PDA

View Full Version : Rummy's Out



Pages : [1] 2

Joe Unidos
11-08-2006, 10:07 PM
That's one down, at least...

Bravo
11-08-2006, 10:12 PM
thank you Joe.

you just made my week.

maybe my month and even possibly my year.

Bravo
11-08-2006, 10:12 PM
i seriously feel a tear coming.

aadams73
11-08-2006, 10:13 PM
Yay! This made a good day even better!!

Bravo
11-08-2006, 10:15 PM
now for the war crimes tribunal.

Joe Unidos
11-08-2006, 10:16 PM
I guess someone finally explained to Mr Bush what the word "mandate" actually means.




(Better late then never on Rummy.)

Sheryl Nantus
11-08-2006, 10:20 PM
and Lo!

peace fell over the earth and everyone loved the Americans again...

see how simple that was?

robeiae
11-08-2006, 10:30 PM
I guess someone finally explained to Mr Bush what the word "mandate" actually means.
Does it have something to do with Billy and Bravo going out for coffee together?

Bravo
11-08-2006, 10:36 PM
Does it have something to do with Billy and Bravo going out for coffee together?

:roll:

Bravo
11-08-2006, 10:36 PM
btw, i dont drink coffee.

i drink herbal tea.

thank you.

:)

billythrilly7th
11-08-2006, 10:38 PM
I drink hot water and honey.

Joe Unidos
11-08-2006, 10:43 PM
Does it have something to do with Billy and Bravo going out for coffee together?

:roll: from me too.

greglondon
11-08-2006, 10:58 PM
From the Way-Back machine:

The neocons in the lobby will appreciate Donny's logical (NOT) argument:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/15/sproject.irq.inspections/index.html

Rumsfeld: Lack of evidence could mean Iraq's hiding something

greglondon
11-08-2006, 11:09 PM
Another trip down memory lane:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/04/rumsfeld-called-out

On March 30, 2003, when the invasion was over, and no WMDs had been found, the existence of WMD's at all was brought into question. Rumsfeld replied "We know they (WMD's) are there."

In 2006, at a public talk, someone asked him about that satement.
Rumsfeld denied he ever said such a thing.
The person then read back his 2003 statement verbatim.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: …We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Rumsfeld was left speechless.

The man in the audience who asked the question:
27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern.

dclary
11-08-2006, 11:13 PM
Greg, you know, for like 150 posts in the 48 hours, you've spouted your "no wmds found in iraq" "no wmds found in iraq" "no wmds found in iraq" mantra.

The delay between deciding to go to war and going to war and waiting for UN approval that never really came gave Iraq enough time to remove their WMDs. The most credible explanation of this is corroborated by multiple sources in the middle east, including former members of Saddam's regime. It's announced (and subsequently buried) in the press every couple of months.


http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

THIS ONE has SATELLITE PROOF
http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh

greglondon
11-08-2006, 11:13 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/28/rumsfeld.profile/index.html

Three years after invading, Rumsfeld says "there was not an anticipation that the level of insurgency would be anything approximating what it is"

THis in the face of Bush Senior's investigation into invading Iraq in 1991, the military planning it again in 1999, and Rumsfeld's own generals telling him the same thing again in February 2003. Quagmire, civil war, a lot of dead americans, no clear path to victory.

billythrilly7th
11-08-2006, 11:15 PM
Greg, you know, for like 150 posts in the 48 hours, you've spouted your "no wmds found in iraq" "no wmds found in iraq" "no wmds found in iraq" mantra.

He's STILL talking about that?

Jeez.

greglondon
11-08-2006, 11:23 PM
Quoting your own link
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

Arguing against a WMD transfer to Syria, Mr. Duelfer said, was the fact that all senior Iraqi detainees involved in Saddam's weapons programs and security "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria."

Which is to say that this idea that WMD's were transfered to Syris is nothing but a fantasy based on the lack of physical evidence.

Because we didn't find them in Iraq, the WMD's must be somewhere else. Must. The notion that WMD's did not exist as of March 2003 is impossible to accept.

You have put your faith in the god of the gaps. Your assertions only survive in the last few remaining bits of unknown facts.

greglondon
11-08-2006, 11:24 PM
He's STILL talking about that?

No, Billy, you are.

greglondon
11-08-2006, 11:26 PM
Besides, as of March 30, WMD's weren't in Syria. Rumsfeld himself said on national TV on 30 March 2003,

We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Are you saying Rumsfeld launched a war based on bad intelligence? That he lied?

Joe Unidos
11-08-2006, 11:28 PM
Oh come on, Deek. Even the Bush Administration abandoned the absurd stance of pretending that there actually were WMDs a year or two ago.


They fvcked up. Royally.


That's been admitted on all sides. The only question remaining is whether it was through their own incompetence, as the Administration itself contends, or through deliberate deception and malfeasance.

Joe Unidos
11-08-2006, 11:32 PM
diplicate --sorry!!

dclary
11-08-2006, 11:36 PM
Ok, ok, ok, ok Joe!

Jesus!

Back off, man!


;)

FatTire
11-08-2006, 11:37 PM
Wow, this is great news. The deck of cards is falling.


And
:roll: at Joe. Just in case Deek missed his comments the first time, Joe added them 3 more times.

Joe Unidos
11-08-2006, 11:39 PM
Wow, this is great news. The deck of cards is falling.


And
:roll: at Joe. Just in case Deek missed his comments the first time, Joe added them 3 more times.


Sometimes he's tough to get through to.

:Shrug:

Sheryl Nantus
11-08-2006, 11:42 PM
Besides, as of March 30, WMD's weren't in Syria. Rumsfeld himself said on national TV on 30 March 2003,

We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Are you saying Rumsfeld launched a war based on bad intelligence? That he lied?

let me just toss something out here - I'm sure it'll be ignored and trashed, but I have to just ask it.

is it possible that the Iraq scientists lied to Saddam about WMDs? If I knew that reporting a negative result would result in my being fed into a wood chipper still alive I might be tempted to fudge the results. I'll tell my boss that sure, we've got all we need for WMD's and the gas bombs are ready to go at a moment's notice. Just don't kill me.

Saddam believes this news and keeps bragging. Friends tell friends who tell agents who can't verify it because the scientists are the ones with the paperwork. And they're not going to voluntarily admit that they've been lying through their teeth for years, staying alive as long as they produce some sort of result. It may not be nuclear power, but a little spark or fizz and everyone's happy. And alive.

the US intel gets this and believes it. They tell the President who, in turn, believes it since he's not prepared to parachute into Baghdad and check it out for himself.

his advisors believe it. See, I'm not ready to believe in the dictatorship theory just yet - I'm going on advisors having to advise the President still. Otherwise just walk out to the Press room and have a chat - they'll listen.

the President sends in the troops who find... nothing. Of course not, the scientists were lying to save their lives. They didn't care about an imminent invasion; they were worried about being tortured and killed if they didn't produce results. Saddam believes them and thus it's a vicious circle.

but, hey... I'm just a stupid Canuck who's tired of the conspiracy theories. Maybe I might have a better view of your government than you do because I'm looking at it from outside.

*shrugs*

greglondon
11-08-2006, 11:45 PM
The only conspiracy that US intelligence found was that of the people coming forward with intelligence about the existence and location of WMD's in Iraq, a high number were coming from the Iraqi National Council, a group of Iraqis who fled Iraq while Saddam was in power and knew if they kept saying "Iraq has WMD's" long enough, the US would go in after him, and then the Iraqi National Council could become king of Iraq.

billythrilly7th
11-08-2006, 11:46 PM
For the love of god, move on people.

"There were WMD's, there weren't WMD's, everyone in the Bush Administration told the truth, everything in the Bush administration lied, anything, everything, I'm down, put me down!"
George Constanza."

Feel free to continue.
:)

Thank you.

dclary
11-08-2006, 11:50 PM
The only conspiracy that US intelligence found was that of the people coming forward with intelligence about the existence and location of WMD's in Iraq, a high number were coming from the Iraqi National Council, a group of Iraqis who fled Iraq while Saddam was in power and knew if they kept saying "Iraq has WMD's" long enough, the US would go in after him, and then the Iraqi National Council could become king of Iraq.

Thank you for your first reply to me in 72 hours that wasn't belittling, demeaning, or involve name-calling.

Joe Unidos
11-08-2006, 11:55 PM
Yeah, go easy on Clary. Today is a very difficult day for him.

:)

greglondon
11-08-2006, 11:58 PM
is it possible that the Iraq scientists lied to Saddam about WMDs?

possibly, but once out of Iraq, and being debriefed by CIA officers, they would have no reason to continue the lie. As part of the debriefing, their identity would normally be concealed by a codename, their statements would be filtered into reports, and double checked with evidence and other debriefings.

None of the scientists have said there were any WMD program going on by March 2003.

Joe Unidos
11-09-2006, 12:00 AM
For the love of god, move on people.

"There were WMD's, there weren't WMD's, everyone in the Bush Administration told the truth, everything in the Bush administration lied, anything, everything, I'm down, put me down!"
George Constanza."

Feel free to continue.
:)

Thank you.

Thanks, thrilly.

Your ability to laugh off the the fact the we send hundreds of thousands of young men and women into harm's way because of either a lie or a mistake tells us how you really feel about their sacrifice. I mean, fvck em, right? It's just an amusing game of geopolitical chess.

dclary
11-09-2006, 12:04 AM
Yeah, go easy on Clary. Today is a very difficult day for him.

:)


To be honest, the war in Iraq is very abstract to me. I know some guys who've gone. I've got some relatives over there. A kid from lclary's school died doing stupid sh*t over there. But it doesn't affect me in my day-to-day.

The Patriot Act doesn't affect me. Tax cuts have barely affected me. Gas prices hurt, but not so badly that it bothered me.

The only issue that affects my day-to-day and makes my life miserable is illegal immigration, and its massive effect on the Los Angeles infrastructure, from traffic to health care to school funding. California just voted to DOUBLE its long-term debt from 40 billion to 80 billion, with almost half of that money going to pay for illegal immigrant assistance.

With the shift in power comes a shift in house leadership, and a large number of the leadership positions in the Republican house had been filled by Californians. That's the only reason why we were able to start pushing stronger border security laws through.

My biggest fear for the next 2 years is that Pelosi and the La Raza-supporting California democrats in congress will start pushing massive illegal-immigrant support legislation. To me, this would be the worst of all possible worlds.

dclary
11-09-2006, 12:05 AM
Thanks, thrilly.

Your ability to laugh off the the fact the we send hundreds of thousands of young men and women into harm's way because of either a lie or a mistake tells us how you really feel about their sacrifice. I mean, fvck em, right? It's just an amusing game of geopolitical chess.


They knew they were pawns when they swore their oath, Joe. Don't pity them just on account of them not pitying themselves.

Robert Toy
11-09-2006, 12:23 AM
The last time I checked the election is over, the Democrats have won. Give it a rest!

billythrilly7th
11-09-2006, 12:41 AM
Thanks, thrilly.

Your ability to laugh off the the fact the we send hundreds of thousands of young men and women into harm's way because of either a lie or a mistake tells us how you really feel about their sacrifice. I mean, fvck em, right? It's just an amusing game of geopolitical chess.


Well, thank you, sir. One of the nicest things you've ever said to me.
:)

Joe Unidos
11-09-2006, 12:43 AM
Well, thank you, sir. One of the nicest things you've ever said to me.
:)

Sadly, that might well be true.

:)

greglondon
11-09-2006, 12:46 AM
Originally Posted by Joe Unidos

Thanks, thrilly.

Your ability to laugh off the the fact the we send hundreds of thousands of young men and women into harm's way because of either a lie or a mistake tells us how you really feel about their sacrifice. I mean, fvck em, right? It's just an amusing game of geopolitical chess.


dclary said

They knew they were pawns when they swore their oath, Joe. Don't pity them just on account of them not pitying themselves.

Didn't Yoda say the same thing to Luke in episode 4?

billythrilly7th
11-09-2006, 12:50 AM
I love this Robert Gates, dude.

'Nuff said.

aghast
11-09-2006, 12:52 AM
the tide has changed and rumsfeld is no dummie, rather resigning than being dragged out in the process - even the military wants him out and now bush is officially a lame duck theres no place for him - and the men and women serving now are not 'just pawns' - they are husbands and wives and sons and daughters and dont ever forget that and we owe them and their families to get them out of there, out of this big uselss mess in iraq

eldragon
11-09-2006, 12:52 AM
This is a good day. I'm almost in a good mood.

Some other good things happened to me today, too. Things I had waited for quite a long time.

The winds of change are sweet.

MattW
11-09-2006, 02:07 AM
Diane Feinstein is demanding a timeline for Iraq pull out. Essentially saying anything less will prevent confirmation of the new SecDef.

Hooray for the end to partisan politics!!!

billythrilly7th
11-09-2006, 02:14 AM
Diane Feinstein is demanding a timeline for Iraq pull out. Essentially saying anything less will prevent confirmation of the new SecDef.

She does realize that the Republicans control Congress for two more months and can use a scorched earth policy leaving Congress null and void for a century?

The Republicans can go ahead and confirm without democratic help.

Unless they fillibuster.

Please do, democrats. Please fillibuster the confirmation of Gates and keep Rummy on the job.

This could be the fastest implosion of a newly elected Congress in history.

Way to overreach right off the bat, Feinstein. I disavow all earlier statements regarding you.

Thank you.

"Okay, we'll keep Rummy."
What Bush should say.

greglondon
11-09-2006, 02:21 AM
Diane Feinstein is demanding a timeline for Iraq pull out. Essentially saying anything less will prevent confirmation of the new SecDef. Hooray for the end to partisan politics!!!

Hey, the neocons got us into this mess mainly because Rumsfeld was a "6 months and we're out" fantasy writer. Now you're crying because someone wants a SecDef that has an actual plan on how to win this mess you got us into?

For those just tuning in, "stay the course" isn't a military plan, its a political dodge. Suck it up and get with reality. Win the war or get the f out.

Next thing I'll be hearing neocons crying that they can't pretend global warming is a myth anymore. Wah!

sheesh

Unique
11-09-2006, 03:07 AM
To be honest, the war in Iraq is very abstract to me. I know some guys who've gone. I've got some relatives over there. A kid from lclary's school died doing stupid sh*t over there. But it doesn't affect me in my day-to-day.

The Patriot Act doesn't affect me. Tax cuts have barely affected me. Gas prices hurt, but not so badly that it bothered me.

The only issue that affects my day-to-day and makes my life miserable is illegal immigration, and its massive effect on the Los Angeles infrastructure, from traffic to health care to school funding. California just voted to DOUBLE its long-term debt from 40 billion to 80 billion, with almost half of that money going to pay for illegal immigrant assistance.

With the shift in power comes a shift in house leadership, and a large number of the leadership positions in the Republican house had been filled by Californians. That's the only reason why we were able to start pushing stronger border security laws through.

My biggest fear for the next 2 years is that Pelosi and the La Raza-supporting California democrats in congress will start pushing massive illegal-immigrant support legislation. To me, this would be the worst of all possible worlds.

And you see, that's what makes America so great - the diversity. The one thing that bothers you in your day to day doesn't even make my list.

The things that bothered you are all high on my list. Does it make you wrong & me right? Nope. Does it make you right & me wrong? Nope. Just proves that we're two different people on two different paths.

We need leaders who if they can't please all of the people, they can at least please the majority of the people. 50/50, 49/51 just doesn't cut it. That's not America united - and that's what needs to change.

dclary
11-09-2006, 03:13 AM
Well said, Unique. And I'd sure like that leader to aim for like... 70-80.

billythrilly7th
11-09-2006, 03:18 AM
Well said, Unique. And I'd sure like that leader to aim for like... 70-80.

Let's you and I go for 98%.

Of course we can't please the wackadoodle far far left but by 2024 they should be in their rightful place on the scrap heap of failed ideologies.

dclary
11-09-2006, 03:21 AM
I am declaring either a war or jihad on wackadoodles when we take office. I'm not sure which. It will depend on who wins the war on terror.

billythrilly7th
11-09-2006, 03:32 AM
I am declaring either a war or jihad on wackadoodles when we take office. I'm not sure which. It will depend on who wins the war on terror.

Well, I plan on increasing military funding so we can comfortably fight two wars in two theaters.

But hopefully both the jihadists ad the wackadoodles will be sitting on the smoking remains of a failed ideology on the scrap heap of history's ...uh..failed ideologies.

Thank you.

whistlelock
11-09-2006, 05:39 AM
so, if the Dems hadn't rolled in with such a strong showing in the House and a resurgence in the Senate would Rumsie still be out?

Or would it have been "stay the course, donnie's doin' fine"?

billythrilly7th
11-09-2006, 05:45 AM
so, if the Dems hadn't rolled in with such a strong showing in the House and a resurgence in the Senate would Rumsie still be out?

Or would it have been "stay the course, donnie's doin' fine"?

My sources tell me he was out. It's been in the works for a couple weeks.

Thank you.

Good luck, Robert Gates. We're all united behind you.

greglondon
11-09-2006, 05:46 AM
October was the fourth-deadliest month for U.S. troops since the 2003 invasion, with 105 Americans killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/rumsfeld/index.html

Hey, that means we need to recalculate when we'll be getting out of Iraq. Apparently it really is getting worse, not better.

eldragon
11-09-2006, 06:20 AM
Rumsfield is 74 years old, for heaven's sake.

He has put in many years of work. He has done pretty much all the damage he can do in this lifetime.

Next one: a poor Iraqi child.

Pray for a quick turnaround.

greglondon
11-09-2006, 06:32 AM
Rumsfield is 74 years old, for heaven's sake.

He has put in many years of work. He has done pretty much all the damage he can do in this lifetime.

Next one: a poor Iraqi child.

Pray for a quick turnaround.

:e2chain:

You may be quiet, but you are pure evil underneath, aren't you?

:D

robeiae
11-09-2006, 06:34 AM
He has put in many years of work. He has done pretty much all the damage he can do in this lifetime.I wish someone would get this message through to Jimmy Carter, too.

billythrilly7th
11-09-2006, 06:40 AM
I wish someone would get this message through to Jimmy Carter, too.

But those houses are good. He's the Ty Pennington of former Presidents.

robeiae
11-09-2006, 06:41 AM
The houses, I have no problem with. More power to 'em. Jimmy's a good egg in my book, just not the guy you want running around "helping" with foreign policy issues.

billythrilly7th
11-09-2006, 08:03 AM
The houses, I have no problem with. More power to 'em. Jimmy's a good egg in my book, just not the guy you want running around "helping" with foreign policy issues.

I agree. One of our nicest Presidents going on the issue of just being a nice person.

Abysmal President.

If I were President during the hostage crisis we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

I'll just say it has to do with a Presidential address, a stare into the camera, a stopwatch, 72 hours and possibly very very large bombs.

'Nuff said.

aghast
11-09-2006, 10:17 AM
interesting hindsight analysis: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1556714,00.html
it appears that the president might really have made a mistake politically that has cost both his party as well as american lives

greglondon
11-09-2006, 11:15 AM
interesting hindsight analysis: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1556714,00.html
it appears that the president might really have made a mistake politically that has cost both his party as well as american lives

A number of generals were calling for Rumsfeld head on a pike months ago:

Major General Charles Swannack (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html),

Major General John Batiste (http://p39.news.re2.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqmilitary),

General Anthony Zinni (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060402/pl_afp/usiraqmilitary),

Lieutenant General Anthony Newbold (http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/OPINION/604110315/1020),

Major General Paul Eaton (http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/local/14147079.htm),

General Peter Pace (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/11/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html),

This was hindsight only to those too damned stubborn to look at reality.

MattW
11-09-2006, 04:14 PM
I've heard bits of the power battle that resulted in Rumsfelds resignation: Cheney was defending him, and various folks were against him, possibly including the First Lady.

Is Dick also losing his juice in the White House?

dclary
11-09-2006, 08:30 PM
Is Dick also losing his juice in the White House?

I don't know what this means, but it sure sounds nasty.

aghast
11-09-2006, 08:35 PM
better at the white house than the whore house, where is bob dole and his viagra when dick needs it

badducky
11-09-2006, 09:09 PM
You know, I don't blame Rumsfeld for screwing up Iraq. I'd like to. I really would. I mean, he was at the helm. He told generals they couldn't have the tools or manpower ecessary to complete the job. He kept talking big game about how he wanted to take the creaky, tired military and make it new, and -- heck -- he's one of the bullying psychos that found WMDs in blurry photos of trucks.

I don't blame him for Iraq, though.

October's the deadliest month because Saddam's trial was winding down, and a thousand other individual factors that float through the air to destroy lives.

I'm reminded of "War and Peace", and the battle Kutuzov finally won against Napolean. These men at the helm are so far from the ground level, and their commands splatter into a fog down to the soldier with the gun and the command.

The ones to blame in Iraq for our war is the counter-insurgency. Period. Do not place bodies where they don't belong. Rummy wasn't firinng RPGs, insurgents and terrorists were. Even the initial combat was fought betwen brave freedom fighters (Americans) against death squads of evil bullies (Iraqi Republican Guard).

Rummy's incompetent leadership mattered very little. We'd face the same kind of quagmire in Afghanistan, and we'd still be reading about the body counts. Iran and N. Korea would still hate us. Europe would still have this superiority complex towards us. Iraqis would still die en masse due to their evil infrastructure. American troops would still be dying in large numbers fighting drug dealers in Afghanistan whom are left unchecked due to Iraq. Muslim imams would still be calling for the destruction of the west.

i'm glad rummy's gone. i'll be gladder still when bush is gone. but, don't fall into the trap of the blame game. Rummy's incompetence meant that he accomplished very little, even with his gross failures. In the end, I suspect Rummy was too incompetent to truly change the course of events.

I mean, it's not like we weren't already flying daily military missions in Iraq, and maintaining a very quiet war for over a decade with the guy... All Rummy seemed to accomplish was the political oomph to attempt to finish a war that had been sleeping for too many years. A war, in fact, that we were losing because we had no sustained presence on the ground.

Anyway, Good-bye Rummy. Hopefully the Democratic Congress and the new Secretary of Defense will have enough smartness to quote Tolstoy's Kutuzov: "Time and Patience".

robeiae
11-09-2006, 09:12 PM
The ones to blame in Iraq for our war is the counter-insurgency. Period. You must realize that such a realistic and coherent approach to this issue will not be tolerated! :D

greglondon
11-09-2006, 10:19 PM
The ones to blame in Iraq for our war is the counter-insurgency.

You must realize that such unrealistic and incoherent approach to this issue will not be tolerated! :D

The simple concept to apply here is called "causation": who caused what. The counter-insurgency did not exist prior to our invasion. We invaded and a counter insurgency arose in opposition to our occupation.

By the White House's own numbers, 50,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since we invaded. This is how many american troops were killed during our entire war in Vietnam. Do you think there wouldn't be any backlash to those kinds of numbers?

The Boston Massacre had all of 5 people killed by a small detachment of British soldiers and it became the cause celebre for the American Revolution. Do you know how many equivalent Boston Massacre's have occurred in Iraq? Unarmed civilians killed at checkpoints by Americans. Unarmed civilians caught in the crossfire of a gunbattle and killed by Americans. Unarmed civilians killed by American aircraft providing close air support for nearby operations. And we are grossly undermanned in Iraq. The reason the general's plans kept calling for 400k troops for the occupation and only 100k troops for the invasion is because you want a peaceful but overwhelming presence, you wnat to be able to maintain control of dicey situations, you want our troops to be able to respond and deal with situations without panicking and creating Boston Massacre situations.

It isn't that American troops are going out and hunting down civilians. It's just that accidents happen in war. Friendly fire. misdesignated targets. Language barriers. And accidents get amplified when you are seriously undermanned. Did anyone know that the first shot fired during the Boston Massacre was an accident? A mob of colonists grew around a British checkpoint and started throwing rocks and debris. A British soldier was knocked over and his musket went off. He yelled "fire". And the entire regiment then fired into the crowd, killing 5 and wounding 6 more.

5 deaths became a cause celebre for the American Revolution.

Do you expect the Iraqi civilians to react to any differently when a car at a checkpoint is mistakenly identified as a threat and 4 Iraqi civilians are killed?

Do you expect them to respond with any less a reaction than the colonists did in 1770? Are we to blame them for reacting exactly as we reacted to the occupying British sparking the revolutionary war?

I love the folks who calmly explain how the Iraqis should view our intentions as good and how they should respond to the accidental deaths of civilians as if they were discussing the weather at a cocktail party. We sure as hell didn't. 5 dead from the Boston Massacre became an rallying cry for the American Revolution. 3,000 dead in the WTC, and we became so blind with rage that we were willing to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 based on imagined and fabricated intelligence.

How do you think we'd feel if 50,000 americans were killed after a foreign occupying army rolled into the US?

We sure as hell wouldn't be so naive as to blame ourselves for our insurgency.

badducky
11-09-2006, 10:33 PM
Taking your own example of the Boston Massacre, don't you find the activites of the sabre-rattlers disgusting who nefariously used these five deaths as propoganda and created all kinds of disgusting pamphlets and fliers to mislead the public?

Calm and cool calculation would have done much to cool the fires of war in Boston as well as in Iraq.

The counter-insurgency existed prior to our invasion in this century. Bush Senior left many very angry individuals hanging in the aftermath of Iraq I. Also, we've been flying violent missions over Iraq ever since through Clinton I, Clinton II, and through Sept 11th, 2001.

We have been killing Iraqis for some time, now. In the Iraqi scenario, putting troops on the ground was only a matter of time. It could have been ten years from now, or five years ago. However, it was only a matter of time.

Blaming Rumsfeld for the actions taken by others is foolish. We can blame him for using false information to take us to Iraq. But, we were already there.

billythrilly7th
11-09-2006, 11:00 PM
The Buck Stops with Thrilly.

I take full responsibility.

Thank you.

badducky
11-09-2006, 11:05 PM
No, Thrilly. The buck stops with the person who pulls the trigger. The only thing you shoot off is your mouth. ;)

badducky
11-09-2006, 11:10 PM
I, a democrat, am so glad that Rummy's gone., and we won the Congress. Best day for Democrats for quite some time.

But, here's a link for all you Republicans out there:

http://large-regular.blogspot.com/2006/11/rumsfeld-interview-large-regular-was.html

billythrilly7th
11-09-2006, 11:11 PM
I, a democrat, am so glad that Rummy's gone., and we won the Congress.

I, a republican, am happy about both things as well.

greglondon
11-09-2006, 11:15 PM
Taking your own example of the Boston Massacre, don't you find the activites of the sabre-rattlers disgusting who nefariously used these five deaths as propoganda and created all kinds of disgusting pamphlets and fliers to mislead the public?

Calm and cool calculation would have done much to cool the fires of war in Boston as well as in Iraq.

The counter-insurgency existed prior to our invasion in this century. Bush Senior left many very angry individuals hanging in the aftermath of Iraq I. Also, we've been flying violent missions over Iraq ever since through Clinton I, Clinton II, and through Sept 11th, 2001.

We have been killing Iraqis for some time, now. In the Iraqi scenario, putting troops on the ground was only a matter of time. It could have been ten years from now, or five years ago. However, it was only a matter of time.

Blaming Rumsfeld for the actions taken by others is foolish. We can blame him for using false information to take us to Iraq. But, we were already there.

Calm and cool calculation would have done much to cool the fires of war anywhere. But that isn't how people work. And blaming the Iraqi insurgency for our invasion is ignoring how people work.

In, say, Feb 2003, when we considered invading Iraq, we would be fools to plan for anything other than an insurgency. "They will welcome us as liberators" is a fantasy that ignores the reality of how poeple work. As soon as the first Iraqi civilian at an American checkpoint was mistaken for an insurgent and killed, you can expect no response other than what any other human has responded. Then maybe you can go in and try to make reparations, make sure your troops are trained well and suffieciently manned so it doesn't happen again. And then maybe the Iraqis would calm down.

Except it did happen again. And again. And again. the MINIMUM civilian casualty count is 50k. Some estimate it's up around 800k. I'd say it could reasonably be at least 200k. Not all of those killed were Boston Massacre incidents. But there certainly wasn't only one of them.

And at some point, you can't make ammends. You can't make reparations. You can't appease the Iraqis because they view you as someone who views THEM as expendable. And then the widespread abuse that was happening at places like Abu Graib became unforgivable.

And then you get insurgency.

Calm and cool calculation predicted this potential outcome. It's all in the general's plan for invasion. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld ignored it and instead subscribed to a fantasy where Iraqis would acquiesce to any and every mistake we made, no matter if it were a simple accident or malicious and calculated and widespread as Abu Graib.

Rumsfeld said we'd be out IN SIX WEEKS because of this fantasy. And for that, I blame him for ignoring the reality that comes with being a foreign occupation army.

badducky
11-09-2006, 11:44 PM
The point I'm trying to make is this: Rumsfeld could have said Unicorns will descend from the sky and fight on the side of the Americans. Doesn't matter. We were at war in Iraq before Rumsfeld. We will be at war after Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld's only contribution was brash incompetence. His incompetence didn't really change anything. Iraqis were dying under Saddam Hussein in numbers just as great -- it wasn't happening on the nightly news, but it was happening. In fact, Kurdish-Iraqis still view America as heroes for the military actions we took to protect them from Saddam Hussein during Clinton's years in power.

All of these things that we bemoan were in the air and building strength before Rumsfeld even got his name on a list of potential candidates for the position. And, all the problems we face in Iraq would be the same no matter who was in power.

We're Rumsfeld as a scapegoat for a much larger problem. This problem is not one-sided. And just because we have new leadership, the problem won't be solved anytime soon.

You talk of the general's plan for invasion as if the Generals realistically have any true knowledge of what will occur once the invasion starts. They don't. No one does. It's all guesswork based on the only kind of intel in existence: bad intel. Hopefully, the plans were created with Intel that was less bad. However, every single decision made on the ground alters the shape of the war. No one commander is ever to blame. They are merely scapegoated

Just because Rumsfeld didn't plan for an insurgency, doesn't mean the commanders didn't plan for one. They've been to this region, and war-gamed constantly among these scenarios. They knew what they were about to go do. Rumsfeld can say anything he has to say to Congress, but the soldiers on the ground with the guns in their hands and the bullets over their helmets are the ultimate pragmatists when it comes to planning.

Rumsfeld also did little to really promote this war. We have been at war with Iraq since Bush Senior. We have been constantly at war there. We have not stopped being at war with them since Desert Storm. We merely scaled back our operations. This created a huge problem, because we left Saddam in power and abandoned our local allies. We allowed Saddam to solidify his power base through fear and hatred.

In this scenario, our re-invasion and commencement of operations was merely a question of "When" and not "If".

Rumsfeld has had little impact in the causes and the implementations of this war. He couldn't have. The man was incompetent. Fortunately, he wasn't actually on the ground commanding the battles or guiding the war from his wifi command bunker. He was off in Washington being incompetent.

If you want to know who's really the one who deserves to be history's scapegoat look at Bush 1, who called the population to an insurrection and left them hanging out to die. You want to know where your insurgency and anti-Americanism comes from?

Well, it wasn't Rummy.

robeiae
11-09-2006, 11:55 PM
You talk of the general's plan for invasion as if the Generals realistically have any true knowledge of what will occur once the invasion starts.Generals are never wrong. De Gaulle taught me that.

badducky
11-10-2006, 12:10 AM
Of course, but they can be scapegoats for the mistakes of the men under their command a la Abu Ghraib.

greglondon
11-10-2006, 12:55 AM
We were at war in Iraq before Rumsfeld.

Are we talking about the same "Rumsfeld"?
The Rumsfeld I'm talking about was apointed SecDef in 2001.
We invaded March 2003.

And we invaded in part because he and the rest of the administration promised we'd be welcomed as liberators and we'd be out in 6 weeks.
When the SecDef sells a war on "6 weeks and we're out",
I'd assume basic concepts of integrity would hold him accountable
for those statements, rather than making some vague declarations
that its really no particular individual's fault.

individual integrity means if you promise to do something
and you fail to deliver that promise, you take responsibility for it.

Whether or not the entire world was promising and predicting
the same thing you were promising, individual responsibility
would hold you to account for the promises you made and
failed to deliever. And Rumsfeld failed in so many ways.

Whether the entire war is his fault, I don't know. That's
a separate thing. But he clearly was part of the peanut
gallary of fantasy Rambo war porn fiction writers who
spun a tall tale of a war that could never possibly happen.
And for that, he should be held totally accountable.

badducky
11-10-2006, 01:15 AM
And we were welcomed as liberators... In Kuwait! Just like everyone said we would be! We were even welcomed as liberators in Iraq... Until George Bush went back on his word and pulled out all support so Saddam could slaughter his opponents (our liberated allies).

That wasn't Rummy's call. That was Bush Senior playing CIA realpolitik games with people's lives.

greglondon
11-10-2006, 01:17 AM
First, you do realize that we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait in '91, and invaded Iraq in 2006, right?

Second, do you hold to the idea of personal responsibility? If someone promises you something, do you hold them accountable for their promises?

robeiae
11-10-2006, 01:21 AM
Second, do you hold to the idea of personal responsibility? If someone promises you something, do you hold them accountable for their promises?Apparently, not if that person is named Saddam.

badducky
11-10-2006, 01:32 AM
Firstly, do you realize we have maintained continuous military operations in Iraq since 1991?

Secondly, do you hold a person accountable for things that are so far beyond his or her control that it's laughable no matter what they say about it? We all do something quite different when it comes to our leaders i these positions. It's called "Scapegoating" not "Accountability". Don't get the two confused. The man should have been gone for some time now, but it isn't because of "Accountability", or even "Scapegoating". It's because he's incompetent and cannot implement his own visions. Giving him credit for the Iraq war is putting far too much power in the hands of one washed-up buffoon. That's scapegoating.

greglondon
11-10-2006, 01:39 AM
do you realize we have maintained continuous military operations in Iraq since 1991?

enforcing No Fly Zone is no different than 150K troops occupying the nation?
The decision to go from one to the other is a zero net gain or loss?

I don't think so.

And there was nothing so far beyond our control that we absolutely had to invade Iraq. There was no imminent threat of attack from Iraq. The reason anything was "beyond our control" is because the administration, Rumsfeld included, had their foot holding the accelerator to the floor, while screaming "we're going too fast to stop, we'll have to invade".

greglondon
11-10-2006, 01:50 AM
Giving him credit for the Iraq war is putting far too much power in the hands of one washed-up buffoon. That's scapegoating.

Ah, well, I don't give him credit for the Iraq war. This isn't scapegoating. This is "you said this. you delivered that."

I'm talking about holding someone to account for their individual contributions to a disaster, not the entire disaster. Rumsfeld was wrong in every promise he made. He promised we'd be out in 6 weeks. He fired generals who said invading would be a quagmire. He didn't have any plan to achieve victory beyond a napkin and crayon. He didn't make sure our troops were equipped with armor and vehicles. He's responsible for that, because those were things he promised to deliver and those were his job responsibilities.

Some may be scapegoating him, blaming him for the whole mess, and throwing him to the wolves. But I'm not doing that. I'm holding him to all the promises he made and failed to deliver. ALl the responsibilities he had as SecDef and did not fulfill. And if holding a gang of culprits responsible, one culprit at a time is the only way to do it, then I say do it that way.

Better to convict at least some of the guilty at Abu Graib than to dismiss prosecution because its "scapegoating" because no one's bringing charges against the generals and the people in the administration who approved Abu Graib. Some is better than none. Those convicted should not be punished for the actions of their superiors, but they should be held responsible for the actions they took which were violations of their expected code of conduct.

badducky
11-10-2006, 01:59 AM
:sleepy:

What? Oh, sorry... It's just that we keep saying the same things back and forth so much that I got drowzy and fell asleep.

You're trying to scapegoat Rumsfeld for things that you admit are out of his control. That's okay. Everybody does it to people in positions of power.

More importantly, no fly zones are nothing to laugh at. The resources required to put one plane in the air alone is nothing to scoff at... (edit: 350,000 sorties is 350,000 pilot-missions, and 350,00 individual instances of danger, and quite a large number of pilots at that, not counting co-pilots and ground crew, which is higher than 150,000 troops, no?) And we're talking about a relatively large number of planes over a long period of time. And, it wasn't working. Saddam was increasing in strength and influence. We could neither contain his influence, nor prop him up against Iran as Bush 41 had wanted to do. This second round was coming whether today or tomorrow or yesterday.

Here's something to think about (I'm badducky, a bleeding-heart liberal, and a strong democrat, who hates Bush, has close family members in the military, and generally thinks the war was mishandled from the moment the idea dawned in the wrinkled brow of Bush 2, and I endorse the following message):
http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2006/11/08/rumsfeld_webband_bbeing_carefu.php

My favorite line:

"But Rumsfeld knew that in a counterinsurgency (cf. Vietnam 1965-71) massive deployments only ensure complacency, breed dependency, and create resentment, and that, in contrast, training indigenous forces, ensuring political autonomy, and providing air and commando support (e.g., Vietnam circa 1972-4) is the only answer—although that is a long process that can work only if political support at home allows the military to finish the job (cf. the turn-of-the-century Philippines, and the British in Malaysia)."

dclary
11-10-2006, 02:03 AM
"But Rumsfeld knew that in a counterinsurgency (cf. Vietnam 1965-71) massive deployments only ensure complacency, breed dependency, and create resentment, and that, in contrast, training indigenous forces, ensuring political autonomy, and providing air and commando support (e.g., Vietnam circa 1972-4) is the only answer—although that is a long process that can work only if political support at home allows the military to finish the job (cf. the turn-of-the-century Philippines, and the British in Malaysia)."

That's a fantastic quote. I tried pointing out historical precedent, too, including the Philippines. I don't think he's interested in facts, unless they jibe with his worldview.

badducky
11-10-2006, 02:09 AM
That's a fantastic quote. I tried pointing out historical precedent, too, including the Philippines. I don't think he's interested in facts, unless they jibe with his worldview.

I smirked when I read this... Coming from you... ;)

dclary
11-10-2006, 02:11 AM
I smirked when I read this... Coming from you... ;)

I'm so two-faced I could kiss myself.

greglondon
11-10-2006, 02:15 AM
You're trying to scapegoat Rumsfeld for things that you admit are out of his control.

Er, what? Rumsfeld saying "6 weeks and we'd be out" was beyond his control?
Firing a general who said it would be a lot longer was out of his control?
If so, what exactly was IN his control?
The color of his tie?

badducky
11-10-2006, 02:31 AM
I've already explained this, Greg. You don't go to war with anything resembling "Good" intel. There's only bad intel, and worse intel. Rummy chose the wrong intel -- the "worse" kind.

However, his role in history was quite minor. And, almost anyone in his position would have probably done things only moderately different. Even had we not gone to war right this instant with Iraq, it was coming down the pipe, regardless of the state of the intel presented to Congress and the international community.

Remember, he's not the one who gathers the Intel and hands it up the ladder and selects what goes to the next rung. He's, in fact, the last rung.

Robert Toy
11-10-2006, 02:33 AM
Greg, go back and count how many times you said either "6 weeks and we'd be out" or "6 months and we'd be out" - you're repeating yourself.

greglondon
11-10-2006, 02:39 AM
You don't go to war with anything resembling "Good" intel. There's only bad intel, and worse intel. .

Uhm, I think if you extend that premise to its final end,
you end up with the logical conclusion that there's no
such thing as a bad decision to go to war.

We could decide tomorrow to invade canada because
we've got some intell that says they're mounting up
for attacking us. So then we invade, and it turns out
the intel is wrong, but we can't blame anyone because,
well, all war intel is bad intel.

Meanwhile, we're standing in a pile of dead Canadians,
politely lined up for easy removal.

Either I'm misunderstanding what you're saying,
or I think you're starting from a faulty premise.

robeiae
11-10-2006, 02:40 AM
Canada has a Starbucks. And a McDonalds.

greglondon
11-10-2006, 02:41 AM
Greg, go back and count how many times you said either "6 weeks and we'd be out" or "6 months and we'd be out" - you're repeating yourself.

I am? I'm repeating myself? Me? Repeating? Sayign the same words over and over? That repeating?

billythrilly7th
11-10-2006, 02:59 AM
Greg, go back and count how many times you said either "6 weeks and we'd be out" or "6 months and we'd be out" - you're repeating yourself.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=898427&postcount=184

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=898828&postcount=203

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=899164&postcount=269

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=900074&postcount=295

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=901496&postcount=318

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=902065&postcount=330

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=903105&postcount=352

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=903364&postcount=363

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=907633&postcount=464

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=911004&postcount=72

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=911376&postcount=76

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=911514&postcount=82

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=911626&postcount=87

Okay, I have him at 13. But I'm sure that number is now obsolete due to at least a couple more posts saying "6 weeks."

This wasn't a scientific canvassing. Margin of error +/- = 2 "6 Weeks'ss"

Thank you, god for giving me some free time today.
:D

greglondon
11-10-2006, 03:04 AM
Hey, I also repeated "the Earth is round" a couple times, "thousands of dead American military personel" at least 3 or 4 times, uhm, oh, and "There were NO WMD's in Iraq by March 2003 to justify an invasion" probably six times. I should probably get credit for that too.

I like repeating stuff that's true. Sort of helps counterbalance the alternatives.

greglondon
11-10-2006, 03:04 AM
Hey, I also repeated "the Earth is round" a couple times, "thousands of dead American military personel" at least 3 or 4 times, uhm, oh, and "There were NO WMD's in Iraq by March 2003 to justify an invasion" probably six times. I should probably get credit for that too.

I like repeating stuff that's true. Sort of helps counterbalance the alternatives.

robeiae
11-10-2006, 03:05 AM
What is the gestation period of the american badger?

GPatten
11-10-2006, 03:07 AM
Sheesh.
Allen concedes to Webb at 3pm, and already the Dow is down 73 points, and oil speculators have driven prices up.

Thankfully, my car's fuel tanks are full.

http://www.belleville.com/images/belleville/belleville/15921/253480739597.jpg

greglondon
11-10-2006, 03:09 AM
What is the gestation period of the american badger?

is he carrying a coconut?

aghast
11-10-2006, 03:54 AM
Sheesh.
Allen concedes to Webb at 3pm, and already the Dow is down 73 points, and oil speculators have driven prices up.

i predict the dow will be down again sometime in the future, soon - sell now,and quick...

greglondon
11-10-2006, 06:43 AM
i predict the dow will be down again sometime in the future, soon - sell now,and quick...

Gas will probably go back up too, now that the elections are over. Ah, the october price break IS nice every other year, though.

greglondon
11-10-2006, 06:48 AM
This little nugget just in on the alf-o-meter: Rumsfeld's raplacement, Gates, was part of a team that looked at what to do about Iran about two years ago. Verdict? There is no f-ing WAY we can invade them. And pushed Bush to use diplomacy.

Hey, if Gates is at least realistic back then about Iran, maybe he'll have some sense about Iraq today. Here's hoping we get this mess straightened out, but soon.

Robert Toy
11-10-2006, 08:20 PM
What is the gestation period of the american badger?
Of the total gestation period of 250 days, growth occurs during only 50. ;)

MattW
11-10-2006, 11:50 PM
This just in: Al-Qaeda calls Rummy a quitter and a pansie. Then insults his mother.

greglondon
11-11-2006, 12:21 AM
This just in: Al Queda wasn't in Iraq until after Rummy sent us there.

This also just in: There were no WMD's in Iraq by March 2003.

Actually, those both came in years ago, but it was only after the elections that certain folks in office started listening to them.

OneTeam OneDream
11-11-2006, 12:21 AM
Gas will probably go back up too, now that the elections are over. Ah, the october price break IS nice every other year, though.


The October price break that started in late August?

I've got a question for ya Greg. Since I'm pretty sure you were one of the many blaming President Bush for how high the gas prices were, (Depending on where you live 3-4/gallon) did you remember to thank him when they went back down?

I'll go ahead and give you an answer to what I'm sure your next comment would be.

No, I don't really think Bush had anything directly to do with the increase or decrease of gas prices, however for those that blamed him for increases I'm sure they weren't thanking him for "causing" those same decreases.

A point of note. I paid 1.87 today.

greglondon
11-11-2006, 12:23 AM
The October price break that started in late August? .

Yes, Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia. Why do you ask?

MattW
11-11-2006, 12:33 AM
WMDs are so 2003

The watchword for today is appeasment.

Unique
11-11-2006, 12:38 AM
WMDs are so 2003

The watchword for today is appeasment.

Not over here.
It's back up and punt.

greglondon
11-11-2006, 12:44 AM
The watchword for today is appeasment.

That sounds so much more fun than fessing up to a three year fk-up, don't it? The war wasn't a mistake, those pesky peaceniks are just trying to appease the enemy who has a knife at our throat.

3 years of machine wash,
2 years spin dry,
just in time for 2008 elections.
Woot!

billythrilly7th
11-11-2006, 03:22 AM
WMDs are so 2003

The watchword for today is appeasment.

The War on Terror will have many more...We lose Iraq..(because I like to worry about where we are instead of what led up to where we are as much fun as it is to keep rehashing and piling on)

...The watchwords for sometime in 2011 is "50,000 NYC victims."

And then the watchword will be "Unity."

And then the watchwords will be "2000 servicemen dead in the Iran war."

And then the watchword will be "appeasement."

and they tell two friends and so on and so on and son....

I look forward to the day when the watchword is "Victory."

"Victory!!"
Johnny Drama
Viking Quest

dclary
11-11-2006, 03:30 AM
My exit strategy for Iran includes about 30,000 megatons of military grade plutonium.

billythrilly7th
11-11-2006, 03:34 AM
My exit strategy for Iran includes about 30,000 megatons of military grade plutonium.

LOL...That's our entry strategy.

AND our exit strategy.

No more of this boots on the ground crap while have billions of dollars worth of tax payer funded nukes sitting in silos and on subs.

"Use or lose 'em."

This message brought to you by the 2024 Thrilly/Clary Campaign.

And we approve this message.

aghast
11-11-2006, 04:11 AM
My exit strategy for Iran includes about 30,000 megatons of military grade plutonium.

so much for 'i care about civilian deaths' - and how would that make us different than terrorists?

MattW
11-11-2006, 06:53 AM
Iran can fold to internal pressures...like Iraq would have if we had backed any of the power plays we instigated after Gulf War I.

There are enough dissatisfied youth in Iran that want freedom to dance, listen to music, have fun, and not be dragged off in the night. Given time and leverage, they will have their own Berlin Wall/Red Square/Tienimen Square moment.

astonwest
11-11-2006, 06:57 AM
how would that make us different than terrorists?At least people wouldn't complain about how we're trying to occupy their homeland...

Unique
11-13-2006, 06:09 AM
Just because I'm nosy -

And I really want to know. Does anyone here feel they would have voted differently had Mr. Rumsfeld stepped down before the election?

I didn't think so. But apparently the GOP does think so. (http://www.wral.com/politics/10303075/detail.html)

How about you?

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has suggested that if Bush replaced Rumsfeld two weeks before the election, voters would not have been as angry about the unpopular Iraq war. Republicans would have gained the boost they needed, according to Gingrich, to retain their majority in the Senate and hold onto 10 to 15 more House seats."

And I'm not trying to bash - I'm trying to figure out perspectives and thought processes. Is it more CYA and fingerpointing, or do they really believe that?

I even found a point where I can agree with the president:

"The president correctly decided that this decision does not belong in the political realm. And a decision as important as your secretary of defense should not be made based on some partisan political advantage. It would send a terrible signal to our troops, to our allies, even to our enemies," Bolten said."
Like my wise ol' mama said: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. YMMV

SeanDSchaffer
11-13-2006, 07:49 AM
That's one down, at least...


Good.

blacbird
11-13-2006, 09:53 AM
"Republicans would have gained the boost they needed, according to Gingrich, to retain their majority in the Senate and hold onto 10 to 15 more House seats."

Gingrich (whom I have a fair degree of respect for, in certain contexts and opinions) is full of merde here, and I'd guess a fair number of other Republicans might agree. A move like that could as easily have been taken negatively as positively by conservative voters. Very unpredictable at the least.


"The president correctly decided that this decision does not belong in the political realm. And a decision as important as your secretary of defense should not be made based on some partisan political advantage. It would send a terrible signal to our troops, to our allies, even to our enemies," Bolten said."

Yeah, and Bolten is almost certainly the next one out the door. No way will a Dem Senate approve his interim appointment, which is up right after the first of the year. The Pres couldn't get it approved back in '05, when he had control of the Senate, which forced him to make the interim recess appointment.

caw.

dclary
11-13-2006, 11:19 AM
Just out of curiousity (because I really don't know) -- why the furor over Bolton? He's done a fine job in the last year, right? Why wouldn't they just approve him for the rest of Bush's term?

MattW
11-13-2006, 03:52 PM
Cuz he eats babies.

SC Harrison
11-13-2006, 05:54 PM
Just out of curiousity (because I really don't know) -- why the furor over Bolton? He's done a fine job in the last year, right? Why wouldn't they just approve him for the rest of Bush's term?

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."

"the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy."

"American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."

Sheryl Nantus
11-13-2006, 06:06 PM
Cuz he eats babies.

and they make *such* a mess in that moustache...

:D

Unique
11-13-2006, 06:24 PM
Just out of curiousity (because I really don't know) -- why the furor over Bolton? He's done a fine job in the last year, right? Why wouldn't they just approve him for the rest of Bush's term?

I think it's an arrogance thing, dclary. First, I'm not a big United Nations fan but I do feel they have a purpose - the purpose being dialogue between nations and the conduct between those nations.

But Mr. Bolton's attitude in his meetings with the delegation is - to be blunt - 'My way or the highway'. There's never a feeling of cooperation or reciprocation.

He's like an elephant in the alley. Nothing can get done because no one can get past the elephant. Basically, you can't even see what's on the other side of the elephant. He's not a good choice for finding common ground.

robeiae
11-13-2006, 06:54 PM
He's like an elephant in the alley. Nothing can get done because no one can get past the elephant. Basically, you can't even see what's on the other side of the elephant. He's not a good choice for finding common ground.Nothing "gets done" in the UN anyway, apart from creating avenues for the transfer of humanitarian aid to the pockets of the corrupt.

From everyone complaining about Bolton, I'd love to see some reasons why all the other UN reps are good ones. And some evidence of what Bolton has done as a UN rep that makes him unfit to continue in his post.

Oh, and Kofi Annan is the most wonderful and honest person, ever.

badducky
11-13-2006, 07:29 PM
Well, let's change our dialogue slightly and talk about the money.

The two things it seems that Secretaries and Ambassadors do is put together these things called "Budgets" and/or "Treaties" wherein money alters the focus of government projects and policies.

Can we stop talking about PR spin (greglondon, all you seem to talk about is negative pr spin as if republicans have the stupidity, evil, and penchant for bad, poorly administered wars cornered... Sarajevo, anyone?) and start talking about the real power of the throne: Money.

What does the money management of the offices tell us? That's why Rummy was incompetent. He talked a big game about updating the military, but he didn't budget it precisely that way...

SC Harrison
11-13-2006, 07:30 PM
From everyone complaining about Bolton, I'd love to see some reasons why all the other UN reps are good ones. And some evidence of what Bolton has done as a UN rep that makes him unfit to continue in his post.



It is my opinion that, due to his outspoken criticism and contempt for the UN before his nomination, he was already unfit for the post.

Nominating a "tough guy" to go "straighten out" the UN is just one more example of the arrogance and primacy the Bush administration has worn on its sleeve through most of its reign, and I for one am f**king tired of it.

SeanDSchaffer
11-13-2006, 07:38 PM
It is my opinion that, due to his outspoken criticism and contempt for the UN before his nomination, he was already unfit for the post.

Nominating a "tough guy" to go "straighten out" the UN is just one more example of the arrogance and primacy the Bush administration has worn on its sleeve through most of its reign, and I for one am f**king tired of it.


Agreed. "Gunboat Diplomacy" doesn't work as good today as it did in Teddy Roosevelt's time. All it does is cause resentment within the rest of the world for the country that uses it. This is a bad thing, because it makes people want to overthrow the government that uses that kind of diplomacy, more so than they did beforehand.

robeiae
11-13-2006, 07:40 PM
Nominating a "tough guy" to go "straighten out" the UN is just one more example of the arrogance and primacy the Bush administration has worn on its sleeve through most of its reign, and I for one am f**king tired of it.But if your opinion is that the UN is a joke and is as corrupt as the day is long (which is exactly what Condi Rice, Cheney, and Bush think, imo), you should appoint someone who just goes along with garbage? That would be a pretty two-faced thing for Bush to do, no?

You may be "tired of it," but at least it's consistent and not a bunch of political BS. I find that refreshing, since I think the UN is a joke and absolutely worthless. Really, it bothers me greatly that people think we need to kowtow to the UN by going along with the charade. We have enough corruption in our own government. Why are we sanctioning more of it in the rest of the world?

greglondon
11-13-2006, 07:41 PM
Bolton believes the "Black helicopters at the UN" conspiracy theories.
Hell, he doesn't just believe them, he makes up more of them on his own.

Giving Bolton the job of UN ambassador is like hiring someone with
extreme Tourette's syndrome to be the officiant at your wedding.

hm. That's got a nice ring to it.

robeiae
11-13-2006, 07:45 PM
Giving Bolton the job of UN ambassador is like hiring someone with
extreme Tourette's syndrome to be the officiant at your wedding.

hm. That's got a nice ring to it.No it doesn't, since a wedding is supposed to be a beautiful, solemn, and loving event. I fail to see how the UN can be postively related to any of these terms.

greglondon
11-13-2006, 07:48 PM
Black helicopters coming to get you too, Rob?

Lithium is no longer available on credit.

Bravo
11-13-2006, 07:50 PM
what black helicopters?


seriously...?

badducky
11-13-2006, 07:51 PM
What we must remember is how Machiavellian this manuever must be.

Nations still must deal with the US. We have lots of guns, lots of markets, and lots of knowledge. We're easier to work with than China on most issues, because we might actually honor our contracts without the spectre of human rights violations and communism and whatnot.

So, by throwing a giant elephant like Bolton into the UN, we're forcing nations to work outside of it, directly to Bush's inner circle, where no Security Council regulation and no podium exists and almost everything happens quietly behind the scenes.

Smart manuever? I think so.

Very, very bad foreign policy? Oh my, yes.

But, the best solution is to vote a new fearless leader into power in two years. We aren't going to change the actions of the oval office right now, today. We must hope for the day when we can re-elect Al Gore, or re-elect John Kerry.

Scary question: If Bolton is his first choice, who's his second?

robeiae
11-13-2006, 07:53 PM
My opinion of the UN hasn't changed a whit in twenty years. Everything it does only serves to confirm that opinion. It's not a conspiracy--it's just a bunch of greedy bastards from all over the world who have been lucky enough to win the lottery (with a handful of sad and pathetic exceptions, who actually believe they can "do good").

robeiae
11-13-2006, 07:55 PM
Scary question: If Bolton is his first choice, who's his second?
Charlton Heston?

greglondon
11-13-2006, 07:56 PM
we're forcing nations to work outside of it,

Scary question: If Bolton is his first choice, who's his second?

I think the idea of appointing Bolton is not to simply force countries to ork outside the UN, but to prove the NeoConNutJob theories that the UN is ineffective, by appointing someone ineffective for the job.

Say you got some police chief who doesn't like to negotiate during hostage standoffs. He'd rather send in swat and shoot up everything. So, he appoints some *sshole like Bolton to be chief negotiator. Virtually guaranteeing negotions will always fail, bringing into doubt the usefulness of negotiations as a whole, and giving thin justification for using force as a solution for every scenario.

Bush's second choice? The six fingered man.

robeiae
11-13-2006, 08:03 PM
I think the idea of appointing Bolton is not to simply force countries to ork outside the UN, but to prove the NeoConNutJob theories that the UN is ineffective, by appointing someone ineffective for the job.:ROFL:
That's no "NeoCon" theory--they may have picked it up, but they didn't come up with it, not by a long shot.

And it's no theory. The real "theory" is that the UN is actually effective, at something other than keeping petty dictators and warlords in their Rolls Royce's.

badducky
11-13-2006, 08:21 PM
The ineffective UN "theory" has been around since the days of the League of Nations. Also, it has -- unfortunately -- been proven true more times than not.

However, instead of pissing all over it with bolton, a better solution is to work to reform the Security Council to help the world move on from World War II. Of course, when I rule the world, I'll make many, many changes to make the UN the supreme governing body of the world... Well, not the UN exactly, but something similar with a better constitution.

greglondon
11-13-2006, 08:21 PM
The real "theory" is that the UN is actually effective,

And maybe if you say it often enough, it will come true. Just like bringing tinkerbell back to life.

greglondon
11-13-2006, 08:32 PM
The ineffective UN "theory" has been .... proven true more times than not..

I don't know if its "more often than not". What I think is happening though is that the nutjobs find one obvious failure, latch onto it, and harp on it as "proof" that the UN is ineffective. I never said the UN was perfect or never failed. But the question is whether we'd be better off without it. And I think we'd be worse off without any international organization. It could certainly use a revamp. The fact that the security council secures power for the victors from WW2 and excludes everyone else is a problem.

But rightwing nutjobs who grab onto one failure, says it proves the entire UN is not worth the trouble, and indignantly asks to proven otherwise, well, they're just nutjobs.

In 2002, the UN approved use of force if Iraq failed to comply with disarmament of its WMD's. By 2003, Iraq was complying, and the UN would not approve Bush's invasion.

To me, that is not a failure, but a reflection of the UN working. Given that Iraq was complying, the UN should have voted that way. The fact that Bush was throwing a temper tantrum and wanted to invade anyway, well, that's his little snit.

Unique
11-13-2006, 08:37 PM
Nothing "gets done" in the UN anyway, apart from creating avenues for the transfer of humanitarian aid to the pockets of the corrupt.

.

I know this. That's why I'm not a UN fan. Some of the people there make me wonder how in the sam hill they got appointed.

And I never, ever said I supported any other countries choice. Or thought they were good guys.

I miss the billboards that used to say: Out of the UN - NOW
not because it wasn't a worthy goal - but because it sucks down a lot of $$ without appreciable results.

robeiae
11-13-2006, 08:44 PM
And maybe if you say it often enough, it will come true. Just like bringing tinkerbell back to life.Sure, sure kid.






This is kind of silly actually, since you're the one dreaming. You believe something to be true--I doubt it is true. And you can't really make your case that your belief meshes with reality, but it just makes you feel good to think that it does. And of course, you get the added bonus of patting yourself on the back for being such a nice person.

greglondon
11-13-2006, 09:05 PM
you're the one dreaming. You believe something to be true--I doubt it is true. And you can't really make your case that your belief meshes with reality.

Ah, so, the world is flat, and I have to prove it round?

Your logic wins again, sir. I concede the point to your superior skills.

:Hail:

robeiae
11-13-2006, 09:09 PM
Your logic wins again, sir. I concede the point to your superior skills.
That's all I'm asking for.

dclary
11-13-2006, 09:19 PM
Cuz he eats babies.

And?

greglondon
11-13-2006, 09:23 PM
Originally Posted by MattW
Cuz he eats babies.


And?

And he doesn't stun them first.

dclary
11-13-2006, 09:25 PM
Thanks Ducky, Shaeffer and Robieiae. I understand now.


I can understand how sending a critic of the UN to the UN would be a controversial thing. However, I also see how that can be a cathartic, beneficial thing. Maybe every nation should send someone wary of the process to the UN, and then only by finding things that are truly beneficial to the member nations can they find truly worthwhile projects.

I am trying to remember *any* successful UN project. All I can remember are cataclysmic failures, global billion-dollar scandals, and persistent ineffectiveness.


Anyway, ok, let's go back to Rummy bashing. Sorry to derail the thread here.

greglondon
11-13-2006, 09:29 PM
I am trying to remember *any* successful UN project.

The UN failed to approve Bush's phantom crusade against nonexistent WMD's in Iraq. Since it turns out the UN was right and Bush was wrong, that counts as a UN success.

Oh, I keep forgetting, I can't say "Bush was wrong" until 20 Jan 2009.

Never mind.

robeiae
11-13-2006, 09:38 PM
The UN failed to approve Bush's phantom crusade against nonexistent WMD's in Iraq. Since it turns out the UN was right and Bush was wrong, that counts as a UN success.
Now we're getting somewhere!

Okay, let's say that was a success (though it wasn't). Please be so kind as to total up all of the money that has ever gone to the UN or it's subsidaries and tell me exactly what the actual cost was for that one singular success.

I'll wait.

greglondon
11-13-2006, 09:42 PM
tell me exactly what the actual cost was for that one singular success.

A lot less than the trillion dollars, thousands of dead americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, that WE paid by ignoring that success.

SC Harrison
11-13-2006, 09:45 PM
Really, it bothers me greatly that people think we need to kowtow to the UN by going along with the charade. We have enough corruption in our own government. Why are we sanctioning more of it in the rest of the world?

Come on, Rob. You just gave a very good reason why we shouldn't believe we can overhaul the U.N. Or should we fix the rest of the world first, then straighten our own house?

And for once, it would be nice to envision something other than two extremes as our potential choices. We don't need to kow-tow to or browbeat diplomats that are chosen by their respective countries. What we should be doing is taking a leadership role in finding solutions for some of the world's important issues, instead of using our position at the UN to push for sanctions and defend Israel from harsh words.

robeiae
11-13-2006, 09:59 PM
A lot less than the trillion dollars, thousands of dead americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, that WE paid by ignoring that success.So that one thing is sufficient justification to keep feeding the UN? How long can we expect to wait for their next "success"? Where did you get the "trillion" figure from? The CBO? And I see you've decided to go with a civilian death toll that best serves your agenda. :D

Of course, I didn't toss in any of the consequences for UN failures, only the strict monetary cost...and if you want to start totalling up the bodycounts from all over the world where the UN has stuck it's nose, I'm more than game to do so. Where would you like to start?

dclary
11-13-2006, 10:00 PM
How about Yugoslavia and Rwanda?

robeiae
11-13-2006, 10:03 PM
Come on, Rob. You just gave a very good reason why we shouldn't believe we can overhaul the U.N. Or should we fix the rest of the world first, then straighten our own house?Do you really think that I believe Bolton can fix the UN? I don't. I'm all for fixing our own house, first and foremost. I'd prefer we just pulled out of the UN. But since that ain't happening, I'd rather have someone there that sees the UN for what it is. Why should I want someone there who's just gonna play games with the rest of the crowd? That makes zero sense.

greglondon
11-13-2006, 10:09 PM
So that one thing is sufficient justification to keep feeding the UN?

You wanted to know the cost of that one success. I told you. Inspections were working by 2003. The cost of inspections were several orders of magnatude cheaper than the cost of the US occupation.

Now you want to argue whether that justifies "feeding" the UN while avoiding a simple straight up acknowledgement that it was a UN success. Probably because you can't stomach saying the UN was right in any single scenario.

Say the UN was right in that situation, and I'll take that to mean you haven't drunk the Koolaid. Otherwise, I see no point in discussing the total cost/benefit of the UN with someone who won't tally the numbers fairly.

robeiae
11-13-2006, 10:18 PM
You wanted to know the cost of that one success. I told you. Inspections were working by 2003. The cost of inspections were several orders of magnatude cheaper than the cost of the US occupation.
No, you didn't. You avoided the question by trying to shift the discussion away from the UN in general and on to the Iraq War and weapons inspections in particular. "What was the actual cost" is the question I asked, not "How does the cost compare to..." And it's sad and telling that you can't even think of one thing more than that to list as a UN success.

Step out of your anti-neocon ideology for just one second and try to justify the existence of the UN. Explain why it is not just what I say it is: a road to free cash for its corrupt agents and for petty dictators and the like all over the world.

badducky
11-13-2006, 10:26 PM
Step out of your anti-neocon ideology for just one second and try to justify the existence of the UN.

as an anti-neocon, greglondon, I think this is excellent advice for all of us bleeding-heart liberals and peaceniks.

If we're going to take down the evil bible-thumping warmongering arrogant racist sexist monsters, we have to do so with surgical mastery of facts and data. Answering bible-thumping warmongering with more of the same tone of voice will only escalate the partisanship that is steadily undermining the entire world's safety and peace.

No one ever beat the devil in a shouting match, after all. Clear-minded precision of fact, data and (if you're a musician) fiddling will win the day.

greglondon
11-13-2006, 10:32 PM
No, you didn't. You avoided the question by trying to shift the discussion away from the UN in general and on to the Iraq War and weapons inspections in particular.

I guess it depends how you parse the question:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=918693&postcount=149
So sayeth Rob:

Please be so kind as to total up all of the money that has ever gone to the UN or it's subsidaries and tell me exactly what the actual cost was for that one singular success.

First half is "Tell me the total money that has ever gone into the UN"
Second half is "what is the actual cost of the WMD inspection success".

Either the second half want's to know the cost of the inspectors and inspections,

or the second half is a leading question where "actual cost" means that the entire cost of the UN since its inception must be totaled into the cost of the inspections.

Have you stopped beating your wife, Rob?

If you want to tally the total cost/benefit of the UN, you must tally the individual cost/benefits of its works. you cannot arrive at the total without discussing the individual pieces.

The cost of inspections does not include the cost of the entire history of the UN. You wanna play that game, then you HAVE drunk the koolaid.

The cost of UN inspections were a hell of a lot cheaper than the quagmire we're in now. It counts as a UN success. It is one item in the ledger. Once you put all the items in the ledger, then you can add them up and decide if the UN is worth it overall or not.

But if you start with the premise that the UN isn't worth it and cook the books to arrive at that result, then there really isn't any point in continuing this discussion pretending you have any interest in tallying up reality.

Inspections were a UN success, several orders of magnatude cheaper than the quagmire we have been in so far.

dclary
11-13-2006, 10:34 PM
as an anti-neocon, greglondon, I think this is excellent advice for all of us bleeding-heart liberals and peaceniks.

If we're going to take down the evil bible-thumping warmongering arrogant racist sexist monsters, we have to do so with surgical mastery of facts and data. Answering bible-thumping warmongering with more of the same tone of voice will only escalate the partisanship that is steadily undermining the entire world's safety and peace.

No one ever beat the devil in a shouting match, after all. Clear-minded precision of fact, data and (if you're a musician) fiddling will win the day.

For the record, there are bible-thumpers and there are neocons in the Republican party (two of the three major blocs of the party). While there is some overlap, neither side is inclusive of the other. You should pick one or both to target, but be wary trying to target both or you will miss more often than you hit.

Sheryl Nantus
11-13-2006, 10:40 PM
I look at the UN from a Canadian perspective - when I was growing up it was a thrill to see our men and women with the blue berets. We *loved* the idea that we were peacekeepers around the world; serving anywhere we were called.

then Rwanda happened.

and the Canadian officer in charge had to watch people hacked to bits by machetes because he had orders to not interfere. He came back mentally scarred and traumatized beyond belief. He had faith in the UN to allow him to intervene to save lives. Instead he had *ORDERS* to stand by and do nothing.

right there the UN became a different thing for us Canadians. We realised that politics were more than just something in the back room; it was in the front lines. It wasn't politically expedient for the UN to intervene in Rwanda, as it is today in Darfur.

while I still love to see my military serving in UN operations (and yes, they're in Afghanistan and dying there) I think a lot of Canadians lost faith in the UN when that particular piece of news broke. And a good military man was destroyed for the sake of politics.

blacbird
11-13-2006, 10:43 PM
For the record, there are bible-thumpers and there are neocons in the Republican party (two of the three major blocs of the party). While there is some overlap, neither side is inclusive of the other. You should pick one or both to target, but be wary trying to target both or you will miss more often than you hit.

Right now they seem to be targeting one another, so let 'em go ahead and blaze away.

caw

badducky
11-13-2006, 10:47 PM
I'm still waiting for the gay neo-cons to come out swinging and take that "defense of marriage" nonsense off the table.

That's a battle I'd love to see on the front page news during a presidential election.

SC Harrison
11-14-2006, 12:11 AM
He had faith in the UN to allow him to intervene to save lives. Instead he had *ORDERS* to stand by and do nothing.



Which he should have ignored.

I'm not trying to put the responsibility for problems between Hutu and Tutsi on his shoulders (or the UN's, for that matter), but intervention in the first few days, to include stopping media broadcasts, (probably) would have saved tens of thousands.

Indeed, because the Peacekeepers were there and did nothing, it actually added legitimacy to the slaughter.

Sheryl Nantus
11-14-2006, 12:41 AM
Which he should have ignored.

I'm not trying to put the responsibility for problems between Hutu and Tutsi on his shoulders (or the UN's, for that matter), but intervention in the first few days, to include stopping media broadcasts, (probably) would have saved tens of thousands.

Indeed, because the Peacekeepers were there and did nothing, it actually added legitimacy to the slaughter.

except, of course, that he was vastly outnumbered and if he had started interfering he would have come under attack, most assuredly. More UN troops would have at least been able to either save him or try to intervene to let him survive.

it's easy to say "well, he should have disobeyed orders" - but here was a man in a position arranged BY THE UN and he was told to do nothing. For all he knew there was a strike force ready to come in and he was some sort of decoy.

the UN let thousands of people die because there was no benefit to sending in troops. Heck, they waited WEEKS before deciding to maybe, just, think about the slaughter.

and I'm not sure how they added "legitimacy" to the slaughter... it wasn't like there wasn't media coverage and plenty of other charities looking towards the UN to take a stand. The UN fumbled the ball and then turned a blind eye for WEEKS.

Rwanda is the UN's biggest failure to date. That is, if Darfur doesn't beat it in time. The failure of the UN to intervene in genocides like this is what gives it a bad reputation.

*edit* here's a link to his bio on Wiki, for those who want to know more about what I speak of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallaire

robeiae
11-14-2006, 01:03 AM
First half is "Tell me the total money that has ever gone into the UN"
Second half is "what is the actual cost of the WMD inspection success".

Either the second half want's to know the cost of the inspectors and inspections,

or the second half is a leading question where "actual cost" means that the entire cost of the UN since its inception must be totaled into the cost of the inspections.Obviously, the latter. And just as obviously, the question is structured under the assumptions I have made about the UN: that it is a waste of resources, that it has no successes to speak of. I get to go with these assumptions because you can only come up with one example of a UN success (which really was no such animal, since if the underlying goal of the UN is peaceful co-existence of nations--which it is--inspections failed to achieve that goal: we invaded Iraq and are part of the UN, as is Iraq)


Have you stopped beating your wife, Rob?You would be better served by avoiding this road. I didn't ask a loaded question, I asked a different kind of question; I'll let you hash that out for yourself. True though, it's not a fair question. But that's the bed you've made.

This is a loaded question:

Ah, so, the world is flat, and I have to prove it round?

as is this:

Black helicopters coming to get you too, Rob?

Try to keep your terminology straight.


If you want to tally the total cost/benefit of the UN, you must tally the individual cost/benefits of its works. you cannot arrive at the total without discussing the individual pieces.Nothing prevented you from saying something like this the first time. And it would have been on point; your first answer wasn't, so you had failed to answer the question. See?

However, the problem you have here is that you can't seem to come up with anything for the "benefit" side of the tally sheet. If the UN was a corporation, the stockholders would say "what have you spent and what have you done?" And there you would have your true cost/benefit analysis. I'm glad I don't own stock in the UN...


The cost of UN inspections were a hell of a lot cheaper than the quagmire we're in now. It counts as a UN success.I gave you that to make a point--I'm taking it back, now. You're at zero successes, again. Better come up with something...

But if you start with the premise that the UN isn't worth it and cook the books to arrive at that result, then there really isn't any point in continuing this discussion pretending you have any interest in tallying up reality.I start with the premise that the UN has failed to demonstrate it is a worhtwhile endeavor for the United States to be engaged in. It certainly is worthwhile for some people.

And I don't need the books at all to make my case. I have historical reality. However, since the UN is a revenue draining entity, it really is up to you and its other proponnents to demonstrate why it is a good idea. It's not up to me to prove that it isn't.

SC Harrison
11-14-2006, 01:35 AM
and I'm not sure how they added "legitimacy" to the slaughter... it wasn't like there wasn't media coverage and plenty of other charities looking towards the UN to take a stand. The UN fumbled the ball and then turned a blind eye for WEEKS.



I'm not referring to legitimacy in the eyes of the international community, I'm referring to the minds of the Hutus as they were doing it.

And yes, he was outnumbered, and yes, it is easy to Monday-morning quarterback. :)

greglondon
11-14-2006, 01:36 AM
If the UN was a corporation, the stockholders would say "what have you spent and what have you done?".

Except they wouldn't be adding up everythign from the last 50 years.



You're at zero successes, again..

You're at zero successes. You insist the world is flat. You wanna play there, find someone who likes to play in the make believe world.


I start with the premise that the UN has failed to demonstrate it is a worhtwhile endeavor for the United States to be engaged in.

An invalid premise. Therefore all your arguments are wrong. Actually, most of your arguments are circular. You start with "UN is not worthwhile" and you and with "UN is not worthwhile". But oh well.

As for being worthwhile for the US, well, the problem with that is that the neoconchickenhawks ignored the UN success with WMD inspections in Iraq and invaded when they didn't need to. Had they listened, that would be hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been saved. It would have been worthwhile, but a certain group of idiots ignored the benefit and insisted they be able to exercise their neocon right to preemptive strike and american empire.

The UN was a success with regard to Iraq. It was the Bush administration that f-ed up.

dclary
11-14-2006, 01:37 AM
Obviously, the latter. And just as obviously, the question is structured under the assumptions I have made about the UN: that it is a waste of resources, that it has no successes to speak of. I get to go with these assumptions because you can only come up with one example of a UN success (which really was no such animal, since if the underlying goal of the UN is peaceful co-existence of nations--which it is--inspections failed to achieve that goal: we invaded Iraq and are part of the UN, as is Iraq)

You would be better served by avoiding this road. I didn't ask a loaded question, I asked a different kind of question; I'll let you hash that out for yourself. True though, it's not a fair question. But that's the bed you've made.

This is a loaded question:

Ah, so, the world is flat, and I have to prove it round?

as is this:

Black helicopters coming to get you too, Rob?

Try to keep your terminology straight.

Nothing prevented you from saying something like this the first time. And it would have been on point; your first answer wasn't, so you had failed to answer the question. See?

However, the problem you have here is that you can't seem to come up with anything for the "benefit" side of the tally sheet. If the UN was a corporation, the stockholders would say "what have you spent and what have you done?" And there you would have your true cost/benefit analysis. I'm glad I don't own stock in the UN...

I gave you that to make a point--I'm taking it back, now. You're at zero successes, again. Better come up with something...
I start with the premise that the UN has failed to demonstrate it is a worhtwhile endeavor for the United States to be engaged in. It certainly is worthwhile for some people.

And I don't need the books at all to make my case. I have historical reality. However, since the UN is a revenue draining entity, it really is up to you and its other proponnents to demonstrate why it is a good idea. It's not up to me to prove that it isn't.

What about Unicef, Robeiae? And those cute little children in America gathering up pennies to pay Ethiopia to continue trying to irrigate and fertilize the freakin Sahara desert?

dclary
11-14-2006, 01:39 AM
the UN let thousands of people die because there was no benefit to sending in troops. Heck, they waited WEEKS before deciding to maybe, just, think about the slaughter.

Thousands? No. Not even tens of thousands. Try hundreds of thousands. Some estimates claim over a million. One million people slaughtered, while UN forces ON THE GROUND AND AT THE SCENE did nothing.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 01:43 AM
RE: UN being successful and UN being cheaper than US operations:

The US Government Accountability Office concluded that UN Peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than funding a U.S. force.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06331.pdf

A 2005 RAND Corp study found the U.N. to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It also compared U.N. nation-building efforts to those of the U.S., and found that

of eight U.N. cases, seven are at peace, whereas of
eight U.S. cases, four are at peace, and four are not or not-yet-at peace
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG304.sum.pdf


Now, please, hit me with some neocon op-ed piece. I need some good fiction to review for my writer's group.

Unique
11-14-2006, 01:55 AM
Kyoto protocol - why hasn't it worked?

Because some nations won't ratify it. Why? Because they might have to change the way they do business. So what do they do to compromise? Buy other countries 'points' so they don't have to reduce their own emissions.

It might have worked. But we won't know because some people won't even discuss it. Won't discuss why they don't want to discuss it.

Is it a perfect document? I doubt it. But the concept is overdue and necessary if the world's population wants to keep eating and breathing.

If you've ever read it, one thing is obvious. They need a writer to write it, not a lawyer. (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html)

greglondon
11-14-2006, 02:07 AM
Rwanda is the UN's biggest failure to date. The failure of the UN to intervene in genocides like this is what gives it a bad reputation.

Except a failure to prevent a genocide is not justification to disband.

The problem is that when the individual members don't want to get involved, then there isn't anything significant that the UN can do. The US didn't want to get involved because it was licking its wounds from Somalia. China and Russia viewed it as an "internal affair". Is that a failure of the UN or a failure of the individual members?

The UN failed to do the best it could with what it had. And it failed to make the case to its members to do more. But that does not negate the successes created by the UN. Nor does it mean the UN is not a worthwhile endeavor.

The thing is that no one wants to join an international organization where they would be REQUIRED to contribute troops for action they did not support. If the UN had the power to draft military units from its member countries, no one would be a member. Even I would have a problem with American troops being under a political arm which did not report directly to the American people.

So this is what you get. A volunteer organization created by individual volunteer nations. And the UN can't force anyone to do anything. So if no one wants to commit a hundred thousand troops to Rwanda, the UN can't create an army out of thin air.

The UN screwed up what it did have to work with. But the individual nations are to blame for not contributing anything to the solution.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 02:24 AM
Rob wrote:

Step out of your anti-neocon ideology for just one second and try to justify the existence of the UN. Explain why it is not just what I say it is: a road to free cash for its corrupt agents and for petty dictators and the like all over the world.

Rob wrote:

the UN: that it is a waste of resources, that it has no successes to speak of.

Rob wrote:

the UN has failed to demonstrate it is a worhtwhile endeavor ... And I don't need the books at all to make my case. I have historical reality.

Please see the GAO report above and the Rand Corporation report, also mentioned above. I await your attempt to redefine how "historical reality" remains true in the face of the above reports. I like encouraging fiction.

Rob wrote:

inspections failed to achieve that goal: we invaded Iraq

Inspections failed because Bush ignored everything the UN said as of March 2003? The UN declared that inspections were working in Jan or Feb 2003. The inspectors said they were getting access, including american inspectors.

Now you want to call that a failure because the village idiot wanted to invade no matter what?

That isn't the UN's fault. That's Bush's fault, Rumsfeld's fault, Cheney's fault, Wolfowitz's fault. Our membership in the UN does not make us blameless in our international actions, or shift that blame to the UN.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 02:26 AM
Perhaps the RAND corporation is really run by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals?

MattW
11-14-2006, 02:27 AM
Thousands? No. Not even tens of thousands. Try hundreds of thousands. Some estimates claim over a million. One million people slaughtered, while UN forces ON THE GROUND AND AT THE SCENE did nothing.Is there a disease the manifests in distinguishing the magnitude of numbers?

Iraq: 50K is approximately 150K which is darn close to 650K

Rwanda: A few hundred at most

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 02:31 AM
It's time the United Nations went the way of vaudville.

On to the smoldering scrap heap of histories failed institutions.

The United Nations = http://www.barbneal.com/wav/tvthemes/6mdman.wav

greglondon
11-14-2006, 02:36 AM
On to the smoldering scrap heap of histories failed institutions.

Right, because no amount of facts from anyone, the GAO, the Rand corporation, will convince you otherwise. But maybe if you keep saying it long enough, it will come true.

The world is flat. Nothing will convince you otherwise.

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 02:39 AM
Right, because no amount of facts from anyone, the GAO, the Rand corporation, will convince you otherwise. But maybe if you keep saying it long enough, it will come true.

The world is flat. Nothing will convince you otherwise.

This from the guy who called fact, propoganda in a nearby thread.

"Hypocrisy is my favorite sin."
Devil's Advocate


P.S. Your posts have too much black, Greg. Honestly, I don't even read them. Sorry.


I only have an attention span from about here.....











....To about here.

And you like to repeat yourself too much so as soon as I see the word "inspections" I check out, baby.

blacbird
11-14-2006, 02:53 AM
This from the guy who called fact, propoganda in a nearby thread.

"Hypocrisy is my favorite sin."
Devil's Advocate


P.S. Your posts have too much black, Greg. Honestly, I don't even read them. Sorry.


I only have an attention span from about here.....











....To about here.

And you like to repeat yourself too much so as soon as I see the word "inspections" I check out, baby.

"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

-- Paul Simon.

caw

greglondon
11-14-2006, 02:55 AM
This from the guy who called fact, propoganda in a nearby thread.

Don't know what "fact" you're talking about Billy. But if you say so, if you say I called a fact "propaganda", then it absolutely must be true.


as soon as I see the word "inspections" I check out, baby.


inspections




inspections



Inspections




Keep repeating that word for the rest of the week, baby.

robeiae
11-14-2006, 03:01 AM
Except they wouldn't be adding up everythign from the last 50 years.True. They would have shut the beast down decades ago...

You're at zero successes. You insist the world is flat. You wanna play there, find someone who likes to play in the make believe world.:ROFL: You've got nothing. I know it. You know it.



An invalid premise. Therefore all your arguments are wrong. Actually, most of your arguments are circular. You start with "UN is not worthwhile" and you and with "UN is not worthwhile". But oh well.Sure, it's valid. And it's not circular. You just can't seem to follow the argument. I don't end with "UN is not worthwhile," I end with "we should withdraw from the UN." Now, just because my argument is a valid construct, it doesn't mean it's correct. But you can't offer any evidence that counters mine. Again, get your terminology straight.


The UN was a success with regard to Iraq. It was the Bush administration that f-ed up.You can't do that. The U.S. is still part of the UN, so the UN actions failed to keep the peace and prevent an invasion of Iraq. Yeah, that sucks for your position, but that's REALITY.

dclary
11-14-2006, 03:02 AM
Is there a disease the manifests in distinguishing the magnitude of numbers?

Iraq: 50K is approximately 150K which is darn close to 650K

Rwanda: A few hundred at most

???

You say only a few hundred rwandans were killed in the genocide of 1994?


Wiki:
The Rwandan Genocide (French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language): Génocide au Rwanda) was the massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre) of an estimated 800,000 to 1,071,000 ethnic Tutsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi) and moderate Hutus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutu) in Rwanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda), mostly carried out by two extremist Hutu militia groups, the Interahamwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interahamwe) and the Impuzamugambi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impuzamugambi), during a period of about 100 days from April 6th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_6) through mid-July 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994).

BBC:
Between April and June 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days.

PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/


Um, Hell... even the UN admits 800,000 Rwandanesians died.
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/newrels/rwanda.htm

Sheryl Nantus
11-14-2006, 03:12 AM
well, you know... it's not like they were *important* or anything... like sitting on an oil field.

*rolls eyes*

sometimes I despair for the next generation when they don't know anything resembling history...

blacbird
11-14-2006, 03:12 AM
???

You say only a few hundred rwandans were killed in the genocide of 1994?

Yeah, that one raised my eyebrows too. You happen to know what Matt is smoking, declarey?

caw

blacbird
11-14-2006, 03:14 AM
The U.S. is still part of the UN, so the UN actions failed to keep the peace and prevent an invasion of Iraq.

Well, now, THERE'S some spin I hadn't heard before.

caw

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 03:15 AM
"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

-- Paul Simon.

caw

Well said, my friend.

Well said.

Well, Simon said it, but you posted so you get the rep point.
:)

greglondon
11-14-2006, 03:18 AM
:ROFL: You've got nothing. I know it. You know it.

I've got a recent report by the US GAO and that bastion of liberal weakness, the RAND corporation:

The US Government Accountability Office concluded that UN Peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than funding a U.S. force.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06331.pdf

A 2005 RAND Corp study found the U.N. to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It also compared U.N. nation-building efforts to those of the U.S., and found that

of eight U.N. cases, seven are at peace, whereas of
eight U.S. cases, four are at peace, and four are not or not-yet-at peace
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/..._MG304.sum.pdf (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG304.sum.pdf)

What do you have other than emotional pleas?



The U.S. is still part of the UN, so the UN actions failed to keep the peace and prevent an invasion of Iraq.

Ah. I see. The question is whether or not the UN is effective. And this question is being asked with all seriousness by the United States as a precursor to determine whether it is worth remaining a member of the UN.

The answer is that the UN failed to prevent us from invading Iraq, therefore the UN is not effective at keeping the peace because we launched a preemptive, unilateral, unfounded war.

If we want to keep the peace, we should not remain a member of the UN, because they failed to keep us from waging war.

Is it cherry flavored koolaid, by the way?

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 03:22 AM
Are you talking about the Rand guy who debunks supernatural claims and is willing to pay one million dollars to anyone who can prove they have superpowers?

Because if it isn't, I will be very disappointed.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 03:26 AM
Are you talking about the Rand guy who debunks supernatural claims and is willing to pay one million dollars to anyone who can prove they have superpowers?

Because if it isn't, I will be very disappointed.

Sorry, Billy, no. I'm talking RAND Corporation, whos members have included Donald Rumsfeld (chairman from 1981-1986) and Condi Rice (91-97).

Care to attempt to derail the conversation with a different pointless tangent?

---
added for reference:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=919336&postcount=161

And then greg goes off on a tangent about

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 03:28 AM
Care to attempt to derail the conversation with a different pointless tangent?

Let me try and come up with something.

Give me a few minutes.

Thank you.

dclary
11-14-2006, 03:36 AM
Yeah, that one raised my eyebrows too. You happen to know what Matt is smoking, declarey?

caw

Nope, but I imagine he and Greg are passing it between themselves.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 03:38 AM
Originally Posted by blacbird
Yeah, that one raised my eyebrows too. You happen to know what Matt is smoking, declarey?



Nope, but I imagine he and Greg are passing it between themselves.

And I imagine you and a couple others here are passing the Koolaid between yourselves.

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 03:49 AM
Let me try and come up with something.

Give me a few minutes.

Thank you.

I got nothing.
:(

greglondon
11-14-2006, 03:55 AM
I got nothing. :(

I appreciate your honesty, Billy.
Not everyone would be so forthcoming.
He11, I'll even buy you a beer for it.

robeiae
11-14-2006, 04:02 AM
RE: UN being successful and UN being cheaper than US operations:

The US Government Accountability Office concluded that UN Peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than funding a U.S. force.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06331.pdf

A 2005 RAND Corp study found the U.N. to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It also compared U.N. nation-building efforts to those of the U.S., and found that

of eight U.N. cases, seven are at peace, whereas of
eight U.S. cases, four are at peace, and four are not or not-yet-at peace
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG304.sum.pdf


Now, please, hit me with some neocon op-ed piece. I need some good fiction to review for my writer's group.I don't think you fully digested the second article you cited. But I won't quibble, since both are comparisons of the UN to the U.S., which is apparently the only song you can sing. Neither, especially number two, extols the virtues of the UN. And the first is just bottom-dollar stuff.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 04:29 AM
I don't think you fully digested the second article you cited. But I won't quibble, since both are comparisons of the UN to the U.S., which is apparently the only song you can sing. Neither, especially number two, extols the virtues of the UN. And the first is just bottom-dollar stuff.

The RAND report says "During the early 1990s, the United Nations enjoyed a series of successes."

You on the other hand are so biased you demand that they have not had a single success, that no one can name a single one. Starting on page 21, they list a bunch of US and UN operations and list which ones have been succesful and whcih have not. So, next time you say "The UN has not a single success", you are saying so against the RAND corporation's own assessment.

It also ends with

the United Nations provides the most suitable institutional framework for most nation-building missions

The United States and the United Nations bring di.erent capabilities to the process. Neither is likely to succeed without the other. Both have much to learn not just from their own experience but also from that of each other. It is our hope that this study and its predecessor will help both to do so.

This also directly conflicts with your prior statements, including suggestions that we withdraw from the UN, as if we don't need them. They are in direct opposition to the assessments of one of the most militarily conservative think tanks in America.

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 04:34 AM
The RAND report says "During the early 1990s, the United Nations enjoyed a series of successes."


Whats the margin of error on this RAND thing?

Just because it's in a report does that mean it's been PROVEN?

Who defines success?

One man's success can be another man's failure.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 04:40 AM
Whats the margin of error on this RAND thing?

Just because it's in a report does that mean it's been PROVEN?

Who defines success?

One man's success can be another man's failure.

The RAND thing says UN is cheaper than US by a factor of eight.
If the UN can do the operation for a million.
The US would do it for 8 million.

That is a statistically significant difference and the margin of error is small enough to ignore. Unlike, say a vote where Bush wins by 400 votes, but the margin for error is at least 2000 votes.

As for "success", it's defined by people who work for RAND, like Rumsfeld and Condi Rice who worked for them in the past. Is Condi not good enough for you, Billy?

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 05:23 AM
Is Condi not good enough for you, Billy?

Nope. Nothing anyone says regarding something successful coming out of the UN is good enough for me.

Now, that doesn't mean that I subscribe to the UN has never had a success thing.

But man they suck now. And have for a long time.

That's for sure.

We need to Steve Austin the UN.

End of story.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 05:32 AM
Now, that doesn't mean that I subscribe to the UN has never had a success thing.

Maybe you should talk with Rob.


But man they suck now. And have for a long time. That's for sure.

Hm, maybe Rob already talked with you. According to teh Rand report, (which was written in 2005 by the way) the UN successes from 1990 to the present include Namibia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Eastern Slavonia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and East Timor. Some of these are current, ongoing, successes. So, I'm not sure what your basis is for saying the UN sucks "now. and have for a long time".

The RAND Corporation thinks otherwise.

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 05:38 AM
Who is RAND?

Are they gods?

Or humans?

dclary
11-14-2006, 05:42 AM
Who is RAND?

Are they gods?

Or humans?

Lately I've been thinkin' who's in charge
About who they are
And are they looking down and laughing hard
And are they aliens or robots or humanoids or gods
I think I'm just paranoid

Let's rock!
Let's rock!
Let's rock!

greglondon
11-14-2006, 05:47 AM
Who is RAND?

Are they gods?

Or humans?

1,600 human employees, including generals, military contractors, Nobel Laureats, physicists, engineers, and programmers.

Compared to some people, they come in as either super-human or demi-god.

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 05:51 AM
1,600 human employees, including generals, military contractors, Nobel Laureats, physicists, engineers, and programmers.

Compared to some people, they come in as either super-human or demi-god.

Cool.

robeiae
11-14-2006, 07:16 AM
So, next time you say "The UN has not a single success", you are saying so against the RAND corporation's own assessment.So what? Why must I agree with the Rand corporation? However, if you read the entire piece, there are only two instances that are called "very successful." Which two: Japan and West Germany. And if you look at the time frames, the only UN-led effort that has the same kind of range with which to draw a comparison is the Congo, which gets a "partially successful," with the minor caveat that UN involvement did not lead to democracy.

However, within the framework of your analysis, I am willing to agree to El Slavador as a success (looka that, you're back to one, again). Of course, that framework has now apparently led you to justifying "nation-building." Is that where you want to be? I would point out that the models of West Germany and Japan stand alone with regard to effective methodology. Why is that? Here I am agreeing with you--do it the right way, not half-assed, as has been the case in Iraq. For your reading list, if you are so inclined: The Cash Nexus (http://www.amazon.com/Cash-Nexus-Modern-World-1700-2000/dp/0465023266).


This also directly conflicts with your prior statements, including suggestions that we withdraw from the UN, as if we don't need them. They are in direct opposition to the assessments of one of the most militarily conservative think tanks in America.Again, so what? You keep trying to saddle me with the views of others. It's not gonna work. I don't have to defend a view I disagree with, nor do I have to accept it, simply because it's convenient for you that I do so.

robeiae
11-14-2006, 07:36 AM
Didn't want to skip this...

The problem is that when the individual members don't want to get involved, then there isn't anything significant that the UN can do. The US didn't want to get involved because it was licking its wounds from Somalia. China and Russia viewed it as an "internal affair". Is that a failure of the UN or a failure of the individual members?

The UN failed to do the best it could with what it had. And it failed to make the case to its members to do more. But that does not negate the successes created by the UN. Nor does it mean the UN is not a worthwhile endeavor.

The thing is that no one wants to join an international organization where they would be REQUIRED to contribute troops for action they did not support. If the UN had the power to draft military units from its member countries, no one would be a member. Even I would have a problem with American troops being under a political arm which did not report directly to the American people.

So this is what you get. A volunteer organization created by individual volunteer nations. And the UN can't force anyone to do anything. So if no one wants to commit a hundred thousand troops to Rwanda, the UN can't create an army out of thin air.

The UN screwed up what it did have to work with. But the individual nations are to blame for not contributing anything to the solution.
Let me see if I get this straight, the UN is only effective at creating a world of cooperative nations if nations are willing to cooperate?
:ROFL: Stop! :ROFL: Please stop! :ROFL: You're killin me, over here!

And you claimed I was engaged in a circular argument?!?!?!?!?

No, no...I'm just teasing. That's not a fair representation of what you actually were saying. Of course, since you consistently misrepresent what I say, maybe it is fair....

Nah, it's not.

And I don't want to let this point get by:

And the UN can't force anyone to do anything.
Correct. How can you reasonably expect an international authority that actually has no authority to get anything done? You can't. All of your analysis is locked onto nation-building, and there are many people, including some who think highly of the UN, that are adamantly opposed to this practice. And with regard to such, I can simply point out that UN effectiveness here is a product of who actually is willing to get involved. Which means it's not really a UN effort, at all. What about all the other UN activity? Where is that 20 billion a year going, anyway?

Is the world better off because of UN actions, or not? That's the real question. The UN is supposedly actively working to limit human rights violations. What's its track record? It's supposedly working to lift people out of poverty and eliminate world hunger. How's it doing? It's supposedly around to insure world peace. Has it done so?

blacbird
11-14-2006, 08:06 AM
Didn't want to skip this...

Let me see if I get this straight, the UN is only effective at creating a world of cooperative nations if nations are willing to cooperate?

Ranks right up there with the U.N. being a failure because it didn't prevent the U.S. from invading Iraq.

caw

billythrilly7th
11-14-2006, 08:31 AM
Ranks right up there with the U.N. being a failure because it didn't prevent the U.S. from invading Iraq.


Exactly.

Another UN failure.

blacbird
11-14-2006, 09:19 AM
Exactly.

Another UN failure.

Robbie said it first, not me.

caw

dclary
11-14-2006, 09:45 AM
You're absolutely right, there, Birdy. Damned UN.

robeiae
11-14-2006, 05:04 PM
Ranks right up there with the U.N. being a failure because it didn't prevent the U.S. from invading Iraq.But the UN didn't stop the invasion, did it? Oh, I forgot--you subscribe to the belief that only the U.S. can actually take an action. The rest of the world can only react to what the U.S. does. And all bad things are somehow a consequence of U.S. actions or inactions, while all good things happen despite the existence of the U.S. Right? :)

greglondon
11-14-2006, 07:58 PM
Again, so what? You keep trying to saddle me with the views of others. It's not gonna work. I don't have to defend a view I disagree with, nor do I have to accept it,

So nothing. I'm just pointing out the physical evidence and the assessments of some of the more well informed and intelligent folks who land on the conservative side of the spectrum. You, I don't know where you get your information from. Mostly, I think you just repeat "The UN has never had a single success" and hope it comes true.

Since you refuse to look in the telescope, since you refuse to give up a view you cherish so dearly that you refuse to accept something as conservative as the RAND corporation's assessment of the situation, I think you've demonstrated that physical evidence and intelligent assessment is irrelevant to your position. Which basically means, there isn't much point for me to continue discussing this with someone who refuses to look at what is staring him in the face.

That's all.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 08:05 PM
But the UN didn't stop the invasion, did it? ... And all bad things are somehow a consequence of U.S. actions or inactions,

Q: Who invaded Iraq? The UN or the US?
Rob: The US

Q: Who is responsible for the US invading Iraq?
Rob: The UN

Q: So, all bad things are somehow a consequence of a UN failure?
Rob: Yes. The UN should have stopped us from invading Iraq.

Rob: Mighty fine koolaid. Want some?
Q: no thanks.

badducky
11-14-2006, 08:10 PM
Unfortunately, greg, the UN does carry blame for being unable to stop the invasion despite openr ancor about how they didn't want such a thing to happen.

It doesn't take blame away from the US, but merely spreads it around the room, as if such a thing fell into a fan and spread across the room per some popular phrase.

robeiae
11-14-2006, 08:20 PM
Q: Who invaded Iraq? The UN or the US?
Rob: The USOkay


Q: Who is responsible for the US invading Iraq?
Rob: The UNWrong. The US is responsible for invading Iraq.


Q: So, all bad things are somehow a consequence of a UN failure?
Rob: Yes. The UN should have stopped us from invading Iraq.
Wrong, again. Bad things are usually a consequence of someone's (or some entity's) actions. But the UN is still unable to accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish, therefore it's a waste of resources. That doesn't make it responsible for what others do, just ineffective. It's really not a difficult position to fathom, and I keep thinking you're a smart guy so I'm not sure why you keep falling down.
Rob: Mighty fine koolaid. Want some?
Q: no thanks.:ROFL:See? You can't avoid misreresenting what I say, then want to attribute it to my preferences for liquid refreshment. Really, your position has descended into nothing more than an ad hominem attack. But since it's such a pitfully weak one, I really don't mind.

And you keep saying you're done with me, but you keep coming back for more. Glutton for punishment, are we?

robeiae
11-14-2006, 08:23 PM
Mostly, I think you just repeat "The UN has never had a single success" and hope it comes true.Mostly, you just toss out meaningless analogies as a substitute for analysis, then employ some creative license with your interpretations of my posts so it fits your anaolgy. There's a term for this kind of fallacy, too. But I'll let you sort that one out, yourself...

greglondon
11-14-2006, 08:26 PM
What? Why not just say a rape victim must take some of the blame for being raped? And the Police must take some blame for failing to stop the rapist?

Ladies and gentlemen, individual responsibility has left the building.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 08:30 PM
Mostly, you just toss out meaningless anologies as a substitute for analysis, then employ some creative license with your interpretations of my posts so it fits your anaolgy. There's a term for this kind of fallacy, too. But I'll let you sort that one out, yourself...

I must use creative license to interpret your posts.

You give me nothing else to work with.

All you do is say "The UN never had a single success."
You don't provide any evidence to that effect.
And you ignore evidence from conservative sources that
contradict it. Instead, you just repeat "The UN has never
had a single success."

You've got bupkiss in outside evidence.
Your argument is based on little more than repetition,
and the assertion that comes down to "Because I said so".

I'll let you figure out what the name for that it.

Sheryl Nantus
11-14-2006, 08:30 PM
What? Why not just say a rape victim must take some of the blame for being raped? And the Police must take some blame for failing to stop the rapist?

Ladies and gentlemen, individual responsibility has left the building.

actually, that has happened in a few cases....

there was a Jane Doe who succeeded years ago in suing the Toronto Police Force for not putting out warning about a serial rapist in her area. She was raped and sued successfully on the grounds that if the police had littered the area with flyers stating that there was a serial rapist in her area, she would not have been raped.

http://www.walnet.org/jane_doe/news/toronto_98/torstar-980703.html

just saying...

badducky
11-14-2006, 08:32 PM
Ah, but this isn't a victim, this is supposedly the most powerful governing body in the known universe that exists for the sole purpose of preventing things like Iraq.

Perhaps blaming the doctor for being unable to properly treat the disease is a bit much. However, I bet the doctor feels it somewhat -- the mistakes made.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 08:33 PM
there was a Jane Doe ...

And Jane Doe had it coming too, right? She was a woman, so she must
accept some of the blame, right?

Just saying....

Sheryl Nantus
11-14-2006, 08:35 PM
And Jane Doe had it coming too, right? She was a woman, so she must
accept some of the blame, right?

Just saying....

read the frakking article before you jump down my throat, okay?

jerk.

badducky
11-14-2006, 08:39 PM
Our metaphors are getting all mixed up and pushing us into bad places.

The UN isn't a victim, or a woman. Nor is it a doctor.

dclary
11-14-2006, 08:40 PM
Sheryl, just because he is one, and pushes the buttons of every single person he discourses with, you can't let him ruin your experience here, and calling him that publically is going to get you reprimanded, not him.

I know, it sucks. But passive-aggressive losers like that are a tough bird to deal with. Do what I do, ignore him completely, because he brings nothing to the table but ill-will and negativity. The sooner no one interacts with him, the sooner he'll just go away.

robeiae
11-14-2006, 08:42 PM
I must use creative license to interpret your posts.

You give me nothing else to work with.

All you do is say "The UN never had a single success."
You don't provide any evidence to that effect.
And you ignore evidence from conservative sources that
contradict it. Instead, you just repeat "The UN has never
had a single success."

You've got bupkiss in outside evidence.
Your argument is based on little more than repetition,
and the assertion that comes down to "Because I said so".
Once again, to justify expending resources, you need some evidence--other than "it feels good"--to maintain your position. You don't have any. I need go no further. And yet I have: reality, since the inception of the UN and the creation of it's many programs, demonstrates that it's been a colossal failure.

And that's to be expected, since the structure of UN is flawed and does not lend itself to serving the world's population as a whole, but rather to serving the needs of those most capable of using it as a vehicle for attianing personal wealth and power. You'd like to think this isn't true; hell, everyone would. But it is true.

You want a real specific example? Let's forget the Oil-for-Food program, and talk about something long-term. Where did the UN come from? Why did it orginate? I'll give you a hint: think Godwin. That's right, the UN was supposed to help prevent things like genocide and the causes thereof. And one of the big issues at the time was anti-semitism, was it not? How has the UN done with that little issue? But I know, that's just repitition...it doesn't count as evidence.

dclary
11-14-2006, 08:51 PM
The UN has a wonderful anti-semitism record. It's easily the largest anti-semitic organization on the planet.

Sheryl Nantus
11-14-2006, 08:52 PM
Sheryl, just because he is one, and pushes the buttons of every single person he discourses with, you can't let him ruin your experience here, and calling him that publically is going to get you reprimanded, not him.

I know, it sucks. But passive-aggressive losers like that are a tough bird to deal with. Do what I do, ignore him completely, because he brings nothing to the table but ill-will and negativity. The sooner no one interacts with him, the sooner he'll just go away.

point duly noted.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 09:20 PM
Once again, to justify expending resources, you need some evidence--other than "it feels good"--to maintain your position. You don't have any.

I have rand saying the UN is 8 times cheaper to operate than US operations. And they also say the UN has been successful 7 out of 8 while US forces have been successful 4 out of 8. They conclude their 2005 report saying that the UN and US need each other.

I need go no further.

You got nothing but your own opinions that the UN has not a single success, in complete defiance of real world evidence, and you repeat these opinions over and over and over as if it gives your opinion more weight. Then there are your weird assessments of responsibility transfer, whereby the UN is responsible for the US ignoring them, which can't be bothered with.

Rand is no bastion of bleeding heart liberals. And they say we need the UN and the UN needs us. And I'll take the word of a gaggle of Nobel winners over some guy in a forum any day.

Bravo
11-14-2006, 09:34 PM
Sheryl, just because he is one, and pushes the buttons of every single person he discourses with, you can't let him ruin your experience here, and calling him that publically is going to get you reprimanded, not him.

I know, it sucks. But passive-aggressive losers like that are a tough bird to deal with. Do what I do, ignore him completely, because he brings nothing to the table but ill-will and negativity. The sooner no one interacts with him, the sooner he'll just go away.

i think he's doing well.

he's been here for like 2 weeks. it's a steep learning curve in TIO, but he's getting the hang of it.

thank you.

dclary
11-14-2006, 09:45 PM
Come on. The UN with NO success stories? None at all? And Dclary: that's just flat-out cookoo: the UN's the largest anti-semitic organization. . . ?

I like overstatement when it's funny.

It's funny because it's true! ;)

dclary
11-14-2006, 09:50 PM
WTF? Come on, D.

No, I'm quite serious. Greg pushes every button he can find, and annoys the piss out of anyone he can. He's no dummy, either, he knows what he's doing and is very calculating about it. The respect your fellow writer rule is in effect, but it's not applied to someone like Greg, because he works around that, undermining a person, disrespecting their views, insulting their opinions, but never saying a bad thing about the person themselves.

Someone like Sheryl gets broadsided by him and blurts out a non-"respect your writer"-ism, and she's the one who's gonna get in trouble, not him, because his disrespect falls within the rules.

Anyone remember Mamma Mia on the old AW? She got banned, in large part because she couldn't handle certain people on the board, and resorted to name calling and other things. I don't want Sheryl to suffer the same fate.

dclary
11-14-2006, 09:51 PM
How do you spell cookoo? Is it cookoo or cockoo? Or coo-coo?
Or C. . . L. . . .A. . . . ?

Are you saying the UN *isn't* anti-semitic?

dclary
11-14-2006, 10:00 PM
They always blame it on the League of Nations.

So sad.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 10:24 PM
Are you saying the UN *isn't* anti-semitic?

For criticizing the State of Israel when it acts out of line?
And criticising Bush is anti-american, too, I'm sure.

robeiae
11-14-2006, 10:33 PM
I have rand saying the UN is 8 times cheaper to operate than US operations. And they also say the UN has been successful 7 out of 8 while US forces have been successful 4 out of 8. They conclude their 2005 report saying that the UN and US need each other.

I need go no further.Certainly not. Especially since you ignored my response (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=919897&postcount=205) to this "evidence." And still, this is the summation of your argument: "well, these guys say the UN is better at such-and-such than the U.S. is, so there." And that is your complete and total justification for the existence of the UN, never mind everything else.


You got nothing but your own opinions that the UN has not a single success, in complete defiance of real world evidence, and you repeat these opinions over and over and over as if it gives your opinion more weight. Then there are your weird assessments of responsibility transfer, whereby the UN is responsible for the US ignoring them, which can't be bothered with.You're looking weaker and weaker everytime you ignore what I say and substitute your own version of my opinion. Hey, I acquiesced to another UN success, but it's better for you if you ignore that. And I specifically said the US was responsible for going into Iraq, but go ahead and pretend I didn't. I'm gonna have to re-evalute my opinion of your capabilites, since you still seem unable to understand what I say, even when I agree with you.


Rand is no bastion of bleeding heart liberals. And they say we need the UN and the UN needs us. And I'll take the word of a gaggle of Nobel winners over some guy in a forum any day.That's cool. You don't really apply any analysis to anything, so taking someone else's word for things is really all you have left.

robeiae
11-14-2006, 10:34 PM
i think he's doing well.

he's been here for like 2 weeks. it's a steep learning curve in TIO, but he's getting the hang of it.

thank you.I'm not complaining...I miss Hero.

greglondon
11-14-2006, 10:45 PM
that is your complete and total justification for the existence of the UN, never mind everything else..

No, I haven't presented my complete and total justification for the existence of the UN. We couldn't get beyond a single point to put in the books to tally up the total. You started this mess with something like: "The UN hasn't had a single success, ever!!!!" I've been responding to that ever since. The Rand report says 7 out of 8 sucesses and 8 times cheaper than US operations. And you deny both points.

Then you count Iraq as a UN failure because they failed to prevent the US from invading Iraq. And I just don't know what to do with that other than throw it in the bin labeled "looney". I can't get beyond the notion that argument is like a rapist arguing that it's the police's fault he raped some woman because they didn't arrest him in time to stop the crime.

I think we're going to have to leave the "UN is a complete failure" discussion for some other time.

dclary
11-14-2006, 11:12 PM
I'm not complaining...I miss Hero.

He was my favorite adversary.

robeiae
11-14-2006, 11:30 PM
Then you count Iraq as a UN failure because they failed to prevent the US from invading Iraq. And I just don't know what to do with that other than throw it in the bin labeled "looney". I can't get beyond the notion that argument is like a rapist arguing that it's the police's fault he raped some woman because they didn't arrest him in time to stop the crime.
First, I suggest you stop thinking in analogies. Most analogies are invalid, like the one your are making, here. Second, you have to face up to the fact that the UN is ineffective at maintaining world peace. It's not so much that "they failed to prevent the US from invading Iraq" as it is "as structured, the UN was unable to prevent this and similar events like it." Did the UN keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan? No. The fact that any nation, like the U.S., can simply ignore the UN and invade another nation with ne real consequences via the UN points to this ineffectiveness, because the UN lacks the power to enforce anything it says, when it comes to international conflict. And as structured, it never will have that power.

But the UN also sucks at everything else it does. I know you want me to present a laundry list of UN failures (like I want one from you of successes), but you need to look at what the actual goals of the UN are. Has it prevented the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? How many countries had such weapons when the UN was chartered? How many have them, now? Has it been successful at curbing envirmental destruction? Are there more or less rain forests now than there were in 1945? Has it been able to minimize human rights violations? Really, a joke of a question, since the UN happily puts authoritarian regimes in charge of overseeing such operations and happily allows nations that promote terrorism and the like to remain as members.

English Dave
11-14-2006, 11:33 PM
The UN is succesful in stopping conflicts before reaching headline status.

They were not succesful in various theatres because agreement couldn't be reached between superpowers. If one major country flouts the resolutions then what hope have they got in persuading others to?

Maybe the US paying the $1.3 billion in arrears it owes in dues and supporting the resolutions against Israel it has chosen to ignore would help?

robeiae
11-14-2006, 11:39 PM
Maybe the US paying the $1.3 billion in arrears it owes in dues and supporting the resolutions against Israel it has chosen to ignore would help?Say, how is that bill figured, anyway? Maybe if the rest of the world repaid every debt the U.S. has forgiven, we could all drive Hummers...

And yes, those darned Israeli's--always strapping bombs to themselves, then blowin up some civilians, then having the governement write out a fat check to the heroes' families. No, wait...

Joe Unidos
11-14-2006, 11:42 PM
But the UN also sucks at everything else it does.

So, beyond stating that the realities of the world prevent the UN from achieving all its lofty goals, what is the point you are making? That its imperfections make it useless? That the US need not live up to its obligations as a charter member? That universal isolationism and unilateral military action on the part of all nations would make the world a better, more peaceful place?

greglondon
11-14-2006, 11:42 PM
Maybe the US paying the $1.3 billion in arrears it owes in dues and supporting the resolutions against Israel it has chosen to ignore would help?

one billion dollars? Cripes. In three short years, we've blown hundreds of billions of dollars down the quagmire formally known as Iraq. And we're kevetching about one billion? By the time we finally get out of Iraq, we'll probably be looking at a trillion dollar tab for that little mess. I'd pay a billion dollars to have the UN warn us away from that sort of mess. Too bad we didn't listen, though. But that's a different problem.

As for Israel, careful ED, criticizing that nation can only be interpreted as anti-semetic behaviour.

English Dave
11-14-2006, 11:45 PM
Say, how is that bill figured, anyway? Maybe if the rest of the world repaid every debt the U.S. has forgiven, we could all drive Hummers...

And yes, those darned Israeli's--always strapping bombs to themselves, then blowin up some civilians, then having the governement write out a fat check to the heroes' families. No, wait...

Like this

''The U.S. arrears issue
The U.N. has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force U.N. compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.
After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the U.N. negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helms-Biden_legislation&action=edit), which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.
U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.


I have nothing against Israelis. But the problems that the creation of the State of Israel engendered takes a lot more solving than military aid to Israel.

Joe Unidos
11-14-2006, 11:47 PM
And yes, those darned Israeli's--always strapping bombs to themselves, then blowin up some civilians, then having the governement write out a fat check to the heroes' families. No, wait...

You're not seriously arguing that Israel doesn't kill civilians, are you? Or are civilians killed as a result of total indifference somehow less dead that those killed deliberately? That would explain your feelings about Iraq too, I suppose. Is your point that Israeli soldiers aren't paid, or don't get death benefits?

greglondon
11-14-2006, 11:49 PM
And yes, those darned Israeli's--always strapping bombs to themselves, then blowin up some civilians, then having the governement write out a fat check to the heroes' families. No, wait...

no, wait, its those darned israeli's who use missile attacks from apache helicopters to take out a car with suspected terrorists in it. And do it when the car is in a city surrounded by civilians. Israel just recently screwed up and artilleried an apartment building to the ground killing a bunch of civilians.

Suicide bombers killing Israeli civilians is evil.
And Israeli military operations killing palestinian civilians is evil too.

The cure becomes as bad as the disease.

English Dave
11-14-2006, 11:52 PM
no, wait, its those darned israeli's who use missile attacks from apache helicopters to take out a car with suspected terrorists in it. And do it when the car is in a city surrounded by civilians. Israel just recently screwed up and artilleried an apartment building to the ground killing a bunch of civilians.

Suicide bombers killing Israeli civilians is evil.
And having Israeli military operations kill palestinian civilians is evil too.

The cure becomes as bad as the disease.

Got to say, I don't like sunbathers as much as the next man but I wouldn't shell a beach from a destroyer unless it was Omaha. [beach that is though I'm watching the State closely]

greglondon
11-14-2006, 11:56 PM
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1948903,00.html


The Israeli military said it would investigate the circumstances behind the tragedy

Don't know if anything ever came of the "investigation".

SC Harrison
11-15-2006, 12:04 AM
No, I'm quite serious. Greg pushes every button he can find, and annoys the piss out of anyone he can. He's no dummy, either, he knows what he's doing and is very calculating about it. The respect your fellow writer rule is in effect, but it's not applied to someone like Greg, because he works around that, undermining a person, disrespecting their views, insulting their opinions, but never saying a bad thing about the person themselves.



An amazing self-analysis, Deek. :)

Just kidding.

But seriously, Greg just hasn't adapted to the tone of this board, and he may not. To tell you the truth, I sometimes get frustrated as hell when I spend a lot of time making my point and backing it up with (what I think is) appropriate and credible background, only to have it ignored or minimized, while a barrage of off-topic back-slapping posts pile up to bury it.

One thing I will say to Greg is: make your point, use your references, then let it go or find new stuff. Repetition begets repetition, and if these knuckleheads :) don't see it your way the first time, they damn sure ain't gonna aquiesce after five repeats.

English Dave
11-15-2006, 12:16 AM
An amazing self-analysis, Deek. :)

.

:D

C'mon deek, since when did you get sensitive or back off from an argument?