can america "do" diplomacy? (1 Viewer)

[mikhail]

For me Americas diplomacy of do what we say or else is failing.Now the compromise between the world and iran is being put in jeopardy by president bush's threatening words i do realise he is trying to make it look like a victory to simpleminded fools that think everything has to look like victory. Why do people not understand that Iran is a proud nation and trying to make it look like a victory will not work.

Why do people not let the UN do its job Its my opinion America cant do diplomacy Its like sending someones worse enemy to handle a disagreement between them and you.

President bush needs to stop talking like clint eastwood at the end of unforgiven JUST SHUT YOUR ****ING MOUTH YOUR MAKING THE SITUATION WORSE.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Why do people not let the UN do its job Its my opinion America cant do diplomacy Its like sending someones worse enemy to handle a disagreement between them and you.

Kinda like we tried to do between the Gulf War and Going into Iraq this last time?
Boy the UN did a bang up job there didnt they?

we have found 500+ chemical weapons the UN managed to lose.

 

[mikhail]

yes because the US has never used chemical weapons

 

[ProudAmerican]

yes because the US has never used chemical weapons

Im trying to figure out what that has to do with the UN being incompetent.

you asked why we dont just let the UN do its job. When I point out the UN cant do its job properly, you bring up an entirely different topic??

not very good debating on your part im affraid.

what you should have done was show me how the UN is competent.....but I realize thats near impossible, so you had no choice but to bring up America and chemical weapons.....

so I guess its ok under the circumstances.

 

[mikhail]

The point is America cant do diplomacy the UN is far from perfect but has a collective IQ higher than the American government. The USA is terrible at diplomacy which is something no one can disagree with every time stupidity takes over

 

[VTA]

Do you mean diplomacy like the Iranians? Blowing up the Khobar towers in 96? Quite an effort at diplomacy...

Or are you thinking more on along the lines of Irans subtle use of diplomatic pressure in the Israeli/Palestine matter...?

Iran Orders Attacks on Israel

Syria, Iran backed suicide bombing in Israel

Iran-backed Hizbullah strikes Israel from Lebanon


Yes a proud nation, with so much to be proud of...:roll:

 

[talloulou]

For me Americas diplomacy of do what we say or else is failing.Now the compromise between the world and iran is being put in jeopardy by president bush's threatening words i do realise he is trying to make it look like a victory to simpleminded fools that think everything has to look like victory. Why do people not understand that Iran is a proud nation and trying to make it look like a victory will not work.

It would be easier to address your statement if you actually quoted exactly what Bush said that has you upset.

Why do people not let the UN do its job Its my opinion America cant do diplomacy Its like sending someones worse enemy to handle a disagreement between them and you.

It would be cool if America didn't have to police the world but clearly they do. Just look at all the crap that is going on that the UN isn't doing crap about. How long did it take the UN to get involved in the genocide in the Sudan? How much are they actually doing to police that part of the world? Unfortunately the UN has not shown themselves capable of policing the world.

Also how many times do we hear people complaining after each catastrophe that the US is doing to little, giving too little, ect.?

 

[mikhail]

Refer to the question

 

[MSgt]

Refer to the question

Your question is not a question. It is a senseless whine.

Is the great UN you speak of the one where it was uncovered that the loudest critics of our action in Iraq (key figures from Europe) made illicit tens of billions in the corrupt U.N. oil-for-food program?

Is the grreat UN you speak of the same one that sent half the world into Somalia and when the mandate ran out, simply left America to stand alone until we tucked tail and ran?

Is the great UN you speak of the same one that sat on their asses and discussed the genocides in Kosovo and were still discussing it with the EU as American boots touched the ground?

Is the great UN you speak of the same one that pointed out the genocide in Sudan and Rwanda, yet did absolutely nothinig about it? - Perhaps they were waiting on America to take the lead.

This rediculous crying about "America the bully" is so tired. In the end, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about anything America does. America always deals in diplomacy before it acts. This is where the world fails. It lacks the ability to identify when diplomacy is at its end. There is no way to determine exactly how many wars have been averted due to American diplomacy or a simple embassy. One of the most humerous ironies of the day is how individual's complain as their own governments do everything possible to stay in our good graces. Why? Because without us leading the way and insisting that others participate, this world would very much belong to "Old Europe." That anchient sentiment that upholds the corrupt sham that a brutal dictator is protected behind his "soveriegn" borders. The UN is as European as the EU. Europe is a continent of words. Ours is of action. And everytime America jumps out to protect the weak, protect American interests, or protect our extremely ungreatful allies' interests, it reminds our critics that they lack any kind of will to do anything on their own. It is a proven fact that most of the world will not bother with things that America will do for them. It allows them to benefit while doing nothing and gives them their "moral" platform to point out our mistakes as exoneration.

Reality has no weight for the ideologues who cannot live without the conviction that only the United States is ever guilty. Especially those individuals who long for a world where a great UN sits around and discusses attrocities, but never really commits to anything.

 

[SFLRN]

Guys lets remember if the only reason we shouldn't follow a government is corruption then should we really follow politicians on either side of our government? The fact is that all form of government have corruption, the U.N. is no exception. I do agree that America is entitled to have a bigger concern about its national security it being the global hegemon. It is also true that America is the most powerful country in the world and thus acts as a world leader. We have to remember though, this isn't just a war of bombs and bullets. Its a war that requires intelligence so we can employ preventative measures to prevent long-term threats. The best way to go about this by working with other nations and having them help us with the fight on terrorism. Multi-lateralism is simply the best way to make this a war of our allies and not a war of the U.S. Sure we don't always get what we want, sure its slow, but isn't that how any democratic system works? We don't always get what we want but on the whole we benefit. On the whole we can benefit from Europe helping us promote global stability. Behind terrorists is a political cause and by fighting that political cause and fighting the terrorists, we get rid of our enemy and prevent more young dissaffected youth from employing terrorism for political message. I would also contend that the U.S. wasn't particularily active with Sudan early on and did nothing with Rwanda. Neither the U.N. are perfect, but I would agree the U.S. is more concisive.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
Im trying to figure out what that has to do with the UN being incompetent.

you asked why we dont just let the UN do its job. When I point out the UN cant do its job properly, you bring up an entirely different topic??

not very good debating on your part im affraid.

what you should have done was show me how the UN is competent.....but I realize thats near impossible, so you had no choice but to bring up America and chemical weapons.....

so I guess its ok under the circumstances.

The UN was doing their job up until Bush made it a war zone. Don't give me this bullshit PA! Inspectors were on the ground doing their thing, but we just had to go to war.

And stop bringing up that story of the 500 munitions. It's already been debunked by all the relevent experts. Only the two Republicans trying to keep their jobs are the ones making this an issue.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
Your question is not a question. It is a senseless whine.

That's a cheap shot. He made a valid point. Not a whine. There was no reason to rush to war when we did. We still had time to let the UN inspectors complete their mission. But we didn't let them now, did we?

 

[MSgt]

That's a cheap shot. He made a valid point. Not a whine. There was no reason to rush to war when we did. We still had time to let the UN inspectors complete their mission. But we didn't let them now, did we?

He didn't state that he made a point. He stated that he asked a question.

His point is ignorant. The majority of the voices in the United Nations do not represent the majority of their own populations. The United Nations has become a travesty, a talkathon for tyrants. Dozens of the United Nations members come from inadequate governments and have an addiction to corruption and practice their own brand of murder within their own borders. See it for what it is Billo. Not for what you want it to be.

Screw the UN. Until they lift themselves out of their slothful weaknesses and willingness to give an outright wink at human attrocity, only we matter. Only we can and will take care of Americans. The rest of the world can cry to the UN for help. See if they get it.

 

[SFLRN]

GySgt. I've already addressed the corruption arguement, all governments have some form of corruption, ours included. That does not mean we stop following them. Yes there are tyrants in the U.N. but unilateralism is a failed policy in regards to a preventative war, sure in immediate situations unilateral action is usually needed. But when the threat is long term multi-lateralism is a proven mechanism. The simple fact is, as policy expert Zbigniew Brzezinski puts it, if we want to provide global stability then employing Europe in this war is our best bet. How do we address the underlying political reasons for terrorism by simple warfare? That method does not work, we need military and diplomacy so the disaffected youth don't use terrorism for political ends and instead use constitutional means. Bomb Bin Laden, but use diplomacy to get rid of the things that made him become a terrorist to prevent the cycle from repeating.

 

[VTA]

The UN was doing their job up until Bush made it a war zone.

No they weren't. They were play acting for 12 years, while on the Sadaam dole. Sadaam could easily have opened up and made America look stupid, instead he put his faith in the bribes he made and ended up hiding in a dirt hole.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by vta:
No they weren't. They were play acting for 12 years, while on the Sadaam dole. Sadaam could easily have opened up and made America look stupid, instead he put his faith in the bribes he made and ended up hiding in a dirt hole.

We knew what was going on with OFF for years and said nothing. Don't give me that Oil For Food bullshit. Were part of the UNSC, which was briefed for years on how that money was spent. And 51% of it was American dollars. Houston businessman American dollars. If we really wanted to stop it, why didn't we shut him down.

How do know the UN inspectors were not doing their job? What do you base that on (other than emotion)?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by SFLRN:
Bomb Bin Laden, but use diplomacy to get rid of the things that made him become a terrorist to prevent the cycle from repeating.

I don't think we are even going after UBL.

July 4, 2006
C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

First we stop looking for WMD's, then we stop looking for UBL, because we have to spend more time looking at Americans.

 

[VTA]

We knew what was going on with OFF for years and said nothing. Don't give me that Oil For Food bullshit. Were part of the UNSC, which was briefed for years on how that money was spent. And 51% of it was American dollars. Houston businessman American dollars. If we really wanted to stop it, why didn't we shut him down.

How do know the UN inspectors were not doing their job? What do you base that on (other than emotion)?

If binary code conveyed emotions Billo, your posts would be shrill; avoid the emotions route. Pragmatic assessment of the facts and Sadaams on again-off again compliance tell the story of the UN's failure. Either the U.N is truly run by buffoons, or they were complicent in the mess.

In case you missed it, America did shut him/them down. That's what the whole argument is isn't it? What are we doing in Iraq? As to why it's taken so long; apparently, along with Clintons public loathing of the American military, he also had an aversion to actually doing his job.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
If binary code conveyed emotions Billo, your posts would be shrill; avoid the emotions route. Pragmatic assessment of the facts and Sadaams on again-off again compliance tell the story of the UN's failure. Either the U.N is truly run by buffoons, or they were complicent in the mess.

In case you missed it, America did shut him/them down. That's what the whole argument is isn't it? What are we doing in Iraq? As to why it's taken so long; apparently, along with Clintons public loathing of the American military, he also had an aversion to actually doing his job.

Just answer the god-damn question! Post your proof! We pre-empted the UN's job! Now post your f.ucking proof!

 

[VTA]

Just answer the god-damn question! Post your proof! We pre-empted the UN's job! Now post your f.ucking proof!

Get a grip on yourself son.

I did answer the question ( I answered two, in fact) and the proof is in the pudding for the whole world to see Billo, do your homework. If you think I'm going to scour the net for links to pacify your biligerence, you have a better chance of passing gold bricks through your colon.

I'm sorry the answers to the world's ills aren't found in internet links; someone should have shaken you from your slumber during the 90's and alerted you to how things were going beyond your peanut shell of self interest.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
Get a grip on yourself son.

I did answer the question ( I answered two, in fact) and the proof is in the pudding for the whole world to see Billo, do your homework. If you think I'm going to scour the net for links to pacify your biligerence, you have a better chance of passing gold bricks through your colon.

I'm sorry the answers to the world's ills aren't found in internet links; someone should have shaken you from your slumber during the 90's and alerted you to how things were going beyond your peanut shell of self interest.

The word is B-E-L-L-I-G-E-R-E-N-C-E.

You asserted the UN was not doing their job. You have provided no proof to back up this assertion.

If the UN could not find any WMD's in Iraq. We have been there for over 3 years now and have not found any. Bush has admitted we are not even looking for any. So that leaves one to conclude that the UN was doing their job because they drew the same conclusion.

The day the find WMD's in Iraq will be the day I admit you were right, "The UN wasn't doing their job".

Until then, prove it.

You don't have to cite internet links with me. Just give me your rationale. I'm not going to bust your balls like many of the right-wing posters in this forum do. You haven't explained what your justification is that makes your conclusion valid.

 

[akyron]

You asserted the UN was not doing their job. You have provided no proof to back up this assertion..

Ill help him out a little.


UN Failed to Halt 1994 Genocide in Rwanda


Why the Security Council Failed


Annan admits UN failed

Former UN humanitarian aid coordinator speaks out:
"The UN failed the Iraqi people"

The United Nations Failed Us

U.N. Failed to Avert Angola Disaster

UN Failed
Ignored Genocide, Report Says

Has the United Nations Failed?

UN peacekeeping record

There is a common theme......

Thats page 1.

I wont go into the plethora of UN scandals which is a separate type of failure.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
Ill help him out a little.
UN Failed to Halt 1994 Genocide in Rwanda
Why the Security Council Failed
Annan admits UN failed
Former UN humanitarian aid coordinator speaks out:
"The UN failed the Iraqi people"
The United Nations Failed Us
U.N. Failed to Avert Angola Disaster
UN Failed
Ignored Genocide, Report Says
Has the United Nations Failed?
UN peacekeeping record
There is a common theme......
Thats page 1.
I wont go into the plethora of UN scandals which is a separate type of failure.

Your points are valid ones. However, I respectfully remind you that this discussion was about whether the UN inspectors were not doing their job. That was his assertion. I wanted proof to show they were not doing their job. You have provided proof the UN is not always successful and does have legitimate problems that need to be addressed. But you have not shown how UN inspectors failed in Iraq.

The UN has let the Iraqi people down by not coming out and condemning the US invasion after they made it clear the US attacked without UNSC authorization.

My contention is that the UN inspectors were doing their job and that it was pre-empted before they had time to finish. Iraq was not an imminent threat that constituted an attack at that time. We could have let diplomacy continue for a while longer.............but we didn't.

 

[akyron]

My contention is that the UN inspectors were doing their job and that it was pre-empted before they had time to finish. Iraq was not an imminent threat that constituted an attack at that time. We could have let diplomacy continue for a while longer.............but we didn't.

That is not what you said.

"the UN was not doing their job"

All right. Even so you think a dozen years was not enough?



Case Not Closed: Iraq’s WMD Stockpiles

Iraq WMD Timeline

"I have covered a lot of ground today, much of it highly technical. Although we are resisting drawing conclusions in this first interim report, a number of things have become clearer already as a result of our investigation, among them: 1. Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction."
"undeclared, ongoing activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1,000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km."

"whatever we find will probably differ from pre-war intelligence. Empirical reality on the ground is, and has always been, different from intelligence judgments that must be made under serious constraints of time, distance and information. "

"we have found people, technical information and illicit procurement networks that if allowed to flow to other countries and regions could accelerate global proliferation."

Iraq weapons inspector David Kay's congressional testimony



"it is not a matter of how much time to give inspectors but of how much time we have already given Iraq. And in these 12 long years, the regime has yet to even accept disarmament in principle, according to Dr. Blix. At this point, giving Iraq more time may well be wishful thinking. Arguing for more time is essentially telling Saddam Hussein that the threat of "serious consequences" is hollow, just like every other threat made over the past 12 years."---Rich Armitage US Secretary of State

"Why We Know Iraq is Lying" A Column by Dr. Condoleezza Rice

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
That is not what you said.

Go back and read it again.

Originally posted by akyron:
All right. Even so you think a dozen years was not enough?

A dozen years of what? Imposing sanctions so harsh that it killed a million of their children. Besides, it was not our call to make. If were going to belong to an organization, we should abide by their rules. Especially the ones we contribute too in making.

Don't bring up Hans Blix and try to infer he was pro-war or said they had WMD's or were not cooperating with inspectors. But Blix is the authority on this subject. If anyone should know whether they had or hadn't, it is him.

Blix: 'Iraq war not justified'
London 18 Sep 2003 11:39

Former United Nations arms inspector Hans Blix said on Thursday that the war on Iraq was not justified and that Washington and London "over-interpreted" intelligence data, while a new message attributed to ousted president Saddam Hussein urged Iraqis to fight United States occupying forces.

Blix, who only a day earlier had said Saddam had not had weapons of mass destruction for 10 years before the war, spoke again after US President George Bush said there was no proof tying Baghdad to the September 11 terror attacks in the US.

"No, I don't think so," Blix told BBC radio when asked if the March 20 US-led invasion that led to the fall of Saddam's regime was justified.

Asked if the US and Britain had talked up the case for war, Blix replied: "They over-interpreted."

Blix said the US and Britain were "convinced" Saddam was going in the direction of developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"I think it is understandable against the background of the man that they did so," he said.

"But in the Middle Ages, when people were convinced there were witches, when they looked for them, they certainly found them."

On Wednesday, Blix told Australian national radio Saddam had misled the world into believing he still possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to ward off any attack.

http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.a...king_news__international_news&articleid=29108

U.S. On The Defensive Over Blix
By Suzanne Goldenberg The Guardian Thursday 12 June 2003

The debate over Saddam Hussein's banned arsenal turned to bitter recrimination yesterday with the Bush administration fending off charges of doctoring intelligence and conducting a smear campaign against the UN weapons chief.

At the United Nations, the retiring chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, appeared to revel in the embarrassment caused to senior US officials by an exclusive Guardian interview in which he complained he was the target of a smear campaign by some sections of the Pentagon.

In his conversation with the Guardian, Dr Blix lashed out at his detractors in the Pentagon, saying that in the run-up to the war, Washington had put pressure on his inspectors to produce highly critical reports that could bolster its case for war.

In a series of interviews on his clashes with the Pentagon, Dr Blix told ABC's Good Morning America that the US intelligence had proved faulty.

"I agree that the Iraqis are very clever. They have learned, had many years to learn how to hide things," he said. "But nevertheless, most of [the] intelligence has not been solid. Maybe they thought it was solid, but it hasn't led us to the right places."

From his corner, Mr Annan also pointed out that the intelligence supplied to the UN inspectors on suspected sites in Iraq had failed to produce any trace of weapons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,975667,00.html

All the evidence points to a rogue President who disregards the rule of law for his own personal gain.