USA needs a makeover!!!!!! - Page 2 - 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 04-23-2003, 01:10 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

I do not think that the US has to join into any treaty that does not suit its interests. I have not studied the Kyoto Treaty, so I will not speak to it specifically.
In that case, the United States must also accept that other countries aren't going to supports its policies where they disagree with them. With regard to Iraq for instance, the United States did try to demand that other countries support its policy: it dismissed half the countries of Europe as "old Europe" and essentially labelled them irrelevant because they dared to disagree with the US.

As the article so rightly said, many of the most pressing issues in the world right now can only be solved through co-operation between countries. Issues like global warming and other environmental concerns, things like international terrorism, like the spread of AIDS/HIV, like the extreme poverty which affects billions of people worldwide. These things can't be solved by any one nation, they require co-operation. That can't be co-operation based only on the US' terms: it has to be co-operation which all countries are open to.

The US can't go to the negotiating table with its policies already set in stone, it needs to be open to the suggestions of other countries, to the needs of other countries. It's not enough for the US to just explain its actions, it needs to take account of the way those will affect other countries and modify its actions where necessary. That is what co-operation means, not simply explaining a pre-determined policy, but actively consulting with other countries to develop a policy agreeable to all.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 01:54 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:00 AM
To some Europeans, if the USA has a difference of opinion and decides to move ahead, then all of a sudden its casts as the "evil unilateralist empire". Europeans also need to be cooperative and understanding of US initiatives but to often their playing games to try and "contain" the lone "superpower". Its not about the "lone superpower" its about deciding on the policy that is best for the particular situation. Ever since the end of the cold war, Europe has not done well on foreign policy. Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq are all examples of where European idea's and proposals failed and made things more difficult for innocent civilians. US policy in those same area's swiftly solved many of the problems that Europeans had failed to solve for years.

Klaus,

Take out resolution 678 and read it! It says "member states are authorized to use all means necessary" to bring about compliance of "all subsequent resolutions". There is nothing fuzzy about Resolution 678 at all. Oh and in regards to the intention of resolution 1441, who do you think wrote 1441 and what was their intention? The US did. What do you think the USA meant by "Serious Consequences"?

Considering Iraq was already under the tightest international sanctions in the world, and a weapons embargo, what else could "Serious Consequences" mean? What is more serious than International Sanctions and a Weapons Embargo? The only thing more serious than those actions in international relations is Military Force!

I'm sorry, but the USA does not use YOUR narrow definition of what self defense means. Any attack on Turkey is a direct attack on the USA. Turkey is a NATO Ally. The USA also considers the "self Defense" of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

"There were many US allies (and there still are..) who don't treat their people better than Saddam does."

If you really believe that then you know very little about Saddam Hussein and his regime!

"The most brutal things Saddam did were in a time where he was fully protected by US and the rest of the western world. (look at the mass graves the troops found, all of them are from times were Iraq was an US ally."

Klaus, which country gave Iraq 80% of their weapons? Which country had 2,000 of its troops in Iraq prior to the first Gulf War? Which countries were second and third in regards to supporting Iraq prior to the first Gulf War? Do I need to post the technical statistics to fully inform everyone on this particular point!

Faked UN facts? What? My best friends are currently in Iraq I would trust them in heartbeat over any European official. The Europeans were unconcerned about the threat Saddam posed and even less concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Its a fact that the USA NOT Europe has ended the threat of Saddam and lessened the suffering of the Iraqi people! If you can't recognize that, then I'm not sure if anything else I have to say on the matter will sink in.

My friends who served in Iraq are heroes. You and others here should appreciate their sacrifice and hard work that has ended the threat of Saddam and given the Iraqi people a much brighter future.

Oh and, you think Hans Blix and other European officials are without bias?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 05:17 AM   #18
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:00 AM
STING2:

The difference to prior UN resolutions was afik that there was no common sense that this resolution would mean war - unlike to all the older UN resolutions which legitimate war - do you think that the US and GB wanted another resolution just because of the fun of it?
The only reason that stoped the GB/US approach was that they knew they wouldn't get it .

Some of the Faked UN facts:
The most popular one of Iraq war I (i was talking in another thread about it and i want no 2nd discussion about faked facts):
Iraq war I:
The Incubator lie. US government hired Hill & Knowlton who designed the story, they prepared 5 of the whitneses at the UN security council the whitnesses (for example "Cindy" the daughter of the Kuwait Diplomat living in the US).

Iraq War II:
GB: Tony blair got a report from his secret service which was saying the oposite of that what he wanted to hear (mainly: Iraq at its current state is no danger to other countries, there would be danger when we start a war because of the destabilisation)
He prefered to trust a old report from a californian(?) student and he said it would be a report of his secret service..

US: they showed picures of potential WMD factories and later they had to admit that they were 10 year old satelite picures.
From another faked evidence they later said that a allied gave it to them and CIA currently takes a look if the "facts" were faked (come on, they risk their reputation at the UN and don't even verify the facts they have?
And even if they did it that way (which i can hardly believe) would they do it if they'd had serious facts which would convince everyone like Powell said??

It's great that Saddams regime has ended. I really love to see that there are demonstrations and noone is shot (i know there are some reports that US troops shot some demonstrants but i have no verification of this so i don't trust these reports yet).
But lying in the UN, violating international laws, growing lots of anti-americanism worldwide, discrediting some long-term friends of the US, maybe destroying the UN - that is a high price for the fall of that single dictator.
Do you think that the UN or even the US congress would have agreed to that war if it was just for bringing democracy to Iraq? (let's hope we get a democracy and not a country which laws are the sharia) - do you think that WMDs which will be found only by US specialists, paid by the same people who wanted that war, will be a valid proof internationally?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 05:25 AM   #19
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:00 AM
p.s. yes - some of your friends might be heroes - i don't know their story good enough to say that they are.
But because they are heroes dosn't legitimate that war, that dosn't automatically turn the politics of G.W.B. to a heroic politic.
In war there are allways heroes, even on the side of the loosers (Dread mentioned the guy who helped US military to free the injured POW for example) and most of the time there are also violations of international laws - not only from the governments (like using illegal weapons) but also from Soldiers.
If someone wears the right uniform it dosn't automatically make him to a honnest person.
I'm glad that you have many friends in the US military where you can say they are heroes - and i trust you that they've done good things and they gave the best they can - not only for the US but also to free the Iraqi civilists.

Don't forget that Europe wasn't pro or against that war, some countries were pro, others against that war. That makes them a lot less Biased.
And Mr Blix did a really great job, i think he is a verry reliable person with high credibility.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 08:27 AM   #20
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
The four points are about the FUTURE not the past.......

Can we please move beyond IRAQ and look at the four points of the article. Thanks.

Third, we must reinvigorate the global system for poverty alleviation. Poverty is today greater in Africa than it was 30 years ago. There are no easy solutions to this problem, but it will certainly not be addressed without consistent, long- term, high-level focus backed by sufficient resources.
Why is this turning into another Iraq thread? The future please.

Dreadsox,
I really liked the article. I also feel poverty is the basis for most of the world's ailments, including terrorism.
Somehow we must get a handle on corporate profiteering and force them to pay their fair share, there is a bill in commitee that would allow off-shore corporate headquarters to be taxed. Or somehow disallow the exception of the profits from taxes. Meg could probably get the specifics. However the Republican leadership is trying to block it from getting to the floor for a vote as it a very popular bill. This is money that could be earmarked for AIDS, debt relief, or other programs.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 06:57 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Klaus,


"The difference to prior UN resolutions was afik that there was no common sense that this resolution would mean war - unlike to all the older UN resolutions which legitimate war - do you think that the US and GB wanted another resolution just because of the fun of it?
The only reason that stoped the GB/US approach was that they knew they wouldn't get it ."

The older UN resolutions that legitmated war were reaffirmed in 1441 and were still in effect! Resolution 678 is in the body of 1441. Common Sense says, that when International Sanctions and a weapons embargo have been enacted against a country, the only thing more serious is Military Force. There is no other possible meaning of "Serious Consequences". Everyone knew what the USA meant by "Serious Consequences"! They all voted for it. If you have an alternative meaning for "Serious Consequences" what is it in light of the fact that all the worse consequences against Iraq, short of war, were already being employed? The USA reasons for going for another resolution were Political, not because they felt there was not a legal basis for action.

"Some of the Faked UN facts:
The most popular one of Iraq war I (i was talking in another thread about it and i want no 2nd discussion about faked facts):
Iraq war I:
The Incubator lie. US government hired Hill & Knowlton who designed the story, they prepared 5 of the whitneses at the UN security council the whitnesses (for example "Cindy" the daughter of the Kuwait Diplomat living in the US)."

No one made the decision to go to war with Iraq based on the Incubator story. The Incubator story was created by a small number Kuwaiti's and not the USA. I know you care more about this alleged US lie, then the thousands of Kuwaiti's still missing form that war, but thats another story. This is not an example of the USA faking anything, but simply a piece of probable intelligence that was later found not to be true. Compare that to the thousands of stories that were true and verified and proven to be true!

"Iraq War II:
GB: Tony blair got a report from his secret service which was saying the oposite of that what he wanted to hear (mainly: Iraq at its current state is no danger to other countries, there would be danger when we start a war because of the destabilisation)
He prefered to trust a old report from a californian(?) student and he said it would be a report of his secret service.."

Again a simple mistake and the British Secret Service never stated that Iraq did not have the capability to do serious damage to countries in the region. Lets not forget the intelligence services who said Saddam would not invade Kuwait in August of 1990. Part of the problem of Saddam is that he defy's any sort of rational prediction which perhaps the #1 reason he had to be overthrown.

"But lying in the UN, violating international laws, growing lots of anti-americanism worldwide, discrediting some long-term friends of the US, maybe destroying the UN - that is a high price for the fall of that single dictator.
Do you think that the UN or even the US congress would have agreed to that war if it was just for bringing democracy to Iraq? (let's hope we get a democracy and not a country which laws are the sharia) - do you think that WMDs which will be found only by US specialists, paid by the same people who wanted that war, will be a valid proof internationally?"

The USA never lied in the UN, in did not violate international laws(PLEASE READ RES. 678) and the only people that have discredited themselves are several countries like Germany and France who are wrongly obbessed with the USA using its military anywhere in the world. If you concerned about the UN, look no farther than France, Germany, and Russia, for why the UN is becoming irrelevant to some international issues. Thats a high price to pay for defending a dicatator like Saddam!

"Do you think that the UN or even the US congress would have agreed to that war if it was just for bringing democracy to Iraq? (let's hope we get a democracy and not a country which laws are the sharia) - do you think that WMDs which will be found only by US specialists, paid by the same people who wanted that war, will be a valid proof internationally?"

Do you think using UN specialist that are obviously opposed to any war in Iraq would be valid in the current search for WMD. They had their chance and they failed. The UN has been a total failure on Iraq and the USA is not about to compromise its national security by letting UN inspectors botch the important search to account for Iraq's WMD. I would trust a US soldier long before I would trust a UN specialist who could secretly be working for French or German government or perhaps is politically against the USA.

More Important the combined US military and US specialist are superior to anything another country would have to offer. The job of finding WMD will be much easier if Saddam's "allies" do not have a say in the search.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 07:08 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Klaus,

They are heroes!

"But because they are heroes dosn't legitimate that war, that dosn't automatically turn the politics of G.W.B. to a heroic politic"

I'm fully confident that there would never ever be any situation under which you would admit that the USA did the right thing.

"If someone wears the right uniform it dosn't automatically make him to a honnest person."

I never said that, and if you read my posts, you would understand a little more about how much the US military values honesty and integrity. The organization that most Americans trust and have pride in today, is the USA military. The US military beat out doctors, lawyers and the church.

"And Mr Blix did a really great job, i think he is a verry reliable person with high credibility."

Mr. Butler is the best UN inspector the UN ever had. Mr. Blix is simply a political supporter of the French and German positions. Mr. Blix's lack of aggressiveness in the past and failure to mention key weapons programs(remember the unmanned drone) is all the reason I need to doubt him. Any inspection effort in Iraq must be 100% free of German and French interference. We can't allow countries that wanted Saddam to continue in power to be apart of the process in any way.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 09:04 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:00 AM
I am so freaking tired of the Iraq situation. I have asked nicely and other members have asked too. This is NOT an Iraq thread. I think in the new rules, there should be something about derailing threads.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 09:28 PM   #24
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:00 AM
I couldn't agree more.
edited to say

I caught the tail end of a discussion at Georgetown U today on Cspan. Gen Clark was the moderator and they had 6 panelist. It was on America post 9-11 and post Iraq. The only person I caught was one of Clinton's US Ambassadors to the UN. I wish I had seen the entire show. They mostly endorsed strengthening the UN - versus some admin. advisors. I'm going to see if a transcript shows up. Basically they feel the UN is important for national security, supervising global AIDS, poverty, environmental affairs ect.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 09:30 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:00 AM
STING2: we should respect dreadsox wishes and move that discussion to one of the 1000 iraq threads

dreadsox: i'm sorry
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 09:59 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:00 AM
It's not a problem Klaus. I have been trying to hang in this area more for various reasons, and less in war. I used to feel like I was a moderate in here. The WAR and the WAR room seems to have polarized me more to the right than I am. I also feel that the WAR has moved others to the left. It is sad because I think FYM has lost good posters because of the situation. The four ideas I posted above, have nothing to do with UN resolutions ect. There were great people here, posting about AIDS, DEBT relief and I thought that the four ideas were related. Maybe we can recapture some of that if we can agree to disagree on the UN Resolutions and Iraq, and take a look at some other issues for a change.

Peace to all (I AM NOT JOHN LOCKE)
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 11:38 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


In that case, the United States must also accept that other countries aren't going to supports its policies where they disagree with them.
I agree with this and I think a majority of Americans believe this as well. I really believe that COMMUNICATION has not been good from this administration. I said it before the war started and I believe it now. There is a difference between COMMUNICATION and "If you are not with us you are against us."

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 12:17 AM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I agree with this and I think a majority of Americans believe this as well. I really believe that COMMUNICATION has not been good from this administration. I said it before the war started and I believe it now. There is a difference between COMMUNICATION and "If you are not with us you are against us."

Peace

Amen. My major complaint with the Administration is with their crummy communication.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 06:30 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Dreadsox,

I did not derail your thread! I simply responded to other peoples remarks posted in this thread.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 09:04 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Did I say your name directly? ANYWHERE?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox 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 04:00 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