Political Ramblings (Strike Two)

[Champos]

Some of you may remember the Political Ramblings thread we had on Delphi (and a Religious one as well). I figure that since Politics is always changing... we should restart the thread.

Basically, if it's political, it's fair game. We want some good, fierce arguments, but try to keep it from getting (too) personal. That said, let battle commence!

First up, in light of recent events, should Rumsfield resign?

[Champos]

Ah, come on guys! Don't leave me hanging, please? Surely someone must have something to say, even if it's just "Go home"!!!!

[spg_1983]

well as far as Runsfield I have to admit I don't really know the whole story with him, with finals i havnt been able to keep up with the news, i know about the torturing and all but not exactly what he had to do. although if he did know about it and didn't do anything than he should resign, but until i catch up on my news i dont know (Im a bit of a political junkie)


oh yeah
p.s. Go Home! lol

[spg_1983]

ok ive been reading up on the various news stories and I think he should resign, it happend on his watch and he is responsible. most of all id like to see him resign simply because it would hurt bush's re-election campaign.

[Champos]

Yay! Someone does love me!!! Even if they did tell me to go home.

Like yourself, I'm not all that up-to-date on Rumsfield (I've been in HK for the past week), but I have heard about the Red Cross reporting on this way back sometime last year, but that the US government (as with the UK govnmnt), ignored it. He's already issued an apology, accepting full responsibility for the events that took place on his watch. Is that enough though?

Edit: Sorry, took too long replying.

[Champos]

<< most of all id like to see him resign simply because it would hurt bush's re-election campaign. >>

So should I bother asking who you're going to vote for?

Here's a quote from the Telegraph: Asked if he [Rumsfield] would consider resigning, he said: "Needless to say if I thought I could not be effective I would resign in a minute. I would not resign if I thought people were trying to make a political issue of it."

Not allowed to make a political issue out of it? Damn!

[spg_1983]

<<So should I bother asking who you're going to vote for?>>
lol anybody but the shrub!

[Matt G]

The whole torture allegations are pretty interesting. Over here a tabloid published photos supposedly showing British soldiers involved in torture only for the photos to turn out to be fakes(thus proving the low IQ of editor of said tabloid).

The allegations in general sound like they're coming from the other side of a quantum mirror - I know various people both online and in RL who are ex and current military and even the most militaristic of those would almost certainly draw the line before doing what these people are supposed to have done.

However if I'm honest then as someone who has been frankly freaked out by the way that Dubya has managed to pull the world apart - I'll shed few if any tears if this is what brings him down.

[Champos]

<< The allegations in general sound like they're coming from the other side of a quantum mirror - I know various people both online and in RL who are ex and current military and even the most militaristic of those would almost certainly draw the line before doing what these people are supposed to have done. >>

I'll agree that it does seem strange. A lot of the soldiers supposedly involved are apparently normal, generally likeable people. If they have indeed been torturing people, then is it because what they've seen in Iraq has changed them, or is it an innate... thing?

[Major Clanger]

The whole torture allegations are pretty interesting. Over here a tabloid published photos supposedly showing British soldiers involved in torture only for the photos to turn out to be fakes(thus proving the low IQ of editor of said tabloid).

The allegations in general sound like they're coming from the other side of a quantum mirror - I know various people both online and in RL who are ex and current military and even the most militaristic of those would almost certainly draw the line before doing what these people are supposed to have done.

I'm not so sure. I'm 100% convinced that if anything those photos that the half-wit Piers Morgan published are reconstructions. But i'm not so sure that this stuff doesn't go on. Almost certainly the did have to have bags on their heads, and that alone is bad enough for me to want heads to roll.

It's a fine line, isn't it? On the one hand we want information, and they have it. On the other hand, how can we get it without stooping so low. And how to do all this without provoking the vile things that have happened (thinking of the poor guys being beheaded)

As per usual, people are ok as long as the gory details don't emerge. War is a dirty business. It's a definite case of "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (who will guard the guards themselves?)

[Champos]

I think we need a new thread topic. The mal-treatment of prisoners is something that pretty much evryone agrees with, and I for one am reluctant to play Devil's advocate and try to argue in defence of such torture in case someone thinks those are actually my views.

Another topic then: how about we stay in Iraq and consider whether it was right to go to war.

Or, (let's have several arguments going at once), we could move out it a bit further and consider the Israel/Palestine question.

Or, (going way off bat), we could talk about the current political situation in China.

Or, someone else can think of something decent...

[Champos]

Or not.

[Matt G]

Iraq: The troops shouldn't have gone in but now they realistically have to stay if the Iraqis are going to get through this.

Israel/Palistine: Both sides are morons - would rather not get into more detailed disscussions on this topic - it gives me a headache!

China: Don't know enough about to disscuss.

[Matt G]

HEADS UP TO ALL THOSE IN THE US!

>There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.

The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.

Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!

Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

[Matt G]

If I'm being honest it's a slight false alarm in that I've since had some people do a bit of sniffing and it turned out to be a Democrat bill with no one backing it up. Doh! The theory behind the bill being that if Dubya's crew knew that Joe Average knew he was likely to be called up then they would have the option of restraining themselves or getting restrained by Joe Average.

It's a naive theory IMO as I don't honestly think Bush gives that much of a f-k about. Still worth a heads up though.

[Aphrodite]

Okay, here's a topic for you (and you Champos - where've you been hiding these days?)

Why was it that P.Bush was so keen to start up a war with Suddam/Iraq based on his "facts" that there "was/were" weapons of mass destruction (WOMD), but wasn't so keen in going to war with North Korea who I presume (IMO) also would have WOMD if not for real and more deadly? Was it because North Korea has powerful allies (China?) and Suddam was just an easy target because of the previous Gulf War and had already made a lot of enemies, and that North Korea has so far managed to stay low under the radar?

Any thoughts?

[Bagpuss]

(and you Champos - where've you been hiding these days?)



He's bidden us all Adieu,for a while. He started a Thread here on Off-Topic Zone (Page 2).Apparently, he'll be back, once he's finished with his Chinese touring.Lucky Guy!

*Sob* Missing him already!

[Major Tyler]

What do you all think about the U.S. nomination of John Bolton as the Ambassador to the United Nations?

I think it's kind of like nominating an atheist to be Pope...it doesn't make sense.

[ConspiraciesAreFUN]

What do you all think about the U.S. nomination of John Bolton as the Ambassador to the United Nations?

I think it's kind of like nominating an atheist to be Pope...it doesn't make sense.

John Bolton is completely unqualified to hold the position of Ambassador to anywhere. Being an Ambassador means he represents ALL constituents of the nation. Personally, If Dubya really wants a good buddy that will tell him what he wants to hear, he should call his father(who would most likely be a terrific UN Ambassador or anywhere for that matter).

The idea that Father knows best may be great in this and only this context. and NOT another sitcom/republican administration.
:D
That's My Bush was the greatest check on the Bush Administration because they made their lobby driven policy into a joke. Love America, Fear my Government

[Matt G]

What do you all think about the U.S. nomination of John Bolton as the Ambassador to the United Nations?

I think it's kind of like nominating an atheist to be Pope...it doesn't make sense.

Fact is, Dubya and crew want to toast the UN and that's basically Bolton's mission(if he even gets nominated!) Now I'm not the biggest fan of the UN(when was the last time it was of any practical use?) and reckon it's going to get toasted one way or another

Dubya's crew being the ones to do it hits a load of wrong notes though, for starters such a stunt will cause an even bigger headache between the US and the rest of the world. The UN is still seen my many idealists as the last best hope for world peace, and for a single national government to even try to pull such a stunt is going to cause nothing but trouble.

Having said that, half the Republicans have even worked that out. I reckon Bolton's hit a dead end!

[Osiris-RA]

Isn't this one of those threads that gets shut down real quick?

In slight response to a previous question, Really, the war would be for zippedy doo dah since the only WMD a country like Iraq could be sheltering would have to be paintball guns. I mean, they're still using antique weapons from their previous war with Iran for gods sake. Then there's all that black stuff under the sands *wink wink* I wish it all would just dry up. I'm so sick of oil.

Who thinks that instead of a single man and a small contingent of cronies running a country, it would be better if the people ran the country?

[Major Tyler]

Isn't this one of those threads that gets shut down real quick?Only if people behave like children and make provocative statements that are intended to upset people, as you have just done.

[nayo'nak]

i dont know the american isues on iraq being british but seeing the state of one guy reporting on the prisoner torture was upseting i mean we're better than that uk/us are good democricies we dont torture people as the welsh man sais "it was so un british"

we were right to go in to iraq though not because of iraq itself because to ditch america like almost everyone did after 9/11 and in iraq is imoral
Its like if your freind is broke and unemployed you should give him some money and help him get a job and most likely ther will be a time when you are going to need need his help
America is one of our greatest allies (aswell as austraila and new zeland) it wasnt because of the womd britain went to iraq it was the right thing to do because america was in a political rough spot and they would do the same for us

[Three PhDs]

i dont know the american isues on iraq being british but seeing the state of one guy reporting on the prisoner torture was upseting i mean we're better than that uk/us are good democricies we dont torture people as the welsh man sais "it was so un british"Americans can say nothing about torture and democracy and civil rights and freedom so long as the Patriot Act is in place and so long as at Guantanamo bay they hold people indefinitely without trial or charge. Just because America feels like it, you're going to prison.

we were right to go in to iraq though not because of iraq itself because to ditch america like almost everyone did after 9/11 and in iraq is imoral
Its like if your freind is broke and unemployed you should give him some money and help him get a job and most likely ther will be a time when you are going to need need his help
America is one of our greatest allies (aswell as austraila and new zeland) it wasnt because of the womd britain went to iraq it was the right thing to do because america was in a political rough spot and they would do the same for usThat is one of the most horrendous and wrong justifications for anything I have ever heard in my entire life. If your same friend was a paranoid schizophrenic who wanted to break into someone's home and kill them, would you feel similarly obligated to help them? Oh and if it wasn't about the WMD, why was the entire case built around WMDs? Idiot.

I'll leave you with the words of the late Robin Cook:
This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.

I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.

On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.

I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.

I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.

It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.

History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.

Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.

Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

The threshold for war should always be high.

None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.

I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.

It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.

For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.

Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.

Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.

I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.

Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.

That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.

What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.

On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.

They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.

Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.

It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.

Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.

I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.

[Matt G]

i dont know the american isues on iraq being british but seeing the state of one guy reporting on the prisoner torture was upseting i mean we're better than that uk/us are good democricies we dont torture people as the welsh man sais "it was so un british"

we were right to go in to iraq though not because of iraq itself because to ditch america like almost everyone did after 9/11 and in iraq is imoral
Its like if your freind is broke and unemployed you should give him some money and help him get a job and most likely ther will be a time when you are going to need need his help
America is one of our greatest allies (aswell as austraila and new zeland) it wasnt because of the womd britain went to iraq it was the right thing to do because america was in a political rough spot and they would do the same for us

Speaking as a Brit who knows the US scene better than most, I definately see where you're coming from here but you're argument is still flawed.

Yes the US and UK have been allies for as long as I can remember. But Saddam was not a threat to either the US or UK and he had no connections to Al Queda who certainly were(still are as we saw las month).

In short, invading Iraq in 2003 was always going to be a waste of time, money and troops and as a good friend, Blair should have told him that - unless he either knew more about the situation in Iraq than anyone has let on so far or was too worried about a US-UK split on the issue adversely affecting the fight vs Al Queda(my best guess is the latter given that the motherfracking big protests should have neccesitated any extra cards getting put on the table if they existed. Instead the protests were just ignored).

In short, Blair was more concerned about losing a friend than giving that friend a reality check.

That's as far as I'm going to go for now.

[SG-1ssm]

Iraq was worth it. We removed a dictator from power and liberated 23 million Iraqis. I support the war. I also support the President and his desition. We accually have found WMDs here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39243). Now thats only a few and difinitally not enought reson to invade. Bush DID NOt lair, I hate it when liberals say that. It's not his fault the CIA gave him BS intelligents reports. If Bush had known the reports were BS then he wouldn't have gone to war, and I agree with that. The CIA screwed up, so what. I wish that hadn't, but they did. But now were in Iraq and there's nothing we can do about it. We can't withdraw. That would leave Iraq in caos and another dictator would raise. Now that we're in Iraq we should support our troops and stop complaining, becuase camplaining won't do anything. I want the troops out ASAP but not before the Iraqi government is stable.

Look on the bright side. We go rid of a dictation who murdered his own people. He did have WMD at one time. He had to because he gases the Kruds. here (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm).

I my opinion, Hussian had WMD when the topic was first broght up. Becuase it took so long for the UN to act, he had time to ship them out to neighbering cournties. That is just my opinion, I might be wrong.

Based on the evidence at hand, the war was justified at the time.

[Major Tyler]

President Bush made the decision to go to war because he over-committed U.S. war-making resources to the invasion option, which backed him into a corner. He did not give enough thought to diplomatic options, and only begrudgingly allowed Colin Powell to explore them. Bush made commitments that could only be withdrawn before a certain time, and he allowed the "point of no return" to be passed before the diplomatic option could be completely fleshed out. This was due to his own presuppositions about Iraq/Saddam, blatant war-mongering by Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rice, and irresponsible assurances by CIA Director George Tenet that the WMD case against Saddam was "a slam dunk." (In an interview, Dick Cheney said he never questioned Tenet's assertion because "he's the CIA Director...he otta know.")

Effectively, Bush took too long to make his final decision, and by the time he got to the "go/no go" point, the price of not invading was far too high. He almost made the decision not to go to war at the last minute, but Rice sat him down and told him it was too late. If he did not invade, all of the intelligence resources within Iraq (which were instrumental in Iraq's swift defeat) would have been discovered and eradicated by the Republican Guard, and he would appear indecisive and weak.

Read Bob Woodward's book, Plan of Attack, and you'll learn exactly why we went to war straight from the horse's mouth.

[Samuel J. Tilden]

Who thinks that instead of a single man and a small contingent of cronies running a country, it would be better if the people ran the country?
Since it is "the people" who elect a single man and his contingent of cronies on capitol hill every 2, 4 or 6 years, I'd say that "the people" have done a pretty lousy job already.

Fact is, Dubya and crew want to toast the UN and that's basically Bolton's mission(if he even gets nominated!) Now I'm not the biggest fan of the UN(when was the last time it was of any practical use?) and reckon it's going to get toasted one way or another
If Bush seriously entertained the thought of "toasting" the UN, he wouldn't bother sending Bolton or anyone else. He'd do what many Americans have been demanding and unconditionally withdraw all American support, both financial and political, from the worthless United Nations. Unfortunately, Bush has it in his mind to "reform" the UN instead, and while I'm sure some of those reforms will be a vast improvement, anything short of complete withdrawal is a violation of American sovereignty.

[Major Tyler]

If Bush seriously entertained the thought of "toasting" the UN, he wouldn't bother sending Bolton or anyone else. He'd do what many Americans have been demanding and unconditionally withdraw all American support, both financial and political, from the worthless United Nations. Unfortunately, Bush has it in his mind to "reform" the UN instead, and while I'm sure some of those reforms will be a vast improvement, anything short of complete withdrawal is a violation of American sovereignty."Get the U.S. out of the UN, the UN out of the U.S." is the war-cry of the ignorant, and the claim that the UN "violates U.S. sovereignty" is only further validation of that ignorance. Before you continue to embarrass yourself, let me try to educate you...

* The United Nations has no more power than what its members give it.

* The United Nations is not a foreign power imposed on the U.S., it's an organization that was chartered, formed, and founded by Americans! The United Nations Treaty was signed in San Francisco, for crying out loud!

* Being a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States has the power to veto anything that the UN wants to do. How could they violate our sovereignty?!

* The only part of the UN that has any power that could even resemble "violating sovereignty," the International Court of Justice, the U.S. doesn't even participate in! We've opted out! And you know why we can opt out? Because the UN does NOT in any way violate national sovereignty!

You call the United Nations "worthless" because you know absolutely nothing about it and what it does. It's true that the UN doesn't do much for the U.S., because the U.S. doesn't need the UN in the same way others do. We can provide for ourselves without UN assistance. The UN doesn't exist to benefit its most powerful members...it exists to benefit the weakest.

We don't need the UN to spray our rivers and streams to kill mosquitos to stem the spread of malaria, we don't need the UN to provide funds to teach us sustainable development techniques so that we can grow enough food to feed our children, we don't need to the UN to advocate for the removal of landmines left behind by feudal warlords, we don't need these things...but many others do.

If you cry "death to the UN" because it doesn't do any for you, you are one of the most heartless, selfish, and worthless people on the face of the Earth.

[Samuel J. Tilden]

"Get the U.S. out of the UN, the UN out of the U.S." is the war-cry of the ignorant, and the claim that the UN "violates U.S. sovereignty" is only further validation of that ignorance. Before you continue to embarrass yourself, let me try to educate you...
Please don't waste your time. I am impervious to embarrassment.

* The United Nations has no more power than what its members give it.
That was what Americans used to say about the Federal government in its relation to the states. It only took one psychotic dictator (Lincoln) to turn that arrangement around. The willingness of US officials to subjugate themselves to UN jurisdiction in many important matters is half the problem. Complete withdrawal will prevent the globos in the State Department from carrying out their world government scheme.

* The United Nations is not a foreign power imposed on the U.S., it's an organization that was chartered, formed, and founded by Americans! The United Nations Treaty was signed in San Francisco, for crying out loud!
Correction: The UN was chartered, formed and founded by socialist utopians who disgraced the United States by their very association with such a futile organization. Americans used to understand this (which is why we never joined the equally worthless League of Nations). Only a few brave souls left in Congress dare challenge the authority of our international overlords.

* Being a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States has the power to veto anything that the UN wants to do. How could they violate our sovereignty?!
The UN is A LOT more than the Security Council, which, as President Bush discovered a couple of years ago, is a mere formality when it comes to military action. While you are correct to question the practical threat that the UN poses to US sovereignty, it is the avowed mission of the United Nations and the International Institutionalists who support it to bring ALL nations under the authority of a socialist world government. Just take a look at the various "goals" listed on the UN web site. Fortunately, the UN hasn't figured out a way to enforce any of them… yet.

* The only part of the UN that has any power that could even resemble "violating sovereignty," the International Court of Justice, the U.S. doesn't even participate in! We've opted out! And you know why we can opt out? Because the UN does NOT in any way violate national sovereignty!
Not for lack of trying though. If the UN had any enforcement mechanisms, it would certainly exercise them to assure US compliance. Is does raise the questions, however: if the United States is constantly opposing UN programs, why are we simultaneously feeding the beast and allowing it to nest on our soil?

You call the United Nations "worthless" because you know absolutely nothing about it and what it does.
What an idiotic claim. It is clear from your response that your only knowledge of the United Nations comes from Kofi's PR department.

The UN doesn't exist to benefit its most powerful members...it exists to benefit the weakest.
And it's done a bang-up job so far. Korea, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti and other countries the UN has "helped" are paragons of democracy today thanks to our blue-helmeted friends.

We don't need the UN to spray our rivers and streams to kill mosquitos to stem the spread of malaria,
Oh, but we can't spray for malaria because its subject to excessive regulation by--you guessed it--the UN.

we don't need the UN to provide funds to teach us sustainable development techniques so that we can grow enough food to feed our children, we don't need to the UN to advocate for the removal of landmines left behind by feudal warlords, we don't need these things...but many others do.
What's wrong with private organizations who already carry out all of these functions (with far less overhead and corruption than the UN, mind you)?

If you cry "death to the UN" because it doesn't do any for you, you are one of the most heartless, selfish, and worthless people on the face of the Earth.
Unfortunately, the UN does do things to me. Bad things. My tax dollars go to support its incompetent and corrupt administration. The horrific (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4027319.stm) abuses (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/11/1351253&mode=thread&tid=25) that the UN has inflicted upon the third world get traced back the United States which doesn't exactly improve our image around the world.

It's not just that the UN doesn't do anything for me (and it doesn't). The UN is a threat to the world and the sovereignty of nations everywhere. It is an unaccountable, illegitimate, money hole whose success is directly proportional to our misery.

"Understand that the UN views itself as the emerging global government, and like all governments, it needs money to operate. The goal, which the UN readily admits, is to impose a comprehensive set of global laws on all of us – laws that supersede sovereign national governments."
-Rep. Ron Paul

The United Nations has never been coy regarding its ultimate goals. Those who say otherwise are either hopelessly uninformed or intentionally deceptive.

As far the personal attacks, well, I suppose that encapsulates the moral bankruptcy of the globalists. Sickening, but predictable.

[Major Tyler]

Wow, that quite an impressive tirade of unsubstantiated and unsupported opinions. You have a good grasp of the English language, but beyond that your response is meaningless. You try to overwhelm readers by using provocative and sensationalist language. You present your opinions as facts without providing any kind of proof or support, and hope that people are stupid enough to assume you know what you are talking about because you use "big words."The UN is a threat to the world and the sovereignty of nations everywhere. It is an unaccountable, illegitimate, money hole whose success is directly proportional to our misery.Case in point...this sounds good when you write it down, but under the scrutiny of an educated person, it is rendered meaningless. You don't say how the UN is unaccountable, illegitimate, and a "money hole," or how the UN is a threat to the world and national sovereignty, because you don't know yourself. The truth is, the UN is accountable to the entire world (especially the United States). The UN boasts membership of every country (save two) in the entire world...how could they not be legitimate? As for "money hole", the United Nations operates on an annual budget which is about the same as the New York Fire Department. Not much of a "hole."...whose success is directly proportional to our misery.So every success of the UN is a failure for the U.S., eh? I'd like to see you back that one up. :rolleyes: This is the best proof of all that you are just spouting emotionally charged statements without meaning. Thankfully, I'm pretty good at cutting through BS.

I could take the time to point out all of the sensationalist language (international overlords is my favorite) and all the instances where you make a dramatic claim and offer no proof, but I would simply be commenting on your post line-by-line. I will admit that you did provide marginal support for your claim of "horrific abuses," but I would ask how often have "legitimate" and "sovereign" government officials conducted massacres and sexually abused people? What would you do? Arrest and prosecute the offenders, or call for the destruction of the organization they worked for? Unless you can demonstrate that the UN ordered their officials to sexually abuse people, you are out of gas.

Oh, by the way, giving someone red because they disagree with you is the most telling sign of all that you are incapable of having an intelligent discussion. Instead of crafting an educated response, you lash out in the only way you can.

At least I know who I'm dealing with.

[Samuel J. Tilden]

Wow, that quite an impressive tirade of unsubstantiated and unsupported opinions.
To be fair, the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the United Nations is not something that can be empirically proven. Your own propagandizing in favor of the UN has so far been at least as unsubstantiated as my own. We can turn this discussion into a link-fest, I suppose, but to claim that your opinion of the UN is somehow morally or intellectually superior to my own is rubbish. In the framework of Early American political philosophy upon which the United States was founded, it is highly unlikely that you will find any substantive evidence to support involvement in the United Nations.

Once again, this is a purely subjective analysis, and given the rancor in your tone, I doubt you'll be swayed regardless of the evidence I present. I think you would do well to first explain what, if any, provision of the US Constitution authorizes membership in the United Nations. (Hint: it's not in there.) In fact, the United Nations has been an important step in subverting the Constitutional authority of Congress. For example, when's the last time the United States officially declared war? It's been over 60 years and yet time and again US troops are unconstitutionally authorized by the United Nations to fight without any declaration of war by the United States Congress. That's exactly what happened in 1950 in the run-up to the Korean Conflict, and it has continued today with President Bush's constant citations of UN resolutions as a pretext to the invasion of Iraq. American "obligations" to the United Nations have drawn our country into conflict after conflict and will continue to do so until someone in this country takes a stand and bulldozes the UN building. The fact that the UN can call on American troops without the expressed consent of the American people is a blatant affront to American sovereignty.

You don't say how the UN is unaccountable, illegitimate, and a "money hole," or how the UN is a threat to the world and national sovereignty, because you don't know yourself.
I do know. Just look at how the United Nations has threated Iraqi sovereignty with its constant resolutions and threats of force. Other UN "peacekeeping" operations impose foreign rule on other countries. The Law of the Sea treaty threatens to hand all control of the seabed over to a UN panel comprised of all the usual suspects (ie. socialists). Other items on the UN agenda include global taxation, a human rights declaration that trumpets failed socialist policies like public education and income redistribution, and control of firearms. While the UN hasn't managed to implement all of its one world agenda, you can bet they're trying, no thanks to our cowardly representatives in Washington.

Your contention seems to be that since the UN is too weak to effectively enforce its anti-American agenda, it's a great institution. I would ask you why the United States should remain a member of an organization that has blatantly offered the usurpation of US sovereignty on its agenda. To continue funding an organization that clearly does not have the best interests of the United States in mind is pure folly, unless you can explain (and please do give specifics) why the three items I listed above are beneficial to the United States and do not, if fully implemented by the UN, adversely effect American sovereignty. Do you truly believe that the United States should continue funding the UN simply because it is too incompetent to pose any threat to us?

The truth is, the UN is accountable to the entire world (especially the United States). The UN boasts membership of every country (save two) in the entire world...how could they not be legitimate?
Save two? You mean like one of the founding members, the Republic of China, which was unceremoniously ejected from the UN in 1971? Some accountability. What about the countries that the UN decides to invade? I don't suppose they can do much to hold the UN accountable. How does the UN remain accountable to the American people? Have you ever voted on any piece of legislation passed by the UN? Have you ever voted to continue American support for the UN? Of course not. The UN is accountable to a few elected elite (in the United States) and a whole lot of non-elected elite in the third world. To assume that the UN is accountable to the vast populations suffering under a authoritarian regimes (not to mention the tyranny of Washington, DC) is laughable.

The larger the government, the less accountable it is to its subjects. Just consider the United States where the Federal Govenment is far less accountable to citizens than the state governments. The UN is just one more level of abstraction that has even less relevance to the lives of normal people (except when to comes to funding the sprawling bureaucracy and abiding by the stiffling regulations imposed by the UN and dying in the wars--I mean, "peacekeeping" missions it declares). If you have any idea how unaccountable the Federal government is to citizens in the United States then the UN is even worse since it was created by the centralizers in Washington. The power of the UN will only grow over time as long the United States feeds the beast.

As for "money hole", the United Nations operates on an annual budget which is about the same as the New York Fire Department.
So do I. Would you like to give me a yearly tribute? I promise I won't use it to pass abusive laws or kill people or launder money or do any of those other nasty things the UN does. It would be a much better investment I think. What's that? You don't want to give me money? It's only a pittance of your wages. What's the big deal?

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Religious Liberty, "to compel a man to contribute to a cause with which he disagrees is sinful and tyrannical." I disagree with the United Nations and many other Americans hold the same opinion. I want to opt out. You can keep contributing if you like, but don't make me pay for your vain dreams of a socialist utopia.

So every success of the UN is a failure for the U.S., eh? I'd like to see you back that one up. :rolleyes:
I already mentioned the Law of the Sea and the global tax. If the succeeds at either of these (thanks to Bush and the spineless Republicans, it looks like the former might be a done deal) the interests of private property, free enterprise and national sovereignty would be dealt a horrific blow. Unless you believe the purpose of the United States is service to the United Nations, this cannot be viewed as a victory for America. Agenda 21, the "sustainable development" (read: more environmental regulation) program of the UN is yet another anti-business proposal whose enaction would spell disaster for America. Not to mention the Kyoto Protocol. Once again, the only saving grace of the UN is its complete ineffectiveness in the promotion of these wacky proposals.

Unless you can demonstrate that the UN ordered their officials to sexually abuse people, you are out of gas.
No, I would argue that it is the institutional failures of the organization that have permitted crimes to continue unabated. Once again, there are problems of accountability. If sexual abuse occurs in the context of a private organization, members can quit and consumers can stop purchasing the goods that organization produces. It is highly accountable to society and must therefore be especially careful to avoid sexual misconduct in the first place. The Federal Government is less accountable but at least we have the power to vote the scoundrels out of office if sex abuse goes on under their watch.

Which brings us to the UN. We can't vote Kofi or any other UN official out of office and we can't withdraw our payments from the UN thanks to another corrupt and unaccountable government organization (the IRS) so there really is no accountability. We can only hope that either our own leaders will take a stand against the UN and either withdraw or stop funding or (even better) push the UN building into the East River. But there's no way that either of the major party candidates will ever turn their backs on the UN so we're left with zero accountability. Just a vain hope that something will somehow change for the better.

There are other exciting issues we could discuss, like the UN botch-job in Palestine, the embarassment of the UNHRC, immoral family planning programs or the rogue's gallery of dictators that the UN gives legitimacy to, but I think I've laid out a compelling case for the immediate and prejudicial destruction of the United Nations.

Oh, by the way, giving someone red because they disagree with you is the most telling sign of all that you are incapable of having an intelligent discussion. Instead of crafting an educated response, you lash out in the only way you can.
You got dinged due to your inability to proceed in this debate without the use of debasing language and childish insults. Lay off the personal attacks in your future responses and you won't have to worry about seeing red.

At least I know who I'm dealing with.
I just checked your profile and noticed that you're a resident of Washington, DC. That explains a lot. Mordor on the Potomac is ground zero for big government apologists.

[Matt G]

Reality check Samuel, no matter how much you whine, this is a very interconnected world. Yes the UN is weak and as a result, I can't see it turning into a world government. Someone's going to have to start with a fresh piece of paper on that one.

However, a world government of some kind is pretty much inevitable in the future(though it's touch and go in either of our lifetimes). The only question is, when it gets started up, by whose rules do you want it run by?

The US can either be a player in that process and help come up with a global body that incorporates American values or whine on the sidelines and risk getting blown to smithereens down the line.

As someone who's grown to like you guys since the mid-90s and is willing to cut the US more slack than a lot of people on this side of the Atlantic, I'd rather you went for the former.

[Osiris-RA]

However, a world government of some kind is pretty much inevitable in the future(though it's touch and go in either of our lifetimes). The only question is, when it gets started up, by whose rules do you want it run by?

The US can either be a player in that process and help come up with a global body that incorporates American values or whine on the sidelines and risk getting blown to smithereens down the line.

[two cents] If a world government or a "New World Order" did come into existance, you can bet that one of the main drivers behind it would be, most likley, the United States. America seems to have her fingers in a lot of different dishes, and she doesn't work alone.

But then there would be a problem getting this world government together, because certain cultures do not advocate ONE government. So, that would probably be a problem unless by some macbre twist of fate, they suddenly decided that they were happy to be run by one government, run basicaly, by one entity. ;)

As far as I with my politically crippled mind can see, American values are pretty much already incorperated into what the UN, at least, does, otherwise, there probably never would have been a pre-imptive strike on Iraq. [/two cents]

[Matt G]

The pre-emptive strike on Iraq was never backed by the UN.

Techincally, the USA certainly has a big slice of the UN pie...but so does the UK, France, China and Russia. Any of those five could knock out a UN resolution on it's own with a veto. France had telgraphed that it was going to veto UN backing for the Iraq war but Bush went ahead with it anyway it's just that the UN is too weak to do anything about it and Dubya's crew worked that one out early doors, otherwise they either wouldn't have tried it or we'd have certainly known about the UN's response.

[Osiris-RA]

I know the UN never backed the war, and you're right that the US went on ahead with it. That's exactly what I mean, the UN is quite spindly when it comes to what the US decides to do. It probably also helped that Kofi Annan is bought and paid for by the US gov.

[warmbeachbrat]

I know the UN never backed the war, and you're right that the US went on ahead with it. That's exactly what I mean, the UN is quite spindly when it comes to what the US decides to do. It probably also helped that Kofi Annan is bought and paid for by the US gov.

Then we're not getting much value for our dollar, are we?

Also, if I remember correctly, the UN didn't approve the war in Kosovo, either--in fact, the US didn't even ask.

[Matt G]

I know the UN never backed the war, and you're right that the US went on ahead with it. That's exactly what I mean, the UN is quite spindly when it comes to what the US decides to do. It probably also helped that Kofi Annan is bought and paid for by the US gov.

I also know of the UN being 'spindly' with Sebrenica and Rwanda to name two. Not sure how the US benefitted there

[Egeria]

Rwanda is an embarrassment to us all, the UN the US and the rest of the world. I give up....situations like these just re-affirm my opinion that we live in a truely selfish world, concerned only with our own affairs. I honestly feel ashamed at our ineptitude and unwillingness to involve ourselves more in alleviating suffering and situations like Rwanda.

[Osiris-RA]

I recently read up on Srebrenica and I've heard some interesting reports that the US knew about Sreberenica and that basicaly the US and others watched it happen. Also that the UN troops sent in were very poorly armed for the mission. I'm no expert on that subject. As to what they benifited from it all, search me. The US seems to have an agenda concerning various predominantly Muslim areas, as well as oil rich area and things that would generally benifit someone.

I'm stunned the UN would just sit back like though...just stunned.

[SG-1ssm]

Some of you may remember the Political Ramblings thread we had on Delphi (and a Religious one as well). I figure that since Politics is always changing... we should restart the thread.

Basically, if it's political, it's fair game. We want some good, fierce arguments, but try to keep it from getting (too) personal. That said, let battle commence!

First up, in light of recent events, should Rumsfield resign?

Doing get me started. The only thing that really pisses me off is Democates who can't compromise and/or have a civil disscussion.

[SG-1ssm]

Iraq: The troops shouldn't have gone in but now they realistically have to stay if the Iraqis are going to get through this.

Israel/Palistine: Both sides are morons - would rather not get into more detailed disscussions on this topic - it gives me a headache!

China: Don't know enough about to disscuss.

First part: Agree but its not Bush's fault. It was the cIA that screwed up.

Next: Kinda. The Isralies were stupid to pull out of Gaza, that just gave the terrorists reason to try harder. I support Isreal.

[warmbeachbrat]

Rwanda is an embarrassment to us all, the UN the US and the rest of the world. I give up....situations like these just re-affirm my opinion that we live in a truely selfish world, concerned only with our own affairs. I honestly feel ashamed at our ineptitude and unwillingness to involve ourselves more in alleviating suffering and situations like Rwanda.

Rwanda was horrible and senseless. But it's not too late for Darfur as bad as that situation is. *sigh* "ineptitude and unwillingness"--that describes so much today. I feel like giving up sometimes, too. I know that Congress has passed a couple of measures dealing with Darfur (hopefully not too little, too late--and hopefully they will do more), but the UN seems to be dragging its feet.

[Osiris-RA]

The Isralies were stupid to pull out of Gaza, that just gave the terrorists reason to try harder. I support Isreal.

Well, I don't think they were stupid. The palestinians were angry that their territory was being encroached upon. Isreal hadn't been there before, seems silly to want to stay there... I'm glad they moved out. Maybe they can give this taking over palestine thing a rest, take down that wall and move on.

[warmbeachbrat]

Next: Kinda. The Isralies were stupid to pull out of Gaza, that just gave the terrorists reason to try harder. I support Isreal.

I don't know--I kind of think that they made the best of a difficult situation. Gaza was in a weird area that was difficult for Israel to deal with; it was easier to pull out and concentrate elsewhere. Hopefully, the Palestinians will be able to build up a better functioning society.

[Samuel J. Tilden]

However, a world government of some kind is pretty much inevitable in the future(though it's touch and go in either of our lifetimes). The only question is, when it gets started up, by whose rules do you want it run by?
I'm not as pessimistic as you are, so I think it's a bit premature to say that world government is "inevitable". Past attempts at the consolidation of a world government have met with failure and since the only way a world government could hope to be established is through the military subjugation/annihilation of a large segment of the world population, a consolidated world government will never exist in an environment that remotely resembles our own. The US certainly won't be around.
The pre-emptive strike on Iraq was never backed by the UN.
The actual strike wasn't but the UN didn't help things when they threatened Iraq with "serious consequences" as a result of noncompliance with UN inspectors. The text of that resolution was an integral part of the Bush justification for war. The US wouldn't have attacked without the expressed consent of the United Nations to meddle in Iraqi affairs. That's not to let the US off the hook, but the UN is highly culpable in a number of crimes committed against the people of Iraq during the past decade and a half.

That's exactly what I mean, the UN is quite spindly when it comes to what the US decides to do. It probably also helped that Kofi Annan is bought and paid for by the US gov.
Annan has been highly critical of the US war effort. While he can't afford to virulently denounce the United States, by virtue of the fact that the US has such a large stake in the UN, I would hardly consider him "bought and paid for." If so, the US could do a lot better for their money (but isn't that always the case).

I honestly feel ashamed at our ineptitude and unwillingness to involve ourselves more in alleviating suffering and situations like Rwanda.
What would you have had the UN do in Rwanda? Or in any ethnic conflict around the world? People have been killing each other for millennia over the same land disputes, ethnic faultlines and political differences. To suggest that the United States, UN or any other outside agency can comprehend, much less magically fix, these horrible situations is the height of arrogance. The US has tried to police the world for nearly a century now and we always ending up leaving things worse.

[Samuel J. Tilden]

But it's not too late for Darfur as bad as that situation is. *sigh* "ineptitude and unwillingness"--that describes so much today. I feel like giving up sometimes, too. I know that Congress has passed a couple of measures dealing with Darfur (hopefully not too little, too late--and hopefully they will do more), but the UN seems to be dragging its feet.
Because intervening in Darfur won't make Arab Muslims even more angry at the United States…

Well, I don't think they were stupid. The palestinians were angry that their territory was being encroached upon. Isreal hadn't been there before, seems silly to want to stay there... I'm glad they moved out. Maybe they can give this taking over palestine thing a rest, take down that wall and move on.
We have the UN to thank for that one. If the UN hadn't created a partition that forced Arabs to vacate Israel (and Jews to vacate Arab lands), both sides would have been forced to live together and come to a compromise of some sort.

[warmbeachbrat]

What would you have had the UN do in Rwanda? Or in any ethnic conflict around the world? People have been killing each other for millennia over the same land disputes, ethnic faultlines and political differences. To suggest that the United States, UN or any other outside agency can comprehend, much less magically fix, these horrible situations is the height of arrogance. The US has tried to police the world for nearly a century now and we always ending up leaving things worse.

I think it's been argued that there WERE indeed things that could have been done by the UN and/or the US to at list mitigate somewhat the carnage that happened in Rwanda. As for the US policing the world--I can think of several places where US intervention has NOT left things worse, or should we never have involved ourselves in WWII or the Cold War?

[warmbeachbrat]

Because intervening in Darfur won't make Arab Muslims even more angry at the United States…

I don't think it's possible to make them even more angry, so in that case, I say do what we can to help stop the genocide going on there.

Actually, I've read some polls suggesting that the US is less hated and more approved of lately in several Islamic countries.

[Matt G]

I'm not as pessimistic as you are, so I think it's a bit premature to say that world government is "inevitable". Past attempts at the consolidation of a world government have met with failure and since the only way a world government could hope to be established is through the military subjugation/annihilation of a large segment of the world population, a consolidated world government will never exist in an environment that remotely resembles our own. The US certainly won't be around.

I'm not pessimistic. The idea of world government in itself is neither good nor bad IMO, a guy like me could benefit or get ripped apart by such an organisation depending on who was running the show.

Given that you're on an international message board yourself, I'm surprised you're so pessimistic about the very idea of world government. How would a hypothetical democratic world government which allows free enterprise threaten you?