What do the Dem's mean when they say Internationalize?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by kcmcdonald, Feb 16, 2004.

  1. kcmcdonald
    Online

    kcmcdonald Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I was watching the Pres. Debate last night and kept hearing something over and over. When given the question on how the canadites would resolve the "War on Terror and the Iraq situation" each one of them kept saying they would gho to the UN and internationalize this whole "War."

    I just want to elaborate on this whole idea of internationalizing. It means that we give in to the will of the international comunnity(i.e the UN). That we give over all rights of security and inteligence to the international community. THe Dem's want to give over all the money that we have dumped into Iraq to the UN. They want to give the Contracts to the UN and allow the UN rites and resposibillity over our troops in Iraq. With out seeming to conservative, this is a bad idea.

    The UN hasproven time and time again that it is incapable of doing peace keeping missions(or in the case of Iraq security missions). I would like to state that the UN has tried this "Nation Building" type of front before. They have never really been a trusted group of people(something about those blue helmets) so in response they get attacked. Now the job of a peace keeper is to make sure no shots are fired. Not to shot back to keep order. Some may think that the definition of a peace keeper is to use force to maintian peace. In this I would agree with you, However the UN seems to disagree. Every time they have run into problems they tuck tail and pull out in a blink of an eye. These people have been responsible for many atrocities across the world. Because of inaction or screwed up action(i.e Balkans, Somalia, Africa, basically anypalce they have taken jurisdiction) The UN has been unable to keep the peace or finish the Job. Usally the grunt work is picked up by foriegn armies(mostly US and NATO forces). We had to go back to the Balkans twice. THe UN also had a contingency(not military) in Iraq. The first time trouble came it's way they ran away. Because of it's nature the UN has not the cabablity to Manage Iraq. Even if they did do it(which is unlikely) it would be under a US lead force with a US comander and comand force. That's a;ready in afect there and we don't have to answer to France and Germany now.

    THey would also give over the Oil money to the UN. Now I now most poeple would agree with me that the UN while in controle of "THe Oil for Food Program" from 91-03 is a shinning example of inefitioncy(spelling?). They were many violations on Saddam's half and on the half of the UN contractors(France was a major one;) ;) ). To give over the Billions of Dollars that this comdity will bring to the UN is not a smart move. Yes in some eye's the UN is the beacon of humanitarian aid. But that is because the US leads the UN in donations to Humanitarian aid, and Disrpesion of those resources.

    Now, We the US, had the foresight and leadership to put our foot down and say to the Terroist regimes that the US will not stand ideally by and let them dictate world policy. Since it is our troops dying over there. And our leadership which is helping these Iraqies deal with their new freedom. It is only right that the US take Sole responsibility of Reconstrution and secruity. All i have to say is that the US has a much better Nation building record than the UN. Germany and France and most of western Europe after WW2. Japan #2 economy in the world, Germany #3 in the world.
    with time and determination Iraq and Afganistan will be the shinning light of a capitalist democracy in a region wich despritly needs it.

    KC:bye1:
     
  2. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    Perhaps you could give a little proof of your claims. And not just overgeneralized evidence either.

    It may surprise you, but I agree with pretty much everything else you said.
     
  3. kcmcdonald
    Online

    kcmcdonald Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm sorry

    presidential debate from wisconson.

    sorry i can't find a transcript from the debate. :(
     
  4. Fletch
    Offline

    Fletch Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    58
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Boston
    Ratings:
    +0
  5. kcmcdonald
    Online

    kcmcdonald Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Edwards on what we should do in Iraq
    Kusinich on Iraq
    Kerry on winning war on terror
    Kussinich on his presidency
    I could keep going on and on but these will suffice. These men will lead us down the road of internationalizing america's foriegn policy. That is the most dangerous thing in the world, do we really want france and Geramny decided what it's OK for the us to do or not do?:D
     
  6. kcmcdonald
    Online

    kcmcdonald Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Thaks Fletch:mm:
     
  7. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    Great, I am glad he will sign all those. But what in the hell good will that be when we know there are groups and countries that either:

    a) Will not sign nor let us verify

    or

    b) Sign and then just hide everything

    Such a dope he is!
     
  8. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    Notice I said not "overgeneralized evidence". First, Kucinich is worthless. He represents what democrats believe about as much as Bush does. Next Edwards was saying that we will let the rest of the world share the burden, as they should have done in the first place, he did not say that everything that has to do with Iraq should be handed over to the UN.
     
  9. kcmcdonald
    Online

    kcmcdonald Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    wait till there is a head to head against bush. you'll see what i'm taking about.
    And look at what edwards says "internationalize" it means what it says, give over power to the UN.
     
  10. phadras
    Offline

    phadras Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Messages:
    270
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +17
    tuck tail and run... The left is bankrupt of patriotism and utterly devoid of morality... Maybe they should internationalize their party and let the Chinese Communists run for President... The resultant foreign policy would be identical to the gutless ideas of the Amerikan left...
     

Share This Page