Why they distrust us

[Dave H]

Recommended reading for all sides (http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0cv=KA01&cp1=1) of the Iraq/Bush debate.

(For background: Fareed Zakaria was the editor of the journal Foreign Policy for 7 years, so he knows his stuff. Also he's come out as generally for the war although with reservations as is obvious in this piece.)

----------------------------------------------------

My comments:

I'm personally somewhat torn on the issue. Previously I'd always been reassured by the absolute fact that, on important issues, Bush's policies have been quite multilateral, more so in fact than Clinton's. (Of course the article points this out.) And reassured by the fact that his truly unilateralist actions--withdrawing the US from the Kyoto and International Criminal Court treaties--were not really actions at all since both were obviously dead on arrival in the US Senate, and indeed Kyoto had already been voted down 95-0, and before Bush even took office!

Having read the article those arguments that "see, the Bush administration isn't really so unilateralist after all" look pretty lame, although they are no less true. My own personal theory on this is that Bush conducts foreign policy the same way he conducts domestic politics. And in domestic politics he's been wildly successful with this approach: having telegraphed completely unreasonable one-sided approaches to policy and then comprimised and co-opted some moderate positions in the end, he managed to so completely piss off the solid Democratic base (who obviously weren't going to vote for him anyways) that they fooled themselves into thinking the rest of the country agreed that Bush was so patently extremist that the only election platform necessary was to point and say "Bush is an idiot".

Except that most of the country doesn't pay attention to political gossip and Washington infighting on a day-to-day basis; they pay attention at election time to see how has a better platform and what the record looks like. And while the votors don't really agree with the Bush record (both because the economy hasn't obviously recovered and because the electorate generally agrees with moderate Democratic positions), after the comprimises and co-options it didn't look too extreme to them, and the Republican platform was a lot better than a Democratic "platform" that consisted half of apparent zealots screaming that Bush was an obvious idiot, and half of those too moderate to go the zealot route but, having no counterpolicy of their own (because the base didn't think one was necessary), werecaught looking like deer in headlights as they agreed with all the major Bush policies while still claiming they had to be elected to stop the Bush administration. Thus the Republicans gained seats in a midterm election, which is almost unheard of and particularly when things weren't going so well in the country.

Unfortunately doing this on an international scale--which is what Bush seems to be doing--is a really horrible idea. As President, Bush gets to set the ground and much of the tone in the US press, simply because he's the one who makes the news every day. And most voters--and indeed the only ones that really count--are neutral between the parties and will go with whoever makes the best case in their eyes. In contrast, foreign leaders set the tone for the foreign press, and foreign citizens are of course predisposed to root for the home team. Thus I'm beginning to come around to Zakaria's point that even if/when (and it will probably be when) the war in Iraq demonstrates that the Iraqi people want very badly for the world to invade and depose Saddam, and that the Iraqi regime indeed has loads of very serious chemical/bio weapons and probably an advanced nuclear development program despite the IAEA's findings to the contrary, foreign citizens won't suddenly realize how utterly wrong they and their leaders were to oppose the war. And even if they did, Bush would gain very little: after all, he's not running for reelection against Chirac, and in general neither his nor America's aims will be furthered much by having outmaneuvered our allies and drawn them into unreasonable positions and then proven them wrong.

Anyways...discuss.

[horvendile]

That was one of the best articles I have read on the subject. I don't completely agree with every word, but overall, it's pretty spot on. Being a European, I should know! :)

Er... I was planning to write a lot more, but it turns out that I have to leave. Ultra-short:

Don't quite agree with the envy thing, though I'm not devoutedly anti-American, so I can't really speak for those that passage are about. Do I fancy the comfortable life of the big American middle class? Yes (with some reservations). Does that make me hate America? Of course not.

Agree heavily with the diplomacy and unilateralism parts. I think removing Saddam Hussein is a Good Thing, even by means of war (unless the war turns extremely bloody). But that doesn't alter the points in part III and IV of the article. It's not about USA being a supreme power, it's about how the power is wielded.
(And contrary to what the article vaguely implies, not even past decennia are spotless.)

Stalin once asked something like "How many infantry divisions does the Vatican have?". I have seen this line being used as an example of poor understanding of how international politics work. I'm not saying that Bush is like Stalin. But I agree with the article that it might be a good idea not to actually disdain diplomacy.

[epicstruggle]

It amazes me how sometimes people can look at a situation and see two completly different things. Although I do agree with the article in general, I think one point was not represented. I cant recall a war, in recent history, where people did not protest in some form or other. Given this france and germany fooled the worlds population into this weird stance of diplomacy works for anything. Even though they had alterior motives, mainly their own oil interests, and other contracts. So it looks like we just want to fight and not give any diplomacy a chance. Where in reality there has been years of diplomacy.

I do agree that currently we are not painted in the most favorable light. I see 5 areas where we can change this:

1-) Israel/Palestinian conflict. This might be the single most contentious issue. If we forced the two sides to sit down and work things out, this might start making us look better to many of the muslim world.
2-) Liberation of Iraq. Once we win and remove saddam from power. We need to quickly restore order, bring in food and aid, and start a new government.
3-) Diffuse the North Korean threat. Bring in china, japan, south korea, and the UN to help solve this problem.
4-) Complete withdrawal of all military from the middle east except where we are absolutly wanted. (israel/palestine, and iraq)
5-) Continued assistance to Afghanastan.

I think these 5 things need to happen in some order in the next few years.

later,

[nutball]

I found that a very good article. I think the problems exist at many levels, not just relating to the current Iraq crisis. I believe the article gets to this point.

I support the current US stance on Iraq, it's clear to me that Saddam will not be removed by anything other than military force. However that doesn't mean that I'm not uncomfortable with the way it's been handled, and with having folks like GWB at the helm of the Worlds only hyper-power.

The point the article makes about diplomacy and style are important. To outsiders George W. Bush comes across as an incoherent, paranoid, tactless, reactionary moron. His views seem very polar ("If you're not for us, you're a terrorist"). He doesn't seem to really have any idea, or even really care, how his actions, pronouncements or policies will play with other people around the World. Now this impression may or may not be accurate, but nevertheless that's the way it seems. Impressions matter in diplomacy. Others in his administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld) are even worse, whereas Colin Powell for example comes across as quite intelligent and reasonable.

Put simply, the current administration basically just rub people up the wrong way without even trying, then get all confused and hurt when they get a bad reaction. I know many Americans personally, and I don't see Bushs' character reflected in them. From that perspective I think much of the mis-trust are stems not from a fundmental mis-trust of America, but from a mis-trust of the Bush administration.

No amount of doing the "Right Thing" in Iraq is going to fix this. We just have hope that things in post-war Iraq will be better for the Iraqi people than they have been in recent history. It's difficult to see how they can be much worse, but that does depend on Bush getting a big dose of Statesmanship in a hurry.

[Joe DeFuria]

Thanks for the link Dave H....good read indeed.

It is interesting to me that one of the overriding themes (on the specific sub-topic of the Bush administration's appearance) seems to be not necessarily the policies or actions themselves, but the manner in which they are introduced / handled.

That is, the "politics" of it all.

I do understand that when it comes to international politics, "style is often substance" as the article put it. One important question though, is "should it be that way?"

Should the "rest of the world" be offended by Bush's style....or should Bush be offended that style is given such importance, and not the content of the message / policy? I know we all constantly like to harp on "political correctness gone overboard" in many of today's societal issues. I know that I'd preder less Bullsh*t talk and more direct and frank discussions of issues and ways to solve them.

Unfortunately, I think too many politicians are interested in "saving face", than they are in actually solving problems. Given a choice between the two, they will save face.

The world seems to accept (begrudgingly?) the fact that the U.S. is the lone superpower. However, at the same time, they don't seem to accept that by definition, that means that it can be rather humbling when it comes time to discussing problems and solutions. Because of our "superpower" status, The U.S. has more options for dealing with certain situations than any other country, and at times, more options than all other countries put together. As the article suggests, "fear" plays into this, because the thought is "Heck, if the U.S. can do this to Iraq...what's to stop them from doing it to us"? Just because we have that option, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. (And of course, it doesn't mean those options are good things either.) So it comes down to trust...can the world "trust us" to do the right thing with our power? Must / should the world come together and basically oppose any time we flex our power, simply because we are flexing that power...whether or not they agree with the specifics of the issue at hand?

Nutball wrote:
From that perspective I think much of the mis-trust are stems not from a fundmental mis-trust of America, but from a mis-trust of the Bush administration.

I certainly agree that there is a general mistrust of the Bush administration internationally. I don't even mean international political leaders, I mean the international populace. I think the international leaders know exactly where they stand with Bush....so in that sense they trust what comes out of this administration. This is one of the few adminstrations that I recall where they actually genuinely follow-through on their convictions. That is, I can generally trust that what they say they will try and do....they will actually try and do it. I have more "trust" in this administration than others in recent history, particularly Clinton's. I really couldn't trust that man and his adminstration any further than I could throw it.

The overriding question is: what is it that causes you to trust or distrust leadership?

Is the basis for trust one where the person goes along with popular vote / concensus? Is the basis for trust based on the administration's ability to pay lip service to other countries, or have some certain "socio-political style"?

Or should the basis for trust be based on the policies themselves, the results they get, and whether or not actions coincide with the administrations presented intentions and stated reasons for such actions?

One problem with the U.S. inherent relatively rapid turnover of adminstrations, is that the world doesn't get much of a chance to judge the trustworthiness. Just when the world starts to get comfortable and understand one administrations style....it changes hands. And it seems there is a double standard when it comes to trust on the world-wide stage IMO. Conservative leaders / administrations are not given the benefit of the doubt, and must "prove themselves" to the world before being trusted. Liberal leaders are given the benefit of the doubt, and muse prove to be untrustworthy before it is lost.

[kyleb]

I cant recall a war, in recent history, where people did not protest in some form or other.

of course you can't; but as long as you keep dismissing us as simply people who oppose war. you will never understand why we oppose war at this time. many of us, including myself, do not simply take the side against war in general. however, many of us do have different conditions for engaging in violence; and, unlike yours, our conditions have not been meant.

also, beyond my own reasoning to engage in violence, what i really don't like is the fact that we are starting a war with the wager that the people who dies lives will be vindicated by the better life that we bring to the ones that will survive. now have always been a very analytical person; but when we start speculating on statistics to justify killing people, i think we have gone to far. i look at people in the past who have followed the same logic, and i cannot find one clear example of where people agree today that it was a good thing. that is the most troubling issue i have when trying to find support for this war, or even take a swing at someone who upsets me for that matter. it just never has seemed to me to be a good thing to do, and i have yet to see anything to change my position on that.

oh and thank you for the article Dave, i will defiantly read it after breakfast. :)

[Joe DeFuria]

...now have always been a very analytical person; but when we start speculating on statistics to justify killing people, i think we have gone to far.

Of course you think so, because despite the fact that you are accusing us of labeling you as simply "anti-war", you have no problems with labeling the "pro-war" folks as simply justifying the war based on speculative statistics.

But I would prefer this thread not degrade into another debate on the war itself, (thre's what, already a half dozen or so on that?) so I do encourage you to actually read the article and direct comments on that as the focus of this thread.

[epicstruggle]

kyleb did you stop reading the rest of my post after you got to the sentece you quoted. My point, maybe i did not state it clearly enough, was that france and germany took a very reasonable peace movement and created a coalition which was made up of the peace movement, the anti-us movement, the anti-bush people, and the pro-muslim groups. They did this mainly for their own interests. Sorry i did not connect all the dots for you. My fault, ill try to make my points more unambiguous.

later,

[horvendile]

The overriding question is: what is it that causes you to trust or distrust leadership?
(Taken as summary of post)

Speaking for myself, this is not what it is about. Or rather: I do not distrust leadership per se, but arrogance does not equal leadership. Lately, and as the article says, USA has walked out of or refused to participate in several important international treatises. A few examples:

The Children's Convention (or whatever it's called in English). USA and Somalia are the only countries that haven't signed it, and Somalia is not even a working state!

Kyoto. USA emits 25% of the world's CO2. Other countries have managed to cut down emissions without economy collapsing.

The one about land (personal?) mines. I believe USA is the only country that hasn't signed, but I may be wrong.

The ICC, which USA refuses to participate in, for fear of having its own soldiers prosecuted there. I think this is paranoia. Basically, if you do not commit genocide, you will have no problems with the ICC. How hard could that be?

Free trade. USA is very loud about free trade happening to other countries, but when its own steel industry can't cope, free trade goes out the window.
Note: EU does the same, to a somewhat lesser extent. This is the single worst thing about EU, IMO.

And to literally add insult to injury, the You're with us or you're against us talk.

To sum it all up, this isn't leadership. This is insolence, and impossible to "follow" in any meaningful way. And things have a tendency to pile up.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume that I'm right in the above. How should that affect the Iraq war?
My take is that, in a way, it shouldn't at all, considering the war and only the war. I think that USA is right in removing Saddam Hussein, as it was in removing the Talibans and bombing Kosovo. Not always for the same reasons as those presented by the USA, but nevertheless. However, that doesn't mean that the surrounding circumstances can be ignored. If USA rightly removes S.H. but in the process severely damages itself, UN (in a political way) and the relations with and between most other countries, is it ultimately worth it? What happens in the long run if USA only counts military strength and concludes that it can do as it wishes? These are not rhetorical questions.

That one has the possibility to do a thing doesn't mean that it's automatically good to do it.

About the passages of style vs substance:
If Bush's (or USA's) style is to break treatises at will, it is not only a question of style. You might as well say that "substance is style" as the other way around.

I have tried to put this in diplomatical and correct wordings, which is not entirely easy since English is not my native language. Since these threads tend to get hot, I would like to take the opportunity to say that it is not my aim to insult anyone, and if any of the above is not clear I'll be happy to clarify.

[nutball]

It is interesting to me that one of the overriding themes (on the specific sub-topic of the Bush administration's appearance) seems to be not necessarily the policies or actions themselves, but the manner in which they are introduced / handled.

That is, the "politics" of it all.

I do understand that when it comes to international politics, "style is often substance" as the article put it. One important question though, is "should it be that way?"


Diplomacy is all about persuasion. Insulting, threatening and humiliating people in public is not generally a very good way to get them to do what you want (it's not actually a very good idea in private either, but sometimes necessary). It's a particularly bad idea with folks who have traditionally been your allies, regardless of how irritating their behaviour can be at times. This is what I meant by "reactionary". It's not a question of political correctness or anything like that, but just plain common sense, and don't take it as a personal slight when folks don't agree at first. This is particularly important if you're the US President.


Should the "rest of the world" be offended by Bush's style....or should Bush be offended that style is given such importance, and not the content of the message / policy?


If you wind people up they tend to switch off long before you finish your sentences. Without the right approach to a debate, your message is lost. Note that policies themselves also have "styles" or their own.


Unfortunately, I think too many politicians are interested in "saving face", than they are in actually solving problems. Given a choice between the two, they will save face.


You got that right!


The world seems to accept (begrudgingly?) the fact that the U.S. is the lone superpower. However, at the same time, they don't seem to accept that by definition, that means that it can be rather humbling when it comes time to discussing problems and solutions. Because of our "superpower" status, The U.S. has more options for dealing with certain situations than any other country, and at times, more options than all other countries put together. As the article suggests, "fear" plays into this, because the thought is "Heck, if the U.S. can do this to Iraq...what's to stop them from doing it to us"? Just because we have that option, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. (And of course, it doesn't mean those options are good things either.) So it comes down to trust...can the world "trust us" to do the right thing with our power?


The power (economic and miltary) that the US can wield is humbling to everyone on the planet. I don't see how acceptance of the USs place can be grudging anywhere (except possibly within the former USSR, and some continental European ex-colonial powers). It's certainly something we in the UK have accepted for a long time now.

But that puts the US in a position where it has to be very careful what it does and how it does it. If you want the trust of the rest of us, you do need to earn it. The dollars and the bombs give you the fear factor, they don't give you the trust factor. Now whether you want to be trusted by the rest of the world (or most of it) is up to you, but if you choose not to bother then you can't really when other folks get all stubborn, and don't roll over then they should.


Must / should the world come together and basically oppose any time we flex our power, simply because we are flexing that power...whether or not they agree with the specifics of the issue at hand?


Not if you handle them correctly! That's the key! Persuasion, making the other folks in the World feel like a key part of what you're doing, regardless of the actualities. That's what the article was saying, the bit about FDR. It may be tedious and that but it's the way it is.


I certainly agree that there is a general mistrust of the Bush administration internationally. I don't even mean international political leaders, I mean the international populace.

Yeah, it was the populace I was referring to.


The overriding question is: what is it that causes you to trust or distrust leadership?

Is the basis for trust one where the person goes along with popular vote / concensus? Is the basis for trust based on the administration's ability to pay lip service to other countries, or have some certain "socio-political style"?

Or should the basis for trust be based on the policies themselves, the results they get, and whether or not actions coincide with the administrations presented intentions and stated reasons for such actions?


It's not an either/or! It's both (and probably other things too). Margaret Thatcher got things done over here, but she managed to do it in a style which left her very unpopular. She rubbed people up the wrong way. In the end she was sufficiently unpopular with her own people that they got rid of her. You could trust that she would do what she said, but you couldn't trust that the next thing out of her mouth wouldn't be some nonsense policy. She got the results, she got the sack.

Generally if you ain't got no time for someone, they'll have very little time for you. That's the socio-politics. It's just plain human nature. It doesn't change simply because you're talking about large bodies of people. If you display contempt for people then they will be pre-disposed to be difficult toward you whenever they can.

So in the current context if you present your motives for doing something (eg. someone has WMDs, or supports terrorism), and you present the evidence (with the sub-text that "we don't actually really give a crap whether you believe this or not, or have any time for you opinion on the matter"), then they will be minded not to trust your motives.

Edit: must finish my sentences!

[Joe DeFuria]

Speaking for myself, this is not what it is about. Or rather: I do not distrust leadership per se, but arrogance does not equal leadership.

First of all, don't worry about English not being your native language. You get your points across better than most of those with "command" of the English language. (Not to mention that your command of the English is better than most who speak it as a primary or only language!) ;)

We are basically just on opposite sides of the spectrum here. You see it as arrogance does not equal leadership, and I see it as leadership does not equal arrogance.

Lately, and as the article says, USA has walked out of or refused to participate in several important international treatises.

"Important" is in the eye of the beholder. If the USA doesn't think it's important (or of lower priority), does that by definition make us arrogant?

A few examples:

The Children's Convention (or whatever it's called in English). USA and Somalia are the only countries that haven't signed it, and Somalia is not even a working state!

I have no idea what this is about, so can't comment.

Kyoto. USA emits 25% of the world's CO2. Other countries have managed to cut down emissions without economy collapsing.

And according to the article in question: "With 5 percent of the world’s population, this one country accounts for 43 percent of the world’s economic production, 40 percent of its high-technology production and 50 percent of its research and development. "

So as you can see, the U.S. deservedly has a rather unique perspective on "economic impact."

The one about land (personal?) mines. I believe USA is the only country that hasn't signed, but I may be wrong.

Not sure about which countries haven't signed either. But I believe the USA is also the only country that has a "unique" perspective on protecting its own troops, since we delpoy more than anyone else.

Free trade. USA is very loud about free trade happening to other countries, but when its own steel industry can't cope, free trade goes out the window.
Note: EU does the same, to a somewhat lesser extent. This is the single worst thing about EU, IMO.

Agreed. One of several policies that I disagree with Bush on.

And to literally add insult to injury, the You're with us or you're against us talk.

This goes toward being "politically correct" again, and reading things into statements beyond their intent. I encourage you to find the speaches where Bush said such things, and take a look at the context in which they are said.

It takes two to be offended. One party to make a comment, and one to be offended. Is the first party overly offensive, or the second party overly sensitve?

In all liklihood, it's a bit of both.

However, that doesn't mean that the surrounding circumstances can be ignored. If USA rightly removes S.H. but in the process severely damages itself, UN (in a political way) and the relations with and between most other countries, is it ultimately worth it?

That largely depends on each country individually. At the risk of sounding "arrogant"....

Does a "non superpower", like New Zealand, really have anything directly to worry about with respect to terrorist attacks, compared to the U.S.? It's pretty easy to say it's not worth it, if your country more or less has little reason to fear terrorist attacks.

What happens in the long run if USA only counts military strength and concludes that it can do as it wishes? These are not rhetorical questions.

Again, it comes down to trust. I really don't think any reasonable person can say that the U.S. in this case doesn't have a legitimate case of self-defense. You can certainly disagree with how strong that case is, but do you really think the U.S. position is completely uinreasonable?

[kyleb]

Joe; i was not labeling you by any means, only presenting my interpretation of epicstrugle's comments. also, all i have seen are statistics and speculation, if you have more than that please come out and say it. as for the article, i did read it and i found it very good. the one thing it really rung home to me about was the fact that we are supporting anti-democratic administrative action by accepting the support of other governments and ignoring the discontent of their people. furthermore, i do not see any evidence to prove epicstrugle's opinion that the people of the countries that do not support us are mislead into that position.

[Himself]

I think that article only scratches the surface of the growing anti US sentiment.

Bush has revealed the monster behind the mask and the world saw it. He showed how different the US can be from other countries and now they have a growing feeling of threat from being overrun in culture as the muslin countries do. I think you can expect trade to become an even bigger issue and military budgets around the world will sky rocket. The US can now be seen, rightly or wrongly, as a imperialist country that the world let under the radar and that will have it's consequences. It's a situation not totally unlike world war 2, IMO.

[Joe DeFuria]

Diplomacy is all about persuasion. Insulting, threatening and humiliating people in public is not generally a very good way to get them to do what you want (it's not actually a very good idea in private either, but sometimes necessary).

And where has the U.S. president been directly personally insulting and humiliating? I can think of one instance: naming specific countrys as part of the "Axis of Evil."

It's not a question of political correctness or anything like that, but just plain common sense, and don't take it as a personal slight when folks don't agree at first. This is particularly important if you're the US President.

I can only respectifully disagree. You seem to argue that Bush is the one taking it as a personal slight when folks don't agree with him.

Does this not apply to other nations...taking a personal slight when Bush doesn't agree with them?

If you wind people up they tend to switch off long before you finish your sentences. Without the right approach to a debate, your message is lost. Note that policies themselves also have "styles" or their own.

And I contend that those who switched themselves off before a sentence is finished, are the root of the problem.

But that puts the US in a position where it has to be very careful what it does and how it does it.

Agreed. It seems to be assumed though, that if certain countries disagree with us, then that by definition means we are not being careful with it?

Does the fact that we built ourselves into the position of a superpower, and that we have more inherent risks (OUR economy, OUR soldiers...) not also give us a more legitimate and direct say in what we do and how we use it?

do we owe it to the world to actually convince some percentage of them that what we are doing is right, BEFORE we do it? Even if we believe that time is our enemy with respect to action?

If you want the trust of the rest of us, you do need to earn it.

Agreed. It's just that political rhetoric and political correctness isn't what earns real trust. You can say that's "just the way it is", and I can say "I'd rather not keep up with tradition, if by doing so has negative implications with getting results.

Results, and demonstrated responsibility with that power earns trust IMO. When countries like France refuse to back ANY resolution where the stated use force is the consequence for non-compliance, where does that demonstrate ANY faith in the part of France that the U.S. CAN use force responsibly?

Where does France give us the opportunity to prove that we can be responsible with force, if they refuse to support us using it?

The dollars and the bombs give you the fear factor, they don't give you the trust factor.

Again, agreed. At the same time, dollars and bombs shouldn't give us inherent DIStrust either.

Now whether you want to be trusted by the rest of the world (or most of it) is up to you, but if you choose not to bother then you can't really when other folks get all stubborn, and don't roll over then they should.

This is what confuses me.

We ceratinly did not have to "bother" going to the U.N. at all. Past president's didn't (like Clinton) when undertaking unilateral military action. And yet, where's the "trust" accusations toward that administration?

This President, IMO, has bent over backwards PRECISELY to try and persuade everyone else of our point of view before taking action.

The problem comes if we are not successful in persuading....(and others are not successful in persauding us to change our minds) what are we supposed to do? Go on endlessly until one side persuades the other? At some point you have to say "our efforts to persuade simply have failed."

That's the point we're at now.

Is the world stage to become like many cases in the U.S. judicial system? It's not really the facts that count...but who has the best lawyers?

Not if you handle them correctly! That's the key! Persuasion, making the other folks in the World feel like a key part of what you're doing, regardless of the actualities. That's what the article was saying, the bit about FDR. It may be tedious and that but it's the way it is.

Right...you call things like "making others feel like they are a key part, regardless of actualities" part of "persuasion", I call it political correctness.

State your case. Certainly LISTEN to other's opinions and evaluate. Make a decision, and move on. You say "political correctness" is how the game needs to be played. I say that I don't care if we play that particular game or not.

It's not an either/or! It's both (and probably other things too).....
Generally if you ain't got no time for someone, they'll have very little time for you. That's the socio-politics. It's just plain human nature. It doesn't change simply because you're talking about large bodies of people. If you display contempt for people then they will be pre-disposed to be difficult toward you whenever they can.

Again, I hardly see the U.S. situation with the Iraq as not giving "time" to everyone. You say the U.S. is displaying contempt to others...I say that others are displaying Contempt for the U.S. So where does that leave us?

So in the current context if you present your motives for doing something (eg. someone has WMDs, or supports terrorism),

Which we've stated...

and you present the evidence

Which we've done....

(with the sub-text that "we don't actually really give a crap whether you believe this or not, or have any time for you opinion on the matter"), then they will be minded not to trust your motives.

Ahhhh...the "sub-text that we really don't give a crap." That's the key.

We never said that, and our very action of going to the U.N. with this is contradictory to that sub-text. The fact that we've tried for several months to listen to other's opinions and persuade them of ours "doesn't count". Because WE are not "persauded" of other's arguments about the threat, WE are viewed as the one's not giving a crap about other's opinions.

Meanwhile, countries like France, Germany, and Russia are untouchable. They don't appear willing to listen to any evidence we present them. THEIR participation certainly reeks of having the sub-text of "we don't care what you say, or what evidence you present, we will not support war."

The truth of the matter is, when it comes down to national security, which is what this Administration says, we don't really have to give a crap at all what others think. YET, we still go to the U.N. precisely to state our case.

Again, our "actions" (going to the U.N.) don't seem to count for anything. It's all about political appearances and correctness.

You say don't expect to be met without opposition if you don't do things "properly". I say don't expect us to "give a sh*t" if you are more interested in public political appearances, than actually getting results.

[nutball]

That largely depends on each country individually. At the risk of sounding "arrogant"....

Does a "non superpower", like New Zealand, really have anything directly to worry about with respect to terrorist attacks, compared to the U.S.? It's pretty easy to say it's not worth it, if your country more or less has little reason to fear terrorist attacks.


What about a non-superpower like Australia? Remember Bali?

As a side-note, some of us have lived with terrorism on our home soil for decades now (within western Europe: UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, possibly others I'm unaware of). Nothing individually on the scale of 9/11 of course, but decades of constant threat has a scale all of its own.

Again, it comes down to trust. I really don't think any reasonable person can say that the U.S. in this case doesn't have a legitimate case of self-defense. You can certainly disagree with how strong that case is, but do you really think the U.S. position is completely uinreasonable?

I'll give you my view on that for what it's worth. The legitimacy is inversely related to the strength of the case. So that's what the argument comes down to. Most folks don't argue the US has the legitmate right to defend itself if threatened, they just question the strength of the evidence that it actually is being actively threatened by Saddam. Merely feeling threatened isn't enough (at least in the eyes of those outside the US).

If piles of nerve gas and some plane tickets to Washington are found after the invasion, then by all means the US action will have been vinicated as self-defence.

[Bigus Dickus]

The US is an imperialist state akin to Nazi-Germany?

Now I've heard it all.

[nutball]

Diplomacy is all about persuasion. Insulting, threatening and humiliating people in public is not generally a very good way to get them to do what you want (it's not actually a very good idea in private either, but sometimes necessary).

And where has the U.S. president been directly personally insulting and humiliating? I can think of one instance: naming specific countrys as part of the "Axis of Evil."

Actually Rumsfeld is worse...



Results, and demonstrated responsibility with that power earns trust IMO. When countries like France refuse to back ANY resolution where the stated use force is the consequence for non-compliance, where does that demonstrate ANY faith in the part of France that the U.S. CAN use force responsibly?

Where does France give us the opportunity to prove that we can be responsible with force, if they refuse to support us using it?


They don't, but that's the French for you.


This is what confuses me.

We ceratinly did not have to "bother" going to the U.N. at all. Past president's didn't (like Clinton) when undertaking unilateral military action. And yet, where's the "trust" accusations toward that administration?

This President, IMO, has bent over backwards PRECISELY to try and persuade everyone else of our point of view before taking action.

The problem comes if we are not successful in persuading....(and others are not successful in persauding us to change our minds) what are we supposed to do? Go on endlessly until one side persuades the other? At some point you have to say "our efforts to persuade simply have failed."


Answer me this: do you think the US would have bothered with the UN at all had it not been for the efforts of Colin Powell and Tony Blair?

[Joe DeFuria]

As a side-note, some of us have lived with terrorism on our home soil for decades now (within western Europe: UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, possibly others I'm unaware of). Nothing individually on the scale of 9/11 of course, but decades of constant threat has a scale all of its own.

Agreed. And the U.S. is in a rather unique position (with our military / intelligence, and economical resources) to actually do something about it.

I'll give you my view on that for what it's worth. The legitimacy is inversely related to the strength of the case. So that's what the argument comes down to. Most folks don't argue the US has the legitmate right to defend itself if threatened, they just question the strength of the evidence that it actually is being actively threatened by Saddam.

I agree mostly with that. (That many folks outside the US do not agree with the level of threat Sadam imposes.) But I contend that unless you ARE the U.S., your assesment of a "threat to the U.S." is somewhat skewed.

And if you are the U.S. leader who is charged with protecting the U.S., you probably have a different view on the matter. Too much skewed in the opposite direction (paranoia?) Hard to argue that with the advent of 9/11.

Merely feeling threatened isn't enough (at least in the eyes of those outside the US).

Now we're playing semantics. Being "theatened" is of course a state of feeling itself. Everyone seems to forget Sadam's public statements on 9/11 and terrorist acts on the U.S.

Perhaps it would put our minds more at ease if Iraq didn't all but applaud the terrorist attacks, and made ANY type of serios effort to disarm and root out terrorism itself.

If piles of nerve gas and some plane tickets to Washington are found after the invasion, then by all means the US action will have been vinicated as self-defence.

Wrong. Because we would be greated with accusations of "planting" evidence. I can guarantee it. I will go on record right now saying that the U.S. will "find" things in Iraq, and yet those findings will be greeted with the SAME skepticims that all the evidence the U.S. has presented so far has been greeted with.

The only thing that would vindicate the US position to, for example, France, is if Paris is englfed by nuclear detonation. And even THAT wouldn't be enough unless Sadam, ahead of time, told France that he had personally delieverd a bomb to some terrorists and to expect Paris to be destroyed.

Other than that, France would probably accuse the U.S. of destroying Paris as a propaganda stunt.

And I'm serious.

[kyleb]

As a side-note, some of us have lived with terrorism on our home soil for decades now (within western Europe: UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, possibly others I'm unaware of).

my family lived in Germany from '85-'88 back when terrorism was going strong there and saw diminished greatly over that time by vigilant defensive strategies which i gained great respect for; and from that understood that committing aggressive attacks such as those waged by the terrorist would serve to vindicate the instigation of violence. i don't think that starting a war would have served Europe better back then and i cannot find reason to think it would be good for America now.

Merely feeling threatened isn't enough (at least in the eyes of those outside the US).

exactly, i don't belive that i should be able to kill someone in this society just because i have convinced myself that the person might kill me first. i had always hoped that others treated me with the same respect but now i am puzzled by this situation; why should we allow ourselves to do that same thing as a society?

If piles of nerve gas and some plane tickets to Washington are found after the invasion, then by all means the US action will have been vinicated as self-defence.

but if there is nothing like that to be found i would not be shocked if some evidence was manufactured to serve the same purpose; after all there are a lot of people who think that what others belive is more important than the truth and understanding that i cannot see that this course is a good one to follow. :(

[Joe DeFuria]

Answer me this: do you think the US would have bothered with the UN at all had it not been for the efforts of Colin Powell and Tony Blair?

Good question, and my honest answer is "probably not."

But that's the point. Bush can be persuaded if he is given compelling arguments. The fact that Bush may not have gone to the U.N. if not for Blair / Powell, should dispell any myth that Bush "doesn't give a crap" what others might think, or what support they might give.

Now your turn to answer a couple things for me: ;)

1) Do you think that we would even have ANY inspections going on in Iraq if it had not been for the efforts of the Bush administration?

2) If Powell and Blair saw the value of seeking out the U.N., and THEY feel that war is needed in absence of Iraq being disarmed as per resolution 1441......does that not speak of their honest opinion and personal threat assesment of Iraq?

[Joe DeFuria]

....and from that understood that committing aggressive attacks such as those waged by the terrorist would serve to vindicate the instigation of violence.

Agreed. And that's why we aren't going to hijak Iraqi airplanes filled with civilians and run them into civilian targets with the express purpose of killing Iraqi civilians as our "response."

In short, our forthcoming "aggresive attack" on Iraq is NOTHING "such as thoses" waged by terrorists on us.

I know you obviously disagree with that. But I can not let your implication that any attack on Iraq is not much different than terrorist attacks themselves, go unchallenged.

exactly, i don't belive that i should be able to kill someone in this society just because i have convinced myself that the person might kill me first.

And where is it stated that our goal is to kill iraqis or even kill Sadam, because we think Iraqis might kill us first?

Our core disagreement is this:

YOU believe that the fact that civilians (and possibly Sadam himself) will be killed as a consequence to the action to oust Sadam's regime, is the NO DIFFERENT than us going into Iraq purposely killing as many Iraqi's as we can because "Iraq" is a threat to us.

The two are COMPLETELY different, IMO.

but if there is nothing like that to be found i would not be shocked if some evidence was manufactured to serve the same purpose; after all there are a lot of people who think that what others belive is more important than the truth and understanding that i cannot see that this course is a good one to follow. :(

I was wrong. I said there would be accusations of manufacturing / plantig evidence AFTER it was found. It looks like it's begun PRE-EMPTIVELY. :(

[Deflection]

I thought one of interesting ideas was the whole "substance versus style" theme that showed up many times in the article. In many cases "style" of the administration is causing undesired effects that the "substance" doesn't substantiate.

To me, I particulary see this in the Iraq conflict. The administration has spent the better part of year(longer if you count all the resolutions since the original Gulf War) trying to work with the UN on Iraq resolutions acceptable to everyone. At the same time they are deploying troops and giving Iraq ultimatums.

To many this is seen as US bypassing diplomacy in a unilateral way. To me, it seems like US for a long time tried to make the threat seem real to Iraq so that they would capitulate while still working with the UN. In some respects it worked, such as Saddam admitting to having missles recently that were not on their original submission to the UN. Saddam cetainly did nothing with the UN resolutions until the US made the threat seem real. Kicking out inspectors for years etc. At some point the US will go to war with Iraq if th esituation continues but all substance indications at this point show that it would prefer not to.

So far,
style -- US ignoring UN, wants war with Iraq.
substance -- US has not gone to war with Iraq, keeps seeking some sort agreeable consensus resolution.

Ironically, Clinton was viewed by many Americans as the ultimate in style over substance. His actions rarely reflected what he said.

The Kyoto treaty is whole other bag of worms. I wrote a paper on this back in college. I think the main idea of the treaty is laudable but the treaty itself had many difficulties. They say the devil is in the details.

[Silent_One]

As a side-note, some of us have lived with terrorism on our home soil for decades now (within western Europe: UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, possibly others I'm unaware of). Nothing individually on the scale of 9/11 of course, but decades of constant threat has a scale all of its own

True. Europe has had to deal with terrorist groups throuout the 1970's to the 1990's. The fact that many European countries have long experienced terrorism helped ensure a great deal of empathy and cooperation after 9/11. However historically European's responces to terrorism has been, in the long run, more of a negotiated and diplomatic responce. This has happened with the IRA and other groups. Even HAMAS has apologized for inadvertently killing an American in the Hebrew University bombing last year(?). With Al Qaeda, however, we are faced with a international threat which is only interested in bringing goverments down, no negotiations. Europeans need to be more responsive in their homeland security measures. Their previous methods with dealing with terrorists do not apply with the "new rules".

[kyleb]

Agreed. And that's why we aren't going to hijak Iraqi airplanes filled with civilians and run them into civilian targets with the express purpose of killing Iraqi civilians as our "response."

[quote=Joe DeFuria]In short, our forthcoming "aggresive attack" on Iraq is NOTHING "such as thoses" waged by terrorists on us.

I know you obviously disagree with that. But I can not let your implication that any attack on Iraq is not much different than terrorist attacks themselves, go unchallenged.

i know this, we have come up with what has been deemed by supporters to be a "new and better plan" to committing aggressive attacks. but i still disagree with the underling logic and hence i am unable to accept the plan.

And where is it stated that our goal is to kill iraqis or even kill Sadam, because we think Iraqis might kill us first?

well if there was an example of a war without killing i might be able to separate the two, but as it stands i have seen that they go hand in hand.


Our core disagreement is this:

YOU believe that the fact that civilians (and possibly Sadam himself) will be killed as a consequence to the action to oust Sadam's regime, is the NO DIFFERENT than us going into Iraq purposely killing as many Iraqi's as we can because "Iraq" is a threat to us.

The two are COMPLETELY different, IMO.

no, i find the former much more favorable than the ladder, and i know that the former is the plan; however i still argue that both are on the side of bad and i think we should be working on the side of good.

I was wrong. I said there would be accusations of manufacturing / plantig evidence AFTER it was found. It looks like it's begun PRE-EMPTIVELY. :(

well i was right when i said accusations of evidence would be brought up to initiate a preemptive strike, so if you call accusations off i will call mine off as well. that seems only fair to me. :D

oh and in my opinion Clinton was nothing more than a used car salesman in a nice suit. i was very happy to see his time in office end, but unfortunately didn't realize that what was coming next i would not find any better. :(

[DemoCoder]

The irony of Kyoto is that we were this close to agreeing to stick with it, but the French fuqued us again. Many leftists claim that even though Kyoto is flawed, the US should have tried to make changes in it that would satisfy it. Well, we tried at one point, which was to have the onerous limits on the US slightly reduced by utilizing our massive carbon sink as credit. The other change we pushed was emissions credit trading. Other countries with large forests agree with us (including Japan) and were pushing the request too. Poor countries love emissions trading. Russia likes it (has lots of forest sink) France has not reforsted like the US, and led a backdoor diplomatic effort to humilate US diplomats. The Moreover, Chirac and several French diplomats went to the press and publically berated the US. One of the French diplomats made comments that make Rumsfeld look positively nice. The French Environmental Minister is the worse, and is practically a greenpeace-style zealot.

In any case, everyone knows that Kyoto 1.0 isn't going to do anything, and is mainly to get people signed up and get the ball rolling. It's symbolic. The US simply wanted some concession, a token concession, that it could take to Congress and get the thing passed, something to show good faith on the part of the EU. The British tried to broker the deal between the US and EU.

First, we asked for 310 million tons of carbon credit (the estimated amount we "soak" up). Then we offered to cut that request back to 110 million. Then 75 million, and finally only 40 million. The 40 million in credit would have done barely anything to change the environmental status quo, and would have been enough to get Kyoto up for another vote, but the French vehemently rejected ANY concessions, not soundingen a note of willingness to compromise. Then went to the press and attacked the US while these negotiations were happening.

The Clinton administration left in disgust. Only a few months left in office anyway. Hope would fall to the Bush administration. But with the French acting so hostile to any modifications to Kyoto, can you even blame Bush for pulling out? The treaty is super-flawed anyway and not in our best interest (strike #1), and any attempt to modify it is shot down (strike #2), and #3 we are publically insulted by EU ministers over it (strike #3)

Long before we were making "axis of evil" statements, the EU environmental ministers were sounding off negative rhetoric against us. Is it any wonder relations over this broke down? I don't think Bush is all that suave at international relations, but can you lay the blame solely on him? Especially since Mr Suave himself, Clinton, abandoned late state negotiations.

[Natoma]

I actually just finished reading that article in my copy of Newsweek that came in the mail today and I have to say that I agree completely with Zakaria (and that's pretty rare for me. hehe.)

As an american, I find that I completely distrust this administration because of the way it has dealt with not only the world, but with the american populace as well. If Bush were truly interested in the UN and making the inspection process work, he would have pulled the leash back on Cheney and Rumsfeld long ago and spoke with a unified voice.

Instead you have Bush going to the United Nations, and the next day Rumsfeld basically calling the UN a crock and the French and Germans 'irrelevant'. That's not what I call good diplomacy. I honestly believe that Saddam needs to be removed. But if we as Americans want the world to come along with us, we need to be a little more diplomatic with how we approach things.

People aren't automatons that will go along just because something is the 'right thing to do'. And it's that simple lesson of diplomacy that is still lost on this administration. A little diplomacy from the get go would have, imo, made this entire process go a hell of a lot smoother than it has, and it would have allowed the US to maintain the feeling of goodwill that we enjoyed for the first year after 9/11.

Unfortunately nowadays that goodwill is all but vanished.

[pascal]

The interresting side is that few countries are really supporting US.

The oil conspiracy comes from places like Iraq´s enemies (Saudi Arabia) :shock:
Seven years or so ago, he saw a letter addressed to ex-President Clinton by a group of politicians advising him to attack Iraq, occupy the country and operate the oilfields.

Those who signed the letter are now in power - including Vice-President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2851723.stm

When an Iraq enemy says that US only want oil then what to believe?

[Joe DeFuria]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2847905.stm

[pax]

Ive read elsewhere that Iraq could pump as much as 10-12 million barrels a day by the end of the decade... this depends on how much investment will be allowed in and how many companies will bother if the price of oil were to drop too low ect... Arguments are built on perspective and insight in the industry... Other observers vary slightly to moderately vs that article but any developpment indeed depends on the next gov of Iraq and whom it can deal with as well as market forces...

Almost all Ive read agree the price of oil will never go very low again in the sub 20$ range as world consumption is just increasing too rapidly... both price and consumption will in fact consistently rise in the long term so Id be very surprised that the development of the oil reserves in Iraq would stall...

Iraqis are hard negociators usually tho... they squeeze every penny out of their deals but this is an unusual situation... for sure there will be plenty of scrutiny and I dont think any odd dealings if they occur will go unnoticed.

[kyleb]

and despite all this people and the fact that oil is a very limit resource on a long term scale, people can do nothing but cry out about weapons of mass destruction when France helps to create an alternative power source for Iraq. now i am not discounting the dangers involved, or even supporting the actions of France and Iraq on this; simply pointing out that i am disgruntled by people who completely overlook the good in favor of pointing their finger at the bad. :(

[Joe DeFuria]

I'm trying to find a point in there somewhere.... :?

[kyleb]

the point was that i belive equal consideration is not shown for both sides of many of the current issues, and imbalance leads to injustice. do you not see any truth in that Joe?

[Joe DeFuria]

the point was that i belive equal consideration is not shown for both sides of many of the current issues, and imbalance leads to injustice. do you not see any truth in that Joe?

That imbalance leads to injustice? Sure...just not sure where I see imbalance in this situation. All sides are pointing all figers at everyone else. Seems pretty balanced to me.

[kyleb]

well i am at a loss as to how i might make my postion any clearer than i already did so i suppose i will just have to leave it at that.

[pax]

As much as I am anti war I think the oil question isnt helping us kyleb. The issue will be scrutinized after the war (if things are manageable 'after' the war). Ther is one good question tho. What effect would limiting Iraqs' oil sales to its oil for food program do to the worlds need for oil in the long term. how much faster would the world 'run out of oil' if it wasnt made readily available.

But all that is moot. Just another interesting question todays media wont dare ask. Instead we get the inane hyperbole like Lou Dobbs tonight. He should apply for a job with foxnews. I really think the news media should avoid blaming anyone until this is over... Why I bother asking this here I dont know... must be the lack of sleep I am and will be getting over the next few days ;)...

[horvendile]

Since the post I'm answering to is way back on the first page :oops: , I'll try to keep short and restrict myself to what I consider the point. For me, that means leaving the Iraq situation out of the question. The discontent with the US that I'm talking about existed before 9/11.

(Not to mention that your command of the English is better than most who speak it as a primary or only language!) ;)

Thanks! But writing it is so s-l-o-w for me... I can never keep up! :(

Concerning important (my choice of adjective) treatises:

"Important" is in the eye of the beholder. If the USA doesn't think it's important (or of lower priority), does that by definition make us arrogant?

No, not by definition. But it can lead to very real problems, for no other conceivable reason, that the rest of the world can see, than that the US simply doesn't like international treatises.
I will limit myself to one example which I think is important in several ways: The ICC.
The ICC is working. Several of the war criminals from former Yugoslavia have been convicted. It is a strong message to all dictators and war criminals: You Are Not Safe. Yet, USA refuses to acknowledge it, and has even tried to sabotage it. Why? The official reason (I'm not saying that there is another hidden) is that the US doesn't want its own citizens indicted.
(Note: On second thought, I'm not entirely sure about the "official" status; it might be only other sources' guesses. I don't remember.)
But, as I said earlier, it's not hard not to be indicted by the ICC. Just avoid genocide.
OK, but what's the problem, assuming that USA doesn't go to genocide?
The problem arises from USA being the most powerful state. USA not ratificing gives other states of dubious morality an alibi not to participate. Liechtenstein not participating (they do, by the way) wouldn't be that disastrous; no country could say that "Why should we participate when Liechtenstein doesn't? If they don't need to, why should we?". That would be ridiculous.
Now, exchange Liechtenstein for USA, and it is another matter entirely.

The same goes for many other situations, e.g. Kyoto. USA being so powerful, both by military and economic standards, is exactly why it is important that international treatises are acknowledged.

I guess you could say that USA being powerful enough to employ a la carte multilaterism (I think Bush is on the record before 9/11 saying that this is indeed the new order of the day) is the very reason that it is so important that it is not done!

USA has the chance to accomplish much good at very small costs, just by using the power of international cooperation and the Good Example.
That is what I believe.

[DemoCoder]

Kyoto is not a "small cost". Do you advocate that we sign any and all international treaties, no matter what the context, simply because they are international treaties? Doesn't the US have the right to evaluate the content of treaties and actually vote against some of them? Don't we reserve the right to negotiate the modification of such treaties, instead of taking ultimatums from French ministers?


The ICC runs the danger of being a kangaroo court. Look at the way the UN conference on Racism was run. US pulled out because of the circus. The concept of racism has been cheapened. Now consider that Genocide could equally be diluted and applied to any American operation.

For example, Clintons' attack on the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory has been called genocidal by some chomskyites. Ditto for the cluster bombing of Kosovo. Is dropping cluster bombs an act of genocide?


Like the word "terrorism", there is no clear cut meaning what what is an act of genocide, just as "evil" has many definitions, and those definitions could easily be manipulated by anti-US spheres of influence within the ICC. Nazi and rape are two other overused words, often applied to anything and everything you disagree with.

Look, I'm not even sure Saddam Hussein could be brought up on genocide charges. Could someone define genocide, and tell me why the gassing of Iranian troops is genocide, but the use of WMD during WWI and WWII weren't? Was the bombing of Dresden genocide? Hiroshima?
This court will be a circus, the same way the Milosevic trial is a circus today.


I can see it now. Like Libya chairing the human rights commission, or Iraq chairing the disarmament commission, you get Iran, or Serbia, or Egypt, or someone else with an axe to grind as the lead prosector or one of the judges on the ICC. Then, some US bomb accidently goes astray and blows up a hospital. US is hauled into court on charges of genocide. US uses new e-bomb, some people with heart pacemakers die. Genocide. US causes someone to trip and fall in the middle east and skin their knee: genocide. Get the picture?

Since the US makes up the bulk of military power in the world, it will face the most charges, the most often, by those seeking to fight its power assymetrically anyway it can, even if that includes taking any grievance and turning it into an ICC trial.


I personally would rather try US war criminals in the US. IMHO, the US joining the ICC would just be us allowing the lynching of our citizens.

[pascal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2847905.stm

I have already seen this one too. The problem is the source of the first article, someone with "administrative" experience and contacts and that is supposed to be an enemy of Iraq.

Also Daniel expect doubling the production but Yamani talk about quadruplicate the production. Is not it just a question of investment, specially if Iraq oil is so easy to extract as some people say?

Also, what about the letter?

edited: This post looks like of topic but think how a war without consensus will be subject of large suspicious and positions like above.

[horvendile]

Kyoto is not a "small cost".

Other countries have succeeded in introducing significant CO2 saving measures, and it turned out that it wasn't expensive. On the contrary, it
a) Generated new jobs through the research
b) Saved costs by lowering energy usage.

Do you advocate that we sign any and all international treaties, no matter what the context, simply because they are international treaties?

No.

Doesn't the US have the right to evaluate the content of treaties and actually vote against some of them? Don't we reserve the right to negotiate the modification of such treaties, instead of taking ultimatums from French ministers?

Firstly, the French have never seemed very, er, balanced, so I won't argue that particular point. (And don't get me started on French farmers in EU... :roll: )
Secondly, yes, the US has the right to do so. But legal right does not always equal what should be done, and I maintain that the US has been wrong in several of these cases. Not legally wrong, but wrong nevertheless.

The ICC runs the danger of being a kangaroo court. Look at the way the UN conference on Racism was run.

But it isn't. I agree on the Rasism conference, but that has nothing to do with the ICC.

This court will be a circus, the same way the Milosevic trial is a circus today.

Again, no, apparently not. Milosevic is a clown, yes, but so far he has only made himself look ridiculous. I can of course not guarantee that the ICC will work well forever, but right now, it's working better than anything we've seen for several decades. There was substantial fear that the ICC would turn out ridiculous (mostly because US refusing support), but so far, all such fears have turned out unfounded. The ICC is working, and it's working well.

I can see it now. Like Libya chairing the human rights commission

That is utterly silly, yes.

you get Iran, or Serbia, or Egypt, or someone else with an axe to grind as the lead prosector or one of the judges on the ICC. Then, some US bomb accidently goes astray and blows up a hospital. US is hauled into court on charges of genocide. US uses new e-bomb, some people with heart pacemakers die.

But the legal framework concerning genocide is nothing like you describe it. Killing lots of enemies in war does not equal genocide. Not even accidently killing civilians is genocide. Genocide implies systematically aiming for the extinction of a whole ethnic group. Accidently bombing a hospital does not come near. And people with pacemakers are not an ethnic group.
Also, the ICC has a very strict legal framework. It is not a formalised lynching led by whoever leads the court.

Since the US makes up the bulk of military power in the world, it will face the most charges, the most often, by those seeking to fight its power assymetrically anyway it can, even if that includes taking any grievance and turning it into an ICC trial.

It is of course possible that voices will be raised in this direction. But so long as the accusations are invalid, what's the worry? It's not like ICC is in the habit of hauling away people at any groundless accusation. So far, they have gone to great lengths to be sure what they're doing before they do it.

[Himself]

The US is an imperialist state akin to Nazi-Germany?

Now I've heard it all.

No, I said the situation was not totally unlike world war II. You have one country invading other countries for reasons that it finds valid but few other countries do. The leader of the invader has almost unanimous support due to patriotism, very strong nationalism in general. Contrary views are unpatriotic and immoral even when it's not being characterized as "leftist", "liberal", "chicken", etc, etc. Just about any excuse will do to justify invasion and placate the rest of the world, evidence is toss off without checking it so long as it supports their pont of view. And for a more direct comparison, if from a different slant, just like WWII, America sees itself as the saviour of the world, the hero rushing in to right wrongs, fighting evil and saving the day for the cause of truth, justice and the American way. It's a war that is a cause. The war I can tolerate somewhat as a UN thing just doing a job, the linking of it as a cause of rooting out evil is very dangerous because there will always be someone that is going to get the label of evil. It's a very dangerous precedent for that reason and for the idea of invasion as a deterent or preemptive strike by removing the government.

[kyleb]

i agree Himself, but others think it is all part of the dawn of a wonderful new era that they have been working to create for quite some time.

http://www.sunflower.com/~jfrost/rosyeye.gif

[Joe DeFuria]

No, I said the situation was not totally unlike world war II. You have one country invading other countries for reasons that it finds valid but few other countries do.

I don't see it similar at all. I think most other countries can actually see our point of view, though they may not agree with it. I don't believe the same case could be made for Nazi Germany.

The leader of the invader has almost unanimous support due to patriotism,

Hardly. Particularly in the case of Great Britain. Bush has majority of US support, but nothing near "almost unanimous."

Contrary views are unpatriotic and immoral even when it's not being characterized as "leftist", "liberal", "chicken", etc, etc.

And supporting views are being labeld as "war mongers", "uncivilized", "cowboys", etc. What else is new.

The thing to note is, unlike Nazi Germany, those with contrary views are not being hauled away en masse and gassed to death. Slight difference, perhaps?

Just about any excuse will do to justify invasion and placate the rest of the world, evidence is toss off without checking it so long as it supports their pont of view.

Again, can be said for either side of the debate. They will justify any excuse to pacify Sadam, evidence of terrorism and refusal to disarm is toss-off.

And for a more direct comparison, if from a different slant, just like WWII, America sees itself as the saviour of the world, the hero rushing in to right wrongs, fighting evil and saving the day for the cause of truth, justice and the American way.

And we tried to convince the nations of the world of our case, rather than marching into Iraq, or Paris, or Poland, and declarining it so.

It's a war that is a cause. The war I can tolerate somewhat as a UN thing just doing a job, the linking of it as a cause of rooting out evil is very dangerous because there will always be someone that is going to get the label of evil. It's a very dangerous precedent for that reason and for the idea of invasion as a deterent or preemptive strike by removing the government.

I agree that it notion of linking a cause to the rooting out of evil can be dangerous. However, this is not simply about that. It's about Sadam not complying with 12 years of resoultions, culminating in 1441. "Evil", in other words, is defined by his non-compliance / deception in this case, which everyone agrees with.

I would be more worried if the "world" didn't agree that Sadam is evil, than I am worried that we agree he's evil, with the disagreement being about how to handle it.

[kyleb]

"Evil", in other words, is defined by his non-compliance / deception in this case, which everyone agrees with.

you are leaving people like me out of your definition of "everyone." :?

[RussSchultz]

So which do you not believe:
- that Saddam is not in compliance with all those resolutions?
- that he's being deceptive?
- he's evil because of it?

edit: egad. I screwed up a bunch of double negatives there.

[Joe DeFuria]

Right. To be clear, by "everyone" I am saying that EVERYONE agrees that Sadam is in non-compliance. Do you, kyle, believe he is in compliance?

[Himself]

I agree that it notion of linking a cause to the rooting out of evil can be dangerous. However, this is not simply about that. It's about Sadam not complying with 12 years of resoultions, culminating in 1441. "Evil", in other words, is defined by his non-compliance / deception in this case, which everyone agrees with.

I would be more worried if the "world" didn't agree that Sadam is evil, than I am worried that we agree he's evil, with the disagreement being about how to handle it.

[Not going to do the point to point thing, I find that annoying to read personally.]

What the war is about seems to be rather shaky, oh, it's about disarming a world threat with WMD, no, it's about removing Saddam Hussein, no, it's about revenge for 9/11, no, it's about removing a supporter of terrorism, no it's about giving democracy to the Iraq people, etc. Frankly, I suspect there is a large component left out of the list, stabilizing oil production and pricing, which I would put at a 80% value of the motivation here.

Sure, the world might agree that dictatorship is a bad form of government, so is a monarchy for that matter, but you don't invade all countries with kings or queens for that reason, a king is just a descendent of a dictator after all. The world can agree that murder is a crime to be punished, but evil is not a reluctance to hand over your sovereignity or not doing what someone else wants fast enough. Iraq citizens might be willing to have thier power lines destroyed, buildings demolished, their economy ruined and their personal livlihoods wiped out just to get rid of one criminal, but maybe they would prefer some other means without all the destruction and killing, hmm?

[kyleb]

incomplete compliance is how i define his current position. hence, the idea that "evil is defined by non-compliance / deception" is what felt it is important that you understand not everyone agrees to Joe.

and more to the point of Russ's line of questioning:

-yes
-most probably
-no

[RussSchultz]

I'll assume (due to my crappy double negatives) that you mean:

Yes, you believe he is in non-compliance.
Most probably, you believe he is being deceptive.
No, he's not evil because of it.

Interesting.

[Joe DeFuria]

What the war is about seems to be rather shaky...

Seriously, it's probably because you don't actually listen to the official statements about what the war is about, and prefer to get the "reasons" for the war from publications with ceratian agendas. (Both in favor of, and against the war.)

I can tell you exactly what it's about:

Disarming Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Where all those other things get "mixed" into the "reason":

1) The only manner in which we can do this, is to remove Sadam from power, because it's obvious he is not willing to fully comply on his own, even with sanctions and other "peaceful" pressure.

2) We are persuing this NOW, because of the real threat WMD are to us, due to witnessing 9/11 and what terrorists are willing to do, and because there are links from Iraqi regime to terrorism

3) As a RESULT of ousting Sadam, Iraqi people will be liberated.

Unfortunatley, all of those things (1, 2 and 3), get confused by the media, pacifists, and war mongers as various "REASONS" for the war. They are not. The reason has been clearly stated by the administration. And the means of achieving that goal, and the consequences of achieving that goal are sub-topics.

Frankly, I suspect there is a large component left out of the list, stabilizing oil production and pricing, which I would put at a 80% value of the motivation here.

Frankly, I'm not saying oil or economics has nothing to do with it, but I would put very little value on it.

[Joe DeFuria]

incomplete compliance is how i define his current position. hence, the idea that "evil is defined by non-compliance / deception" is what felt it is important that you understand not everyone agrees to Joe.

I understand that.

My POINT is, that everyone agrees that Sadam is WRONG. Unamimous support for 1441. Sadam didn't comply with 1441. Sadam is wrong for not complying.

You can disagree that force is not prudent action to take even though he's wrong.

However, this is a WHOLLY DIFFERENT situation than Nazi Germany, as some would like us to believe. I don't recall any nations saying "Yeah, Poland and France did somethign wrong...wrong being defined by an international resolution that was not complied with...so we can at least see a Germany's point of view here. We do agree that SOMETHING had to be done with France and Poland, though maybe attack was a bit harsh, but what the hell, we'll let them use our airspace or roads to aid their actions in taking Poland...."

I find it basically insulting and intellectually hollow for someone to compare the U.S. and Nazi Germany as even remotely similar situations.

[kyleb]

I'll assume (due to my crappy double negatives) that you mean:

Yes, you believe he is in non-compliance.
Most probably, you believe he is being deceptive.
No, he's not evil because of it.

Interesting.

you got me on the money there on all three counts; i glad to see that i am not constantly misunderstood by you Russ. :)

[kyleb]

incomplete compliance is how i define his current position. hence, the idea that "evil is defined by non-compliance / deception" is what felt it is important that you understand not everyone agrees to Joe.

I understand that.

My POINT is, that everyone agrees that Sadam is WRONG. Unamimous support for 1441. Sadam didn't comply with 1441. Sadam is wrong for not complying.

You can disagree that force is not prudent action to take even though he's wrong.

Joe shows understanding of my views too, oh happy days. :D

However, this is a WHOLLY DIFFERENT situation than Nazi Germany, as some would like us to believe.

yes, it seems you are one who would like us to belive it is "wholly different", i remain unconvinced.

I don't recall any nations saying "Yeah, Poland and France did somethign wrong...wrong being defined by an international resolution that was not complied with...so we can at least see a Germany's point of view here. We agree that SOMETHING had to be done with France and Poland, but maybe attack was a bit harsh.

yes, there are many differences in the details.


I find it basically insulting and intellectually hollow for someone to compare the U.S. and Nazi Germany as even remotely similar situations.

i find it insulting that you overlook the value of the similarities that we are trying to call attention too. at least we are on even grounds when it comes to feeling insulted though i suppose. :?

[Himself]

I think that's just the party line, the legal technical excuse, and the only solution thing is like a man with a hammer seeing everything as a nail. There is no immediate threat, you have the guy boxed in, he can do nothing and he had to continue to destroy some weapons to be seen as complying. You want an alternative? Well too late now, isn't it. It might cost money to keep troops on standby, but it will cost money after an invasion as well, likely manyfold, and you can't put the price on human life. Terrorists will act or not act regardless of anything the US does in Iraq, it will just inspire more recruits and fodder for their hate, which is at max already, they will get their supplies from somewhere else, like they probably already do. You think they need an entire country to get the weapons they use? 9/11 involved what weapons of mass destruction? Iraq is just being a scapegoat to show the American people that something was done, even if it solves nothing.

My main source is watching the man speak on the topic for several hours on the last two occasions. If he didn't speak I might be more inclined to go along with the official statements.

[kyleb]

exactly, 9/11 was pulled off with a few box knifes and bunch unbridled and misguided aggression against oppression. there are many ways which we can regulate the devices of mass destruction but there will always be ways that are overlooked as well; and as long as oppress each other, some of those people will unfortunately be inspired to find those ways.

[Deflection]

Why doesn't the world direct some of it's outrage for Saddam. He can step down from power and save his own people and the rest of the world from another armed conflict. Maybe even win the Nobel Peace prize for his efforts!

Seriously, Saddam must not be a threat to the US despite his money, power, connections, and declarations of doing everything he can to destroy the US.

If we're so naive to believe the leaders of the US have no ulterior motives we must be too naive to believe Saddam doesn't fund terrorism.

Of course it's the US that is the cause of all the problems in Middle East anyway. It's not human nature to find it easy to shift blame to someone else for your own problems. I'm not claiming the US's hands are clean but people need to stop blaming the US for all the worlds ills.

Maybe the US should take the high ground worldy outlook, but don't expect it when no other country is willing to do so either.[/b]

[kyleb]

declarations of doing everything he can to destroy the US.

i cannot say i have ever seen such words from Sadaam, at least no time in recent history; what are you referring to Deflection?

If we're so naive to believe the leaders of the US have no ulterior motives we must be too naive to believe Saddam doesn't fund terrorism.

Of course it's the US that is the cause of all the problems in Middle East anyway. It's not human nature to find it easy to shift blame to someone else for your own problems. I'm not claiming the US's hands are clean but people need to stop blaming the US for all the worlds ills.

yet if we are so naive to cover things with blanket statements and then argue that we would be naive to belive them, we are being so naive that we are only allowing ourselves to belive what we have made predeterminations that we want to belive. you can belive anything if you let yourself do that.

Maybe the US should take the high ground worldy outlook, but don't expect it when no other country is willing to do so either.[/b]

so you recommend that we do not show reverence for the good of human nature, but assume the worst of others in an effort to justify our urges to sink to such a level?

[horvendile]

Sure, the world might agree that dictatorship is a bad form of government, so is a monarchy for that matter, but you don't invade all countries with kings or queens for that reason, a king is just a descendent of a dictator after all.

Oh come on. The US (and many other countries) has no intrinsic problem with dictators, at least not enough problem to act in every single case, or really care. But this particular man really wants WMDs and has used them, unprovoked, several times before. In the light of that, Iraq is not representative for "all countries with kings or queens".

(BTW, I believe that in most monarchies, the monarch have no real power.)

[Himself]

Oh come on. The US (and many other countries) has no intrinsic problem with dictators, at least not enough problem to act in every single case, or really care. But this particular man really wants WMDs and has used them, unprovoked, several times before. In the light of that, Iraq is not representative for "all countries with kings or queens".

(BTW, I believe that in most monarchies, the monarch have no real power.)

I know of one country for sure that has used nukes, twice, and really wants them, and that is the US. Provoked, maybe, but necessary is certainly debatable. They haven't done so lately though, so maybe the world doesn't need to invade the US at this time. :)

[kyleb]

i don't think anyone does anything unprovoked; but we often react very differently in different situations and we all wind up in our own different situations as well. this whole individuality thing we get is funny like that. :D

[DemoCoder]

Kyoto is not a "small cost".

Other countries have succeeded in introducing significant CO2 saving measures, and it turned out that it wasn't expensive. On the contrary, it
a) Generated new jobs through the research
b) Saved costs by lowering energy usage.



Irrelevent. Other countries are not the US. It matters not that Lichtenstein could meet their targets. The original Kyoto required the US to reduce levels to 7% of those in 1990 by 2008-2012. (EU had target of 8%, Japan 6%). However, the US had unprecedented economic growth in the 1990s leading a rise of 14% in CO2, so that now going back to to those levels by 2008-2012 would require a devastating hit to our economy. There is no technological fix for this to be done in 5 years without severe consequences.

Moreover, the very nature of some cultures and geography of their country make it easier to take the cuts. Japan is a country whose population is highly compressed to the exteriors of its islands, making a rail based transportation network highly efficient, and a generation that has been raised on trains. And like France and Germany, Japan produces much if its energy from the cleanest energy source: Nuclear power.

Simply getting rid of SUVs and making cars 20% more efficient here wouldn't meet our Kyoto targets. We can't build any more nuclear energy plants because of the anti-nuke environmental hysteria, the layout of US population just isn't good for taking the train to work, and the culture doesn't like taking public transport anyways.

There is no way we can make the cuts so quickly without drastic social engineering and civil engineering. You can't replace the coal plants with wind and solar over 5 years, etc etc

The problem of reducing US emissions to 7% below 1990 levels is much harder. Because Japan and Europe had lukewarm economies in the 90s, they didn't have as far to go.

Moreover, the largest producer of CO2 in the US is the transportation industry, primarily trucks. Transportation maps directly to economic growth. The more demand, the more stuff gets shipped. It is not likely that transportation trucks are going to be made that much more efficient, and it is also unlikely that we will build a national freight hauling railroad in 5-9 years that can haul freight everywhere trucks can, e.g. to the local supermarket.


The US is simply in a worse position, and needs more time to make the changes. The Kyoto treaty accepts the "principle of differentiation" when it comes to asking people to make different cuts, it should also recognize the difficulty of making those cuts, and allow a much more gradual, longer reduction period.

[nelg]

Frankly, I suspect there is a large component left out of the list, stabilizing oil production and pricing, which I would put at a 80% value of the motivation here.

Following this logic then why did the US not react the same during the OPEC crisis. IF you honestly believe that this is all about oil then wouldn't Canada make a better target. We have more Oil than Iraq (oilsands), we are closer and need to liberated from high taxation :shock: .

[Himself]

There is always an OPEC crisis from what I can tell, which one did you have in mind. :)

Iraq is an easier target politically, they can get away with it. Besides, the US and Canada have too many connections, arsing up our economy would arse up theirs, we already sell them our oil and they are not worried about not having enough cash to pay for it.

I said I suspect it's about oil, or if it's not oil, there is a missing 80% of the picture we are not seeing because the stated reasons about possible threats and disarming make little sense. Sudden concerns about humanitarianism don't wash either, they would have taken care of that the last time they were in Iraq if that were such a pressing concern for them. Or do they just sit on it for 12 years until it's expedient and they need an excuse to invade?

[Joe DeFuria]

...because the stated reasons about possible threats and disarming make little sense.

Not to me they don't.

Sudden concerns about humanitarianism don't wash either, they would have taken care of that the last time they were in Iraq if that were such a pressing concern for them. Or do they just sit on it for 12 years until it's expedient and they need an excuse to invade?

Did you read my last post at all that outlined the reason we are going in, vs. the means of achieving that goal, vs. the consequences of achieving that goal?

Read it again.

Furthermore, the LAST time we went in, the UN stated "Purpose" of that conflict was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. That's it. Driving Iraq out of Kuwait doesn't necessitate a regime change for Iraq, so there was no reason to have "humanitarian concerns" for the Iraqi people, other than making civilian losses as minimal as possible during the conflict itself.

We sat on it for 12 years, and now are FORCED to "liberate" Iraq, because the only option to guarantee disarmament is to oust the existing regime.

[Pete]

Apologies if this has been posted before (http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest-qt-hq.html). :)

[handbrake2]

I think that this discussion has gotten away from it's initial issue of why there appears to be a distrust of the US in international circles. I would like to address certain points that verious people made (hopefully in a lucid manner). I believe that there are 2 totally separate points to be made here.

I believe that Saddam is not in compliance, however I am not convinced that the threat of "dire consequences" is legal grounds for war, however there maybe a historical precedent implying just that. In addition, the threat of military action may have been made more clear in previous resolutions with which I am not familiar. So I am willing to give the US the benefit of the legal doubt that they are within their rights to invade Iraq and remove Saddam.

That having been said, I believe that for most of the world, this is seen as a bigger issue than simply the removal of Saddam, that issue being the new direction of US foreign policy and it's dealings with other nations, which is at best clumsy and at worst bullying.

Everyone that I speak to is convinced that the US had unilaterally decided to invade Iraq LAST YEAR, UN be damned. To quote Zakaria:

The president got high marks for his superb speech at the Security Council last September, urging the United Nations to get serious about enforcing its resolutions on Iraq and to try inspections one last time. Unfortunately, that appeal had been preceded by speeches by Cheney and comments by Rumsfeld calling inspections a sham—statements that actually contradicted American policy—and making clear that the administration had decided to go to war.

In a very real way, the UN represents the world as a whole. In effect, the US was saying screw the views of the other 190(?) countries, we are the superpower here. Further to that, I heard a discussion on 1 of the networks where the question was asked, "will the UN have the right to veto US foreign policy?" To that I respond, if that foreign policy authorizes invasion of a soverign nation to remove its head-of-state I say Yes. Of course it maybe argued that the UN had already given that authorization in this case, but the question in general and the answer are still valid.

The bullying I mentioned is also described:

Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it. “Most officials in Latin American countries today are not anti-American types,” says Jorge Castaneda, the reformist foreign minister of Mexico, who resigned two months ago. “We have studied in the United States or worked there. We like and understand America. But we find it extremely irritating to be treated with utter contempt.”

It comes across even more glaringly in the sentences directly following:

Last fall, a senior ambassador to the United Nations, in a speech supporting America’s position on Iraq, added an innocuous phrase that could have been seen as deviating from that support. The Bush administration called up his foreign minister and demanded that he be formally reprimanded within an hour.

This sort of behaviour can only engender very ill will towards the Bush administration, and by extension the US as a whole.

I leave 1 final point regarding the utter diplomatic clumsiness of this administration. Tony Blair has been risking political suicide to stand with George W. on the premise that British military help is absolutely vital to the removal of Saddam. At least, that's what he was trying to convince the media, British public, and members of his own party anyway. After the announcement that that British same military help might not be possible after all, the US Sec Def asserts in a press conference that they didn't really need British help anyway, thus leaving poor Mr. Blair to twist in the wind.

Sorry to be so long winded, but I had to get that off my chest. Please feel free to comment, debate and shoot me down where necessary.

Handbrake2.

[Pete]

I'm still unsure of how Rumsfeld's comment was interpreted as dissing Blair or the British Army. I thought it was a polite way of letting Blair off the hook, meaning there was no need for Blair to lose his job over military help that America probably doesn't need. I didn't hear the statement in context, though, so perhaps I'm missing something.

[DemoCoder]

I don't understand why people think this is different. What percentage of the military actions of the past 60 years have been sanctioned by the UN? What percentage of them were actually a response to an attack on the homeland?

France invaded Africa twice in the last year, not because African countries attacked France, and not because the UNSC voted to authorize it, but simply because they wanted to protect some civilians.

Did Panama attack us before we invaded? How about Kosovo?

How can you really say this is a new direction of US foreign policy. Past US military conflicts have been mostly unilateral. Many of them have been for regime change or preemption.

The only real change today is a change of PERCEPTION. I can't help but wonder that if the US didn't go through the UN and if France and Germany had been supportive, instead of divisive, public opinion in Europe would be different and we wouldn't even be talking about unilateral vs multilateralism. Clinton took on multiple unilateral adventures, but didn't face heavy EU criticism, because Clinton was silver tongued and simply made the Europeans feel like they mattered, when in fact, the US still does what it wants.

[Himself]

Apologies if this has been posted before (http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest-qt-hq.html). :)

I want to protest the use of quicktime. :)

[Himself]

Did you read my last post at all that outlined the reason we are going in, vs. the means of achieving that goal, vs. the consequences of achieving that goal?

Read it again.

Furthermore, the LAST time we went in, the UN stated "Purpose" of that conflict was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. That's it. Driving Iraq out of Kuwait doesn't necessitate a regime change for Iraq, so there was no reason to have "humanitarian concerns" for the Iraqi people, other than making civilian losses as minimal as possible during the conflict itself.

We sat on it for 12 years, and now are FORCED to "liberate" Iraq, because the only option to guarantee disarmament is to oust the existing regime.

Since when has the US given a flying frig about the UN other than out of political opportunism? They are a part of the UN only when it does what they want, otherwise they don't give a frig. They play political games with being a part of the UN for domestic PR reasons, it's a joke.

If they US doesn't take the UN seriously, then I don't take anything they say regarding playing within UN rules too seriously with regards to motivation.

[Pete]

Apologies if this has been posted before (http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest-qt-hq.html). :)

I want to protest the use of quicktime. :)
Freedom of choice, baby. (http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html)

[Joe DeFuria]

Since when has the US given a flying frig about the UN other than out of political opportunism?

Since when has ANYONE given a frig about the UN except out of political opportunism?

They are a part of the UN only when it does what they want, otherwise they don't give a frig. They play political games with being a part of the UN for domestic PR reasons, it's a joke.

I would mostly agree with that, particularly though, in the cases of using force. And I would consider it the same for any other nation.

[kyleb]

Since when has ANYONE given a frig about the UN except out of political opportunism?

well from what i have seen it happens just as much as anyone winds up given a fig about any political institution except out of political opportunism, but just even though we have our share of bad seeds there is also plenty of good left in us. :wink:

[Joe DeFuria]

well from what i have seen it happens just as much as anyone winds up given a fig about any political institution except out of political opportunism, but just even though we have our share of bad seeds there is also plenty of good left in us. :wink:

Pretty much agreed.

My point is, "political opportunism" and even "unilateralism" is so often labeled on the U.S. as if this is something uniqe to us.

And to further clarify...the actions taken out of political opportunism or unilateralism, does not mean they are by definition bad...whoever the opportunist is. Each situation should be judged based on its own merits.

[nutball]

I'm still unsure of how Rumsfeld's comment was interpreted as dissing Blair or the British Army. I thought it was a polite way of letting Blair off the hook, meaning there was no need for Blair to lose his job over military help that America probably doesn't need. I didn't hear the statement in context, though, so perhaps I'm missing something.

Well Rumsfeld just has this way with words you see...

[Himself]

Apologies if this has been posted before (http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest-qt-hq.html). :)

I want to protest the use of quicktime. :)
Freedom of choice, baby. (http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html)

More like censoreship, the media player version has no sound. :)

[kyleb]

i think you need to update your codecs if you want to hear a complete manipulation of video clips intended to garner support for the pro war movement. if you want to see another such video that takes the other side of the issue, check this out:

http://www.fuckitall.com/bsh/

[Himself]

I am running an nforce2 board, I don't dare arse with audio codecs. :)

To get back on topic, the US is distrusted because it has no checks and balances to represent the views of the rest of the world. Imagine a one party system of government for the world, where all the members of the government come from one region. That increasingly seems to be the role the US is giving itself, a creeping tendency towards imposing a world government. The US doesn't need the UN or any international treaties, it doesn't need any other countries for what it wants, hence they don't sign any international agreements. There is no give and take, because they don't need anything, there is little compromise possible when one party holds all the cards. Weaker nations need cooperation with other countries to get what they need or value, they may also play politics with some issues, but that is more a luxury for larger countries. By and large they want to get something done that they can't otherwise, there is some sincerity to it. the US is in permanent don't call us, we'll call you mode.

[kyleb]

My point is, "political opportunism" and even "unilateralism" is so often labeled on the U.S. as if this is something uniqe to us.

i think you are taken such labeling far to personal; most people around the world know that there are far deeper pits of such treachery in many parts of this world. the reason that we often get pointed at as the example is not so much due to the depths which we have sunk but more due to our ever widening girth.

And to further clarify...the actions taken out of political opportunism or unilateralism, does not mean they are by definition bad...whoever the opportunist is. Each situation should be judged based on its own merits.

i disagree entirely, the opportunist is merely confused and the actions of such a person are often far from good. while an opportunist can do much good for humanity, my experience suggests overwhelmingly that it is generally not within the nature of one holding such a disposition when they belive they can get away with doing otherwise.

[Joe DeFuria]

i disagree entirely, the opportunist is merely confused and the actions of such a person are often far from good.

How does that disagree with me entirely?

All I said was that the specific actions of an opportunist are not be definition bad. They can be bad or good. You're saying the same thing....unless you're saying that you don't care aboiut the "results" of a particular action, ONLY certain motivations behind it? That would fit in with liberal thinking....

I do disagree with an opportunist being "confused." They know exactly what they are trying to do...they just try to confuse everyone else by selling it in a way that's more acceptable.

[kyleb]

it disagrees with you on your basis that "...whoever the opportunist is [bad]" as i stated directly and i even went so fair as to explain why i think otherwise. it would be nice if you could respect my opinion enough to at least see acknowledge the difference in opinion.

[Joe DeFuria]

it disagrees with you on your basis that "...whoever the opportunist is [bad]" as i stated directly...

Stated what directly? Something you had to paraphrase?

and i even went so fair as to explain why i think otherwise. it would be nice if you could respect my opinion enough to at least see acknowledge the difference in opinion.

Again, how does your statement disagree with me completely again?

[Himself]

I do disagree with an opportunist being "confused." They know exactly what they are trying to do...they just try to confuse everyone else by selling it in a way that's more acceptable.

I tend to agree, for an example see George W. Bush's second to last nationwide speech.

[Joe DeFuria]

I tend to agree, for an example see George W. Bush's second to last nationwide speech.

Of course, on this instance, we'd first have to agree that this war is just one of opportunity...