5/16 I think I'm beginning to understand the rationale behind nominating
Bolton. Many Republicans think that UN is useless (case in point
http://csua.com/?entry=35423 and
freeper sites) hence they either don't care who they nominate
for or they want to show UN how pointless they are. I mean, who
the fuck writes "Darfur pretty much proves the UN as useless and
that the world in general doesn't give a rip about humanitarian aid."
\_ He's not really putting a fine point on it, but Darfur, Rwanda,
Srebrenica, Sarajevo... starting to see a pattern? -John
\_ We had to destroy the UN in order to save it.
\_ The UN is an institution where if one powerful country takes the
lead, the framework is there to support the leader.
E.g., if any powerful country decided to spend the money, people,
time, and political capital to get involved in Darfur, the UN would
provide a framework where other countries could help.
Unfortunately, no powerful country did anything significant about
Darfur.
This is how the UN works. This is how powerful countries "use" the
UN correctly.
\_ Nice nuke. As I said, it's also where Libya gets to chair the
human rights commission. I'm not saying it's not better than
the alternative, but there's a lot broken at the UN. -John
\_ Nuke of what? I'm using motdedit with jove and didn't
force an overwrite. Someone else using scp probably is
responsible.
Granted, there's a lot broken, but there's a lot broken about
the American political system too.
We live with the American political system and try to fix it
because it's the best thing we've got.
There's no one saying we can't try to fix the UN too.
\_ In spite of all what emarkp wrote in the URL above, he ignores two
things: (1) the number one reason the U.S. went into Iraq was
Dubya's "no doubt" that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs, and (2)
rebuilding of post-war Iraq is being poorly executed.
Now if the U.S. had presented evidence to the UN that there was "no
doubt" that Saddam had WMDs -- and any of France, Russia, and China
signaled a veto -- THEN the UN might be irrelevant. However, Colin
Powell presented his shit case ("trust us" on the "no doubt" part,
okay?), France signaled a veto, we went in anyway, and the CIA's
judgment now is that Saddam did not have stockpiles and did not have
active WMD programs. If we went into Iraq because Saddam was
manipulating oil-for-food, torturing people, giving money to suicide
bombers, and just because we wanted to get him while he was small
before he could leverage Iraq into a global power because of his
before he could leverage Iraq into a global power using his vast
oil reserves and desire to restart WMDs once sanctions were lifted
-- these are worthwhile goals, but none of these were presented to
the UN or to the people of America as the primary reason for
invading.
the UN or to the American people as the PRIMARY reason for invading.
... Now, we are already in Iraq. We need to win. We need to unify
America. We need to come clean. Dubya needs to do these things:
(1) Be loud and clear about CIA's judgment that there were no WMD
stockpiles nor active WMD programs, it being the number one reason
we went in, and how the CIA did believe there was "no doubt".
(2) Say we're there now, we made the above intelligence mistake,
but we need to win for the sake of the people of Iraq who are being
blown up by suicide bombers, for the sake of the world if Iraq
devolves into a safe haven for those who would build and train
people to use WMDs.
(3) Say that we presented a case to the UN for which we had "no
doubt", but actually there was a lot of doubt on.
(4) Start using the U.N. correctly.
As long as we do not do the above, the U.S. we will not have come
clean and we will remain a divided nation. Yet, we may still win in
Iraq. I hope at least that happens.
As long as we do not do the above, the U.S. will not have come
clean, and we will remain a divided nation. Yet, we may still win
in Iraq. I hope at least that happens.
\_ What is the definition of "winning"? Did we win in Vietnam?
When Israelis give up land for peace, is that winning?
Sun-Tzu says that if you have to start a war, then you've
already lost. What does that mean to you?
\_ The principal victory condition in Vietnam was no Communist
Vietnam. The victory condition was not satisfied.
The principal victory condition for Iraq is no safe haven for
those who would build and train people to use WMDs.
I hope this victory condition is satisfied.
\_ Oh wow. Cool. So we were done before we started!
'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' means nothing to
these people. If you don't fix it, how can you
siphon money out of it?
\_ What are you babbling about?
\_ For this to be a victory condition, you assume
that, before the war, Iraq was a haven for WMD
producers and terrorist training grounds. You
have a long evidence gap to cross to make this
claim. However, since the war, it's getting
closer to this sort of haven. Congrats.
\_ The victory condition before the war was
to destroy all WMDs and dismantle active programs.
Dubya's assumption, as I state repeatedly above,
was that Saddam had WMDs and active programs.
This was clearly a mistake.
The new victory condition is to prevent Iraq
from becoming a safe haven for training /
production of WMDs. As long as we recognize our
earlier mistake -- and I have said repeatedly
that Dubya needs to acknowledge the mistake loudly
and clearly -- it's honest to make this new
victory condition.
\_ The victory condition before the war, and
indeed the condition thata Bush placed upon
himself, was to disarm Saddam, preferably
through non-military means. Exhaust all
diplomatic efforts, he said. A resolution
of force to use as a diplomatic tool, he said.
It was no mistake. They had decided long
before, as we now know, that they were going
to go in. WMD or not.
\_ Actually, Dubya denied it all (the UK memo)
in a statement yesterday. You can believe
Dubya is a lying asshole prick who rushed to
war and fixed intelligence around policy
(all in the name of Freedom) and this may
very well be true, but I still hope Iraq
turns out all right.
I'm guessing another of your beefs is:
That you just don't want to call it
"winning" or "victory condition", but
"pulling America's ass out of the fire
after Dubya fucked it all up" and
"non-fuckup condition" which is actually
pretty accurate.
\_ No shit?! Dubya denied it? Well then,
the Brits must have lied.
You know, I'd love to be able to call
something about this "winning". I'd
love to think we're not making people's
lives miserable and dangerous when they
didn't do anything to us. I'd love to
think that we will be able to help them
create a nation with strong enough
institutions to prevent it from becoming
a haven for dangerous elements. And yes,
we're in a catch 22 of our own making on
this point. But winning this means
nation building. And if you look at
our history of that, it doesn't go so
well.
\_ Well then, you and I hope the same
thing. I think what happened was
that I sacrified some accuracy in
terms in hopes of converting
moderates and less fanatical Dubya
supporters. I gave Dubya the benefit
of the doubt in terms of whether
he's a liar. Really, Dubya could
just say the UK misinterpreted U.S.
intentions, but I doubt it's going
to get even that far.
\_ will the Mormon troller above clarify if this is true... that you
really think UN is irrelevant (and the comment that you don't
give a shit what the world thinks about US), hence you don't
really care if Bolton gets in or not? |
http://csua.com/feed/