Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for why Bolton should not be confimed
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 98 (214152)
06-04-2005 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by mark24
06-04-2005 10:40 AM


mark24 writes me:
quote:
So the UN are full of shit for threatening crap when they have no intention of supporting their resolutions, aren't they?
No, they're impotent. There's a difference. They may have every intention of supporting their resolutions, but if the US doesn't come along there's nothing they can do.
If the US made a policy of following UN resolutions you might have a point about the 12 years. But the US doesn't, so you don't.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 10:40 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 11:03 AM berberry has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5450 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 92 of 98 (214153)
06-04-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
06-04-2005 10:41 AM


Crashfrog,
Since their resolutions carry no weight and have no effect, how can they constitute the beginning of a war?
Why make resolutions, then?
The context of the conversation Holmes & I are having is within the context of the UN resolutions, & 12 years after is not a rush. Clinton invading Iraq months after the first violation might consitute a rush, but Bush years after doesn't.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 10:41 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 10:49 AM mark24 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 93 of 98 (214154)
06-04-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by mark24
06-04-2005 10:47 AM


Why make resolutions, then?
Who knows? I guess they feel like they need to do something.
The context of the conversation Holmes & I are having is within the context of the UN resolutions, & 12 years after is not a rush.
The UN didn't ivade Iraq; the US did. The context of the discussion you are having is whether or not Bush rushed to war (rushed the country to war, technically, since he didn't pick up a rifle and head out), and 12 years of resolutions have absolutely nothing to do with that.
AbE: Moreover, since the legal case that Iraq violated Resolution 687 is tenuous at best, the "12 years" argument is even less relevant. 687 provided no basis for the invasion of Iraq.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-04-2005 10:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 10:47 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 11:09 AM crashfrog has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5450 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 94 of 98 (214159)
06-04-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by berberry
06-04-2005 10:46 AM


berberry,
No, they're impotent. There's a difference. They may have every intention of supporting their resolutions, but if the US doesn't come along there's nothing they can do.
Nonsense, there is the rest of the world, it is the United Nations, not the United States. There is France, Italy, Russia, UK, Germany, Spain, India, China, Argentina, Brazil, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
If the US made a policy of following UN resolutions you might have a point about the 12 years. But the US doesn't, so you don't.
If you are going to argue with comments I've made, at least do me the honour of getting the context correct. The UN had resolutions that threatened force, & that after 12 years there were still member states that had no intention of going to war despite their cheap talk.
The point I am making is that you shouldn't threaten force unless you are going to deliver. I am not making a pro-war argument. Please understand the distinction.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by berberry, posted 06-04-2005 10:46 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by berberry, posted 06-04-2005 9:06 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5450 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 95 of 98 (214161)
06-04-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by crashfrog
06-04-2005 10:49 AM


Crashfrog,
The UN didn't ivade Iraq; the US did. The context of the discussion you are having is whether or not Bush rushed to war
Have it your way, if Bush rushed to war he wouldn't have waited 3 years into his term before doing it, would he?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 10:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 11:31 AM mark24 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 98 (214164)
06-04-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by mark24
06-04-2005 11:09 AM


Have it your way, if Bush rushed to war he wouldn't have waited 3 years into his term before doing it, would he?
Well, he didn't. He had plans to do it from the get-go, we now know. He was just waiting for the excuse he would need to get everybody else - like the media - to go along, and in 9/11, he found it.
These are things we know from the administration itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 11:09 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 97 of 98 (214209)
06-04-2005 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by mark24
06-04-2005 9:01 AM


Our differences seem to rest on your belief that bluffing is a morally correct modus operandi in diplomacy.
You have not understood my post to you. I thought I made it very clear that we have three separate points of difference and they are all exclusive.
1) Bluffing is a part of diplomacy, and I do argue it can be a valuable part of diplomacy.
2) REGARDLESS OF IF BLUFFING IS ACCEPTABLE: The UN was not necessarily bluffing. As I have said, I would have voted the same way and I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN BLUFFING.
3) REGARDLESS OF IF BLUFFING IS ACCEPTABLE: The US (and specifically Bush) cannot be hoisted as some sort of straight guy that showed up the weakness of the UN and stuck to some moral center.
Bluffing is deliberately perpetrating a falsehood, & is lying. I cannot agree that a global political machine that is going to have integrity & garner respect
Well I guess if you have the moral rule that "lying" is always wrong, then you would find bluffing to be wrong.
That does not erase its practical uses, even for a global entity. It does have the risk of being called and thereby losing integrity and respect in the eyes of others. That is why the key to using it is to use it wisely and not get it called.
However, your hyperbolic statements of what happens when a bluff gets called are unjustified. What counts is that one does not bluff about the most serious matters effecting one's security, or at the very least to follow through when it does effect a nation's security. If you would please outline how (even if this was a bluff) it effected anyone's national security that would be great.
Iraq was a nonthreat, that's why other nations did not care (bluffing or no).
Furthermore there are worse ways to lose integrity and respect. One can claim intelligence that one does not have and have it revealed. One can invade unilaterally and kill a bunch of innocent people with no real plan for afterward. One can invade in such a carelesss fashion that one incites more people against you AND spread materials that can be used against you. One can invade lesser enemies, wasting great amounts of resources and tying up one's military, while allowing more important enemies to escape.
Or do you really believe getting caught in a bluff is somehow worse than the above?
France et al were nowhere to be seen in any of them. Please don’t delude yourself that France had any intention of taking any form of limited action whatsoever in lieu of invasion.
I'm not sure what your point is with this. None of this indicates a bluff, perhaps merely that the threshold had not been reached where they believed action was necessary.
And whether France was bluffing does not indicate that others within the UN were.
And it may be pointed out the France has been involved in missions the US would not go into.
Talk is cheap in the UN.
I outlined the reasons they may have done nothing during the 90's to be stronger about Iraq. It was small fry and they had bigger issues. That happens to everyone, including nations.
Can I remind you that most of your fellow citizens were against the invasion. Were they somehow duped by the French or something?
Saying Bush rushed to war is counterfactual & nave. Resolution 687 was 12 years old when Iraq was reinvaded.
Nice try. Others have already explained the matter to you, but let me try again.
WAR was not mandated by any of those resolutions. Even if WAR was an option that was ALLOWED, it was not necessarily the ONLY or BEST SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM.
Bush was NOT president during those twelve years. He entered office with hawk advisors that claimed we should while AT THE SAME TIME ADMITTING that IT POSED NO THREAT TO THE US. If you can wrap your head around that, maybe you can start figuring out what happened.
Once he entered office I cannot say whether he definitely had it in his head to go to war, but he was certainly itchy for a reason. He used 9/11 as a pretext. He RUSHED to war at that point. He went from arguing there was no reason to invade, to we must because Iraq has WMDs in a very short order with NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
He did not prepare the international community, he did not prepare the US public, he did not prepare the military, he did not prepare adequate plans for dealing with Iraq in the aftermath.
A WAR is a BIG THING. One does not rush into it unless it is necessary. He could have waited for more consensus. Hell, he COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE waited until he was done with Afghanistan and AQ.
Saying there were resolutions 12 years old, so he should have invaded, really is the naive position. As it is... well wait a second...
And saying Bush didn’t show an inadequacy in the UN is also counterfactual & nave. That members of the UN bluffed & were called on this, is an inadequacy. Bluffing is lying. Or is lying adequate, these days?
I have given you reasons for why they were not necessarily bluffing, not to mention why Bush was not necessarily proving anything about the UN, and all you have given me is "France sux" and a reassertion of your original position.
How about dealing with the arguments I gave you? This whole discussion has been so much beneath your usual quality it is amazing. I don't care if you disagree with me, but at least pick up your game.
Why do you keep mentioning vetoes? Resolution 687 was passed unanimously. I fail to see what the veto has to do with rebutting my argument where no vetoes were involved.
I am not sure which case you are talking about as I mentioned vetos more than once.
If you mean the threatened Veto by France, that is what the US claimed would happen and it would only be France. That's when Bush WITHOUT QUESTION bluffed that he would put through the resolution YOUR OWN GOV'T recognized was necessary to authorize war. When it was then realized other nations would not back the resolution of war, calling Bush's bluff, he whimpered away like a coward.
The other mention of vetoes, were the long lists of vetoes the US had used against the international community. They could get a near unanimous vote (with only US or US and Israel saying no), giving the UN a mandate of action, and the US would undermine it with a veto.
There is a difference between the situations in that while certain Iraq resolutions were unanimous, the mechanisms were not, and so there could be disagreements on what to do. The other resolutions were nixed by the US, despite the UN mandate on what to do.
You know the only way your position would have held water is if Bush hadn't bluffed, sent up a resolution for war and France had vetoed it. How ironic.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 9:01 AM mark24 has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 98 (214319)
06-04-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by mark24
06-04-2005 11:03 AM


mark24 writes me:
quote:
Nonsense, there is the rest of the world, it is the United Nations, not the United States.
Doesn't matter, mark. The US can veto any UN resolution. Other countries can too, of course, but that doesn't much matter either. If the UN doesn't do as the US dictates then the US will ignore the UN, as we did regarding Iraq.
quote:
The point I am making is that you shouldn't threaten force unless you are going to deliver.
I agree as far as that goes. But this wouldn't have been* the first time we've threatened force without following through. And if we are going to threaten force, why wait 12 years before acting on the threat? By that time, wouldn't you say that our inaction has spoken rather more loudly than our words?
You and I haven't had much interaction before, mark, but I have read many of your posts. I realize you aren't pro-war. I consider this merely a matter of principle that we're arguing.
EDIT, at *: changed 'isn't' to 'wouldn't have been'.
This message has been edited by berberry, 06-04-2005 09:12 PM

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 11:03 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024