire to acquire weapons? I can't understand why this sholdn't be easy.

Look, I'm sure that in your own way you wish that noone else gets nukes. To that extent we can agree. Unfortunately your policies are just so misguided and they aren't working

 

glynch,

This is simply lopsided. You keep coming up with new arguments, and then abandon them when I give factual reasons why you're wrong. What's the point? North Korea was building their nukes BEFORE the neo-cons took power. Answer that I'd be happy to answer you. Look at our exchange in this thread. I spent a lot of time answering your assertions. You ignore them and make funnies in response. Seriously answer my counterpoints and we can move from there.

 

Hayes, I don't think there is any point in continuing, especially the sentence by sentence minutiae. You are technically good at that format, but I think it leads you to narrow thinking where you miss the forest for the leaves. Declare victory if you will.

Nothing you can say can convince me that continuing the old decades old policy of keeping these weapons for ourselves and friends will not make others want to get these weapons.

To me the old cons and the neo-cons have basically the same in their approach to non-prolif since WW II. I reject your artificial attempt to limit failures of your non-prolif scheme to the last year or two and therebye claim victory or at least promise for your "new" approach , which is in reality the old failed policy.

Except for the new more recent militarism of threatening first strike nukes and preemptive invasions this is the same old tired policy done by the nuclear powers, led by the US, since WW II. Our nukes and threats led Russia and China to get them. France and England, though our allies were either given them by us or acquired them to be big time players. India too.

The number of countries with nukes just keeps expanding under your policy which is the same as it has always been for the nuclear warrior types. Note Demos and Republicans both are responsible.

Talk of India, Pakistan and where Israel got its weapons is minor distracting chit chat. as far as I'm copncerned. Non-Proliferation of the old type you advocate is slowy failing. This is a fact.

Nothing that I can say will make you believe that attacking Iraq was nothing more than a possible temporary victory for non-prolif, even if seen only in the narrow prism of one less state trying to get nukes.

Note though it may even be your own main reason for the invasion, I really believe the invasion and now the occupation was primarily due to oil. Israel or crazed schemes of world domination. The alleged nukes were a side show for the Bush gang as Wolfowitz opined. In addition the Iraqi attack made the war less safe for terrorism, which fortunately has not yet gone nuclear.

As we now know nukes in Iraq was not more than a possible or probable PROGRAM to develop them sometime in the future. IMHO opinion you voice no concern over the failure of Dubya to speak the truth or have correct info re Iraqi wmd. This type of intelligence failure is critical given your advocacy for armed invasions. What if our next invadee has nukes and nukes our ground troops?

In addition our Iraq invsion and occupation just encouraged Iran and N. Korea to SPEED up their efforts to acquire nukes.

You believe the opposite that invasions and threats will cause all nuke seeking countries to surrender to the US. History doesn't show this going back to the advent of the nuclear age.

Perhaps I will respond more if you can come up with something new worth responding to. If not, till the next topic.

 

the great thing about a political discussion between Clutch City's odd couple is that you can jump into or out of it pretty much at any point, in any thread.

the glynch-hayes street dialogue is an amazing thing to behold, growing faster than hydrilla at times

 

[Sigh] Although I've been accused by some of the good lefties on this board of being a simpleton, rookie, junior, ad nauseam, but bearing in mind the disclaimer for the BBS Hangout: D & D "...not for the weak at heart, but keep it civilized...", allow me to put forth an idea or two;

The U.N. was created after World War II to guarantee that another Hitler would not happen. To ensure that all human beings were guaranteed basic civil and political rights. And to prevent the kind of state-sponsored genocide of which hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq's killing fields bear mute testimony.

Iraq was a human catastrophe before the U.S. led war - contrary to the assertions of France ("impending" was their word before we invaded).

The U.S. didn't need U.N. help in kicking Saddam's tail. In this I would presume to say we are all in agreement.

Since the utter evil, depravity, wickedness, (I could go on almost indefinitely...but I won't) of Saddam's regime and its cost to the people of Iraq has been exposed for the world at large to see, one would believe that the U.N. would act on principle, rationally and within reason; after all, it's very mandate for being is now so prominently on display.

Dare I say that the hubris of the U.N. has rendered all this pontification of human rights and dignity a moot point? A few quibbling bureaucrats, a few "allies", would rather see the U.S. do what? Grovel? Fail? Cry uncle?

If the U.S. did in fact err (read that George W. Bush), I suppose it was in its expectations that somehow the U.N. could be, would be that bastion of humanitarianism that it fancies itself to be.

Ofcourse, this is just my opinion...