Not supporting the war BUT supporting our troops

[manu1959]

They would have to make one policy that actually works. :duh3:

well pick a policy and give us your fix.....

 

[The ClayTaurus]

well pick a policy and give us your fix.....

A little increased diplomacy would be nice, this whole with us or against us chest beating thing is inspiring at first, but it's too simplistic a worldview today - at least in my opinion.

 

[Annie]

A little increased diplomacy would be nice, this whole with us or against us chest beating thing is inspiring at first, but it's too simplistic a worldview today - at least in my opinion.

I would like to know just how much more diplomacy could be tried? It's not like this or previous administrations had not attempted to get the UN, NATO, etc to engage, shoulder some of the responsibility-thus being involved and committed. Unfortunately while long suspected, it's been revealed just how corrupt the UN and many key players were; regarding not only Iraq and the Oil for Food program, but many others also-including some in the IAEA.

When the wolves are guarding the sheep, there are problems in dealing with these kinds of 'protectors'-we won't even go into the UN troops that were involved in raping and looting. Yet over and over again, the most 'sensible', keep arguing for 'diplomacy.' With whom? Chirac? Schroeder? Putin?

We have a wide coalition, with the exception of US, UK, AU, Japan, and Italy, they are fledgling democracies, without much money/armies to back them up. One bonus on this, they weren't the ones corrupted by the 'international coalition.'

The US has made mistakes, many of them in the past regarding dictators and regimes. When made, they were thought to be in our own interests or for our own expediency. I think we are still seeing the vestigages of this in Saudi Arabia, but those misconceptions are falling and fast. 9/11 really did change many things and people. Just like we do not have to wait for the UN to 'act'; we are also free to act because we have the long built up military that others do not.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I would like to know just how much more diplomacy could be tried? It's not like this or previous administrations had not attempted to get the UN, NATO, etc to engage, shoulder some of the responsibility-thus being involved and committed. Unfortunately while long suspected, it's been revealed just how corrupt the UN and many key players were; regarding not only Iraq and the Oil for Food program, but many others also-including some in the IAEA.

When the wolves are guarding the sheep, there are problems in dealing with these kinds of 'protectors'-we won't even go into the UN troops that were involved in raping and looting. Yet over and over again, the most 'sensible', keep arguing for 'diplomacy.' With whom? Chirac? Schroeder? Putin?

We have a wide coalition, with the exception of US, UK, AU, Japan, and Italy, they are fledgling democracies, without much money/armies to back them up. One bonus on this, they weren't the ones corrupted by the 'international coalition.'

The US has made mistakes, many of them in the past regarding dictators and regimes. When made, they were thought to be in our own interests or for our own expediency. I think we are still seeing the vestigages of this in Saudi Arabia, but those misconceptions are falling and fast. 9/11 really did change many things and people. Just like we do not have to wait for the UN to 'act'; we are also free to act because we have the long built up military that others do not.

So what's your solution then? Close our ears to anyone who disagrees with us? There's no denying that there is corruption around the world, but you can't go on indefinitely shunning countries. At least I don't think you can. We don't have the money for it.

 

[Annie]

So what's your solution then? Close our ears to anyone who disagrees with us? There's no denying that there is corruption around the world, but you can't go on indefinitely shunning countries. At least I don't think you can. We don't have the money for it.

You deal with those that do understand and yes, ignor those that are arguing from a postition of corruption or worse. Diplomacy is ongoing, whether one recognizes it or not, Iraq was a major diplomatic move. No doubt, those that truly believed we would not act, now know we will. That will be taken into consideration from now on.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You deal with those that do understand and yes, ignor those that are arguing from a postition of corruption or worse. Diplomacy is ongoing, whether one recognizes it or not, Iraq was a major diplomatic move. No doubt, those that truly believed we would not act, now know we will. That will be taken into consideration from now on.

And is that working right now? Perhaps in 20 years you can look me up and send me a "I told you so" letter. I actually hope this happens.

 

[manu1959]

A little increased diplomacy would be nice, this whole with us or against us chest beating thing is inspiring at first, but it's too simplistic a worldview today - at least in my opinion.

so was 12 years of diplomacy and 18 UN resolutions was not enough....fair enough......how many times do you ask your son to clean his room before you threaten him....before you clean it for him?

 

[Annie]

And is that working right now? Perhaps in 20 years you can look me up and send me a "I told you so" letter. I actually hope this happens.

Well the other brought us 9/11; USS Cole; African Embassies; Beirut; WTC I; Gulf War I, (which we and the 'civilized' world obviously learned little from)....

 

[Said1]

A little increased diplomacy would be nice, this whole with us or against us chest beating thing is inspiring at first, but it's too simplistic a worldview today - at least in my opinion.

Define more?


Diplomacy tends to involve trade offs, in the form of agreements. Give and take.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

so was 12 years of diplomacy and 18 UN resolutions was not enough....fair enough......how many times do you ask your son to clean his room before you threaten him....before you clean it for him?

That's not really the original point I was trying to get at. More or less, I can agree with the fact that diplomacy to Iraq failed. My personal opinion is that the diplomacy was not performed well, but the point is diplomacy failed, and so starting the war to make a point I can understand.

My problem is, I don't believe that the solution that applied in Iraq is one that applies even to the rest of the middle east, let alone the world. Diplomacy is still being tried with North Korea, after all.

I guess I feel that, with this administration, and probably Clinton's as well, but certainly this administration, the diplomatic skill level is relatively low. And when it ultimately fails, the feeling is to turn everything into a dichotomy, and I just don't think the world is that simple. The world can not be divided into with us or against us. Obviously there is disagreeance on that.

 

[Said1]

That's not really the original point I was trying to get at. More or less, I can agree with the fact that diplomacy to Iraq failed. My personal opinion is that the diplomacy was not performed well, but the point is diplomacy failed, and so starting the war to make a point I can understand.

My problem is, I don't believe that the solution that applied in Iraq is one that applies even to the rest of the middle east, let alone the world. Diplomacy is still being tried with North Korea, after all.

I guess I feel that, with this administration, and probably Clinton's as well, but certainly this administration, the diplomatic skill level is relatively low. And when it ultimately fails, the feeling is to turn everything into a dichotomy, and I just don't think the world is that simple. The world can not be divided into with us or against us. Obviously there is disagreeance on that.

Again, diplomcay is give AND take......list the reasons WHY diplomcay failed to have an impact on wheather or not Saddam complied with agreements that kept him in power? Simply saying diplomcay failed is not good enough, you are not addressing the reasons for failure or why it was so low.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Again, diplomcay is give AND take......list the reasons WHY diplomcay failed to have an impact on wheather or not Saddam complied with agreements that kept him in power? Simply saying diplomcay failed is not good enough, you are not addressing the reasons for failure or why it was so low.

Diplomacy didn't fail. The Bush administration never tried diplomacy. Saddam kept his agreement to stop WMD and nuclear programs. The Bush Administration's attempt at diplomacy was giving Saddam an ultimatum to "disarm" his WMD, which he never had, and then using military force to take him out of power. What great diplomacy.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Again, diplomcay is give AND take......list the reasons WHY diplomcay failed to have an impact on wheather or not Saddam complied with agreements that kept him in power? Simply saying diplomcay failed is not good enough, you are not addressing the reasons for failure or why it was so low.

I think a large portion of the failure is because our diplomats aren't well skilled. That's not a Bush thing or a Clinton thing.

I think we made a mistake after the first time Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors. If ever there was a time to invade a country, it'd be after a bone-head move like that.

I also think the job should have been finished the first time around in the early 90's... but that's a bit of arm-chair quarterbacking on my part.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Diplomacy didn't fail. The Bush administration never tried diplomacy. Saddam kept his agreement to stop WMD and nuclear programs. The Bush Administration's attempt at diplomacy was giving Saddam an ultimatum to "disarm" his WMD, which he never had, and then using military force to take him out of power. What great diplomacy.

Perhaps, but he was a total asshole about it. Anytime a country is under the microscope like Iraq was, you have to be a pretty big dick to be kicking out UN weapon inspectors. The war should have started the day after he kicked out inspectors the first time.

 

[Said1]

Diplomacy didn't fail. The Bush administration never tried diplomacy. Saddam kept his agreement to stop WMD and nuclear programs. The Bush Administration's attempt at diplomacy was giving Saddam an ultimatum to "disarm" his WMD, which he never had, and then using military force to take him out of power. What great diplomacy.

WMD were not the only terms to the Ceasefire Agreement, the no-fly zone restrictions were violated as well, these things also ensured his continued rule of Iraq.

 

[Said1]

I think a large portion of the failure is because our diplomats aren't well skilled. That's not a Bush thing or a Clinton thing.

I think you're wrong, Saddam did get a pretty sweet deal the first time.The UN made out pretty good too, who also happened to play a role in "diplomacy" the first time. The continued flow of oil and captial into global (i.e: our) econmies was secured as well. I think that's pretty freeken good, IMHO.

I think we made a mistake after the first time Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors. If ever there was a time to invade a country, it'd be after a bone-head move like that.

I don't know, timing is everything. Then there's the UN, and those who supported them on all sides. The UN controlled oodles of petro dollars, I would speculate that discontinuing oil for food would be bad for a lot of people.

I also think the job should have been finished the first time around in the early 90's... but that's a bit of arm-chair quarterbacking on my part.

Sure, but who would replace him?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Sure, but who would replace him?

Me?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

WMD were not the only terms to the Ceasefire Agreement, the no-fly zone restrictions were violated as well, these things also ensured his continued rule of Iraq.

WMD may not have been the only terms of the ceasefire agreement, but they were the only terms of the invasion. We knew then and we know now that those terms were bogus.

The Bush admin's definition of "diplomacy" was give an impossible ultimatum they could never meet and then invade. I fail to see the "give and take" in that.

US Demanding An "Occupation Agreement?"

 

[Said1]

WMD may not have been the only terms of the ceasefire agreement, but they were the only terms of the invasion. We knew then and we know now that those terms were bogus.

The Bush admin's definition of "diplomacy" was give an impossible ultimatum they could never meet and then invade. I fail to see the "give and take" in that.

US Demanding An "Occupation Agreement?"

Clearly, you fail to see a lot of things.


Let's break this down a little more, from the beginning, player by player (I know this is a very simplified version of events, but it puts things in perspective....just a little).

Positive impacts resulting from ceasefire agreements, upon whom:

UN= oil for food = control of oodles of petrol dollars (approx 72%, 2.2% covers administration of the UN Office, 0.8% funds the UN arms inspectors in Iraq) dispersed in just about anyway they see fit, in compliance with sanctioned items, and above noted exceptions.

Saddam = Complying with Cease Fire Agreement = retains power + some control of petro dollars to spend on what he wants (outside the realm of sanctions of course. LOL.)since the UN is in control of shopping for food and other nessesities for his country.

USA/Britain (specifically) = protected interests in area + preventing threat of theocratic take over, which would, in effect have a negative impact on other countries faced with the same threat i.e: Saudi Arabia.


World = flow of oil + capital from the middle east into their economies = good

Now, we all know the inspectors didn't finish their job in Iraq. At the time they left Iraq, it was also extremely apparent that Saddam wasn't going to comply with anything peacefully regardless of what was found and how many ceasefire terms he violated. To me, that would terminate any preceeding agreements ensuring his rule of Iraq.

Question: Who stands to lose the most in the above scenario?

On the other hand, I could be wrong about everything. Saddam might really be an nice guy trapped in an evil dictators body, I guess we'll never know now, thanks to failed diplomcay.

 

[manu1959]

WMD may not have been the only terms of the ceasefire agreement, but they were the only terms of the invasion. We knew then and we know now that those terms were bogus.

The Bush admin's definition of "diplomacy" was give an impossible ultimatum they could never meet and then invade. I fail to see the "give and take" in that.

US Demanding An "Occupation Agreement?"

read resolution 1 through 18 written by the UN security council and the terms of the cease fire of gulf war I ...... after 12 years bush said fuck it we are going to do something about this ......

if gore had been elected would the WTC's have been attacked....the answer is yes OBL delared war on the US during the clinto admin. the WTC attack was coming no matter who was in charge....or had you forgotten the first attack....the question is would gore have attacked afganistan? and when they all fled to iraq......would he still be at the un talking?