Kerry's False Plan For Peace

[RockNRollDawgie]

Eliminate asparagus!!!! Problem solved.

 

[BVS]

I mean a "real" coalition is one that isn't 10,000:100,000 troops foreign:US. a coalition of two countries (that have the resources) would be legitamate if they shared the duties equally (not involving the security of their own country -- because every country's security threat is different). i don't see how people didn't realize from the beginning that it's not the US's duty to route out injustice in the world with a 10:1 ratio of troops.

Thank you.

I also find it ironic that those that use the UN resolutions as the justification for this war, yet now want it disbanned.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't see Sting calling for such a thing

All I am saying is that the security council is a usless entity and I do not see a future for it as a guarantor of peace in the world. It didn't work in the Cold War and it doesn't work now. Why do people keep pretending that it has any use, it is a bunch of self interested parties which will never agree.

Now was the first Gulf War a true coalition? 74% US Troops in a coalition of 34 nations.

Incidently millitary deaths in WW2 were sustained mostly by the USSR (for obvious reasons) and they suffered around 75%.

 

[BVS]

I don't see Sting calling for such a thing

I'm not talking about Sting, I'm not sure where he stands with it. I'm speaking of you and a few others outside this board.

 

[Anirban]

the cold war was based on disputes based on ideological reasons. the UN is best suited for missions where all parties have the same interest...to help their fellow man. in the case of iraq, saddam's only crime after the first gulf war was against his own people. therefore, an international coalition WOULD form on the basis of humanity. your examples of the cold war and the first persian gulf war are ludicrous ... the cold war was not based on humanitarian foundations and the first gulf war was the united states protecting it's kuwaiti oil. the UN stepped in and did it's job to help the people of kuwait recover.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What I said was this

Eliminate the UN

The UN does do good in the world - but the question is can that work be done without the current beurocracy.

All I am saying is that the security council is a usless entity and I do not see a future for it as a guarantor of peace in the world. It didn't work in the Cold War and it doesn't work now. Why do people keep pretending that it has any use, it is a bunch of self interested parties which will never agree.

Parties have an amazing capacity to disagree on human rights when economic interest takes hold - which is the problem. Look at the Sudan today, China will not lobby the UN to intervene and save lives because it has an interest in Sudanese oil. Even the EU has trouble calling it genocide. The prospect of there ever being humanitarian intervention when there are economic interests are next to nothing. I am not saying that the US doesn't look out for its interests by supporting dictators or lets economic interests trump human rights but I think that we should expect more from a body with such noble ideals as the UN.

How many Rwanda's and srebrenica 's will it take for the UN to loose credibility in the eyes of most people, they see it a beacon of peace - dedicated to human rights and equality - rather than the den of tyrants and kleptocrats who hold massive power in voting blocs and look out for eachother all the while upholding the status quo where human rights are non-existent and they can do as they please.

I would love to see a multilateral global organization dedicated to the preservation of peace but at the same time protecting of democracy and liberty around the globe but the UN just is not that organization and I doubt that it ever can be. In time will go the way of the League of Nations, hopefully by the time that happens humanity would have moved beyond the concept of the nation/state - but I doubt it.


My feelings towards the United Nations were way down by the start of the Al Aqsa intafada and the way they treated Israel throughout it. The corruption in the Oil For Palaces scandal merely confirms some of the suspicions.

This is not to say that it doesn't do good in the world, election monitors are important (A family friend traveled to Afganistan to oversee the elections earlier this year) but there is a lot of things in this arena that are unsavoury (for instance the UNRWA) and in my opinion need some serious investigation.

 

[Anirban]

the beauty of the UN is that ALL countries are involved. if some have issues/interests that go against what is right, then other countries have the opportunity and responsibility to step up.

 

[Anirban]

the corruption of the UN stems from the involvement of corrupt leaders. how can the UN regain its credibility in your eyes if countries like the united states surpass its authority? the united states is basically telling the world that the UN is a powerless organization that can be trampled on for personal gain. without UN support of any mission...and without a collaborative UN effort whose goal is success...the UN's downfall will be the result of the failures of its members...namely, the United States of America. YOUR president bush...the one YOU support, will bring down the potential of the UN by telling the world that it doesn't matter. the world can see through fake relations. why do you think most of the world opposes everything we do now? the failure of president bush to involve the UN effectively will not only affect the UN, but will also bring about the downfall of the united states. every success the US has had since the civil war has been due to a collaborative effort of the entire globe. why are we ALWAYS right? the united states may be the world's superpower, but it is leagues begind most of the world in values, morals, and ethics. this is proven by how no one outside of the US supports this president's values and goals. the only countries that do are acting out of self interest. iran announced last week that it would support president bush....IRAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[A_Wanderer]

this is proven by how no one outside of the US supports this president's values and goals

Well this is flat wrong because I and many other libertarians, conservatives and a few lefties support the values and goals of the president. I do not like religious types - I have no belief in God. But I do believe that taking the fight against Islamofascism by introducing liberty and democracy into the Arab world is the only long term solution to the problem. It was the realpolitik of maintaining dictators in the Arab world that led to the current problem, the only solution is to secure energy supplies in both Iraq and Iran and then put more pressure on SA. There are many outside the US who support Iraq and were sickened by Clinton negotiating with one of the worlds most loved terrorists Yassir Arafat.

Yes countries that endorse particular candidates are acting out of self interest - like every nation on the freaking planet! If somebody is endorsing Kerry is it not also motivated by self interest.

So would you say that the problems within the UN are caused by a lack of engagement by the US under the Bush administration.

Or that the United Nations was a more effective organization when Clinton was president.

And about the Iran "endorsement" that is wrong, basically the Iranians dont think that it makes any difference and they will not be happy if the Democrats win as a clarifier to it making no difference.

Kerry or Bush, makes no difference to us: Iran
TEHRAN, Oct 19 (AFP) - It makes no real difference to Iran whether US President George W. Bush or Democrat contender John Kerry wins the presidential elections, a senior Iranian official said Tuesday.

"It makes no difference for us which of the two parties wins the elections," Iran's top national security official Hassan Rowhani said in an interview on state television.

"We have not seen any good coming from the Democrats, so we won't be happy if the Democrats win," he said.

"Also we should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during Clinton's administration," Rowhani added, referring to former president Bill Clinton.

The official said a victory in next month's elections for Bush and the Republicans would also not have much impact on the Islamic republic, arch-foe of the United States.

"We are not afraid of the US even if the Republicans win since, at least in the region, they had found out that aggression and bullying will only result in their interests being threatened," he added.

Bush seeks to take Iran to the UN Security Council over charges that Tehran is seeking nuclear technology for military purposes, while Kerry has proposed supplying Iran with fuel in exchange for an end to its own nuclear fuel cycle work.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Values, morals, and ethics are what the US lacks and its critics hold dear. I suppose that the Arab world, probably the most -ahem- vocal party in the world against American imperialism would know all about this. They are the real progressive elements in the world with their beheaddings, subjegation of the woman/animal and rabid anti-semitism. Oh and the Chinese, they too treat the individual very nicely and their justice system understands the importance of holding true to the line of the law - if you are going to kill criminals then you need to kill many criminals, ah and Europe - dear enlightened Europe, so progressive and noble they understand that the Brown man is a savage creature that cannot rule himself, but must be controlled by the iron fist of a dictator - who can proved healthcare to the people and maintain order. The US is the backwards country in the international community, crazy ideas about all men being created equal, that endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What a racist state, that would dare to interfere with the mass murderers of other cultures and impose its eurocentric value system on equally valid cultural constructs. The US is a rogue state that threatens the stability of the world by removing "solid" dictators, the anchors of world peace.

For a look at how the wonderful institution the UN works when the US is involved and pushing diplomatic power I suggest that you look to Darfour.

Of course we know the real reason that no major action is being taken and words are softened up is because the US lost the credibility to talk to the UN by going into Iraq without the France, Russia and China on board and having the audacity to support Israel


This threat has gone OT, the subject in question is about Kerry softening US support for Israel to curry favour with the wider "international community" who generally do not care for Israel much and wouldn't shed a tear if it was totally destroyed.

 

[hiphop]

What I am saying is that in the realm of international security the UN is innefective, it is made up of self interested nations; it was useless for security in the Cold War and it is useless now in the Post Cold War / War on Terror.

No, you said that the U.N. protects terrorists and that it should be "eliminated".

There´s a huge difference in critisizing the international security effectivity compared to labelling the U.N. terrorist-supportive.

Arafat was/ is the head of a huge Palestine organisation. Who else should the U.N. have been talking to - George Habasch?

Your cynicism lacks depth. One minute you explain clearly what you think, the next minute you are mixing up your interpretation of the moral values of the Arab world, China and Europe in one paragraph.

I am not interested in your tirades.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Arafat uses terrorism to achieve his political goals - hence he is a terrorist - he recieves considerable support from within the UN - hence the UN supports terrorists. The UNRWA has been compromised by Hamas and UN Ambulances are used by terrorists in the disputed territories and the ongoing support given to the Palestinians is often used to enable terrorism (funding for education going into indoctrination for suicide bombers). The UN is only the sum of its parts and those parts are very questionable. True reform cannot ever happen because those that hold the keys will never allow it.

Ones views towards the PA and their interest in peace can be altered when observing acts like this http://www.pmw.org.il/tv part3.html

I say that what is being done now, isolating Arafat totally and completely and waiting for the bastard to die and then see what emerges is the best option; there can be a resolution to the Israeli/Arab conflict, it will not be perfect and the Arab world will still want to drive the Jews into the sea but it will be a resolution and it will hold.

 

[Anirban]

So if you are saying that a voluntary organization where everyone shares power is useless ... then do you think there should be a world government with authority over every country? you are right, the UN is only as strong as the sum of its parts...but do you see that the failures of the UN would also be failures if the UN didn't exist? in that case, countries would have to act by themselves to solve problems in other countries. in this case, they have a forum to decide what action to take.....and if some countries do not pursue humanitarian missions then other countries will pick up the tab.

the name of this thread is "kerry's false plan for peace," ... how did that turn into the UN supporting terrorism? and how did that turn into an arafat bashing thread? no one is arguing that both sides of the israeli-palestinian conflict have committed crimes. but saying one's actions are superior to the other is wrong. no matter who arafat is and what he believes and what he has done, he's the only person we have to deal with. he is a man with a lot of power. moreover, our main interest should be the safety of the people...and if having talks with people on both sides who have committed crimes is a way of doing that....then i think we should keep at it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The concept of the UN is that it is a somewhat democratic organization and any humanitarian mission requires the support of the security council, and even then the 5 permenant members all have veto power - so when some members of the council have vested interest in seeing, for example. a rebel uprising in Sudan supressed by extreme force, then it becomes impossible for the organization to ever deply troops under the UN banner - nobody can ever pick up the tab.

I would like to see an effective multilateral organization dedicated to peace and freedom throughout the globe, the problem with the UN is that peace at any price is often the motto and the cause of freedom for all is non-existant. The UN cannot act decisively when you have a 50 country Arab/Islamic voting block obstructing any moves in the direction of going after human rights abusers and protecting innocent people.

Israels actions are superior to those of the PLO Arabs and the Arab world in general - in respect to waging war, treating civilians and fostering mutual respect. To call the conflict an endless cycle of violence with both sides equally responsible is to overlook both the history of the Arab/Israeli conflict and the current language from both sides.

Arafat is a sad little ruler of a sad little dirtpile - there is no need to negotiate with him, the Israelis want peace and I do think at heart most Palestinians do, but this can only proceed when you have a genuine interest in peace from the PLO - having talks with him brought about terrorism and death. The alternative options of disengagement, targeted assasinations and the security fence bring about the collapse of the PA and Hamas as well as the future possibility for peace. He was given oportunities for peace at Oslo and by Barak in 2000 that were very generous - he refused to comply instead resorting to the tried and tested terrorism diplomacy, for these betrayals there should be no more wasting words with the man.

Kerrys false plan for peace alludes to the very fine article posted about Kerry sacrificing the security of Israel to appease the international community. The Arab world, the EU the international community are sick of the US protecting the state of Israel in the UN with their veto power, if Kerry were to let a few of those resolutions pass unchallenged then it would curry more favour in these places and enhance his credentials in their eyes. That is the point of this thread and that is why it is inexorably linked with the Palestinian Authority who recieve massive support form EU Nations and the Arab World as well as the United Nations.

 

[Anirban]

i don't want to argue about the horrible acts of violence that has gone on in that region for the past 60 or so years. But in terms of UN politics, you make it seem like Kerry will build a wall around the PLO so that no one can harm them. If both sides do not recieve some concessions, then how are either of them going to feel the necessity to stop fighting? on one hand you argue that the UN is a huge failure ... and then when the argument shifts you base your entire argument against the PLO on UN politics. wouldn't you rather that useless arguments are thrown across a room by politicians and diplomats rather than bombs being thrown across a country?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Kerry will not probably not put up any wall because the Jewish vote matters too much, but he may become tempted to let that US veto lapse when the next anti-Israel resolution comes around the table because he know that it will win him friends.

It works like this, Arafat goes off to Camp David and enjoys some clean linen talking about how he longs for peace, the Israelis offer him Gaza and most of the W-Bank as well as a capital in Jerusalem and then while they are playing nice a bomber walks into a cafe and blows up 50 Israeli civilians both Arab and Jew, the PA denounces the attack but makes no move against the terrorists, the Israelis have to clean up the mess that the PA refuses to and the cycle continues.

 

[Anirban]

ok...if we are talking hypotheticals...so let's say we do get arafat to agree to a peace treaty. and let's say that this stops any terrorism that he directly condones. therefore, the only problem are rogue terrorists that we don't think arafat will punish. won't this go along with the united states global war on terror? both democrats and republicans agree that terrorism should be fought and defeated everywhere. couldn't the united states go in (as it did with afghanistan) and maybe with the help of some UN nations find that terrorists who bombed the cafe in israel and bring him to justice?

 

[A_Wanderer]

We tried that already it was called the Oslo accords and they are a dismal failure - the man has been given 30 years at the negotiating table and all that he gave was bloodshed.

You fail to understand that a significant portion of the countries in the UN would never agree to go after Islamist terrorists because they simply believe that their cause is righteous. You are under the impression that the UN is a tried and proven organization in this area and Bush just doesn't give it a chance, I think that you are just plain wrong on that front.

The Mossad get the job done a lot more than any UN nations anyway. The terrorists hide behind civilians, they are indistinguishable - this allows them to operate freely. Ever wonder why it seems so many Palestinian civilians get killed in any millitary operation in the disputed territories?

 

[BVS]

I love when canidates get blamed with hypotheticals...