Iraq II

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I've said this before, I know it may seem trivial in the grand scheme of debates around here. But we were in Rwanda.

Doing what? The world complained that we didn't do anything about Rwanda though. But anyway no one solved any of the problems there - whether you were there or not. When were you there?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Yes, that is the current state of the UN. However, I strongly believe that it could become a useful force for good in the world if it had the full support of most powerful countries. The US is highly influential, but I do not believe the US supports it. I don't think the US would want any international body having authority over it, but this is what the UN would need to be effective - authority in certain areas over all member countries. With support, the UN could be awesome.

As it stands, the UN is like an anti Tragedy of the Commons. (That is where an individual gains 100% of the benefits of overusing a resource, but the cost of the overuse is borne by all. For example, putting one too many cows on a communal pasture.)
With the UN, 100% of the cost of supporting it is borne by each member country (by the money or soldiers they contribute), while the benefit is shared among the world community. Sadly, this is why it is rational not support the UN.
If the UN was established by the world community, we would be one step closer for the world being more united and understanding. In the long run, imprisoning dictators would be much less expensive. The US should not have to bear the whole cost of the 'war on terrorism', not should they be completely in charge of it. It is worth the initial cost of doing something seemingly irrational, and supporting the UN.
This whole thing is relevant because I think it should have been an international body leading the war on Iraq. Because of the UN's current state, I concede that they were not ready to lead this mission. However, rather than continuing the fight against terrorism alone (or with only a few real allies like Britain and Japan), the US should become a strong voice supporting the UN. If Bush was a strong supporter, American people would probably come to see the UN in a different light (rather than 30% approval).

This is what I'm sick of. Why does the world need the US to endorse, support, come to the rescue of any other country? The rest of the world relies on the US for too much!!!

Financially, they expect the US to dole out money for this or that. And in a combat situation, they expect American men and women to lay down their lives for the rest of the world, while they and we get spit on for our effort.

Nerdanel just got done telling us that the US should concentrate on it's homeless, and shouldn't have power over any other country (which I agree, and we don't). But now you want us to now influence the UN by showing support. Which do you people want? No influence or influence? Make up your minds.

As for my opinion, most of you know, I would like to see all troops removed from foreign soil, especially Europe. And I would like us to only defend our own interests and borders... and let the world fend for itself. True, it will be painful for them at first, and costly, but in the end, they will be stronger for it. And they'll not have the US to blame when they fall flat on their asses.

[Hemel]

other countries look at what is in their self interest

Mm-hmm I'm sure.

But is this sentiment really appropriate if the US is the world's police? Or reassuring if the US is the most powerful?

Just wondering ...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Hemel
Mm-hmm I'm sure.

But is this sentiment really appropriate if the US is the world's police? Or reassuring if the US is the most powerful?

Just wondering ...

Why? You afraid America will invade? We haven't invaded Canada and we could if we were like the old Soviet Union. We could have taken over all of Western Europe - if we had been like they were, or the way the Soviet Union was. But we don't take over countries and the goal of Iraq is not to take over - but to build a democracy there and give the people freedoms.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Ruinel

As for my opinion, most of you know, I would like to see all troops removed from foreign soil, especially Europe. And I would like us to only defend our own interests and borders... and let the world fend for itself. True, it will be painful for them at first, and costly, but in the end, they will be stronger for it. And they'll not have the US to blame when they fall flat on their asses.

So then are you saying that we never should have invaded Iraq? What about Afghanistan? Or do you include those in your "own interests" exception? Does oil count as an "own interest"? would you be ok with having the cost of gas go up to $15 a gallon? Are you also saying that whenever we do stuff its almost always in the interest of other countries and not ours? Oh and then are you saying when there are horrible massacres in other countries where millions are threatened and killed we should just let it happen because its not our problem?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why should the UN or any outside body - unelected at that - rule over the US. It goes against our sovereignty. And yes - the UN is not looked at well in the US - it only has a 30% approval rating in America.

When the UN stops electing ridiculous countries to positions like the Disarmement Committee or the Human Rights Committee - we may have more faith in it.

Maybe the UN needs to be completely revamped then. All member countries could participate in electing the positions. (Though I was under the impression that this was already the case. If you don't like who was elected, well, that's democracy sometimes. Many Americans did not vote for Bush, for example.)

Well the US is not going to WAIT for the UN and the rest of the world to get off it's ass.

If the UN was different, according to what I proposed, maybe you wouldn't need to wait for them.

BTW - the UN was proposed by the US.

A good idea too. But you still don't support it now.

We have SIXTY countries supporting us in Iraq. The whole thing that we have no one supporting us is completely erroneous.

I didn't say no one supported you, I said Japan and Britain do. Everyone else is just paying lip service. Having only a few allies isn't necessarily wrong, given what I said about the UN, it's just how it is.

We didn't support the UN under Clinton either. Clinton was much more UN friendly. It's the fact that the UN moans and groans about the US - but then doesn't do anything without the US. We are the LARGEST supporter of the UN - when it comes to supplying material and everything.

I only said Bush because he is the current President. He could drum up support, as Clinton could have if he had chosen to do so.
You certainly deserve credit for giving the support you do. It is important and necessary. The lack of support I was referring to is allowing yourselves to be governed by the UN with respect to war. I strongly believe that a (competant) UN should be in charge of attacks on horrible dictators as well as organizing the rebuilding of the country.
The UN is currently incompetant. That is why I don't begrudge you taking the lead, but it is also why it needs your support in terms of sovereignity. If all members gave power to the UN by allowing them to be a world governing body, we would all be on the same footing.

You don't need to have nuclear weapons or a strong army or anything. YOu have us to protect you and you rely on that A LOT.

We could defend ourselves against many countries, just not a few like China, Britain, or you guys... *looks around warily* (Just kidding on that last part ) We could have a large army if we needed one.

This is off topic, but I'll answer it. You have hug problems in your health care. You have a shortage of doctors because everyone is leaving. Also - you may find it amazing - but no one in the US is denied health care either - this is why we have mexicans crossing the border to have babies.

Off topic answer, but I wasn't criticizing yours or anyone else's healthcare system when I said that. I only mentioned it because Medicare is a cultural icon for many Canadians. (I would start of thread if I meant my comment to be a point of contention, but I did not.)

Where are you from Eärniel? I don't know anything about Rwanda.

EDIT: Left out important things... and suddenly can't type.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Hemel
Mm-hmm I'm sure.

But is this sentiment really appropriate if the US is the world's police? Or reassuring if the US is the most powerful?

Just wondering ...

How about you people policing yourselves, btw. Why does the world always look to the US to get them out of a jam? I don't understand this.

[Hemel]

Why? You afraid America will invade? We haven't invaded Canada and we could if we were like the old Soviet Union. We could have taken over all of Western Europe - if we had been like they were, or the way the Soviet Union was. But we don't take over countries and the goal of Iraq is not to take over - but to build a democracy there and give the people freedoms.

Well, as there are jokes already about the UK being the 51st state I dare say we need not fear invasion from you here.

With respect to you, JD, I think that you and I have a fundamental difference. Credit to you, for believing so strongly in your country and in what it does. But I'm sure you'll understand that not everyone sees things in exactly the same way.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I didn't say no one supported you, I said Japan and Britain do. Everyone else is just paying lip service. Having only a few allies isn't necessarily wrong, given what I said about the UN, it's just how it is.

The eastern European countries (former Soviet satellites) are generally more supportive of us there than the western European countries. I think they have a better idea of what the Iraqi people have been going through - from relatively recent personal experience.

The UN has let itself become what it has become. I don't see any easy correction for it.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
So then are you saying that we never should have invaded Iraq? What about Afghanistan? Or do you include those in your "own interests" exception? Does oil count as an "own interest"? would you be ok with having the cost of gas go up to $15 a gallon? Are you also saying that whenever we do stuff its almost always in the interest of other countries and not ours? Oh and then are you saying when there are horrible massacres in other countries where millions are threatened and killed we should just let it happen because its not our problem?

What I'm saying is.. that obviously the rest of the world did not care that Saddam was killing the Kurds or anyone else. They didn't care that Saddam was torturing people or unjustly imprisoning his opposition. So, why should the US care? We're part of the UN, aren't we? So, if the UN says that the death of the Kurds, the Shi'ites (sp?), his opponents, anyone else in Iraq were acceptable losses, then why should the US go against that?

And if the UN doesn't care that there are mass murders sanctioned by the current ruling government in any other country, then why should the US stand against that decision?

The gas question is going to go a little off topic, but actually, I'd like to see changes in the current combustion engine and a release from the addiction to oil as a primary source of fuel.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
The gas question is going to go a little off topic, but actually, I'd like to see changes in the current combustion engine and a release from the addiction to oil as a primary source of fuel.

T'would be a HECK of a withdrawal...

And frankly... I'm both glad and proud that the US still DOES care about all these oppressed folks around the world... even if the UN or particular other countries do not.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Valandil
T'would be a HECK of a withdrawal...

And frankly... I'm both glad and proud that the US still DOES care about all these oppressed folks around the world... even if the UN or particular other countries do not.

But it's unfortunate that the rest of the world is so focused on bashing the US that they can't see all the horror of this world for themselves.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Ruinel
What I'm saying is.. that obviously the rest of the world did not care that Saddam was killing the Kurds or anyone else. They didn't care that Saddam was torturing people or unjustly imprisoning his opposition. So, why should the US care? We're part of the UN, aren't we? So, if the UN says that the death of the Kurds, the Shi'ites (sp?), his opponents, anyone else in Iraq were acceptable losses, then why should the US go against that?

And if the UN doesn't care that there are mass murders sanctioned by the current ruling government in any other country, then why should the US stand against that decision?

The gas question is going to go a little off topic, but actually, I'd like to see changes in the current combustion engine and a release from the addiction to oil as a primary source of fuel.

The problem here, is that you didn't care either until the 11th in September.
You didn't go to a war becuase he was toturing people, he was doing that a long time before, and US knew it.

Don't get me wrong, I' not saying USA did something wrong. Just saying that US didn';t go to the war because Saddam tortured his citizens.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
The problem here, is that you didn't care either until the 11th in September.
You didn't go to a war becuase he was toturing people, he was doing that a long time before, and US knew it.

Yeah, we'd been there in that area before. And we were in Bosnia, too. Something the Europeans should have taken care of themselves, thank you.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by sun-star
We did that up to the 1930s, and you're right, it's no fun. Maybe France should take their turn now

Now I know you don't seriously mean that We would have to all start wearing those ugly berets Besides I'd like to see my next birthday

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Maybe the UN needs to be completely revamped then. All member countries could participate in electing the positions. (Though I was under the impression that this was already the case. If you don't like who was elected, well, that's democracy sometimes. Many Americans did not vote for Bush, for example.)

WQe don't vote for the UN representative - nor is the UN or any outside organization included in our Constitution. We are a MEMBER of the UN - that is all. The UN has no power over other countries.

If the UN was different, according to what I proposed, maybe you wouldn't need to wait for them.

A good idea too. But you still don't support it now.

We are a soverign nation and will be responsible for our self interests - thank you very much.

I didn't say no one supported you, I said Japan and Britain do. Everyone else is just paying lip service. Having only a few allies isn't necessarily wrong, given what I said about the UN, it's just how it is.

Oh - so who is giving lip service? Poland has troops, italy, birtiain, australia, norway, other have financially supported us.

I only said Bush because he is the current President. He could drum up support, as Clinton could have if he had chosen to do so.

As you said - we have elected presidents - don't you think their OPINIONS represent the majority of Americans?

You certainly deserve credit for giving the support you do. It is important and necessary. The lack of support I was referring to is allowing yourselves to be governed by the UN with respect to war. I strongly believe that a (competant) UN should be in charge of attacks on horrible dictators as well as organizing the rebuilding of the country.
The UN is currently incompetant. That is why I don't begrudge you taking the lead, but it is also why it needs your support in terms of sovereignity. If all members gave power to the UN by allowing them to be a world governing body, we would all be on the same footing.

Why would then - when half the member countries in the UN are ruled by these dictators. :roilleyes:

We could defend ourselves against many countries, just not a few like China, Britain, or you guys... *looks around warily* (Just kidding on that last part ) We could have a large army if we needed one.

Yopu feel you don't need one. And there are a lot more countries YOU can't defend yourself against if it wasn't for us.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
The problem here, is that you didn't care either until the 11th in September.
You didn't go to a war becuase he was toturing people, he was doing that a long time before, and US knew it.

Don't get me wrong, I' not saying USA did something wrong. Just saying that US didn';t go to the war because Saddam tortured his citizens.

Well we wanted to finish hinm off in 1991 - but was prevented by the world. The coalition said they would not support us going after him and that was not part of the goal. So we didn't. We started to support the uprising of the shi'ites, but then didn't because of world opinion.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
When the UN stops electing ridiculous countries to positions like the Disarmement Committee or the Human Rights Committee - we may have more faith in it.

Or when they stick up for and put their foot down when resolutions they passed are broken.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As you said - we have elected presidents - don't you think their OPINIONS represent the majority of Americans?

their ELECTION didnt even represent the majority of americans.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Hemel
Well, as there are jokes already about the UK being the 51st state I dare say we need not fear invasion from you here.

Don't you mean the 52nd state? Canada already occupies the 51st place.

With respect to you, JD, I think that you and I have a fundamental difference. Credit to you, for believing so strongly in your country and in what it does. But I'm sure you'll understand that not everyone sees things in exactly the same way.

I understand others don't. I think most of the people who don't see what the US is doing as good for the world - are very nearsighted.