dottedmint: Considering he was bribing members of the UN to try to get the sanctions lifted and considering he was trying to rebuild his military who knows what exactly Saddam would be doing now.For some strange reason I doubt that he would be promoting freedom and liberty in Iraq and the mid-east.
dottedmint: tdyak "And for the record, we aren't exactly promoting freedom or liberty in Iraq either."You are kidding right????How many elections have there been since we got rid of Saddam?How much more could we be promoting freedom and liberty in Iraq????I mean really....What are we not doing that we should?
dottedmint: How much more could we be promoting freedom and liberty in Iraq????I mean really....What are we not doing that we should?
dottedmint: There are people who would like to see things go back to the way they were when Saddam was in power.
AdamK: big long post
dottedmint: I guess you have not been paying attention Whidbey because we are taking steps so that we can get out.
dottedmint: OR we can pull out and rely on 'hope and change' that Al Quada won't take over Iraq.
tdyak: AdamK: big long postOf course, the Republican party could be throwing a curve-ball by letting a prominent member retire as a presidential hopeful, ensuring he has a nice retirement package of speaking engagements and book deals.Use Palin as a way to find and mark the best muckrakers the Democrats and Media have (keep a record of all people flying into Alaska, shorten the list). Then start to dismantle that force before the next major election.The next four years are going to be hard, and what better way to ensure the Republican return to power than letting the Democrat party take responsibility for the hard years. This could be a great strategy to throw the election./Of course, you know what I'm full of.
dottedmint: whidbey "dottedmint is an honest to goodness 20%-er."I don't think I have ever heard that term before Whidbey.Can you explain what you mean by "20%-er"?
Maturin: I don't think this is a good choice for him.
dottedmint: And for the record we have no way of knowing how much of an influence Palin would have in a McCain WH.Personally I would NOT underestimate how much of a role she could have.
Maturin: I did not suggest that Phelps shares Palin's beliefs. Only that some people go to extremes in their expression of their beliefs. I suspect that there are many Christians, however, who would hold that if McCain were to die in office and Palin ascend to the presidency that it would reflect divine providence.Now I ask you, if you had lived during WW II, would you have prayed for the death of Hitler? I for one think I would have. Same for Stalin. There are almost certainly people who are praying for Fidel Castro's death. It is a debate that is alive today. (http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=13078)What I find interesting about Palin's nomination is the transformation I have seen in local Republicans. I live in a very conservative town, and most of them supported Huckabee. When McCain won, they seemed demoralized. Now they are ready to hop and his bandwagon. I don't know if they feel that this means McCain has changed his political stripes, or that they think Palin will transform his views. Personally, (and I am a McCain admirer, at least until the campaign started to get so dirty) I find it hard to believe that he will change his views because of Palin. He doesn't seem that easily swayed, and I don't think that she will have the influence Cheney had on Bush-43. Sarah Palin is not Dick Cheney in drag. So if she is VP, and McCain does the unthinkable by compromising with the Democrats in control of Congress, (as he will have to do if he wants to get anything done) then I think some of religious wing of the Republican party will begin to think dour thoughts about him.
martianlunatic: I've seen the same on the Left. Before the election, McCain was considered the most moderate of the republicans, and was generally thought rather well of by the left (for a republican, that is).
MegaCorpEmployee: So, now that we've screwed up what few things Iraq had going for it, we should just leave?
MegaCorpEmployee: have you seen the effects that turning areas over to the UN has on that region? In parts of West Africa you can't hire people to work for you because they live so well off of UN handouts.
MegaCorpEmployee: Once again, the UN would be better? With their serial raping, child molesting, sex slave trading ways
MegaCorpEmployee: I'm not sure how respected the Telegraph is but this article isn't the first I've heard about it. And two, they're incompetent.
dottedmint: Is the US perfect?NO. I never said it was but I am willing to argue that this country does far more good and is far more open than any country out there.
whidbey: Whatever. Would you do the courtesy of elaborating?
whidbey: There have been some resolutions passed in reaction to the US invasion, but the US has seen to keeping the the UN's political role weak, not surprisingly. There is some talk of expanding the UN's role, but it depends on if this government allows it to happen or not.
whidbey: We bombed plenty of innocents, maybe not "intentionally," but where's our credibility to begin with? This was seen as an illegal operation.
MegaCorpEmployee: yeah, we're obviously taking all their oil for out benefit.
MegaCorpEmployee: If you want an organization to get anything done, you can't have a controlling body like the Security Council where any nation can veto a vote. If all the nations had the same goal in mind, maybe then you could, but peoples of the various nations that make up the Security council have very different values, making unanimous agreement hard to come by.
dottedmint: My point Whidbey is that I have not heard the UN say, "Enough! The UN is going to take over operations in Iraq and provide security, and coordinate the rebuilding of that country."Have you?Of course the UN was willing to pass the occasional resolution against Saddam but was unwilling to take action.
whidbey: Eliminating the power of veto would be such a rational step to take. But who's going to suggest that kind of limitation? We still hold the record for the most vetoes against resolutions, including many human rights resolutions because...they would have to apply to us and we'd have to get our act together.
whidbey: I'm sure there is. But it doesn't change what I said: that our initial action of invasion was the catalyst and the blood is on our hands for allowing it.
whidbey: Because we would have vetoed it. Our bad behavior at the UN in 2003 proved that we don't need any kind of "authorization." We would vote against any binding action that would limit US involvement from the area.
whidbey: The US has a long history of supporting dictators including Saddam. Usually they do what we say. Saddam didn't.
whidbey: Depends on the severity of the situation. Personally, I think it would have been handled a lot better that there might not have been an insurgency if there had truly been an international presence and not just a joint US/UK venture. People do not trust the two countries acting alone.
whidbey: Not the point. Saddam was a bad man. The US behaved badly by showing up half-assedly into a sovereign nation, without authorization, and history will show that this country played a role in the deaths of perhaps a million or more Iraqis.
whidbey: If the power of veto were eliminated, and we were really serious about turning the UN into an organization that took the lead in crisis situations, then there would be a rebuilding force in Iraq, and the US's role would be primarily reparations. Flying unicorns, man...
MegaCorpEmployee: whidbey: Eliminating the power of veto would be such a rational step to take. But who's going to suggest that kind of limitation? We still hold the record for the most vetoes against resolutions, including many human rights resolutions because...they would have to apply to us and we'd have to get our act together.I'm not sure, but I think Russia/USSR holds the record regarding number of vetoes. Granted, if you don't count them as a continuous entity, then you're right, we have used the veto most often.
dottedmint: "No, they're pissed at us because we unilaterally invaded a sovereign country against the will of the international community, leveled a country to utter devastation and against the advice of top military planners. I'd be joining the insurgency too if that happened here."1. We did not act "unilaterally" no matter how many times people say we did.
If you like these links, you'll love
$5 a month since 19 aught diddly.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 22 2018 00:34:53
Runtime: 0.739 sec (739 ms)