Regardless of whether or not we should go to war...

[Rikard_OHF]

Do you think the United States is being very dimplomatic?

I'm writing this lil piece because of the speech of Rumsfeld
Whereas Bush and Powell are trying to convince the UN of the guilt of Iraq and try to get the UN to help the US in such a war
It is Rumsfeld who storms right though by saying that the US doesnt NEED the UN and the English.But it's that statement that makes the US sound arrogant in the ears of it's allies, who dont think Iraq's guilt is proven
It's also this statement that makes me afraid of the US goverment
It's more the "muscle" politics, which the US uses, that gets a lot of people to be against their cause
The "Either you are for or us or you're against us" statement was accepted, though not liked, in the war against Terrorism

For now they are attacking Regimes that are obviously dangerous to worldpeace
But what about the future?
I'm afraid that once Bush thinks that this method of getting allies is the right one, and I'm afraid he'll end up abusing it

my question to you is
Do you think the US is using the correct method, to convince nations to help them?
And if you do think so, Can you take away my fair for The Bush Regime (I hope you can)

[Ronn_Bman]

Rumsfeld has a bit of "foot in mouth" disease for sure, and Bush could have approached this differently, but so could everyone. Chirac is nothing but diplomacy in action? The Russians and Chinese tread delicately?

I think Bush gets a bad rep because he is in a position to act with or without the permission of others. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but the fact that he "could do" this or that in the future if left to "run wild" is very much held against him regarding the issue at hand despite the fact that most who oppose him say "if and could" scenarios shouldn't be counted against Saddam.

Before the world gets in too much of an uproar, lets remember Bush could be gone in '05. I think he'll get to hang around until '09 though. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ElricMorlockin]

Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: Do you think the United States is being very dimplomatic?

A great and fair question IMO! I think yes. If we have not been at all diplomatic, we wouldn't have wasted our time with... nineteen..... count them *nineteen resolutions! Eighteen of which were to enforce a cease fire agreement. Now think about that! Reasonable people usually talk first, then act. Unreasonable ones never want to do anything other than talk or act then talk from a believed position of authority.
What if your house was on fire? Would you want the firefighters standing around debating the most meritous way of fighting said problem, or get their asses in gear to fight the blaze and save your life? Basically this problem boils to this simple concept. At what point are we considered bastards from tiring of the endless nonsense that is occuring, and at what point are the Frances, Russia's and Germany's bastards for again asking us to talk some more?
Its like lending someone you know money, who is basically irresponsible. At what point are you a bastard and say "NO MORE!" and at what point are they the bastard for continually asking you for more?

For now they are attacking Regimes that are obviously dangerous to worldpeace But what about the future? I'm afraid that once Bush thinks that this method of getting allies is the right one, and I'm afraid he'll end up abusing it

A decent point. However, if we knew hadnt gotten into war with Hitler for the very same reasoning, would that have been a bigger danger to world peace? We can all argue to we are blue in the face about which of the allies are the ones who "took the Nazi's out". But the real answer is that no ones armies did so per se, the American Manufacturing capability was the deciding factor. Both of our then allies benefitted immensely from this fact. In fact, it was the deciding factor from both losing at extremely critical moments in the earlier parts of the war. Could Britain have won at El Alemein without the Lee and Stuart tanks wearing Rommels army down? Could the Russians have won without the food, ammunition, clothing, planes etc. given to them under lend lease, when their backs were against the wall?
The fact is, anyone who has ever been our ally, were allies of convienence, with the possible exception of the UK in the post WWII era. For instance, The French aided us in our Revolution, in order to tie up the British whom they were just beginning to go to war with (this whole era could truly be considered a world war if you look at the events happening in the late 1700's.). The Russians were our allies against the Nazi's then became our greatest foes.
This is the reason why you dont try to find permenent allies if you are the US. Its a misnomer to believe that you can keep them indefinitely. You find allies of convienence with like aims and goals for each circumstance. If this is false, look at what our so called allies have been trying to do to us for some time now. That is, long before Bush was even wading around in the Republican primaries... even before this mind you! In many instances there was hardly an air of friendship and cooperation, in some others there was. We can't bank on allies to do what is best for ourselves, quite simply its a suicidal idea.

my question to you is
Do you think the US is using the correct method, to convince nations to help them?
And if you do think so, Can you take away my fair for The Bush Regime (I hope you can)[/QUOTE]

[Animal]

I think you can draw parallels between this forum and the world in general.
September 11 was a travesty that no one wants repeated again, so emotions run hot, especially with the US.
For once, I agree with Ronn_Bman here.

I don't think the US is using correct diplomatic methods to acheive his end goals, but then I don't think that many other nations are either. The fact that France has declared that they will veto no matter what, is strong arm tactics as well.

And though I may not agree with them, I certainly can't blame the Bush administration for the tactics they are using. The terror attacks damaged the US reputation, and proved that they are as vunerable as anyone, something they never really had to consider before.

[Charean]

Good points, Animal.

I don't think you have a lot to worry about Bush. Considering the dubious way he was elected - and the fact that no president has ever been re-elected during war, especially the way he is handling our economy. Chances of him reappearing are slim at this point.

I will say that if things drastically change in our economy and the war IS short and successful, things will be different for George and the world view.

I just don't think that will happen.

Hang loose. We have seen bad times before, our parents have, and we will get through this as well.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Rumsfeld has a bit of "foot in mouth" disease for sure, and Bush could have approached this differently, but so could everyone. Chirac is nothing but diplomacy in action? The Russians and Chinese tread delicately? I think Bush gets a bad rep because he is in a position to act with or without the permission of others. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but the fact that he "could do" this or that in the future if left to "run wild" is very much held against him regarding the issue at hand despite the fact that most who oppose him say "if and could" scenarios shouldn't be counted against Saddam. Before the world gets in too much of an uproar, lets remember Bush could be gone in '05. I think he'll get to hang around until '09 though. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sorry Ronn,
But Rumsfeld is the Sec. of Defense, his job is to comment about the defense of the USA, not the Diplomacy of the USA. That is Sec. of State Powell's job. Rumsfeld answered the question accuratly and honestly, can the USA do this war without the UK. The question was not IS the USA going to do this war with out the UK. There was NO diplomatic Faux Pas if his statments are taken for what they were and not what the press says they were.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: Do you think the United States is being very dimplomatic? I'm writing this lil piece because of the speech of Rumsfeld Whereas Bush and Powell are trying to convince the UN of the guilt of Iraq and try to get the UN to help the US in such a war It is Rumsfeld who storms right though by saying that the US doesnt NEED the UN and the English.But it's that statement that makes the US sound arrogant in the ears of it's allies, who dont think Iraq's guilt is proven It's also this statement that makes me afraid of the US goverment It's more the "muscle" politics, which the US uses, that gets a lot of people to be against their cause The "Either you are for or us or you're against us" statement was accepted, though not liked, in the war against Terrorism For now they are attacking Regimes that are obviously dangerous to worldpeace But what about the future? I'm afraid that once Bush thinks that this method of getting allies is the right one, and I'm afraid he'll end up abusing it my question to you is Do you think the US is using the correct method, to convince nations to help them? And if you do think so, Can you take away my fair for The Bush Regime (I hope you can)

I heard some very interesting comments made by one of the so called "experts"
That one of the reasons some of the other countries are backing away is because they think the USA is arrogant. I said to myself what a pitiful postion to have, to honestly not stop the killings and human rights abuses going on in Iraq because they don't like somebody else's attitude. They are willing to sit idly by while other humans die, are tortured, and oppressed and do nothing because their feelings are hurt? That is the hieght of arrogance, to allow others to suffer real phsycial pain and death because of words. I can't believe that people around the world are honestly failing to do what may be neccesary, because they are offended, their feelings hurt. What are feelings compared to anothers life!
If this is the attitude of the rest of the world:
1) They sure as "Hale" don't understand they're own statement of a "World Community". A Community doesn't sit idly by while there is real suffering.
2) Makes me Know I was right when I rooted for the Y2K bug to end civilataion as we know it.

[Animal]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Quote: Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: Do you think the United States is being very dimplomatic? I'm writing this lil piece because of the speech of Rumsfeld Whereas Bush and Powell are trying to convince the UN of the guilt of Iraq and try to get the UN to help the US in such a war It is Rumsfeld who storms right though by saying that the US doesnt NEED the UN and the English.But it's that statement that makes the US sound arrogant in the ears of it's allies, who dont think Iraq's guilt is proven It's also this statement that makes me afraid of the US goverment It's more the "muscle" politics, which the US uses, that gets a lot of people to be against their cause The "Either you are for or us or you're against us" statement was accepted, though not liked, in the war against Terrorism For now they are attacking Regimes that are obviously dangerous to worldpeace But what about the future? I'm afraid that once Bush thinks that this method of getting allies is the right one, and I'm afraid he'll end up abusing it my question to you is Do you think the US is using the correct method, to convince nations to help them? And if you do think so, Can you take away my fair for The Bush Regime (I hope you can)

I heard some very interesting comments made by one of the so called "experts"
That one of the reasons some of the other countries are backing away is because they think the USA is arrogant. I said to myself what a pitiful postion to have, to honestly not stop the killings and human rights abuses going on in Iraq because they don't like somebody else's attitude. They are willing to sit idly by while other humans die, are tortured, and oppressed and do nothing because their feelings are hurt? That is the hieght of arrogance, to allow others to suffer real phsycial pain and death because of words. I can't believe that people around the world are honestly failing to do what may be neccesary, because they are offended, their feelings hurt. What are feelings compared to anothers life!
If this is the attitude of the rest of the world:
1) They sure as "Hale" don't understand they're own statement of a "World Community". A Community doesn't sit idly by while there is real suffering.
2) Makes me Know I was right when I rooted for the Y2K bug to end civilataion as we know it.[/QUOTE]To stop the killings and human rights abuses is one thing, but the question has arisen as to why now and why Iraq when there have been killings and human rights abuses around the world, long before this little tiff with Iraq. Such abuses will not stop with the ousting of Saddam, so will the US pursue every such criminal around the world in the extent that they have cornered Saddam?

Why has the US chosen now to act against such suffering around the world? Why have the waited so long to act?

There seems to be a hidden agenda at the Whitehouse regarding Iraq. Whether or not that's true, I don't know, but it looks that way.

[khazadman]

Charean I must correct you on what you said. A. Lincoln and F.D. Roosevelt were both reelected in wartime. And Roosevelt was reelected during VERY BAD economic times.

[John D Harris]

[quote]Originally posted by Animal:

To stop the killings and human rights abuses is one thing, but the question has arisen as to why now and why Iraq when there have been killings and human rights abuses around the world, long before this little tiff with Iraq. Such abuses will not stop with the ousting of Saddam, so will the US pursue every such criminal around the world in the extent that they have cornered Saddam? Why has the US chosen now to act against such suffering around the world? Why have the waited so long to act? There seems to be a hidden agenda at the Whitehouse regarding Iraq. Whether or not that's true, I don't know, but it looks that way.

You have to start somewhere

If a house was burning down would you try to save some of the people or do nothing because you couldn't save them all?

The USA is acting now because there is a new Sherif in town. One that understands actions speak louder then words. No hidden agenda we what the SOB out because he's worthless Bastard that has and is helping terrorist groups.

Why have the waited so long to act?

(I pulled this out specificly to address this, I am assuming there is a typo and you meant to write "Why has the USA waited so long to act")
1)What does that matter? The USA is acting now. To take that line of reasoning "why has is taken so long" to justify not doing anything is silly. If anyone takes that line of reasoning then they Must say that the world shouldn't try to stop Slavery (that currently is going on in parts of Africa) because nobody has done anything about it yet. Or better yet why try and stop the ecological problems the world has now, because nobody tried to do anything about them until the late 20th century! What took them so long? If people use the "what took them so long logic" Then they should apply it to the other issues that they themeselves hold dear. (I used the ecology bit because from where I sit the same people that are argueing against any war are argueing for the ecology. And I'm NOT going to give them a pass on being intellectualy dishonest by not applying the same standards to their arguements.) Why does the rest of the world wait on what the USA does? Then when the USA finally does something, they complian about the timing as a reason not to help in doing something about the problem. Why does the rest of the world complian about the USA acting as if they are the world's policeman? Then not do much to stop anything themselves? Or when they are in trouble look to the USA for help?

If the world works together to stop the human rights abuses, the USA WILL not have to purse every criminal around the world the world will be doing IT already.

[ 03-15-2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]