US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part Catorce! - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-01-2008, 12:23 AM   #121
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:56 AM
i returned to it several times, but here is my original post on 1441 (from 2005!):

[q]In regards 1441, I’d like to point out that you ignored the assurances by Negroponte and Greenstock assured everyone that it was not a green light for an invasion. You say it was; they say it wasn’t. Why did Tony Blair work furiously for another resolution to authorize force (one that France said it would veto) if 1441 is as clear an authorization for war as you make it out to be? Finally, and this is an important point: it is up to the Security Council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. What 1441 says and doesn’t say isn’t for the United States to decide.

Another point: resolution 678 contains the phrase “all necessary means." 1441 does not.

Clearly, you are in the wrong here. Anyway …

Resolution 1441 offered Iraq a final opportunity to disarmam and to provide a complete disclosure of weapons as required by Resolution 687, and “serious consequences” were threatened. Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance. Let’s note that Iraq agreed to 1441 on November 13 and Blix and ElBaradei returned to Iraq later that month, and in December Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. Each successive Blix report – in january, february, and march – noted a greater level of Iraqi compliance. No, not nearly enough, but enough to convince many nations that the disarmament of Iraq was achieveable without a direct, unilateral invasion by the United States.

I also can’t believe you would just gloss over the furious debate over 1441 and whether or not it authorizes military action – simply because you believe it to be an authorization does not make it an open-and-shut case. You’d do well to acknowledge that, yes, other viewpoints are equally valid, or at least acknowledge that other viewpoints exist. What I think irritates myself, and most other people, about your posts is the presentation of a stark, black-and-white reality as total fact, whereas anyone with a brain and a television and newspapers knows just how contentious all of this was, and to dismiss the opinion of the rest of the world and close to half of the American population isn’t just arrogant, it’s foolish.

I would also note that the impetus to avoid war comes from nations, unlike the United States, who have seen the effects and aftermath of war in the 20th century on their own soil. Many do not believe that war is an effective geopolitical tool, and that war should not only be the absolute last option, but that it is always the worst option.

I agree that, at some point in time, a war might have been inevitable, or at least some sort of military conflict with Hussein. But to assert that it had to happen then, in March of 2003, is firstly incorrect, and it also guaranteed that worldwide popular opinion against the US would be at a maximum making it impossible for politicians to support the US lest they face the electoral consequences at home. The result, you see, is that US troops have proved to be inadquate to successfullly occupy the country, something that might have been achieveable with the broad international support similar to the coalition formed in 1991. don’t you see that, even if the legal case is correct, that popular support is just as crucial for the successful implementation of the mission. If you believe so mightily in the removal of Saddam for the myriad reasons you’ve laid out, why not take the time to actually build a coalition so that you can be successful?

The reason, I think, was that Rumsfeld, especially, wanted and needed a unilateral invasion to demonstrate the capabilities of the US forces, the whole “shock and awe” scenario. While the US was certainly capable of overthrowing the vastly weakened Iraqi army without much of a problem, maintaining security on the ground in the face of an insurgency that might have as many as 200,000 supporters has proven to be much, much more difficult than anyone in the White House imagined.

Might French troops, German troops, or the troops from any other Arab nation have been helpful? Might we be toasting the success of the invasion today – instead of having it turn, politically, into another Vietnam as a strong majority of the American public thinks the war wasn’t worth it – had the Bush administration showed patience not with Saddam, but with getting the rest of the world on board?

What your posts demonstrate, to me, is precisely the arrogant, of-course-I’m-right attitude of the Bush administration that doesn’t do much when it comes to assembling broad support – and please contrast this with Bush 1 and Jim Baker. It’s no secret that Bush is famously incurious, famously isolated, and famously uninterested in the opinions of anyone other than his group of yes-men. I think an argument can be made to support an invasion of Iraq *if done correctly*, but I think it’s also true that this president, in particular, was uniquely unsuited for the task at hand.
[/q]



another great point was brought up by Dread. he linked to this article from the right wing National Review:

[q]Resolution 1483 wisely limits the U.N.'s role to one of consultation and coordination, given its manifest failures at nation building in Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor.

Resolution 1483 puts the Security Council in the curious position of legitimizing the postwar Anglo-American military occupation of Iraq without ever having addressed how U.S. and British forces got there in the first place. This is not, however, unfamiliar territory for the council. In the run-up to NATO's intervention in Kosovo, the chief proponents of intervention — once again, the Americans and the British — decided not to seek Security Council authorization in the face of a certain Russian (and possible Chinese) veto, even though the council had repeatedly determined that the situation in Kosovo was a "threat to international peace and security" — the legal predicate for mandatory sanctions and military action under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. After Serb forces were driven from Kosovo by a U.S.-led air campaign, Resolution 1244 retroactively ratified the settlement terms that NATO imposed on the defeated Serbs without the council ever voting on the legality or legitimacy of the military action that brought about the settlement. Then, as now, the Security Council chose to overlook the elephant in the room.

Connoisseurs of Security Council precedent will note that the council has now bestowed retroactive legitimacy on military intervention against a member state in precisely the same number of instances (twice) that it has granted prior authorization for armed intervention in interstate conflicts (Korea in 1950 and Kuwait in 1990-1). So much for the council's claimed monopoly on prior approval of all arguably nondefensive uses of military force.

Resolution 1483 also marks the demise of the so-called Axis of Weasels, that unnatural ménage a trios pulled apart by the centripetal forces of divergent national interests among the French, Germans, and Russians. This bouleversement — a reversal of fortune in the diplomatic parlance of Old Europe — has left Paris increasingly isolated as Berlin and Moscow set about conciliating Washington. Hence the uncharacteristically emollient tone struck Thursday by France's egregious foreign minister, M. de Villepin. "Even if this text does not go as far as we would like," he said, "we have decided to vote for this resolution. This is because we have chosen the path of unity of the international community." One hopes this path of unity is reachable only by way of a steep learning curve demonstrating the consequences of gratuitously obstructing vital U.S. national interests.

This is a teachable moment for the U.N. as well. Where vital U.S. national interests are at stake, the U.N.'s remaining relevance and authority depend entirely on that body's willingness to assist or at least acquiesce in U.S. efforts to maintain minimum world public order. This remains to be seen.[/q]
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 12:39 AM   #122
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Talking to a friend of mine who thinks McCain would likely choose Condi Rice as his VP presuming he takes the Republican nomination.

Granted, it really puts Iraq in the spotlight, but at the same time--they trump Hillary and Obama in one fell swoop on both race and gender!

What do you think?
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 12:46 AM   #123
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
Talking to a friend of mine who thinks McCain would likely choose Condi Rice as his VP presuming he takes the Republican nomination.

Granted, it really puts Iraq in the spotlight, but at the same time--they trump Hillary and Obama in one fell swoop on both race and gender!

What do you think?


for all her intellectual gifts and very subtle but clear success in bringing reality and practicality to Bush's second term, i think it's quite obvious that she's not a politician. she has no charisma to speak of, at least none that i can detect.

part of being president is charisma. it's not about being the smartest person in the room or about being the most informed person in the room or having the most experience of anyone else in the room. all those things are important, but what is most important is having the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do. *that* is leadership, *that* is what makes a great president, which is why i'm not worried about Obama's relative lack of experience. he's got the temperment, the judgement, and the intelligence to understand issues and make good decisions. and he has the god-given gift of getting people to listen, and to feel the issues as he feels them, and that then translates into getting other people to do what you want. it's why brilliant scientists aren't necessarily great doctors. there is a personality quotient that's necessary to be a leader, and that's what he's got.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 01:11 AM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




for all her intellectual gifts and very subtle but clear success in bringing reality and practicality to Bush's second term, i think it's quite obvious that she's not a politician. she has no charisma to speak of, at least none that i can detect.

part of being president is charisma. it's not about being the smartest person in the room or about being the most informed person in the room or having the most experience of anyone else in the room. all those things are important, but what is most important is having the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do. *that* is leadership, *that* is what makes a great president, which is why i'm not worried about Obama's relative lack of experience. he's got the temperment, the judgement, and the intelligence to understand issues and make good decisions. and he has the god-given gift of getting people to listen, and to feel the issues as he feels them, and that then translates into getting other people to do what you want. it's why brilliant scientists aren't necessarily great doctors. there is a personality quotient that's necessary to be a leader, and that's what he's got.
Excellent point. Do you think the charisma factor is as important for the Veep though?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 05:45 AM   #125
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Hmm. Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush Sr... not exactly the most charismatic of men.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 08:45 AM   #126
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 01:56 AM

Ann Coulter said she would campaign for Hillary over McCain and that Hillary is more conservative-she's all a twitter over McCain being against torture

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 08:52 AM   #127
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:56 AM
The Republican Party's gonna explode.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 09:00 AM   #128
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Wow, that's funny stuff... although I take everything she says with a grain of salt, still entertaining.

What is Sean talking about at the beginning when he said "limits on free speech"?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 09:07 AM   #129
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Maybe it's freedom to make racist and other ist comments, I don't know
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 10:08 AM   #130
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


Excellent point. Do you think the charisma factor is as important for the Veep though?


not as important, but it is there. Cheney and Gore were both elected politicians -- so they had enough of it to make it to Congress. Rice strikes me as an academic.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 10:37 AM   #131
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Ann Coulter said she would campaign for Hillary over McCain and that Hillary is more conservative-she's all a twitter over McCain being against torture

I'll pay for it karmically, but I'd give McCain a dollar to torture her so she'd shut the fuck up.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 11:57 AM   #132
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


I'll pay for it karmically, but I'd give McCain a dollar to torture her so she'd shut the fuck up.


waterboarding Ann Coulter ...

now that's some torture porn i could get into.

but we must remember, as Mukasey said in front of Congress the other day, waterboarding is indeed torture, unless you're a terrorist. and then it's fine.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 12:13 PM   #133
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Ann Coulter said she would campaign for Hillary over McCain and that Hillary is more conservative-she's all a twitter over McCain being against torture

__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 12:20 PM   #134
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


I'm really starting to get frustrated with this. I was never a big fan of Coulter, but her and Hannity and Limbaugh (2 people I usually like) are going to blow the election for us. McCain isn't my favorite guy in the world either, but he's the only Republican that has a shot of winning, and he's more conservative than Hillary on every major issue. It pisses me off when I hear them say "go vote for Hillary" or "dont vote for McCain." If McCain's the nominee, and he loses, I'm going to blame Limbaugh and Hannity. I'll never forgive them, and they're going to lose a viewer/listener.
I have to admit I feel your pain here. I've heard people in the past say "I could never vote for _________," when that was the party's nominee and not voting for that person will send the election into the opposition's hands. It's the same when people say they're voting for Nader. Then just vote for the other party's candidate then.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 12:54 PM   #135
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

If McCain's the nominee, and he loses, I'm going to blame Limbaugh and Hannity. I'll never forgive them, and they're going to lose a viewer/listener.
Why?

It is the stupid ignoramus people who listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter and take their words as gospel who will cost you the election. Perhaps if they had several more brain cells to rub together they wouldn't be simpleton drones who just follow whatever the blowhard on the radio tells them.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com