Political Potpourri III - The next round.

BWhite · 2005-03-02 20:25:43

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/featur … r.html]The draft - - now lets see if we can have an honest national debate on why we need this.

As for the United Nations and the rest of the world, I point to this, ignoring the UN:

Bush goes to Europe and meets with Putin. Immediately afterward, Russia confirms a deal to sell the fuel Iran needs to start up its 1000MW nuclear plant and the EU passes a resolution to approve the deal.

China's interests are materially harmed by the US tipping over the Tehran regime, and India just signed a huge new petrochemical deal with the current Iranian regime.

(I see an outside chance that before June Russia and China supply Iran with advanced air defense capabilities and a more remote chance that China gives Iran a couple of nukes but finds a way for North Korea to take the blame.)

The US, Britain and Australia (sans Canada, by the way) can go about doing the right thing all we want. But, we are horribly outnumbered by the rest of the world. Korea just agreed to join Galileo, which is a French scheme to counter US supremacy arising from GPS.

So, we are looking to fight WW2 again except we add France, Russia & China to the Axis side and Japan goes neutral. US, UK & Australia versus the freaking world with Canada saying "Uh, guys, we are not so sure about this. . ."

I just think all that is rather imprudent.

= = =

As for the UN being granted an army, the idea scares the hell out of me. If a disagreeable idiot child is thrashing around and yelling at you, you don't hand it a gun. By the same token you don't give an army to a corrupt and incompetent international debate club with delusions of grandeur.

I agree, of course. So stop all this UN whining. :;):

The UN is a puppet of the member states. Even more so today. It has NO army, so to blame the UN for Sudan is really rather ridiculous. Lets look to the underlying member states and the underlying power politics.

Edited By BWhite on 1109816918

Alexander Sheppard · 2005-03-02 20:30:16

I think the hostility toward the idea of the UN is rather irrational. This feeling is well beyond what the Bush administration publicly advocates. It's an extreme minority opinion, even in the United States, which is itself quite a ways off the spectrum of the industrialized world in all sorts of ways, both in opinion and in actual structure.

Someone has said that international law does not exist because it is not enforced. Laws don't have to be enforced to exist, unless you want to get into the semantics of the word 'exist', which is not my point. I think the basic point is whether such laws are a good idea or not.

The idea of international law of war is a good one. The basic premises are quite reasonable and are based on the golden rule. The basic laws of war don't preclude self defense, however, they do preclude unilateral invasion and incursions on the soverignty of other countries. This is qutie sensible, akin to the regular law against people using force to compel the actions of others. Could someone in principle use force and wind up compelling someone to do something quite beneficial for them? It could be. Maybe in certain cases [I am not talking about with children which is a different question] forcing someone to do something can actually have beneficial effects. However, we have laws against this, because in the overwhelming majority of cases, this is done for self serving interests and will not have any beneficial effects. We reserve the right of force to a state, except in cases of self defense. This is the same as is done in the UN charter.

So, the international laws of war are not some radical premise.

In my view it is incredibly naive to accept the idea that the new doctrine of pre-emptive war, or, to use the correct terminology, preventive war, is going to make the world a safer or more humane place. Rather, it is intended to legitimize a wider use of force by the country with the most powerful military in the world. Now there will not be standards which even ostensibly limit arbitrary aggression against defenseless targets [such as Iraq]. Indeed, it is doctrine usually associated, as far as I know, with conservatism that in the absence of some form of law and universal standards, the viciousness of humanity will tend to assert itself.

As for the atrocities in Sudan, it would be beneficial if something [preferably peaceful--I am very ignorant of the situation] was done about it. But my comments on the subject were intended to point out how absurd it is for people who support such obvious atrocities as the Iraq invasion to claim the moral high ground by organizing an intervention.

BWhite · 2005-03-02 20:46:11

I think the hostility toward the idea of the UN is rather irrational. This feeling is well beyond what the Bush administration publicly advocates. It's an extreme minority opinion, even in the United States, which is itself quite a ways off the spectrum of the industrialized world in all sorts of ways, both in opinion and in actual structure.

(a) I agree.

(b) The above is irrelevant because the Bush Administration's actions (contrary to public statements) have already made it perfectly clear that the United Nations is irrelevant.

Why is the UN irrelevant as we enter 2005? I could argue for weeks with others here but such an argument is pointless. :;):

The minority you speak of has won within this Administration and therefore the UN is dead for all practical purposes and we must look to the underlying power politics involving the EU, China, Russia, India etc. . .

And every major power - - except perhaps Japan - - has within the last 60 days taken actions to support the current regime in Tehran.

Euler · 2005-03-02 21:04:15

Now, considering countries like the United States, Britain, and Australia etc. have stepped up to the plate and done the right thing, even in the face of the mindless loud protesting of the amoral Left, perhaps it's time for the U.N. to put its honour where its hypocrisy is and insist on French, German and Russian troops on the ground in Sudan. Hell, let's get Chinese troops in there, too!

I am pretty sure that you could get French troops to support an intervention in Sudan, though I am not sure about the Germans or the Russians. The Chinese already have troops in Sudan, the problem is that they are sort of on the wrong side. That is the reason why it is so hard for the UN to do anything about the situation.

BWhite · 2005-03-02 21:05:13

Now, considering countries like the United States, Britain, and Australia etc. have stepped up to the plate and done the right thing, even in the face of the mindless loud protesting of the amoral Left, perhaps it's time for the U.N. to put its honour where its hypocrisy is and insist on French, German and Russian troops on the ground in Sudan. Hell, let's get Chinese troops in there, too!
I am pretty sure that you could get French troops to support an intervention in Sudan, though I am not sure about the Germans or the Russians. The Chinese already have troops in Sudan, the problem is that they are sort of on the wrong side. That is the reason why it is so hard for the UN to do anything about the situation.

Heh! Good point.

Palomar · 2005-03-02 21:07:45

I think the hostility toward the idea of the UN is rather irrational.

*Really? :laugh: You're kidding, right?

It's irrational to be hostile towards an entity which takes a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach to 70,000 human beings slaughtered like cattle because of their skin color?

Gee whiz. Frankly I find that position irrational.

--Cindy

P.S.: And if what you meant by "the idea of the UN" as in a workable UN which looks out for the weak, the poor, the helpless...I'd agree. But that's not what the UN is doing.

BWhite · 2005-03-02 21:30:04

I think the hostility toward the idea of the UN is rather irrational.
*Really? :laugh: You're kidding, right?
It's irrational to be hostile towards an entity which takes a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach to 70,000 human beings slaughtered like cattle because of their skin color?
Gee whiz. Frankly I find that position irrational.
--Cindy
P.S.: And if what you meant by "the idea of the UN" as in a workable UN which looks out for the weak, the poor, the helpless...I'd agree. But that's not what the UN is doing.

P.S.: And if what you meant by "the idea of the UN" as in a workable UN which looks out for the weak, the poor, the helpless...I'd agree. But that's not what the UN is doing.

No because Bush means "obey" when he says "cooperate."

At best, the United Nations is a work in progress to achieve the foregoing objective. There are many flaws that would have needed correction in any event.

However the United States seeks only a compliant United Nations and since that did not develop, lets just terminante the whole arrangement. Save us all a whole lot of wasted breath. :;):

Palomar · 2005-03-02 21:39:26

Bill White: No because Bush means "obey" when he says "cooperate."

*Are you implying the UN wasn't a screwed up, apathetic joke of an organization *before* Bush took office in 2001? Bush has only been President since January 2001. The UN is a lot older than that. And based on what I heard my father say consistently throughout the 1970s and until his death in the mid-80s, it's been rather screwed up all that time as well.

At best, the United Nations is a work in progress to achieve the foregoing objective.

I sure hope so. Really, I do. And that they keep being a work in progress.

However the United States seeks only a compliant United Nations

Frankly, I don't think it matters WHAT the U.S. "seeks" in this regard. The UN is a joke -regardless-...and has been for a long time.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-02 22:05:53

Yup. The UN has been broke for a long time. And since 2001 any hope of fixing it has been thrown away.

But lets ignore the United Nations. To solve the problem of the poor Sudanese we need to confront the Chinese not Kofi Annan.

UN bashing allows us the hypocritical position of "pretending" to care about genocide while avoiding the real confrontation needed to protect the victims. Like I said earlier. Hypocritical.

Edited By BWhite on 1109822778

BWhite · 2005-03-02 22:14:58

One major conflict zone for the 21st century will be China, India and the US fighting over a limited supply of oil.

And it will be a marathon, not a sprint.

Edited By BWhite on 1109823341

Palomar · 2005-03-03 05:16:58

UN bashing allows us the hypocritical position of "pretending" to care about genocide while avoiding the real confrontation needed to protect the victims. Like I said earlier. Hypocritical.

*Speak for yourself, Bill.

I'm not hypocritical nor am I "pretending" to care about the genocide in Sudan, and how dare you make that accusation?

I don't know HOW the UN should handle it. I don't know much about UN capabilities, procedures, policies, etc.; that's an upfront admission and I've indicated it before.

If some of your motivation for saying this rests in trying to goad people who aren't in -full- agreement with your political views and biases, please stop.

I also don't know how to do algebra nor calculus; that sure as heck -doesn't- prove I don't care about physics, astronomy and a host of other sciences...because I do (the proof is here at New Mars on those counts!).

--Cindy

P.S.: The UN -- like any organization, entity or even individual -- isn't above criticism. And to express specific criticisms about it regarding a specific and severe issue (genocide) doesn't constitute "bashing."

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-03 06:53:42

Alexander Sheppard:

But my comments on the subject were intended to point out how absurd it is for people who support such obvious atrocities as the Iraq invasion to claim the moral high ground by organizing an intervention.

This is classic. If America invades it's an atrocity, never mind the real atrocities the invasion ends.

Certainly the idea behind the UN is noble, but the reality doesn't correspond. If ideas were all that matters communism would be noble instead of the greatest source of misery and death in human history.

I'm actually going to agree with Bill on one thing here. The UN is irrelevent, largely of its own doing. We know it's corrupt and incompetent, why pretend otherwise?

Bill:

No because Bush means "obey" when he says "cooperate."

Like the Left means "obey" when they say "compromise" or "reach out". :;):

UN bashing allows us the hypocritical position of "pretending" to care about genocide while avoiding the real confrontation needed to protect the victims. Like I said earlier. Hypocritical.

Alright, let's accept the premise for a moment. If it's the case then one can also argue that "bashing" the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq is hypocrital. It allows for attacking a political opponent under the guise of helping our troops and those poor Iraqis that would be so much better filling mass graves and rape rooms. They don't know what to do with freedom anyway.

We can actually want to do something for people elsewhere while pointing out obstacles to it and reasons it won't be done. I'd like to end all suffering in the world right now, oh damn, I can't. What a hypocrit I am.

It's realism, not hypocrisy.

But once you decide your political opponents don't care about our own country or anyone else it's easy to see things in whatever twisted way one chooses.

So here it is, Sudan and beyond: Failed states full of pissed off Muslims are bad for us, reason enough to do something about Sudan. Systematic slaughter of thousands of people: ideally that should be enough to act on its own but in reality it usually isn't.

No one else will do anything, so it's up to the US. Let's accept Bill's draft premise, just for the hell of it. We need more troops to invade more countries. Alright.

Here's my take, we've got two core options. We do the "invade, occupy, rebuild" approach in an effort to build friendly states or even more extensively assimilate the population. Whenever trouble pops up, we go in.

Maybe we can have two armies. One made up of volunteers that does the bulk of the fighting and another conscript force that handles the occupation/rebuilding phase, and helps spread the culture around. Rome-Lite. Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, maybe Syria and/or Iran at some point, see what happens with the Saudis... Uncle Sam wants you for imperial service.

A certain amount of sarcasm is intended, but not so much.

Or do nothing. If someone attacks us on our own soil, bomb them into dust. Otherwise, mind our own damn business. No draft, no pre-emptive war, just us chillin' at home lookin' for the occasional terrorist and dropping the hammer when they show.

Either way has advantages. We're currently halfway between the two which is neither effective nor efficient. Perhaps it's time for a genuine debate and when you get down to it I can live with either one.

But here's the catch, either way the same people are going to be blaming America. If we take the first path we're warmongers, imperialists, on and on. If the latter we're greedy swine who don't care about suffering around the world. A country of rich oil barons laughing at dying Africans and Arabs on big screen tvs while we scarf down Big Macs, that'll be the image.

Point being, before we criticize the UN or the US we should really look inside at what we really want here, what really motivates us. Are we more interested in solving the probelm or crushing the target of blame for it. Some here are quick to question others' motives, but I suspect have yet to look at their own with such scrutiny.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-03 08:07:38

Okay, I've read the article Bill linked earlier. Many of the usual arguments about our troop strength, some valid and some not. But of particular interest is this:

"Here's how such a plan might work. Instead of a lottery, the federal government would impose a requirement that no four-year college or university be allowed to accept a student, male or female, unless and until that student had completed a 12-month to two-year term of service. Unlike an old-fashioned draft, this 21st-century service requirement would provide a vital element of personal choice. Students could choose to fulfill their obligations in any of three ways: in national service programs like AmeriCorps (tutoring disadvantaged children), in homeland security assignments (guarding ports), or in the military. "

This is overall an acceptable solution, I could back this. It will almost certainly be degraded and mangled in practice, but definately worth looking at. This may prove to be the most viable and politically palatable option.

Provided of course that our purpose in intervening in places like Sudan is to prevent a failed state rather than stop genocide. Different solutions are required depending on which it is.

My preferred option goes farther than this, but being realistic this "sneaky draft" for "stabilising" missions is probably the best we can hope for.

clark · 2005-03-03 08:16:19

I don't like genocide. I like babies too. Peace is good. I support prosperity. [yeah clark]

I find that looking for common ground is the basis for the establishment of a link for positive communication, one where others differences and points of view discover agreement and the realization that our differences, while many, are not so great.

This has been a test of the friendly service reminder from the neighborhood troll. If this were an actual event, you would all be dead. Or fighting, biting, and frothing at the mouth.

Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-03 08:25:14

Damn public service announcements, distracted by the beeping and wasted a perfectly good froth.

:angry:

Now were'd that troll scurry off to... :hm:

BWhite · 2005-03-03 08:38:35

Okay, lets review.

The Sudan/Darfur situation constitutes genocide.

Yup, I agree,

The United Nations is a weak, corrupt, ineffectual organization which cannot cope with the Sudan/Darfur situation.

Yup. I agree.

Why this is can be debated but is not currently relevant. I say we now look to the underlying power conflicts between the member states. I also say bashing the United Nations is a waste of time and that this Administration desire that we do exactly that - - bash the UN - - to deflect attention from other issues.

The UN is a dead horse. Stop beating a dead horse. How far behind is the US in paying UN dues?

The Administration would like to maintain the UN on life support with a feeble pulse for the express purpose of inflicting further bashings to energize its right wing political base.

THAT is hypocritical.

= = =

The draft? Current Administration policy requires a draft to be sustainable.

That is an opinion about strategic facts, neither Right nor Left.

clark · 2005-03-03 08:38:49

This is overall an acceptable solution, I could back this. It will almost certainly be degraded and mangled in practice, but definately worth looking at. This may prove to be the most viable and politically palatable option.

I support a federal requirement that gives individuals the incentive to choose some sort of federal service in order to pursue advanced education in order to be economically competitive in the job market. Afterall, they don't have to do it, and they can serve fries and earn minimum wage because of their choice.

Sounds fair and equitable to me.

In recent news, Feudilism is making a strong come-back...

BWhite · 2005-03-03 08:46:41

The University of Toronto is an excellent school. :;):

clark · 2005-03-03 08:48:05

I don't speak french. :;):

BWhite · 2005-03-03 08:51:01

IIRC, no one in Ontario speaks French.

clark · 2005-03-03 08:55:15

So here's the whole problem with that Dafur/Sudan schmeele deal....

UN can't do anything about it, right? Pretty much agree, right?

Okay. Well, you see, US went into Iraq because the UN couldn't do anything about it. So what did we settle on for invasion? Yeah, that whole human rights abuse thing.

So you see, the US demonstrates it dosen't need or require UN authorization to stop atrocities. If it quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, we'll go shoot the duck.

Yet the US blames the UN for inaction really shows that we didn't want to get involved. To be cynical and blunt, what interest does it serve to go save a bunch of savages in a forgotten part of the world (if we want to do that, we can go into Alabama)?

People die because others don't care, and we use exscuses to justify why we should care. I should say politicans use justifications like "freedom, democracy, human rights, WMD's. etc" to tell the public why they should care.

But the politicans didn't care here. There interests were not served, so they didn't make an attempt to justify it to the public. Instead, just blame the UN.

clark · 2005-03-03 08:57:05

IIRC, no one in Ontario speaks French.

You know how Canada got it's name? When the french started colonizing the place, they were looking for gold. They didn't find any, so they gave it the name Canada. It means "worthless" in whatever language they found it in.

True story. Read it in a book.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-03 08:58:03

Bill, the last time the UN was mentioned was at the beginning of several posts back in the context of at least partially agreeing with you. Who's dragging that dead horse around?

As for the draft, whether it's needed depends entirely on what we plan to do and what our priorities in doing it are which says next to nothing about the form of that draft.

If we want to end genocide and other such things with some lasting solution we'll need a huge army and I've got just the imperialist scheme to do it. If it's solely about security, disrupting threats and we decide that killing people is just as good as making them like us we don't need a draft at all. Anything in between is negotiable. It's our present policy of intervening only when national interest is believed to be at stake while trying to minimize civilian casualties and build democratic regimes that puts us in the present unsustainable half measure.

A draft means we're committing to more "make the world America" policy, no draft means we'll just have to accept more dead Americans here or more dead foreigners over there. Foreigners don't vote, so bombs away. If you want to stop the genocide in Sudan we'll need to expand our force, which I agree with anyway just not via a revamped Vietnam-era draft. If we aren't willing to do anything, then don't complain.

So, in all honesty and sincerity, what do you want to do about it?

clark · 2005-03-03 09:01:03

You know, the Germans wanted to remake the world in their image.

BWhite · 2005-03-03 10:41:44

Soon, I will be off to the land of cheese (Wisconsin) for a four day weekend. Time to log out of here for a while. . .

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-03-02 20:25:43

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#52 2005-03-02 20:30:16

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#53 2005-03-02 20:46:11

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#54 2005-03-02 21:04:15

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#55 2005-03-02 21:05:13

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#56 2005-03-02 21:07:45

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#57 2005-03-02 21:30:04

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#58 2005-03-02 21:39:26

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#59 2005-03-02 22:05:53

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#60 2005-03-02 22:14:58

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#61 2005-03-03 05:16:58

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#62 2005-03-03 06:53:42

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#63 2005-03-03 08:07:38

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#64 2005-03-03 08:16:19

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#65 2005-03-03 08:25:14

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#66 2005-03-03 08:38:35

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#67 2005-03-03 08:38:49

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#68 2005-03-03 08:46:41

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#69 2005-03-03 08:48:05

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#70 2005-03-03 08:51:01

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#71 2005-03-03 08:55:15

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#72 2005-03-03 08:57:05

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#73 2005-03-03 08:58:03

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#74 2005-03-03 09:01:03

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#75 2005-03-03 10:41:44

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

Board footer