Bush wants the UN to clean up his mess: Fuck HIM!

The BBQ Pit
101

Agreed. Now if that were the only reason the UN may have for refusing to co-operate with the current coalition I’d call them a bunch of jerks playing their power games with peoples lives. The sad fact is there are very good reasons, having nothing to do whatsoever with revenge or hurt feelings, for the UN to refuse the offer of partnership now being extended. The primary reason is that although the call has gone out for additional troops and funds, those additional troops and funds would still be administrated by the US. The current proposal calls for international bodies and resources with still a unilateral leadership. Were I the head of state in another country I would look at this with grave skepticism, even if I had utmost confidence in the competence and wisdom of the leadership of the coalition. Those are MY boys. Those are MY people’s dollars. I OWE it to them to get personally involved and to ensure that someone with their best interests at heart has a voice in how they are used and the power to prevent their abuse.

The proposals for UN involvement thus far have been of this type. Seperating the head from the body. Multilateral resources and forces with unilateral leadership. As a person who believes that we live in a global community, I can’t support those types of proposals. If we’re going to accept the participation of their bodies and monies, then we owe it to them to have their voices as well.

Enjoy,
Steven

102

Wow I’m stunned by that patch mistake.

103

Freudian slip? Bumbling idiots? Probably a bit of both and somehow quite fitting in this clumsy misadventure.

But credit where credit is due. At least they thought enough not to put the bullse…er, patch, on our soldier’s backs.

104

First Cite got dropped somehow:

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/246/wash/WASHN_in_Iraq_:.shtml

:smack:

105

elf6c, you really are a simple little fool. It took you all that typing (I am proud of you for finding that mysterious oracle ‘Google’), to make no point. You certainly don’t refute mine.

It takes very little force, if properly applied, to keep power, even in the face of heated restistance.

And I stand by that. Crack 'em in the nose hard now, and you won’t have unsurmountable problems later. The British (in google, type ‘British’!) were masters of this, as they were massively outnumbered in all of their possesions, and I can count on one hand how many they lost, as opposed to left, of their own free will and on their own schedule.

I have addressed your other ‘points’ in other posts. I will leave the reading comprehension to you. (Doomed to failure, I know, but I am a optimist.)

106

I stand by my point, but I take back the name-calling, elf6c. No need to stoop to that level.

107

USSR, Brutus? You know, Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, the Ukraine, Khazakstan, Turkmenistan, Belarus? I don’t think anyone can accuse those old Stalinists of being liberal weak-kneed bleeding hearts. But they lost them all. Wonder why?

108

The dialectic of history ?

109

  1. No need to apologize- you do it all the time- poorly. Its part of your “charm”.

  2. You didn’t refute anything (yet again) and still seem baffled by the concepts of proof, evidence or providing Cites. Redefining reality to one where you aren’t constantly being refuted by linked Cites from credible sources is rather pathetic- even for you.

At least I don’t have to worry about stooping to your level, that would require a lobotomy and a Clockwork Orange type exposure to the Bill O’Reilly show.

110

The dissolution of the USSR itself is another matter. The system they built their empire on was unstable; The very point of empire is commerce, and if your political system doesn’t allow for commerce, well…

And while Ukraine and the Baltic states are certainly rather anti-Russia, (perhaps pro-West is putting it better), the various -stans are still in Russia’s orbit to some degree. Yeltsin was no Peter the Great, but he did a decent job at keeping Russian influence in some states, even though Russia had so much less influence to use. Give Russia another decade or two. Perhaps their empire is just taking a break?

111

You’re making progress there, Brutus. Empires are inherently unstable, since the people under the jackboot rather resent being in that position. That makes them expensive too, since it means constantly having to keep troops in the occupied areas to keep the natives from getting too restless and even more importantly and more relevant in the case of the USSR, having to provide the provinces with large subsidies to keep them from rebelling. One way or the other, an expensive proposition.
Apropos of that, the following: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/opinion/03HEPB.html
Choice quote:

112

Absolutely! But that is why we have to pick and choose our points of engagement. For all of the costs, Iraq can be a splendid place to be. Sitting near a large chunk of the worlds oil reserves, right next to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Certainly these three have a hand in riling the opposition in Iraq, (not to mention terrorism in general), since they know who is next. (And not neccesarily in an ‘invasion’ sense; The threat of troops on their borders will be enough, if their leaders have any sense of self-preservation.)

**

Didn’t realise that they so much debt. Certainly it will have to be dealt with, but it isn’t as if though we are going to pay it off. But it does give the world yet another reason to wish success to us on our venture; A stable and prosperous Iraq has a better chance of paying off said debt than some theocratic excuse for a country, no?

Somewhat related, there is a long-term timeline for total disengagement from the Middle East: When our economy no longer relies on a steady flow of modestly priced oil, I can virtually guarantee that we will haul ass out of there, faster than you can say, “Saudi terrorist funding”.

113

It seems like it was only yesterday when the iraqi people were suffering the consequences of the embargo and the USA blamed Saddam Hussein entirely. “After all” the USA said, “he only has to comply with the terms of the UN and the embargo would end. Only he is to blame for the suffering of the Iraqi people as it is in his hand to end it and he won’t do it.”

Now we have the USA governing Iraq and the Iraqi people are still suffering a bad government. The USA could get massive UN support tomorrow merely by going to the UN hat in hand and asking for the UN to take over but the USA won’t do it as it wants to keep control. By the same reasoning, isn’t the USA to blame for the situation? Like Saddam, it is in their hand to end it and they won’t do it.
It seems like it was only yesterday that we could hear voices saying the USA would pay France back by repudiating the Iraqi debt and shutting out France from the lucrative reconstruction programs. Jingoistic Americans were having wet dreams of petty revenge and I have no doubt they would call for those things to be done if America were in a position to do it.

It seems it was only yesterday. . . but how things have changed. now we hear calls for not being petty. I agree. Nobody should be petty. Let America lead the way and turn control over to the UN.

114

Brutus: there is no threat from our troops. They’re bogged down trying to keep Iraq from blowing up; any thought of applying pressure to the neighbors is long gone.
As to the oil bit, forget it. If Iraqi oil can’t even pay for the reconstruction of the country, what good does it do us to have control over it? It’s a financial and military rathole at the moment, and without the UN, that’s what it will continue to be.

115

I knew somebody would take that angle on my post. I just knew it. As soon as I posted it I knew that just like with laid back people talking about the Bible, and then full on die hards talking about the Bible, somebody would come along and take the essence of my post and ultra interpret it to the most literal degree, and throw in a healthy dressing of hyperbole, and then serve it back up to me.

All I can say is this - there was a certain “philosophical spirit” to George Washington’s famous quote. (Sorry I got the Thomas Jefferson bit wrong - eh, I’m Australian) Nonetheless, the quote is a very, very famous one - and the “spirit” of the quote (at least as far as I can tell) is that Washington was passing on some brilliant wisdom - namely, don’t fucking hold grudges on the international level. Grudges are bad. If the people hold grudges, they can influence the goverment to make reckless decisions. If the government makes it policy to hold grudges, it can influence the people to show ugliness towards a people who would otherwise not deserve it.

There’s a difference between “looking for trouble”, and being asked by a friend in dire need for help - and even then, it still took Pearl Harbour and a Declaration of War by Adolf Hitler TOWARDS the USA for the US to get involved in the European theatre in WWII. MGibson? Your post would indicate that the USA jumped into WWII like jumping into a pond at the first sign of summer and nothing could be farther from the truth.

But mark my words here… prior to April 2003, the USA still had a shaky hold on the high moral ground, historically speaking. She could rightfully state on the World Stage that she “doesn’t start fights, she finishes them”.

Not this time though - and it was a really sad thing for me to see unfold. I love the USA, and I love the American people even more so. I’ve had some of the best fun and warm times in my entire life in my various spells in that country.

Something has gone wonky though. Trust a friend on this. Something has gone wonky.

116

Wow…I came to read a rant and a debate broke out!

Agree or not Iraq as a country alone is on it’s way out. The country will end up being partioned into three seperate states. None of the ethnic groups will ever agree to be governed by any of the others.

Also…let’s hope we don’t tick the Shia’s off too much. There is this group called Mahdi’s army. With a base of 15k, well trained (in Iran) and well supplied. This base is being joined by more and more men everyday. If this group decides to go to the ground and take on the US in a guerilla war…we haven’t seen bad yet.

117

We should thank friend Brutus for keeping us aware of the proud tradition of realpolitik, from Machiavelli through Metternich and Bismarck and beyond. It surely does not lack that “vision thing” that so perplexed Bush I, it is the Shining Citadel on the Hill. I would like to propose that we nominate friend Brutus as Ambassador at Large, to carry the message abroad to the subordinate nations, so that they are not confused.

It seems we are witnessing a bit of an avalanche, politics wise. Just a couple days ago, Richard “Big Dick” Armitage casually let slip that the US might, just might, mind you, consider the suggestion that the UN be permitted to contribute to the US…excuse, Coalition…efforts in Iraq. The Seychelles, Lithuania, and Estonia being not quite up to the task, apparently. Of course, there was no question about any concessions on our part. Don’t be silly. We’re the Americans.

But with recent reporting, the reaction has stampeded. I think the Bushiviks lost control of this: they were just tentatively launching a trial balloon, and oooops! Hindenburg. So he’s stuck with it.

He has this one hope: that thowing himself at the mercy of the UN will actually work (as I dearly pray that it will) without bloody disaster. And that, after the fact, he can claim credit for it. Or, otherwise, if it does totally collapse into horror and chaos, he can blame it on France.

I took offense at friend Shodan’s insult to DtC, as to the “masturbatory” nature of “Bush-bashing”, until I realised it was probably just a simple mistake. The expression, Shodan, is “bashing the bird” not “bashing the bush.” You probably have it mixed up with that proverb about the bird in the hand, etc. One is, of course, a relatively harmless entertainment, while the other is a stern civic duty, howevery gleefuly performed.

118

Boo Boo Foo, you damn near brought a tear to my eye. First time I ever saw someone actually understand what ol’ George was saying.

119

elucidator: pray elucidate: Which one, bashing the bird or the bush? Just curious.

120

It looks like the Bush Administration is really laying the charm on thick these days:

US derides ‘chocolate makers’ for EU military headquarters plans (Sept. 2/03)
What a way to build Good Will :smack: