Further, I object to flinging the events of 9/11 about as if they were certain proof of some geo-political theory. Those events proved only that a gang of nuthatches can have a dramatic impact. As to Mr. Bush’s “learning”, I see scant evidence thereof. Had he actually learned anything about tact and measured words, the aforementioned quote about “hating” Kim Jung-Il would never have occured.
There are those who would have us believe that the 9/11 tragedy has somehow magicly elevated a public mediocrity into a Leader of Men. If you find some comfort in this fantasy, it would be churlish to seek to rob you of it, but it is nonsense.
Oh, come on. “His wish” is that the U.N. enforce its own resolutions. He shouldn’t have to bang on a table to get that done. Like I said, the only reason Bush has had to take charge of the situation is because the U.N. has failed at it, repeatedly. It should have smacked Saddam down in 1994, and again in 1998. It didn’t.
If the U.N. now looks like its a lapdog for the U.S., then the only reason for that is because the U.S. had to force it to do what it should have done itself in the first place.
When, exactly, did it become the purview and privlege of the United States to determine what resolutions the UN will or will not enforce? The US is a member of the United Nations, not the reverse. Can Tennessee impose its will on the United States?
At one and the same instant, the US claims legal legitimacy from UN resolutions, yet seeks to usurp the UN’s perogative on when and if such resolutions are to be enforced. The US certainly didn’t demand that the UN enforce its resolutions as regard Israel. We only insist that the UN enforce such resolutions as we find agreeable.
Of course, you’re forgetting that the US, the USSr, France, and Britain pretty much set up the UN so they could do it that way. The UN Security Council is structured so that the most powerful nations on Earth don’t have to worry about the rest of the world ganging up on them. Any claims that the UN is a “free and independant body” are simply wishful thinking. If one of the five permanent members wants to look like their acting on behalf of the world, they go through the UN, otherwise, they simply tell the world to “screw” and do whatever they want.
All true, Tuck. Clearly, if the UN is to be called upon to take up the task of planetary government (a daunting task, to be sure) then it cannot continue to function as nothing more than a passive and impotent reflection of Real Power. That would require the US to surrender at least some soveriegnty, a prospect that sends some on the right into spasms and conniption fits.
It aint gonna be easy. But I don’t see much of a plausible alternative.
Every country retains a right to self defense. The U.S. has a ‘purview and privlege’ to demand that the U.N. enforce its resolutions precisely because it’s the U.N’s JOB, by treaty, and failure to do so endangers the security of the U.S., Britain, Australlia, and other countries that are standing with the U.S.
Let’s face facts - the U.N. was set up to provide for the security of the members on the Security Council, while giving other nations a say in the matter through non-permanent security council status. That is the prime function of the U.N. all its other charters and tasks are really just mission creep. The minute the permanent members of the Security Council decide the U.N. is not serving their interests, the U.N. is done.
The main reason for the U.N. was to provide stability in the cold war. It gave the U.S. and the Soviet Union a place to negotiate. After the fall of the Soviets, the U.N. needed to re-establish itself as a valuable orgnization for the promotion of peace and stability in the world. It has utterly failed at that. With Iraq, North Korea, Rwanda, and other situations since the end of the cold war, the U.N. has shown itself to be pretty much irrelevant. Remember when Saddam starting mobilizing troops against Kuwait again in 1994? The U.S. and Britain went to the U.N. and demanded that they do something. The U.N. sat on its hands, and the British and Americans had to go it alone, without a U.N. mandate.
Clinton authorized that military action. Were you for it or against it then? That was the first nail in the U.N.'s coffin. Whether you like his tactics or not, George Bush has offered the U.N. almost instant re-invigoration and legitimacy. Now we’ll see what the U.N. does with its opportunity. Hopefully, they’ll declare Iraq in Material Breach for that joke of a declaration, give them some extremely short deadline for coming clean, and authorize the U.S. to take immediate military action if they don’t.
If the U.N. does that, it will again become the legitimizer of force, which will give it a strong presence in the world. But if the U.N. comes back with some lame statement of ‘regret’, and passes another resolution that basically says, “Okay, this time we really mean it - do what we say, or we’ll… pass another resolution!”, then the U.S. and Britain will simply ignore the U.N. and go after Iraq on their own. And that may be the end of the U.N. as a world power.
But don’t blame Bush if that happens. Iraq is clearly in violation of the intent of the U.N.'s last resolution. It’s the U.N’s JOB to punish Iraq for that. If it won’t do the job, don’t blame the guy who fires it.
**
My evidence that he did is, within a month after the attack, American troops went into Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban, which had been providing aid and comfort to Al Qaeda. The U.S. also launched a relentless law enforcement and intelligence campaign against terrorists that might do America harm in the future, that hasn’t ceased since.
Bush also outlined the countries posing the greatest threat in terms of developing weapons of mass destruction, with the most likelihood of using them against the USA and/or giving them to terrorists who might. He did this in the State of the Union speech in January, less than four months after Sept. 11, and he hasn’t backed off his positions from that day one iota. Actions taken with those countries in mind have centered upon the threat they obviously pose. He’s also been proven right in EVERY case, though it’s encouraging to see the people of Iran possibly standing up to the religious leaders who want to take them into oblivion.
Bush’s post-9/11 actions were clearly designed around being preemptive against threats with the capability of making Sept. 11 look like a picnic. Do you disagree with that? If so, what do YOU think Bush’s post-9/11 actions have been about, in total? (This oughta be good.)
To counter my assertion, you offer a “Bush is a meanie” editorial cartoon?
elucidator:
**
So 3,000 dead is a “dramatic impact?”
I stated my (and, I presume quite safely, Bush’s) “geo-political theory.”
It is that the U.S. and its interests aren’t safe from terrorism attack if the U.S. sits around and does nothing; or if it waits for the toothless, Neville Chamberlain impersonators at the U.N.
The U.S. may very well not be safe anyway, regardless of what it does. But it stands a whole helluva lot better chance if it doesn’t let people like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il have weapons of mass destruction.
What one nation calls self defense another calls posing a threat. Is it a bit ironic that the U.S. has produced all this military might but when other nations do the same, it threatens our security? I am not in favor of the U.S. disarming or sitting back while these nutballs manufacture nukes. I just think it is tough to sell that policy around the globe.
Well the U.S. has enjoyed a long period of peace. I think there must be a time and a place for war. I think you have a lot of explaing to do when you “promote peace” by waging war. I think this makes the U.S. unpopular in some places. I am not suggesting that the U.S. should never wage war. We just look like a big bully. However, diplomacy only works with the rational.
Firstly, you are connecting to entirely disparate events. Kim Jong-Il has precisely nothing to do with 9/11 (unless you have some utterly startling new information to share.) You might as well use WWII as your justification as 9/11.
Secondly, there is no real possibility that the US can effectively prevent nuclear proliferation. The technology is 50 years old, any nation that can send a half a dozen bright graduate students abroad for study is a candidate.
You have a plan for such? Does it, by any chance, depend on world domination by the US? Or are we to prevent such development only on the part of regimes we regard as potentially hostile? Do we then assume that China and Pakistan will always be our pals?
When you are quite finished with your hearty chuckling at my Chamberlainesque naivete, perhaps you can take a moment to advise us all how this is to be done?
Sure. Did you notice that the cartoon was published shortly before 9/11? Bush’s foreign policies were widely perceived as being arrogant, ill-considered and bullying. What better way to show that than with a timely cite to one of the worlds leading editorial cartoonists ?
The invasion of Afghanistan, withdrawal from ABM, Israel policy etc. have done nothing to change the perception of a bullying foreign policy in the months since 9/11. Much as you applaud the invasion of Afghanistan, it only became necessary after Bush’s attempts at diplomacy failed to produce the expulsion of the taliban.
With specific regard to N Korea, even the president’s father (june 2001) urged Bush to alter his ham-handed approach, and get back to the negotiating table. Too bad the events of 9/11 weren’t enough for W. to see that his father had given him some good advice. George kept right on demonizing North Korea at every opportunity, and now the North has decided that they too can engage in a nuclear pissing contest. The president has followed a consistent, if foolish, policy towards North Korea since the day he took office. 9/11 has nothing to do with it, except perhaps in slightly increasing the shrillness of our condemnations.
Last I checked, Dale Carnegie recommended against calling someone a madman-bastard-scumsucker if you want him to do something for you. I guess you’d put Carnegie in the same niche as Chamberlin ? That’s a pretty simplistic way of looking at things.
I have to tell you I agree with much of what you are saying in thsi thread.
I am not much a student of foreign affairs, and hope the president will do “what is right”, but don’t have much faith he is working for “the people”.
Then why does the U.S. allow the Russians to build nuclear subs? Or the Chinese? Why is it that the U.S. is pushing Canada to build more weapons? Why doesn’ t the U.S. have a problem with France’s nukes, or Israel’s, or India’s? How come it gives military aid to Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
Distinctions matter. The U.S. isn’t opposed to countries defending themselves. It is opposed to weapons of mass destruction landing in the hands of genocidal maniacs. Over-the-top hyperbole like yours seeks to squash that distinction, but there it is.
I find it interesting that the same people who support gun control in the U.S. are willing to let the likes of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il have nuclear weapons.
Do you have evidence that the Bush administration’s policy is to not allow any country to obtain nuclear capabilities if it does not now already have them? Although I think that’s a laudable goal.
One of the things I find most annoying about Bush is how he says the same things, over and over and over. I now realize, however, that he has to. That some people still don’t get it.
Squink:
The fact that the U.S. is more forceful in foreign policy under Bush than it has been in the recent past, and that that was true prior to 9/11/01, does not mean that the U.S. government’s actions in foreign policy since the terrorist attacks are not designed around a “never again” type of mindset. See the Bush quote above. Or, watch the news nightly.
Whether you agree with him or not, to say Sept. 11 has not affected Bush’s foreign policy is ludicrous.
**
Wow. One person’s “failed attempts at diplomacy” is another person’s “failed to get a group of fanatical despots to turn over the terrorist mass-murderers they had been harboring.”
Shame on Bush, right? Because diplomacy had been working so well with the Taliban, prior to Bush’s coming along and trying :rolleyes:
You people really need to try to set aside your blind hatred for Bush. It’s making you irrational.
“Every country retains a right to self defense.”
A war on Iraq isn’t a matter of self-defense. Iraq hasn’t attacked the US and in fact the CIA has gone on record that it is unlikely to attack the US unless attacked first.
As for the UN and its legitimacy you have got it pretty much wrong. The UN is widely considered a source of legitimacy around the world if for no other reason than that it gives smaller countries a greater say in world affairs. It is US foreign policy which is frequently considered illegitimate. It is the UN which gives US policy legitimacy not the other way round.
“Iraq is clearly in violation of the intent of the U.N.'s last resolution. It’s the U.N’s JOB to punish Iraq for that”
It is already doing that through economic sanctions. There is nothing in the UN charter that says that countries that don’t obey resolutions should automatically be punished by war. That is a decision for the UNSC to make. It can choose to decide that war is a solution worse than the problem; a position that would be amply justified in this case even on the narrowest security grounds.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the US decided that regime change in Iraq wasn’t in its interest. Then suppose that Iran invoked the same UNSC resolution violations and decided to attack Iraq on its own and install its own regime. I suspect that the US would be furious. UNSC resolution violations are not a pretext for one country or one group of countries to declare war on their own and change regimes.
The issue here is Bush’s policy towards North Korea. You’ve yet to present any evidence that 9/11 caused any change in that. I don’t think you’ll be able to. You’re welcome to drag Iraq, Afghanistan and the price of cream cheese into the discussion, but it won’t do anything towards showing that Bush’s policy towards North Korea was either wise, or affected in any way by the events of 9/11.
Well sure. Both statements highlight the failure of Bush’s attempts at a negotiated solution. Say it however you like. Failure is still failure, even when the other side are totally unreasonable assholes who deserved what they got. It would have been much more satisfying if we’d have gotten them begging for mercy without having to go to all the bother of an invasion. As it is, OBL and many of the al Qaeda leaders have given us the slip, and the training camps are reopening. That’s hardly the outcome we wanted.
Jacksen9 - I am not in favor of the U.S. disarming or sitting back while these nutballs manufacture nukes. I just think it is tough to sell that policy around the globe.
Sam Stone - Distinctions matter. The U.S. isn’t opposed to countries defending themselves. It is opposed to weapons of mass destruction landing in the hands of genocidal maniacs.** Over-the-top hyperbole like yours seeks to squash that distinction, but there it is.**
Sam, please read my post again. Especially the part about me not being in favor of these nutballs manufacturing nukes… and to add… chemical agents, biological weapons etc. I think we are finding ourselves in a situation with lots of power, yet few favorable choices. I don’t see how that could be “over-the-top”.
Did the U.S. encourage India, China, or Russia to develop nuclear weapons?
As for your remark about my position on gun control - I am shocked that you remember what my position is on any issue. Wow.
Jacksen9: Actually, I wasn’t addressing the gun-control thing at you. It was my lame way of saying that people who want to keep their neighbors from owning guns because they don’t trust them should also be against having murderous nutbars acquire nuclear weapons.
The ‘hyperbole’ I was talking about was this:
You seemed to be saying that the U.S. opposes any other country that seeks to build up a military to defend itself. The threat to our security doesn’t come from other nations building weapons. The threat to our security comes from nations who are a threat to our security developing weapons of mass destruction. This is in fact a small subset of nations. The U.S. doesn’t have a complaint with the size of Japan’s military or their possible possession of nuclear weapons, outside of standard non-proliferation treaties. Same goes for most European countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, or even putative enemies like China.
Why do you think the U.S. is freaking out about North Korea having nukes, when it said very little about India getting them? It comes down to whether the governments are stable, whether they are predictable and run by professionals, whether it is a dictatorship, etc.
The invasion of Afghanistan was NOT a “failure of diplomacy” by any measure. Diplomacy wasn’t even really an option it that case and at that time. In fact, after 9/11, there were only 2-3 countries in the entire world that had diplomatic relations with the Tailban.
President Bush to the Taliban: Hand over OBL and Al Queda
The Taliban: dithering
President Bush: Hand them over or else.
The Taliban chose “or else”, hence the invasion and bye-bye Taliban.
There was not a failure of “attempts at a negotiated solution”, because there was nothing to negotiate.
