Posted by 5 (22.214.171.124) on March 11, 2003 at 17:06:06:
In Reply to: You asked for a reply. posted by Ev (126.96.36.199) on March 11, 2003 at 11:50:20:
You said "You speak of N. Korea being a bigger problem so I’d ask you how ‘you’ think it should be handled. Should the US commence bilateral talks with the N. Koreans as China and Russia suggest? [Keep in mind that the countries that suggest such a course of action are the same countries that are among the most vocal opponents of US unilateralism.] Should the Korean crisis be the US’s alone to deal with? This seems to be the prevalent view at the moment. Shouldn’t China, who has a huge stake in maintaining a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, be bringing some of its power and influence to bear? This non-acceptance of “US unilateralism” is very ‘situation oriented".
I agree completely, but North Korea supposedly has the ability to reach the western U.S with it's Nuclear weapons. Where as Iraq is not going to Nuke the U.S any time soon. China, Japan and South Korea all should play large role in removing this threat(Diplomatically or other wise, if neccesary). But since that post I change changed my mind on that. Korea will/can wait.
> I said: “Bush is spending way too much money . . . how long can the U.S. keep this kind of spending up. Some states are already feeling the pressure(which is, in my opinion, is why the emergency status was lowered back to yellow).”
> You said "5, why does it matter to you, a Canadian, how the US allocates its resources?"
Well if your economy takes a dive the world's economy does too, but, very few countries economies are as tied to the U.S's as closely as Canada's. . .the majority of our exports are to you. We have a high level of American investment in our country.
You said: "Sweeping aside your comparison of Bush with Hitler, which I respect as your opinion but personally think is absurd, on what basis are you making the claim that the US, in a fit of nationalist zeal, is uniting ‘even if they know what there doing is wrong”? I’m assuming that you’re resting your argument on the fact that there were protesters marching in the streets, chanting slogans, and carrying signs that disagree with US policy. So, just to make sure that I’m not depriving you of an opportunity to fully make your argument, I’d ask why it is that you think the average American believes that US policy and actions are “wrong”?
That's not quite what I said. But many Americans do disagree with US policy and actions, and many of them say so, but not when something goes wrong(I always thought that 's the time to protest more).I heard many Americans saying "Bush has my full support" after 9/11 even if they had questions. Some still think like that on this issue. That number is falling, but if that jump of support never came(I mean he didn't really do anything to get it) I think Bush would not have had the ability to push this war on Iraq.
> You said:5, you need to understand that there’ll be no shortage of terrorist recruits regardless of what the US does or doesn’t do. And even more bizarre yet, you associate terrorist recruitment with the ‘timing’ of military operations. Would this mean that someone who would willingly pledge their life to the destruction of ‘the great Satan’, if a war started in March, would see the folly of their position in May? It sounds as if your solution to our middle-eastern woes is to first check with the terrorists and gain their consent before we do anything. I can see it now; “Oh, by the way Mr. Bin Laden, would it be acceptable to you if some of us didn’t convert to Islam?” Most people miss the fact that Bin Laden and his ilk only see as legitimate those governments that conform to sharia law. So, barring us becoming an Islamic nation, how do you propose we win the terrorists over?
I didn't mean that just the Muslim world would join up(other people in many other nations only need a good reason to start there own terror cells by convincing people that it's right to attack America because they attacked Iraq while Saddam tried disparately to reason with the American infidels, not true but easy to distort such facts. But if you wait that line would never work) . There are many of them that do not hate the US enough yet to take terrorist actions. Rushing in without taking the time you clearly have, planing to go in with or without UN support, and not taking the time to consider if it is the right thing to do(that does not mean, go when Bush is satisfied it's the right thing. It means until the world opinion is in agreement with the war, especially the region around Iraq and waiting will make the U.S. seem far more reasonable to everyone. You don't want the middle east to see you as a country that is not willing to look at all the facts first.) You don't have to "win the terrorists over", you have to win over the reasonable people over who will be willing fight against a nation they view as a hostile one(I say that because your right many people will support terrorism regardless). The US has to try to show the Muslim world they have a legitimate case not just the leaders of the countries, the people.
> You said, "Actually I don’t think much of anything will happen if the US and its coalition go to war without UN approval. Oh, possibly the UN will increasingly be seen for what it is, a feckless organization that lacks the moral authority or the force necessary to back its resolutions. I think it’ll be less likely that a future President would take any matter deemed to be of national security significance to the UN. After all, why should we, or any other nation for that matter, subject our foreign policy to the approval or disapproval of nations that have no tangible stake in the matter? When the Chechnya’s were raising hell in Russia should they have checked with Guinea or Cameroon before responding?"
The UN does far more good than bad, sure it does lack the moral authority(It's needs reorganization to add many more nations with veto power and all nations should be allowed to be non-veto permanent members) but the force that back it's resolutions is that it is politically a bad move and the knowledge that we need some group to question the actions of nations, we can't let nations due as they please, like the use of bio/chemical weapons and the UN sets up a set of morals that are not allowed in any case(Like the Bill of Human rights). Nations that have no stake in the matter are the best to ask, they can be neutral.doctors, lawyers, and psychologists don't take care of people they know(generally) and with good reason; they're to involved. And yes, Russia should have checked with Guinea and Cameroon and Chile as well. Every country deserves a vote, I think we all can understand the importance of letting everyone have their vote. Both our countries are based on the concept.
You said: Also think about the action taken in Kosovo under NATO auspices. Three of the permanent Security Council members launched an attack without UN approval. Why was that, and what disruptions in world unity can you attribute to these actions? The vast majorities of military actions are engaged in outside of UN resolutions or approval. Why doesn’t the UN do something about that? You can choose to see the UN as the final arbiter of all things but I’d just as soon the US not follow your example.
The UN needs to be changed not eliminated. Of course they didn't take it in to consideration. The permanent member were involved too much(hence the need for a change). And I think they should have done something about that if it breaks there own guidelines. The UN is not a bad thing. I can't even believe you would say it is. Changes yes but if the UN ends out losing support over this the whole idea of a world government may be discredited for good. The League failed, once the UN does why replace it. I don't like the idea of the world become one big nation, though I think Every nation in the world deserves a vote in how the affairs of OUR world are to be handled, just as we deserve a say in who runs our counties.
>You said: Here’s something to ponder in your spare moments. Why do you think Hans Blix chose to leave out certain information regarding proscribed weapons and weapons systems that would have bolstered the US position from his oral statement before the Security Council? Could it be this revelation that has helped convince you of the necessity of this war?
Yes in fact it was. However I still think waiting is necessary for the world(The UN and the Countries in the Middle East) to see your willing to be reasonable(not that I think this action's unreasonable, but France, many Muslims, Russia . . . etc. clearly do, I mean why else would France threaten veto). In addition, just because I longer think Iraq will down peacefully or you or Bush or anyone does not mean that taking the time "give peace a chance" isn't necessary.
But what I'm wondering is why would Blix leave this out? . . . Maybe he is a communist Nazi. He must be! . . . quick let's ignore the UN and all reason and go off to kill him, his family and everyone he ever met, before it's too late! . That is just a little example of my support for the UN. Some relatively neutral party has to be able to have a say when someone is about to do something possibly stupid and wrong. We need the UN to help us see when someone is about to something insane like Hitler did(Bush is most likely quite sane but even Hitler seemed reasonable at one point). Which is why we need a system in place to take those people out of power, and in time hopefully the next a year or two(maybe more the system is slow for a reason) that system will take Saddam, and Kim Jong Il out of power. The UN is a step in the right direction to become that neutral party, No one is going to bomb UN land, and the leader of the UN isn't going to unleash it's military might on the world because he has none.
Post a Followup