Dems: Demand a Recount!

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Well then, instead of acting as if the US should become the new dictator for the world, why not shine light on the point of view of us needing to HELP KEEP unity in the world as far as a common goal, not trying to decide that goal for them?[/quote]

First, I never said anything about the US becoming a world dictator - quite the opposite - but then again, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

As for us needing to help keep unity - your cryptic question makes little sense. I’d be happy to answer it, but it is jibberish. Shining light on the point of view to help keep unity versus deciding that unity for them?

???

Then what are you arguing? There needs to be a UN so that those smaller countries have a voice. Why imply that the UN needs to be disbanded as if we will now control their decisions?

First, I never suggested that the UN be ‘disbanded’ - but then again, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. I think we need to re-evaulate what the UN should do or be expected to do in matters of international security - but I never suggested that we dismantle the UN.

Second, what I just demonstrated was that these smaller countries [/i]don’t have a voice[/i]. Where is Tibet’s voice? Cyprus?

Smaller countries have a voice on paper - in reality, very little.

No, it isn’t. You just needed to ask what I was getting at. There needs to be the perception that there is a voice heard from smaller countries. Therefore, perception can very often be reality. Whether we step to the forefront from time to time doesn’t erase the need for that open forum.

I never suggested that we close down this ‘open forum’. But the UN, as an institution, cannot be counted upon to keep order - its history tells us that.

So how is my use of it trite? It applies. Why ignore it?

Uh, I didn’t, but then again, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.

I distinctly said that if Lord Acton’s rule holds true, it applies to the UN as well - giving the UN absolute power will corrupt it absolutely.

And I added that the UN does not take away ‘abolsute power’ from greater countries anyway, so it can’t help that fear. Quoting myself:

“And as discussed earlier, the UN doesn’t take power away from any of the greater countries. China invaded Tibet - where is the UN? Turkey invaded Cyrpus - where is the UN? NATO countries invade Bosnia - where is the UN? The US invaded Iraq - where is the UN?”

No one has written that the UN is error free, just that there is a need for one. Do you understand now or will you pretend as if I wasn’t clear?

But I never said that we should get rid of the UN - I suggested that the framework as it is now doesn’t keep order and it doesn’t prevent greater countries from doing whatever they want.

I don’t trust the UN to handle matters of international security because it is built on too much of a ‘value-neutral’ means of attacking international problems.

And trust me, I don’t pretend that you aren’t clear.

[quote]No, what will prevent that is the understanding that no one country needs to act like it runs everything. In effect, there needs to be a concept of a BALANCE of power, not a dictatorship. When you typed out your last response, how stupid did you think I was?
[/quote]

I probably shouldn’t answer that.

As is, there can never be a balance of power unless the countries are themselves balanced. You want to decree balance in the name of it - and no country, even ones not named America, will ever do that.

And this nonsense of a ‘dictatorship’ is pure garbage. The US is not a global dictator. Not even close. We don’t dictate Western Europe’s foreign policy or their monetary policy. We certainly don’t tell China what to do.

As for running everything, the US doesn’t want the job - I mean, half the time, the US is chastised as being arrogant isolationists uninterested in the world. But be careful - the rest of the world often wants the US to do exactly this. Be careful what you wish for.

There is, I repeat, a large difference in running the world and being the world leader.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
When all is said and done, either the US polices the world, or the world goes unpoliced. If we don’t support out government in this effort, the world becomes just like the South Bronx. Want to live there?

The megapolitical structure of the world is based upon pure power. The last time we had a power transition, 1918-1945, the world went through hell. Want to live through that?
If we don’t police the world, someone else might try. The UN? China? Good luck!!

I laughed when I read this. Do we want the world to be like the South Bronx? If there is a South Bronx in America, what gives us the right to police anyone else?
[/quote]

This is asinine. If there is a disordered part of our country, then we should not try to establish international order? So, we must be perfect before we try to make the world a better place? Asinine.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
So you think that every time there is a problem, that the fed should jump in and fix it?

No, I don’t…just like I don’t think that anyone needs to start promoting the concept that we are the “World Police” when we have our own problems right here at home. It is funny how you seem to straddle the line.

You don’t expect the Feds to jump in for every little problem but do expect America to run around the globe and make everyone think and act like us. I think it is a very catchy phrase that makes our actions in Iraq look better. I don’t think the “World Police” do much more than play politics.[/quote]

Who’s talking about running the globe? I’m talking about having international rules that all nations respect. That’s a far cry from being the Empire in a ‘Star Wars’ movie. Your post is asinine.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Every historian on this planet concedes the ideas about hegemony, about bringing order to the world. This was one reason for the battle for colonies and markets. When did WWI begin? One year after Germany equaled British industrial output. That’s your balance of power? Maybe this is just beyond your comprehension.

J?s Elsner, in Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph (1998), wrote:

“Power is very rarely limited to the pure exercise of brute force… The Roman state bolstered its authority and legitimacy with the trappings of ceremonial ? cloaking the actualities of power beneath a display of wealth, the sanction of tradition, and the spectacle of insuperable resources… Power is a far more complex and mysterious quality than any apparently simple manifestation of it would appear. It is as much a matter of impression, of theatre, of persuading those over whom authority is wielded to collude in their subjugation. Insofar as power is a matter of presentation, its cultural currency in antiquity (and still today) was the creation, manipulation, and display of images. In the propagation of the imperial office, at any rate, art was power.”

You seem to believe that our power is in our ability to force others to do what we want them to do through military authority. This only lasts until the people overthrow the power that they view as oppression. I hate to break this to you, but everyone in the world doesn’t view the way you live as the goal to reach. That is why there is a need for diplomacy as well as a need to respect other countries as seperate entities instead of playing your hand as if you can “Police the world”. It isn’t our place to play world police. I am amazed that you even think we have anywhere near the resources to play that game with an entire globe of people. Even further, who is next on our crusade and why haven’t we engaged them yet?[/quote]

You are making my point – no nation can be an absolute authority, for long anyway. Don’t you think our leaders know that? It is for this reason that the USA establishes ‘rules of conduct’, not brutally exerting its power. The point that the USA DOES NOT DO THAT is entirely what I’m saying. Do you think China would operate as we do? The UN? No, THEY would brutally exert their rules.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As for us needing to help keep unity - your cryptic question makes little sense. I’d be happy to answer it, but it is jibberish. Shining light on the point of view to help keep unity versus deciding that unity for them?

???[/quote]

Jibberish? The point is, why not hold the opinion of a balance of power, not the US taking the lead and telling others what to do? If that isn’t your stance, then it is you not being clear.

First, I never suggested that the UN be ‘disbanded’ - but then again, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. I think we need to re-evaulate what the UN should do or be expected to do in matters of international security - but I never suggested that we dismantle the UN.

Is it our place to decide what the UN should do? Yes, I think we need to bring forth any concerns we have. but what are you arguing besides the fact that the UN needs to get better? Your solution is?

[quote]
Second, what I just demonstrated was that these smaller countries [/i]don’t have a voice[/i]. Where is Tibet’s voice? Cyprus?

Smaller countries have a voice on paper - in reality, very little.[/quote]

What is their perception of their voice? If they feel they need to be heard more, then why not work towards that? Are saying anything other than this? Basically you are simply arguing that the UN needs to be reevaluated? Is this the grand revelation you’ve laid upon is? Uh, no shit.

[quote]
I never suggested that we close down this ‘open forum’. But the UN, as an institution, cannot be counted upon to keep order - its history tells us that.[/quote]

Of course. We, along with every other country with the louder voice should be working towards keeping order.

[quote]

Uh, I didn’t, but then again, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.[/quote]

Neither is originality your’s.

[quote]
I distinctly said that if Lord Acton’s rule holds true, it applies to the UN as well - giving the UN absolute power will corrupt it absolutely.[/quote]

You act as if the US has no voice in the UN. Why do you approach this from that angle?

[quote]
And I added that the UN does not take away ‘abolsute power’ from greater countries anyway, so it can’t help that fear. Quoting myself:[/quote]

Which is why the goal, much like our own system of government needs to work by a system of check and balances. That implies that all countries in power still need to work together so your point makes no sense unless one country is trying to take “absolute power”…which it seems you are implying the US should do. If not, then who is threatening this?

[quote]
But I never said that we should get rid of the UN - I suggested that the framework as it is now doesn’t keep order and it doesn’t prevent greater countries from doing whatever they want.[/quote]

As always, we (as in us and every other country) will be counted on to make sure of that.

[quote]
I don’t trust the UN to handle matters of international security because it is built on too much of a ‘value-neutral’ means of attacking international problems. [/quote]

Which means we need step up our own national security. What is your solution to any of what you are stating?

[quote]
And this nonsense of a ‘dictatorship’ is pure garbage. The US is not a global dictator. Not even close. We don’t dictate Western Europe’s foreign policy or their monetary policy. We certainly don’t tell China what to do. [/quote]

Then what, pray tell, is the grand point you are making? If you don’t want the US to take over control of these matters, then what is your solution?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Jibberish? The point is, why not hold the opinion of a balance of power, not the US taking the lead and telling others what to do? If that isn’t your stance, then it is you not being clear.[/quote]

I don’t think the US is telling other people what to do. I am going to need you to show me an example of the US telling others what to do.

Is it our place to decide what the UN should do?

Yes - do you even know what the UN is? It is not an independent institution, or it is not supposed to be. The UN does what the greater countries decide it is supposed to do - for example, the UN doesn’t get to vote in a UNSC resolution; countries do.

Yes, I think we need to bring forth any concerns we have. but what are you arguing besides the fact that the UN needs to get better? Your solution is?

I would dismantle the means and empty procedure of authorizing war and delegate that authority to multilateral alliances of like-minded countries that create their own security arrangments within a stated geographical area.

That way, if a coalition of Western countries think something is a good idea in the international arena, a Communist supergiant like China that does not even remotely share the same values can have no ‘vote’ to thwart the action (as the Soviet Union was famous for during the Cold War).

What is their perception of their voice? If they feel they need to be heard more, then why not work towards that? Are saying anything other than this? Basically you are simply arguing that the UN needs to be reevaluated? Is this the grand revelation you’ve laid upon is? Uh, no shit.

Oh, they are being heard, but nothing is done about it at the UN.

My suggestion is that the UN be relegated to a global forum and forum only, with power to coordinate among nations globally for things like food and aid distribution, epidemic work, etc.

But I would remove the joke of a system that is in place for ‘deciding’ matters of using force in the international arena.

Of course. We, along with every other country with the louder voice should be working towards keeping order.

Feckless utopianism. What happens when two greater countries disagree on what order means? China is an emerging superpower - you think they agree with the US on what is going on in Tibet as a matter of international order?

This shiny numbskullery about ‘one world speaking with one voice to help out the lesser voices and create order’ is all well and good right up until the time two huge countries disagree and draw battle lines in the sand. Then your precious blueprint falls apart - go read up on the Cold War.

Neither is originality your’s.

Yawn.

You act as if the US has no voice in the UN. Why do you approach this from that angle?

I never said the US had no voice at the UN. I am saying I don’t trust the machinery of the UN to maintain international security and order - the format of the UNSC as deciding to use force has been stalemated since the Korean War.

Which is why the goal, much like our own system of government needs to work by a system of check and balances.

That is vacuous phrase in this context. Institutional checks and balances work fine when there is overarching government: judiciary vs. legislature vs. executive power. In an international format, it doesn’t work the same.

Presumably, the UN has these checks and balances you like. Again, where is the check on Chinese aggression in Tibet? Turkish aggression in Cyprus?

Here is a lesson for you, Pro X. China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which means that if a resolution came up saying we should use force to drive China out of Tibet, China can veto it. The resolution cannot come to pass. Therefore, any use of force to expel China from Tibet would be outside the authorization of the United Nations, and your precious format has been defeated - just like that.

It doesn’t work - no matter how bad you want it to. The Cold War proved it, and China is doing the same.

You are out of your depth here, Pro X.

As always, we (as in us and every other country) will be counted on to make sure of that.

Nope - because you foolishly assume we will all be in the same side of ‘order’. Never.

Shameful, Pro X.

Which means we need step up our own national security. What is your solution to any of what you are stating?

Stronger borders, energy independence, strategic trade relationships, reduction in foreign aid, for starters.

Then what, pray tell, is the grand point you are making? If you don’t want the US to take over control of these matters, then what is your solution?

Go read up above - to decentralize security arrangements and dump the misfiring system of order and security that has embarrassed the UN since WWII.

[vroom]

You’re right, and the US does not do this. This is a fantasy you have concocted. Is the US powerful, Yes. Influential? Yes. Trying to decide for every other country what is best for them? Nope. What you charge simply isn’t happening.

Thunder,

I think you are missing the point. Nobody (here) is saying that this is what the US is actively doing right now - are they?

However, there are those on this very thread suggesting that the US should be doing this.

Instead of saying that you haven’t seen it happen yet, perhaps you could pay attention to what the people here are saying they would prefer the US to do.

However, to address your own point, I have heard the US in the news recently telling China how to behave with respect to copyright laws, human rights, North Korea and so on. I have heard the US talking about how Middle Eastern countries should behave. I’ve heard the US telling Russia how it should behave.

The US does indeed try to act as a moral authority pushing other countries to accept its values or suffer economic sanctions.

Now, be careful, I’m not suggesting this is improper, per se, but don’t you see how other countries could get annoyed – especially when the US decides to engage in practices that fall outside of the moral ethics it preaches?

This is a tough subject area. I mean, who can argue for ABSOLUTE right and wrong and yet not chastise the government for torture? People doing this are themselves moral relativists. It isn’t as bad a concept as some of the wing nuts around here like to pretend, since they do it themselves, when it suits them.

For example, some wrongs are simple and are often held up as examples to condemn other cultures. What about a wrong such as not wearing a seatbelt? Are we moral relativists when we don’t bother to wear one for a short trip around the corner?

What if we throw a recyclable container into the garbabe bin because it is inconvenient to hang onto it all day long? Perhaps countries that have citizens committing this outrageous sin should be invaded? Which outrages are really outrages?

What items are personal choice and what items are moral imperatives and who decides? How come one country gets to decide moral imperatives of another? Why not focus on those issues internally?

Sigh. It’s a huge area and I’m not even doing a good job of scratching the surface here.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I would dismantle the means and empty procedure of authorizing war and delegate that authority to multilateral alliances of like-minded countries that create their own security arrangments within a stated geographical area. [/quote]

How is this guaranteed to work better for us? We still rely on the decisions of other countries. I don’t see how this would be guaranteed to actually work to our advantage. We went to war with faulty intel. That doesn’t exactly speak that highly of our ability to decide when wars are instigated. I understand the point you are trying to make, but do you understand mine? It isn’t like our last solo mission was faultless.

[quote]
That way, if a coalition of Western countries think something is a good idea in the international arena, a Communist supergiant like China that does not even remotely share the same values can have no ‘vote’ to thwart the action (as the Soviet Union was famous for during the Cold War).[/quote]

Why do you think this wouldn’t lead to world war? Honestly, educate me on how this leads to greater peace due to China not reacting negatively.

[quote]
Oh, they are being heard, but nothing is done about it at the UN.[/quote]

I could definitely see this as a point to be raised.

[quote]
My suggestion is that the UN be relegated to a global forum and forum only, with power to coordinate among nations globally for things like food and aid distribution, epidemic work, etc.[/quote]

I actually partially agree with you on this, but I don’t think that it should have no voice whatsoever as far as the initiation of wars.

[quote]
Feckless utopianism. What happens when two greater countries disagree on what order means? China is an emerging superpower - you think they agree with the US on what is going on in Tibet as a matter of international order?

This shiny numbskullery about ‘one world speaking with one voice to help out the lesser voices and create order’ is all well and good right up until the time two huge countries disagree and draw battle lines in the sand. Then your precious blueprint falls apart - go read up on the Cold War. [/quote]

You aren’t talking to someone who has all that much faith in human nature when it comes to avoiding destruction. I don’t have some stereotypical “utopian view” that you would love to paint me with. I simply know that to avoid immediate conflict, that open forum is a necessity. We simply disagree on which matters they should actually have a voice.

Yawn.

Likewise. Your debating style isn’t exactly dazzling me either.

[quote]
That is vacuous phrase in this context. Institutional checks and balances work fine when there is overarching government: judiciary vs. legislature vs. executive power. In an international format, it doesn’t work the same.[/quote]

Agreed, but the concept shouldn’t be tossed aside as if there is no point in even presenting that perception of order.

[quote]
Here is a lesson for you, Pro X. China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which means that if a resolution came up saying we should use force to drive China out of Tibet, China can veto it. The resolution cannot come to pass. Therefore, any use of force to expel China from Tibet would be outside the authorization of the United Nations, and your precious format has been defeated - just like that.

It doesn’t work - no matter how bad you want it to. The Cold War proved it, and China is doing the same.[/quote]

So, obviously, your solution is war. Right or wrong?

[quote]
You are out of your depth here, Pro X.[/quote]

Please, quit patting yourself on the back. I am definitely not a lawyer or a potential politician, but you aren’t speaking to an idiot.

[quote]
Stronger borders, energy independence, strategic trade relationships, reduction in foreign aid, for starters.[/quote]

Reduction in foreign aid? Can we start with Iraq?

[quote]
Go read up above - to decentralize security arrangements and dump the misfiring system of order and security that has embarrassed the UN since WWII.[/quote]

Because why wait for WWIII when can get things moving now?

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]vroom wrote:
I know what I wrote, you still haven’t bothered to answer the question.

[ edit: Hedo, if your answer is never, then I’ll accept your answer as reasonably clear… ][/quote]

The answer is:

Things are improving at a reasonable pace now.

We should get out at the earlier of: 1) The time we are asked to leave by the duly elected Iraqi government; or 2) When we have determined Iraq is sufficiently stable and its own army/police are capable of keeping order.

[anon31651765]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I started this thread under the following premises: Historically, the world is significantly influenced by a hegemonic power. In the 19th century, Britain held this role, while the latter half of the 20th century was dominated by the United States. The United States has the world’s largest economy and the most powerful military. It plays a dominant role in world affairs.

I then contended that this is a good thing, because the United States is a country of laws, civil liberties, and so forth. It is my belief that, if someone is to have this power, the United States is the best choice. The other alternatives are not as desireable. If a rogue nation flouts these generally good rules, they must be dealt with, or all hell breaks loose. This is the way of history and it is the same today.

For this, I was insulted as ‘retarded’ by Prof X, who’s response was, “Your not the best simply because you say so!” How or what this has to do with anything of the thread is beyond me. Apparently, the Prof can’t accept historical fact. Another guy went ballistic because he thought I was praising British imperialism. He went so far as to say that burning women alive was acceptable, because it’s part of Hindu culture, which we must not judge (talk about the logical extremes of political correctness!). I leave both of these gentlemen to the judgment of anyone else reading this.

For those other readers I say: the world is based upon power. Who do you want to have this power? Do you want to give this power to the UN? To China? What would the world be like if one of these entities was the hegemonic power?

The decision is yours.[/quote]

Headhunter, the US is the most dominant. Is it better than North Korea? Yea, of course- or it has been for the last 50 years, even with the misgivings and imperialistic twinges that we show.

All I am saying is that I don’t think that we are doing a good job at doing it NOW. This was is the culmination of the conservative vision that has been in the works. I don’t agree with this vision- I believe that they are coopting all that can be considered “American”, and making it morally wrong to object to it, through their rhetoric and their war. I don’t think this is a good world model for the democracy that we are trying to instill.

I hope to hell that things are going good in Iraq, and I hope they get that goddamn country on its feet so we can get the fuck out of there. However, I don’t believe that profit should motivate any kind of bloodshed.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

How is this guaranteed to work better for us? We still rely on the decisions of other countries.[/quote]

Yes, we do - and we share in responsiblity for a given area. This is not a particularly tricky idea - it is the same thing as NATO essentially.

I don’t see how this would be guaranteed to actually work to our advantage. We went to war with faulty intel.

Wow. Ridiculous. You want other countries to audit our intel and policy? Which ones?

You assume way too much about the good faith between competing countries.

Moreover, enough with the idea that Iraq was based squarely on the existence of WMDs. A Senate Resolution and a UNSC Resolution say otherwise, and I’ll take that evidence over your subpar arguments.

That doesn’t exactly speak that highly of our ability to decide when wars are instigated.

This is incredible. See above.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but do you understand mine? It isn’t like our last solo mission was faultless.

What does that have to do with what we are talking about?

Why do you think an international audit comprised of countries that don’t share our goals or are compromised would better?

You think Syria should help decide whether or not we should go into Iraq?

Why do you think this wouldn’t lead to world war? Honestly, educate me on how this leads to greater peace due to China not reacting negatively.

Newsflash - the UN isn’t stopping any world war.

Example: China invades Taiwan or any smaller Eastern nation. The US and the Western European countries decide that expelling China by force is the solution. Let’s say there is broad support among many nations, even those outside the West. In fact, let’s say that every country party to the UN thinks it is good idea, except one - China.

A UNSC resolution to expel China is offered - and China vetoes it. Under your UN, no action can be taken against China - the UNSC has no resolution. Any act of force would be outside of the UN, something you think should not happen.

Your UN has no solution for this situation. Is it ok then to use force?

You aren’t talking to someone who has all that much faith in human nature when it comes to avoiding destruction. I don’t have some stereotypical “utopian view” that you would love to paint me with. I simply know that to avoid immediate conflict, that open forum is a necessity. We simply disagree on which matters they should actually have a voice.

Yes, and I am saying your version - the status quo - won’t solve the problems you think it will. See all the history of all the UN failures in matters of war. An open forum is exactly what we have right now, and it doesn’t solve the problem. Seriously, this is getting tiresome.

I am suggesting an alternative. You are expecting to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

Agreed, but the concept shouldn’t be tossed aside as if there is no point in even presenting that perception of order.

I am all ears, Pro X - how do you build a system of international checks and balances without the overarching governmental authority? I have already explained to you that the checks and balances on paper are mere illusions at the UN right now.

You have an alternative that will achieve this? No?

Please, quit patting yourself on the back. I am definitely not a lawyer or a potential politician, but you aren’t speaking to an idiot.

I’m not - but I keep explaining how the system you claim works does not work and you won’t address these problems.

China can veto a use of force to expel it from Tibet. How do you remedy that?

Reduction in foreign aid? Can we start with Iraq?

Sure, and Africa.

Because why wait for WWIII when can get things moving now?

Nope - regional, mulilateral alliances worked damn good in the Cold War. A big, sluggish system at the UN - prone to stalemates - don’t nip anything in the bud. Big meanies - for example, China - can do whatever they want with no fear that the UNSC can act because of its veto. How is that a deterrence to greater countries ithcing for a big conflict?

No country interested in WWIII or its equivalent is worried that the UN will stand in its way - not one. They worry only about the unapologetic use of force by a superior power.

Yor are defending a way that doesn’t work, Pro X - I am suggesting an alternative.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Moreover, enough with the idea that Iraq was based squarely on the existence of WMDs. A Senate Resolution and a UNSC Resolution say otherwise, and I’ll take that evidence over your subpar arguments.[/quote]

No official in their right mind would run to war with “WMD’s” as the soul reason, however, you are steadily fooling yourself if you don’t think that HUGE intel fault doesn’t shine to the rest of the world.

[quote]
Why do you think an international audit comprised of countries that don’t share our goals or are compromised would better?[/quote]

For one, why do you think “our goals” apply to everyone else? On one hand you are saying you aren’t implying that the US should take the lead and be in control, but then you keep writing your intentions that speak to the opposite. Do you or do you not want the US in control of world issues?

[quote]
Newsflash - the UN isn’t stopping any world war.

Example: China invades Taiwan or any smaller Eastern nation. The US and the Western European countries decide that expelling China by force is the solution. Let’s say there is broad support among many nations, even those outside the West. In fact, let’s say that every country party to the UN thinks it is good idea, except one - China.

A UNSC resolution to expel China is offered - and China vetoes it. Under your UN, no action can be taken against China - the UNSC has no resolution. Any act of force would be outside of the UN, something you think should not happen.[/quote]

In the situation that this were to occur, don’t you think we would have ten times the world support than what we had for Iraq? Why would you use this example when we just showed that we plan to do our own thing with a backwoods country that Saddam was in control of? Obviously, if the rest of the world was in support of our actions, there would be little resistance.

I am suggesting an alternative. You are expecting to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

Wrong, I know the result. You are suggesting a scenario that could send us directly to war now. I would rather avoid that conflict at the moment, especially with our troops and spread thin as they are now.

[quote]
I am all ears, Pro X - how do you build a system of international checks and balances without the overarching governmental authority? I have already explained to you that the checks and balances on paper are mere illusions at the UN right now.[/quote]

And those “illusions” may very well keep us out of a situation that we may not be ready for. Do you think we are ready for war with China right now? Not without a draft we aren’t.

[quote]
I’m not - but I keep explaining how the system you claim works does not work and you won’t address these problems.[/quote]

What? I wrote above that there are problems. I just don’t think getting rid of the UN and using them only as a “forum” (as you suggested) is the solution.

[quote]

Sure, and Africa.[/quote]

Like you were worried about helping them to begin with.

Nope - regional, mulilateral alliances worked damn good in the Cold War. A big, sluggish system at the UN - prone to stalemates - don’t nip anything in the bud. Big meanies - for example, China - can do whatever they want with no fear that the UNSC can act because of its veto. How is that a deterrence to greater countries ithcing for a big conflict?

Exactly how easy do you think China is to defeat in war?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

No official in their right mind would run to war with “WMD’s” as the soul reason, however, you are steadily fooling yourself if you don’t think that HUGE intel fault doesn’t shine to the rest of the world.[/quote]

I have many a sleepless afternoons over this.

For one, why do you think “our goals” apply to everyone else?

What? I think the US and other countries have different goals. China has its own goals - like communist dominance.

On one hand you are saying you aren’t implying that the US should take the lead and be in control, but then you keep writing your intentions that speak to the opposite. Do you or do you not want the US in control of world issues?

I never thought the US should be ‘in control of world issues’. I want the US to be a leader and not constrained by those countries that don’t share our values - but did I ever suggest that the US should have control? No. Other nations are free to pursue their national interests.

In the situation that this were to occur, don’t you think we would have ten times the world support than what we had for Iraq?

And here is where you show your limitations - under the UN framework, which you support, the amount of support does not matter if a Permanent Member of the UNSC vetoes the act.

How much support a given action receives is completely irrelevant as long as Permanent Members retain their veto. Every act done in contravention of that veto it outside the authority of the UN, and, thus, it makes the UN irrelevant.

What you are suggesting is that ‘support’ should be the guiding light - as in number of countries on board. Fine - but that is exactly the opposite of how the UN works at the UNSC level: no amount of popular support by a bunch of nations can override the veto.

Enough of this stupidity. Debating with you is an enormous waste of time. You claim to support the UN framework for deciding to go to war, and then I show a failing of it, and you move into a different theory that stand in complete contradiction to the way the UN does it. Unbelievable.

Why would you use this example when we just showed that we plan to do our own thing with a backwoods country that Saddam was in control of? Obviously, if the rest of the world was in support of our actions, there would be little resistance.

Again, and this has become a joke, the amount of support does not matter at the UN if one of the Permanent Members decides that it doesn’t want to go with the majority. Any action done in resistance to a Permanent Member’s veto is outside of the UN’s authorizations, which is in your mind, wrong because the UN never authorized it.

Wrong, I know the result. You are suggesting a scenario that could send us directly to war now. I would rather avoid that conflict at the moment, especially with our troops and spread thin as they are now.

With who?

And those “illusions” may very well keep us out of a situation that we may not be ready for. Do you think we are ready for war with China right now? Not without a draft we aren’t.

First, we are not at throats with China. Second, if some international event occurs that puts us at each other’s throats, what is the UN gonna do to stop it?

Explain to me what the UN can do to stop two Permanent Members of the UNSC from going to war with one another. Here is a hint: the UNSC will be stalemated.

Seriously, explain it.

Like you were worried about helping them to begin with.

You don’t know me, Pro X - so a statement like this is further proof you aren’t man enough to have a robust debate. I think one of the most pressing international issues in the world - and one of extreme national security interest - is the failing political and cultural climate of African nations.

However, I think that the aid system we have had in the past doesn’t work and only rewards corrupt governments. There is a better way.

So, go back to the sandbox and insult someone who doesn’t think you are full of shit and hot, ignorant gas. Your C minus arguments trumped up with empty arrogance have no currency with me.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

And here is where you show your limitations - under the UN framework, which you support, the amount of support does not matter if a Permanent Member of the UNSC vetoes the act.[/quote]

What you are missing, Grand Wizard of politics, is that we just defied the UN by going into Iraq which was NOT a direct threat to us. No one in America would fault a president for going against the UN if there actually was a direct threat to the US. Do you get it now? I show my limitations? You show yours by not understanding that Americans are FOR doing what is in our best interests. This country is split down the middle because of a decision that many viewed as not being in our best interest due to lives lost and faulty intel.

Yes, I am for sticking with the idea of the UN until we at least have a military that is back to the unity and strength that could even match a threat like China. I don’t see us there right now. Now you can take your ball and go home.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What you are missing, Grand Wizard of politics, is that we just defied the UN by going into Iraq which was NOT a direct threat to us.[/quote]

Moving the goal posts again, Pro X? You were talking about needing approval from other countries because and I quote “That doesn’t exactly speak that highly of our ability to decide when wars are instigated.”…

…and now you are beating your chest about the values of unilateral war so long as the people are on board?

Are you reading your own stuff? How can we not be good at deciding when our own wars should be instigated and yet be perfectly good at doing so without international approval as long as our people are behind it?

You’re finished here, Pro X. Move along before you screw it up even more.

No one in America would fault a president for going against the UN if there actually was a direct threat to the US. Do you get it now?

We decided Iraq was a direct threat - H.J. Res. 114 of the 107th Congress. Seventy seven senators authorized the war. The President had support from the people. Go look it up.

I show my limitations? You show yours by not understanding that Americans are FOR doing what is in our best interests.

Yep, and I am fine even with doing even when the UN is not on board.

This country is split down the middle because of a decision that many viewed as not being in our best interest due to lives lost and faulty intel.

Then call your Senator - they authorized the move.

Yes, I am for sticking with the idea of the UN until we at least have a military that is back to the unity and strength that could even match a threat like China.

Jesus Christ, Pro X, you just said you would support a measure outside the UN if the ‘people’ supported it.

Seriously, you’re done.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Thunder- what is your alternative then?

You would like a stronger UN? Or the US to act unilaterally more often, because the UN is corrupt?[/quote]

Irish,

As I stated above, the quick version:

1. Dismantle the UNSC ‘voting’ requirement of authorization of war and make the UNSC’s vote akin to a GA resolution with no expectation that it controls. A UNSC resolution would be a way of communicating consequences as in “if you invade, those of us in NATO will use force to expel you”. “And we will, too” says the Pacific League (I made them up).
2. Focus on regional, multilateral organizations that cover an area, a la NATO.
3. Let the UN focus on humanitarian assistance, relief, etc.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

What you are missing, Grand Wizard of politics, is that we just defied the UN by going into Iraq which was NOT a direct threat to us.

Moving the goal posts again, Pro X? You were talking about needing approval from other countries because and I quote “That doesn’t exactly speak that highly of our ability to decide when wars are instigated.”…[/quote]

How am I moving goal posts? We are still talking about you want America to leave the UN behind and accept the leadership role on world issues. I haven’t moved anything. That is a very weak response anytime you get pissed at a point I make.

[quote]
…and now you are beating your chest about the values of unilateral war so long as the people are on board?[/quote]

I am for the protection of this country. If Iraq was actually a direct threat to the US, I would be all for us kicking the UN to the curb, going to war and losing over 2 thousand lives to protect this country. That is NOT what happened. We went to war with faulty intel and we now found out that they were nowhere near capable of hurting the US.

[quote]
Are you reading your own stuff? How can we not be good at deciding when our own wars should be instigated and yet be perfectly good at doing so without international approval as long as our people are behind it?[/quote]

What? That is the complete difference between running to war because somebody screwed up intel and going to war because we are at a direct risk of being attacked by another country. Yes, I would be all for going against the UN if we were at risk. What don’t you get? That isn’t moving goal posts, that is the fucking truth.

You’re finished here, Pro X. Move along before you screw it up even more.

You wish I was finished. You haven’t shown anything but that you think the UN is useless when it comes to the initiation of war. Because I don’t agree with you that makes my comments worthless? Says who?

We decided Iraq was a direct threat - H.J. Res. 114 of the 107th Congress. Seventy seven senators authorized the war. The President had support from the people. Go look it up.[/quote]

And now many of those same people are calling it a mistake. What are you missing?

[quote]Yes, I am for sticking with the idea of the UN until we at least have a military that is back to the unity and strength that could even match a threat like China.

Jesus Christ, Pro X, you just said you would support a measure outside the UN if the ‘people’ supported it.

Seriously, you’re done.

Did the short bus let out early? Is anyone else in the dark about why I wouldn’t mind going against the UN if our country was truly at risk of an attack?

[harris447]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
So you think that every time there is a problem, that the fed should jump in and fix it?

No, I don’t…just like I don’t think that anyone needs to start promoting the concept that we are the “World Police” when we have our own problems right here at home. It is funny how you seem to straddle the line.

You don’t expect the Feds to jump in for every little problem but do expect America to run around the globe and make everyone think and act like us. I think it is a very catchy phrase that makes our actions in Iraq look better. I don’t think the “World Police” do much more than play politics.

Who’s talking about running the globe? I’m talking about having international rules that all nations respect. That’s a far cry from being the Empire in a ‘Star Wars’ movie. Your post is asinine.

[/quote]

International rules that all nationsrespect? You mean like being signatories to the World Court, or the Kyoto Treaty?

[vroom]

[quote]The answer is:

Things are improving at a reasonable pace now.

We should get out at the earlier of: 1) The time we are asked to leave by the duly elected Iraqi government; or 2) When we have determined Iraq is sufficiently stable and its own army/police are capable of keeping order. [/quote]

Boston, trying to answer for Hedo now?

Anyhow, nice talking points. Perhaps you could answer the question as asked instead of playing politician and redefining the question to fit your talking points.

Wait, never mind this conversation has already been had – between the parties involved even…

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Nobody (here) is saying that this is what the US is actively doing right now - are they?

However, there are those on this very thread suggesting that the US should be doing this.
[/quote]

Damn vroom - you have been embarassed on this thread so many times that it’s actually sad, yet you keep on going.

You have put forth the idea that the U.S. employs a ‘might makes right’ foreign policy. So yes, there are people on here saying that ‘this is what the U.S. is doing right now’. You are one of them.

Geez, boy - is your memory really that bad, or are just doing your best John Kerry immitation?