USA needs a makeover!!!!!!

[Dreadsox]

First, we must listen to our allies. Because of America's economic, cultural and military predominance, America must lead. But, we must lead by listening and by example. When we disagree with our allies, we must explain why and how we are seeking to achieve our goals in a manner respectful to our allies. Such an approach would serve in stark contrast to our rapid withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on the greenhouse gas emissions and other actions. As powerful as we are, we still rely heavily on our allies to address the biggest threats to our nation - global disease, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among them.

Second, we must take imaginative steps to better address the scourge of AIDS and other communicable diseases that threaten global populations. The president's announcement of additional funds for AIDS in the State of the Union address was a step in this direction, but more needs to be done. Jeffrey Sachs, director of

Columbia University's Earth Institute, has estimated that $20 billion is needed per year to successfully combat HIV and other infectious diseases in Africa. We must think in these types of numbers, matched by the types of committed attention we are now focusing on Iraq.

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.

Finally, we should take consistent, meaningful steps to promote democracy where it does not exist, including among our allies. Democracy is risky and unpredictable, particularly in transitional societies, but over time, promoting real democracy will be our best investment in a more secure future. Citizens with democratic outlets are more likely to become street protesters than terrorists.

Taken from this article:

http://www.cfr.org/bio.php?id=1786

 

[Dreadsox]

20 Billion per year is a lot less than what Bush is offering.

 

[STING2]

The USA has been doing an excellent job in many of these area's. It is incredible the number of new democracy's that exist today in the world compared to the number there were in 1988.

I think Colin Powel does an excellent job at explaining US foreign policy to our Allies. The USA cannot be faulted for the obvious failings of many of our Allies.

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

I agree that Powell is doing his best in explaining the policy. Unfortunately, there are others who are much less eloquent and resort to leading by power (or by insult).

As powerful as we are, we still rely heavily on our allies to address the biggest threats to our nation - global disease, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among them.

Yes, the USA is the most powerful country on earth. However, it is not more powerful than all other countries combined. I sometimes have the feeling the USA forgets this. No matter how powerful it is, they do need the support from other countries to survive and prosper. And there'll always be situations where countries disagree, but by ruthlessly promoting/pushing its own view the support from other countries may vanish fast.

Finally, we should take consistent, meaningful steps to promote democracy where it does not exist, including among our allies. Democracy is risky and unpredictable, particularly in transitional societies, but over time, promoting real democracy will be our best investment in a more secure future. Citizens with democratic outlets are more likely to become street protesters than terrorists.

I also totally agree with this. Too often I get the feeling that the USA is not promoting democracy among its 'allies' (between quotes because I doubt how much some countries the USA calls allies really have friendly feelings for the USA), but only wants to use its regime for its own short-term goals. As the quote says, promoting/securing real democracy decreases the chance of terrorist attacks (with people more resorting to street protests). This may be the primary value the US government needs to promote among its 'allies', even before all its other values.

C ya!

Marty

P.S. Sting, what are the "obvious failings of many of our Allies"?

 

[STING2]

Popmartjin,

The USA was supported by 40 countries in its overthrow of the Iraqi regime which will allow democracy the chance to bloom in Iraq, unlike the European proposal that would maintain one of the worst dictatorships in history indefinitely. The USA can claim more true allies than any other single country on the planet.

 

[Klaus]

Sting:

out of the 40 countries who supported you only G.B. and in a much minor role Australia really supported you. Many other countries were unwilling to do more than to talk about support of the US. They only did talk about it because of political presure from your country.
So it was mainly the former british empire (sidenote: who controlled Iraq before Worldwar I too) who started the invasion or liberation.

Numerous long-term allies criticized the U.S. verry harsh for what they have done.
Also it was wrong what the U.S. did dosn't mean that there were no positive effects (Saddam dosn't control this country anymore)

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

Ah Yes, if 40 countries support, you must of had to preasure them. Please produce the undisputed evidence that any of these countries were preasured in any way more, than the countries Germany, France and others tried to gain the support of!

The reason most of the countries simply talked and offered other non-military support is because they were not needed from a military standpoint.

The USA was justified under international law for its actions per Resolution 678, 687, and 1441, all of which authorized the military action that took place.

In addition US military action was justified simply by self-defense, of the USA, the region, and any Iraqi who was being tortured or oppressed by Saddam Hussien.

French and German proposals were weak and would never of ensured that Saddam was disarmed. The only way to disarm a dictator with a large military who is unwilling to disarm is by military force! Also, French and German proposals would have left Saddam in power indefinitely leading to the murder and of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's through torture and the denial of humanitarian supplies by the Saddam regime.

Europe need to regroup and and rethink much of their foreign policy idea's. Their idea's failed in Bosnia and Kosovo, both which the USA solved for the Europeans. Their idea's for Iraq were simply a repitition of past failures, and would of consigned the Iraqi people to continued rule by a man who had already murdered more than a million of them through various means.

As more time passes, it will sink in more deeply how correct the Bush policy was, although it will be a difficult pill to swallow for some Europeans of course.

 

[Klaus]

Sting: the foreign ministers of these countries asked the US (and france also) to stop the presure, with Turkey and Mexico you have 2 big examples how US tried to 1st pay for political support and then later they tried to threaten them.

US was not legitimated to start that invasion.
You are right, the text inside the resolutions were fuzzy. But the countries who signed that resolutions said that this should be not missunderstood as a legitimation to start an invasion.
If you are unsure what a law means you have to look for the intension of the ones who created the law and i think we should read resolutions in the same way.

Self defense?
Did i miss something here? did we find weapons which made it possible for Iraq to attack the US?

It's noble to stop torture of opressed people, but it's imho cynical to use them as an excuse to start a war. There were many US allies (and there still are..) who don't treat their people better than Saddam does.

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.

Let's see if someone less biased then american special forces can find evidence for the WMDs and the weapons of the Iraqis which were such a great threat to mankind that this war can be called legitime.

It's hard to trust a US government which faked so many facts to get support of the UN, most US critic people wouldn't trust that the WMDs US inspectors might find were there before US inspectors were at that place

That's one of the reasons why i'd prefer Blix to do his job again.

Klaus

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Good article, Dreadsox - I agree with the overall sentiments of it, but there are a few points I'm less convinced by.

When we disagree with our allies, we must explain why and how we are seeking to achieve our goals in a manner respectful to our allies.

I think perhaps it would be better if the US were more open to considering the opinions of other countries. This article seems to imply it would have been okay to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol if it had just been explained more clearly to its allies. However, I think that given that almost every other country in the world supported Kyoto, the United States had a responsibility to the rest of the world to support it. I don't think it's enough to say "we're going to explain more clearly to our allies when we disagree" - there needs to be a recognition that sometimes other countries will be right and the US wrong, and the US shouldn't dismiss other countries concerns, no matter how nice it is about explaining it.

Second, we must take imaginative steps to better address the scourge of AIDS and other communicable diseases that threaten global populations. The president's announcement of additional funds for AIDS in the State of the Union address was a step in this direction, but more needs to be done.

Absolutely right! Yes, more needs to be done on this subject, and I do hope that the money promised in the State of the Union goes to those organisations which need it and not to only those groups which are acceptable to the extreme right in US politics. (I'm sorry for being critical here, I don't want to imply that I'm not delighted that Bush promised so much money for fighting AIDS/HIV, but it is a huge concern to me that the money might not go to those organisations which need it most.)

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

As more time passes, it will sink in more deeply how correct the Bush policy was, although it will be a difficult pill to swallow for some Europeans of course.

STING, I don't mean to be rude, but I think that's a very arrogant attitude. The opinions of European countries can't be disregarded - they represent hundreds of millions of people and have a significant influence in the world.

And it has not been proven that Bush's policy was correct - I'm of the opinion that we need to wait and see what happens in Iraq before declaring Bush's policy a huge success. Let's wait and see if the Iraqis are able to choose their own government or if they will end up living under occupation for a significant length of time. The US said this war was to bring democracy to Iraq and I don't believe that the mere absence of Saddam Hussein means that Iraq has become a democratic country.

In addition, I find the doctrine of pre-emptive attacks which Bush's policy on Iraq represents to be extremely worrying and definitely not something which European countries ought to accept. I think this doctrine could lead to some frightening developments, for instance attacks on countries such as Syria, Iran or North Korea.

 

[Dreadsox]

Popmartjin,

The USA was supported by 40 countries in its overthrow of the Iraqi regime which will allow democracy the chance to bloom in Iraq, unlike the European proposal that would maintain one of the worst dictatorships in history indefinitely. The USA can claim more true allies than any other single country on the planet.

As a conservative, and a person who follows the news, I find it troubling that this has all of a sudden become the MAIN reason went into IRAQ.

This was NOT the true reason. I find it laughable that some in the media and our governement are TRYING to shift from the fact that war was about WMD and violations of UN Resolutions. HOw many times, have I seen this president say that the US Military should not be used for nation building? I can find quotes in Woodwards book which covers after 9-11.

When the WMD are found I will celebrate the fact that MAYBE there will be a democracy there. The problem is, if we allow the Iraqi's to form a "democracy" will it be a country that will be happy with the US or not. But that is another issue all together.


Fizzing,

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. I will say this, that I believe Collin Powell has failed as a Secretary of State. What accomplishements can he claim to have achieved in his tenure as Secretary of State. I also believe that this President, has been getting advice from people who think that we can do whatever we want, because we are the USA (Pearle, Wolfowitz, Armitage).

The author is saying that we need to communicate better with our allies. He is not saying we need to move in whatever direction the allies want us to. He is also not saying we do not have allies. I think he is pointing to the fact that during the past few years since 9-11 we have lost a lot of the goodwill the world felt towards our country.

I cut this part out of the article, because I did not want it moved to war as it spoke about 9-11. The four points above where most important, but you may enjoy reading the rest of it.

I think this person hits it on the head, that battling poverty and working to give people a voice in their own country, will allow them to vent their frustrations rather than turn to terrorism. Isn't that ultimately what the war on terror is about.?

 

[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.

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:

back to your article...

first: yes, good point, because without listening and explaining yourself no other country can be a longterm partner of the superpower.

second: imho destruction of nature (CO2 emissions, lack of Water)is about the same quality of danger than AIDS,future wars because of water don't seem impossible for me.
And the presure of 3rd world countries against the rich noth might increase dramatically when they don't have enough water to grow food or not even enough clean water to drink.

Imho the money is here and it's not the mayor problem in fighting AIDS & Co (just take a look how much money we can spend for other things), the problem is that most nations only spend money for humanitarian stuff when big national companies (which spend some money to the politicans) can profit from it.
So most of the time it's subventions in the coat of humanitarian reasons.

overall a article worth reading, thanks for posting it!

Klaus

 

[BVS]

The USA cannot be faulted for the obvious failings of many of our Allies.

Yes we are free of fault. Your humbleness is so refreshing.

 

[verte76]

STING, I don't mean to be rude, but I think that's a very arrogant attitude. The opinions of European countries can't be disregarded - they represent hundreds of millions of people and have a significant influence in the world.

And it has not been proven that Bush's policy was correct - I'm of the opinion that we need to wait and see what happens in Iraq before declaring Bush's policy a huge success. Let's wait and see if the Iraqis are able to choose their own government or if they will end up living under occupation for a significant length of time. The US said this war was to bring democracy to Iraq and I don't believe that the mere absence of Saddam Hussein means that Iraq has become a democratic country.

In addition, I find the doctrine of pre-emptive attacks which Bush's policy on Iraq represents to be extremely worrying and definitely not something which European countries ought to accept. I think this doctrine could lead to some frightening developments, for instance attacks on countries such as Syria, Iran or North Korea.

I agree, Fizz. First of all I think the opinions of the European allies--and yes, they are allies--are important. It's bad for us and bad for the world as a whole when the U.S. says "to hell with France and anyone else who disagrees with us". France would like to work with the U.S. and others in working out the disagreement over the Iraqi sanctions. I think they should go ahead and lift the sanctions because the Iraqis need $$ for health care and other services. I do *not* believe this because my government wants it. It needs to be worked out and we need the Europeans to do it.
Also it's too early to call Bush's Iraq plan successful. It will be successful only when there is a democratic state apparatus in Iraq. I understand that it will take time to set this up, but it's crucial. There are different people in the country with differing political and religious opinions. There are the Kurds, the Shi'ite Moslems, the Sunni Moslems and these don't always get along with each other. Meanwhile, until the democratic state apparatus is functioning and there are elections scheduled and such, it's premature to call the Bush initiative a "success". They're not finished with it yet. We need to see the results. They're not there yet. It's not enough to win the war in the military sense, we've also got to win a political war. In my opinion there have been screw-ups in the political war. We can't afford too many screw-ups or we'll totally alienate the Iraqi people and that will kill the whole thing. I don't mean to re-hash the antiquities controversy but I read in the press where they now have security at the museums. I think they decided that they need to do this for political reasons, not military reasons. Winning the political war is an emotional thing, not a logical thing. It will be tough, possibly rather messy, stuff.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

 

[STING2]

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?

 

[Klaus]

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]

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

 

[Scarletwine]

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.

 

[STING2]

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]

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[Scarletwine]

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.

 

[Klaus]

STING2: we should respect dreadsox wishes and move that discussion to one of the 1000 iraq threads

dreadsox: i'm sorry

 

[Dreadsox]

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]

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

 

[verte76]

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.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

I did not derail your thread! I simply responded to other peoples remarks posted in this thread.

 

[Dreadsox]

Did I say your name directly? ANYWHERE?