|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,494 Year: 6,751/9,624 Month: 91/238 Week: 8/83 Day: 8/24 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for why Bolton should not be confimed | |||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6677 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
almost 15 x the consumption of Albania and Phillipines, 17 x the consumption of Peru and 24 x the consumption of Senegal. This is why they are called "developing countries". You might just as well point out that, e.g. Japan has 12x the per capita consumption of Senegal, so it is only half as "evil" as the US, but still 12x as "evil" as Senegal. If you think third world poverty, disease, and despair are somehow virtuous experiences, you are welcome to move to Senegal. But I'm all about not having other's religious beliefs imposed on me. As to the UN...
So we shouldn't participate in trying to improve it? If possible, yes. However, having a country like Iran as chair of the UN Human Rights commission is certaibly a sign of severe dysfunction. Holmes is quite correct that many UN resolutions are hortatory in nature and not meant for serious implementation. Which is evidence for my point - a debating society has only limited utility. After all, we debate endlessly on this board, but how much of it becomes policy ?
How else are we going to establish the alliances we need to secure our international interests ? To paraphrase Disraeli, alliances are temporary, interests are permanent. We pursue alliances with those countries that have similar interests. The UN is hardly essential to do this.
What are you suggesting we do - start from scratch to create a new international council of nations ? This may be necessary. However, the UN should be given a chance to reform itself - but it has manifestly failed as an international peacekeeping organization.
Our ignore it and simply impose American policies unilaterally around the world ? There are constraints preventing this, as you've pointed out yourself, so it's essentially counterfactual.
Even if you don't care much about how we are viewed by other countries, don't you think that would adversely affect our already elevated national security concerns ? Personally, I don't much care about Western Europe - contrary to what has been presented on this board, I see it as an economically declining region, and I see future US interests as primarily with the dynamic economies of the Pacific Rim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Holmes is quite correct that many UN resolutions are hortatory in nature and not meant for serious implementation. Which is evidence for my point - a debating society has only limited utility. After all, we debate endlessly on this board, but how much of it becomes policy ? Seeing the vast number of lame positions taken on this board makes me think keeping high level organizations as merely debating societies might be a good idea. I shudder to wonder what the world would be like if they were made policy.
but it has manifestly failed as an international peacekeeping organization. Not that I am outright challenging this assertion, but I do wonder if it is true. While it certainly has failed in specific areas we can point to, has it always failed in every endeavour? Why does the CIA and failures like Tenet get lauded with some of this nation's highest medals on the argument that we can't blame him (or it) for failing because while there are failure, we only see what gets through. Has the UN played no role in alleviating problems or threats during is history? Might it not have allowed backdoor negotiations to occur and alleviate stresses, which would not have been possible without the UN?
I don't much care about Western Europe - contrary to what has been presented on this board, I see it as an economically declining region I would love to see the evidence you have for this opinion. Perhaps it is just "temporary" but I have been travelling (well living is probably a better term) between Europe and the US for going on ten years now, the US economic position has never been worse from a very practical standpoint. I see little evidence that this is going to change any time soon. It was sort of growing toward the end of the Clinton era, but since we began selling out our economy under Bush (and the Europeans reinforced their's) its gone down the tubes. What policy is supposed to bring it back, given that our treasury is bleeding and our businesses are leaving the US system? China and some of the other Pacific nations may do well, but I am not sure why they will inherently be more powerful as a block than Europe, especially as cost of living (and then wage) in that region, begins to match the West? I am not overtly claiming you are wrong, but your assessments don't seem to have obvious mechanisms or bases. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5409 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
holmes writes: (The US economy) was sort of growing toward the end of the Clinton era, but since we began selling out our economy under Bush (and the Europeans reinforced their's) its gone down the tubes. What policy is supposed to bring it back, given that our treasury is bleeding and our businesses are leaving the US system? I would agree with your assessment that our economic prospects here in the US have declined substantially during the tenure of the current administration, and there is little reason to suggest they will improve in the short term. The Bush administration tries consistently to divert attention toward national security issues (which I don't think they have done well on either), but the fact remains that we are losing international influence both politically and economically and the two are intrinsically linked. It's not a question of 'caring about' Western Europe, its a question of dealing effectively with them. The EU is growing, adding countries and becoming more powerful every year.And on this side of the Atlantic, we can't even seem to make a simple NAFTA deal work properly with our two closest trading partners, thanks to all the protectionist attitudes of the right wing. We are still trying to impose import tariffs on vegetables from Mexico and wheat and softwood lumber from Canada (ruled unjustified by the WTO - but Republicans will probably thumb their noses at them as well) just to satiate small groups of heavily subsidized producers who happen to have well paid lobbyists. Consumers, a much larger, if less-well organized group of the public are the ones who deserve more representation from government, and they have everything to benefit from allowing these cheaper imports into our markets. The recent retreat by the Bush admin on the steel import tariffs is portentious of things to come.Why should everyone be forced to subsidize a handful of steel workers in Pittsburg when their technology is so out of date they are not even producing the grades of alloy steel in demand today? It just puts up the price of steel for all Americans who need to buy it. Americans need to realize that there will ultimately be a heavy economic cost to pay for the devil-may-care, go-it-alone, sentiments seemingly espoused by Bolton and the current leadership.It's an outdated 'cowboy mentality' that plays well in the red states, but it won't serve the nation's best interests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6677 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
I would love to see the evidence you have for this opinion. Perhaps it is just "temporary" but I have been travelling (well living is probably a better term) between Europe and the US for going on ten years now, the US economic position has never been worse from a very practical standpoint. I see little evidence that this is going to change any time soon. Well, it would be another thread. I'll grant that Europe does some things better (the trains run on time and are cleaner, there are less glaring extremes of wealth and poverty) but does many things worse (persistent double digit unemployment, slower productivity growth than the US or Pacific Rim, less flexibility in labor markets, looming structural deficits in entitlements due to unfavorable demographic trends that dwarf anything this side of the Atlantic) But it is another thread...start one if you like...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 4183 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
83 billion. jesus fuck. think what that could do for our educations system. christ. the last 87 billion was wasted. i really don't like this administration (etc).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2424 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You make it sound as though the Iraq war was inevitable. ...or justified. Why did Bush "have" to invade Iraq at all? What was the rush? What was the danger that Iraq posed? Seriously, what do you know that I don't know about how dangerous Iraq was?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2424 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...except the continued loss of their jobs, or a steady erosion of their wages and benefits. Of course, CEO's, executive board members, and people who are already wealthy are just going to get richer in this situation.
quote: Who's going to be able to afford to "buy expensive steel" when they are all laid off, or re-employed at a third of their previous wage? Of course, you meant that it's the heads of large corporations who need to buy the steel, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6677 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
The shift of consumer goods manufacturing to low-wage countries is a megatrend that affects Western Europe and Japan as much as the US. It is an unstoppable trend and ultimately as economically beneficial a trend as the mechanization of agriculture at the turn of the 20th century. That transition like this one, certainly created short-term pain, but long term gain.
CEOs are a favorite bete noir of many liberals, but a calculation of the ratio of their compensation to the total corporate losses due to uncompetitive practices reveals that this is largely a religious argument. If the CEOs took a pay cut to 100K...the textile jobs are still going to China. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2424 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: True, but the CEO's would still have a job, and also would have a lot more credibility when they propose eliminating the pensions that their workers earned when they say the company can't "afford" to pay them. It's not CEO's per se that I blame entirely for the inhumane way workers are treated in the US. I blame the rise of the Corporation as the typical business model. It has no human decency. It is, as Percy wants it to be, a "slave to the bottom line". To hell with the people who actually do the work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5450 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Schrafinator,
Seriously, what do you know that I don't know about how dangerous Iraq was? That's neither here nor there. My point specifically relates to the UN failure to support its own resolutions. France voted for chapter 7 resolutions & the implicit use of force when Iraq defaulted on any given resolution, that's the point of a chapter 7 resolution after all. What did they know that you don't? Or perhaps they shouldn't be passing chapter 7 resolutions with gay abandon when they have no intention of supporting them? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5450 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Holmes,
The UN passes resolutions which are not met, nor sanctions applied, in many situations. Why? This rather illustrates my point, rather than detracts from it.
The US has unilaterally vetoed applying sanctions based on resolutions passed by the UN. That would make complaining about the UN now, or specifically making it appear that the US dislikes that toothlessness, a bit hypocritical. The threat of veto has often kept authorizations of force from being brought to the table which is exactly what happened with Iraq. My complaint is that there are separate utilities available to render sanctions with & without the threat of force. If a sanction is made with the threat of force, then that threat should be carried out if the resolution is not met or is defaulted upon. Of course, things change that may make the original resolution a full or partial anachronism, but that is not the case here. Given that the resolution was defaulted upon, then the threat of force should be carried out. Nothing has changed to make the resolution moot, the voting members have no valid reason to deviate from their stated resolution, it should be carried out. So why the hand wringing? Why are the members not saying, enough is enough? Given that they had absolutely no intention of following through with their threat, or more accurately, bluff, then they had no business threatening force in the first place. The resolutions against Iraq should have been forcefully debated by the dissenting nations to have been chapter 6, not chapter 7 resolutions at the time. Given that France et al had, in retrospect, no willingness to engage in force against Iraq after it defaulted, it had no business arguing against the use of force after it had implicitly sanctioned it. The debate should have taken place at the time of the resolution, not when war was imminent. Let me make this clear, the difference between a chapter 7 resolution & any other resolution is that the use of force to resolve the issue is implied. That a further resolution is necessary is neither here nor there. The only reason a no force verdict should be returned on the second resolution is if the situation has meaningfully changed. It hadn’t, so a second resolution to use force should have flown through. Nothing had changed re. weapons inspectors etc. the rationale that lead anyone to sanction a chapter 7 resolution should compel them to sanction the consequences of a defaulted chapter 7 resolution, not come to a diametrically opposite conclusion. France et al had no intention of walking the walk in the first instance.
The fact is that the threat of force was working. I did see the value in it, and the interview Saddam gave before the invasion pretty well backed that up. Threat of force was necessary and useful. Indeed it worked. He was complying. No he wasn’t. That was the point. Agreeing to allow inspectors into a region 3 months after they turn up at the gates defeats the point of inspections that can catch him out; he defaulted anyway, many times; therefore the threat of force didn't work. Why not send him an itinerary & be done with it? But this raises a second point. Do you think the UN should bluff, & have its credibility & integrity damaged when the bluff is called?
Why was more than a threat of force... actual invasion... necessary when threat of force was working? The threat of force hadn’t worked at all. Saddam never stopped being a brinksman. There was nowhere else to go regarding the C7 resolutions. The inspectors were continually prevented from gaining access as per the resolution, in spite of the threat force. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
but does many things worse (persistent double digit unemployment, slower productivity growth than the US or Pacific Rim, less flexibility in labor markets, looming structural deficits in entitlements due to unfavorable demographic trends that dwarf anything this side of the Atlantic) I don't want to debate these points as I will readily admit I am not well informed on them at all. Or understand how much they mean for long term predictions. However, I am interested in learning a bit more. If you can cite someplace where I can find more info, it would be appreciated. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5409 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
My point is that economic protectionism almost always favors producers over consumers because thay are an organized lobby group and are far more capable of swaying political action. On the other hand, consumers represnt a much larger segment of society with less representation when they should have more.
Schraf writes: ...except the continued loss of their jobs, or a steady erosion of their wages and benefits. This is a complex issue and a valid concern. But I would argue against espousing protectionism for the sole purpose of preserving jobs. I know it is sold that way, but it is not an effective or sensible approach long-term. Remember in the 60's Japan started to produce radios and cars cheaper and better than the US? We couldn't penalize them for this because we still had a vested interest in ensuring their economic recovery after WWII. Over a period of about 20 years they became so successful, they became the 2nd largest economy in the world. As a consequence, standards of living and wages improved to the point they are in the same boat as us now. To remain competitive, corporations are farming out all their lower level labor to Malaysia and Indonesia. I am not defending the social responsibility of this tactic, but we either have a free market system or we don't.If we do, then eventually the playing field levels for everyone, consumers benefit, and developing countries have a chance to develop. To put boundaries on trade to protect a small job sector is politically popular, but it is not sound economics. But of course it's a hard pill to swallow if your job is one affected. This raises another question: Do any one of us have a right to expect our particular job description to be carved in stone ? I am not going to take sides on that one, but it is really a valid question. Schraf writes: Of course, you meant that it's the heads of large corporations who need to buy the steel, right? Now you know I didn't mean that.Every American who bought a car or a refrigerator or anything with significant steel content over the past 20 years has been paying more for that steel to support the American steel industry. This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-18-2005 06:19 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
My complaint is that there are separate utilities available to render sanctions with & without the threat of force. If a sanction is made with the threat of force, then that threat should be carried out if the resolution is not met or is defaulted upon. Of course, things change that may make the original resolution a full or partial anachronism, but that is not the case here. I'm sorry but this seems a bit counterfactual, as well as naive about how diplomacy actually works. Diplomacy is meant to avert war, which was once considered the worst possible solution to any problem, by creating mechanisms for exchange (deals) or compliance (monitoring for equity between parries). Often with this comes the threat of force if agreements or certain criteria are not met. It is the nature of all nations to avoid being roped into the agreements they have made, or to buck imposed regulations or duties. The US is a prime example of a nation which has done so, and it has protected its "friends" in the same manner. This is generally how alliances form. To criticize any nation or national leader, including Hussein, for attempting to put off imposed rules it did not want is a bit of hypocrisy. It is also easy to accuse someone of being a coward or "bluffing" when the other party simply has not reached the actual limit where it will agree that force to ensure resolution or punish is necessary. It is easy because it is ad hominem and does not take into account arguments for the use of force at a particular time. In this case the parties against invading made a pretty good case, and as it turns out were right. As long as the worst possible effects are avoided, mass deaths from war, diplomacy is doing its job.
Why are the members not saying, enough is enough? If you wish to debate the negligence of all nations in pursuing a strong policy against Iraq during the 90's you may have a point. There was negligence, but that is because Iraq had successfully been contained and it did not pose a threat to anyone. Thus it went onto the backburner of international attention. Within nations legislations get drafted to "stop" something, and then when it leaves the public stage the gov't does not apply adequate resources or follow up on its legislation so that that thing is actually stopped. International politics are the same. As it turns out Bush did light a fire under the tails of the international community to revisit Iraqi policy. To be fair he had the exact same stance as the international community until 9/11 (I have already posted his administrations stated position on Iraq in another thread), and it is likely true that most nations were interested in revisiting Iraq policy anyway post 9/11. The community did say "enough is enough" and granted the threat of force be used due to noncompliance.
No he wasn’t. That was the point. Agreeing to allow inspectors into a region 3 months after they turn up at the gates defeats the point of inspections that can catch him out; he defaulted anyway, many times; therefore the threat of force didn't work. Why not send him an itinerary & be done with it? I am sorry but this is not accurate. Whether he dragged his feet and initially obfuscated is besides the point, and even more besides the point is what he had done to hinder monitoring during the 90's. The threat of force DID work, and the inspection teams were moving forward. The heads of the inspection teams shortly before the US began the invasion and halted the inspections, released a report saying that Hussein was complying and they would be able to complete their mission. I am still a little confused as to how you can imply that Hussein was actually in defiance and hiding activities, when it is now known that he had nothing except intent and the bare beginnings of programs? If anything it appears that he was trying to hide the extent of the damage to his forces and so still appear a military power which can throw its weight around... much like Israel is doing with its hiding of nuclear capabilities. The parameter that seemed to have been set by the US , and which you appear to be buying into, is that he was guilty and so he could only show he was complying by coming clean and exhibiting the programs and weapons we claimed he had. But of course he didn't and so he actually was complying in that he was showing he had nothing... or essentially nothing.
Do you think the UN should bluff, & have its credibility & integrity damaged when the bluff is called? No, I don't think the UN should bluff and I don't think its wise to do so and let it be called such that its credibility is damaged. However in this case the UN's position was that there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that Iraq was in material breach of the resolutions, and before the invasion stopped inspections that the inspections process was being complied with and providing information. On the other hand the US and UK bluffed that they had solid evidence of wmds and programs for wmds and connections to AQ, and as it turns out they had no such thing (even before the invasion the yellow cake forgeries had been debunked), and so wrecked US and UK credibility. There was also the claim that there would be popular Iraqi support, and that it would essentially pay for itself, which was not true. Heck, Bush and Blair even bluffed they'd submit a resolution to the UN for actual authorization for the use of force, and then didn't when their bluff was called. I submit to you that it was the US and UK that bluffed, not the UN. It was the US and UK that got depantsed, not the UN. I must ask again, when you think we should have invaded prior to the actual invasion and what it would have prevented, or how it would have turned out better than the current invasion?
Saddam never stopped being a brinksman. There was nowhere else to go regarding the C7 resolutions. The inspectors were continually prevented from gaining access as per the resolution, in spite of the threat force. All nations are brinksman, that is the nature of diplomacy. The best defense is good monitoring programs with strong carrot and stick approaches. Contrary to your assertion, the credible threat of the stick did result in compliance which the inpectors themselves explained in their report. As it turns out, post invasion inspections have revealed that despite his years of brinksmanship Saddam was in relative compliance with resolutions. In the end he had allowed access and we were finding exactly what he had... nothing but intent. I have to say I am surprised at our disagreement on this issue. You are usually stead fast to evidence, and the evidence is clear at this point in time. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2424 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I am willing to pay extra if it means that the food I eat or the clothes I wear are produced in the US rather than in China or in Indonesia or in Mexico. I figure that you get the world you pay for.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024