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

[kcmcdonald]

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

 

[Palestinian Jew]

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.

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.

 

[kcmcdonald]

I'm sorry

presidential debate from wisconson.

sorry i can't find a transcript from the debate.

 

[Fletch]

Here ya go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44506-2004Feb15.html


Sorry you may have to sign up for something. Otherwise just use google it is right there.

 

[kcmcdonald]

Edwards on what we should do in Iraq

What we will do, when I'm president of the United States, is we will change this course. We will bring in the rest of the world we will internationalize this effort. We will bring NATO in to provide security

Kusinich on Iraq

to say that I intend to bring those troops home by going to the U.N. and giving up control of the oil, letting the U.N. handle that on an interim basis on behalf of the Iraqi people, letting the U.N. handle the contracts

We must pay for what we destroyed, pay for a U.N. peacekeeping mission, and provide reparations for innocent civilian non-combatants who lost their lives.

Kerry on winning war on terror

the war on terror is not going to be completely won until we have the greatest level of cooperation we've ever had globally.

Kussinich on his presidency

I'll work to eliminate all nuclear weapons and confirm the Non- Proliferation Treaty. I'll sign the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the small-arms treaty, the land mine treaty.

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?

 

[kcmcdonald]

Thaks Fletch

 

[freeandfun1]

Kussinich on his presidency:

]I'll work to eliminate all nuclear weapons and confirm the Non- Proliferation Treaty. I'll sign the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the small-arms treaty, the land mine treaty.

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!

 

[Palestinian Jew]

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.

 

[kcmcdonald]

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.

 

[phadras]

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...

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by phadras
Maybe they should internationalize their party and let the Chinese Communists run for President.

That's funny as some have speculated that that is just what they tried:

The Chinese connection. In September 1993, Hsia and Huang sent $60,000 in laundered and foreign money to the DNC. The next day, Gore's Chief of Staff Jack Quinn met at their behest with Shen Jueren, the head of China Resources, a company that has been linked to Chinese intelligence. Thompson's committee report describes Hsia as "an agent of the Chinese government" and Huang as having had "a direct financial relationship with the Chinese government." Thompson's committee also fingers Ted Sioeng, an Indonesian-born businessman who contributed $400,000 to the DNC between 1995 and 1996 and who sat at the head table with Gore at the Buddhist temple luncheon, as a Chinese agent. Based on these connections, some Republicans are speculating that Gore and Clinton were involved in a secret deal with the People's Republic of China that went something like this: In exchange for campaign contributions from Hsia, Huang, and Sioeng, they agreed to meet with prominent PRC officials and to make various concessions to Chinese policy. One Republican Senate staffer told me that in order to make this case, the Bush campaign and the Republican Party will begin airing the photo of Gore sitting with Sioeng and Hsia at the temple luncheon.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/11/judis-j.html

WOODWARD REPORTS HUANG AND HSIA LIKELY CHINESE AGENTS

REVELATION THAT CLINTON JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WITHELD EVIDENCE FURTHER EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE ATTEMPTED COVER-UP

Discovery Also Underscores How Thompson Hearings Failed


Today, in response to the front page story of Bob Woodward, showing Chinese espionage in the 1996 elections through possible Chinese agents John Huang and Maria Hsia, Larry Klayman, Chairman of Judicial Watch, the group that uncovered and deposed Huang, and sparked the campaign finance scandal, issued the following statement.

"Bob Woodward's excellent reporting, showing that the Clinton Justice Department (which includes the FBI) sat on intelligence information implicating John Huang and Maria Hsai as Chinese agents, shows that the current investigative failures of both the Clinton Justice Department and the Thompson Committee may be more than simple bungling. One must ask if there is a concerted government effort to cover-up the full extent of the scandal, in light of the likelihood that U.S. national security interests have been compromised. Obviously, in allowing this to possibly happen, both the White House and Congressional oversight committees bear responsibility.

This scenario is buttressed by the fact that to this date John Huang has not been questioned, much more called before any grand jury or Congressional committee. As will be apparent later today when Johnny Chung is called before the Burton Committee, when challenged witnesses will not take the Fifth Amendment, as this would present a public relations debacle for the Clinton White House. Moreover, as John Huang has already testified before Judicial Watch, a credible legal argument can be made that he cannot take the Fifth, as he has waived it.

In short, there is something here that does not meet the eye," added Klayman. "Why have the Clinton Justice Department and Congressional committees laid off Huang? Could this be related to Woodward's revelations and what do they know about Huang that they are not telling us?," added Klayman.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1997/printer_38.shtml

 

[Fletch]

Don't forget this one

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4121890/