Political Ramblings (Strike Two)

[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.

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 us

That 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. 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.

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 abuses 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.