Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Are you voting for a guy who you think is to the left of Ralph Nader?

What do you think he means by "internationalizing"? If it doesn't mean getting others to provide resources, it only means giving control of our's over to others.

Could you give a 1 sentence answer that describes what you think Kerry means by "internationalizing"?

I've never heard Kerry use the word, so I'm guessing, but there is a lot of room between telling the UN it's our way or the highway, and letting them take control. For the fifty years before W. took office, our foreign policy emphasized working through international institutions and with our allies. This means trying to build consensus where possible, recognizing that adoping a policy in the short term that might not be our first choice redounds to our benefit in the long term. See, e.g., this piece by Joe Nye about "soft power."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Uhm, shouldn't the burden be on you to explain what they would have contributed?

If Bush thought the problem with the UN idea was that other countries wouldn't put up, he could have called their bluff. But since we were telling them to go pound sand, it's not clear to me how I could ever meet that burden.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Hmm, not that far off? I hope you didn't get the same boner reading about each of them. Besides, sounds like you've got some more thinking in order. That was one idiot. This is 1,600 pictures of the interior of a military facility, and a group of idiots, some of whom had careers they would have expected to lose if they believed what they were doing was wrong.

One idiot - enough blog entries so it got out and she got fired

Numerous idiots - taking enough photos that they got out and are getting court martialed.

Tell me again how this comparison isnt apt?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
So the French and Germans were pushing for the UN to run things, but weren't willing to ante anything up for the privilege? I don't think so. Please find me a cite for that. You're back to the tried-and-true tactic of disparaging the French for being French. It's rhetorically effective, and not wholly unfair, but pretending at this point that we had to do things the way we did them because there was no alternative is a crock.

Oh good grief Ty. We all know - except maybe you - that Chirac's hiding behind the UN was all about France's uncollected debts and contracts with Saddam and had nothing whatsoever to do with altruism, the peace process, multilateralism, etc. I sure didn't see them waiting on the UN when they ran into Algeria last year.

But I'll bite anyway. Sure they were willing to ante up - they would for for UN control and in turn get lucrative UN contracts [e.g. Oil for Food]. Who knows, maybe they would even build a second nuclear reactor for Israel to blow up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
One idiot - enough blog entries so it got out and she got fired

Numerous idiots - taking enough photos that they got out and are getting court martialed.

Tell me again how this comparison isnt apt?

Washingtonienne tried to disguise her identity, but did not do it well enough. The soldiers who took pictures did not try to hide themselves at all, and the photos apparently circulated all over the place for months before the story got picked up in the press.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who to the right of Ralph Nader (?) actually thinks this?

do you know anyone to the right of Nader?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I guess some will deem this more collegiate hijinks.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5223595

reuters=al jazeera. sorry you lose.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Oh good grief Ty. We all know - except maybe you - that Chirac's hiding behind the UN was all about France's uncollected debts and contracts with Saddam and had nothing whatsoever to do with altruism, the peace process, multilateralism, etc. I sure didn't see them waiting on the UN when they ran into Algeria last year.

But I'll bite anyway. Sure they were willing to ante up - they would for for UN control and in turn get lucrative UN contracts [e.g. Oil for Food]. Who knows, maybe they would even build a second nuclear reactor for Israel to blow up.

Look, club said something stupid, and I'm just pointing out that he was wrong. Once the war was over, many countries -- including the UK -- wanted the UN to run Iraq. It's bogus to say that the UN never wanted the responsibility. It's just not true.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you know anyone to the right of Nader?

I thought I knew you, but maybe not.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So the French and Germans were pushing for the UN to run things, but weren't willing to ante anything up for the privilege? I don't think so. Please find me a cite for that. You're back to the tried-and-true tactic of disparaging the French for being French. It's rhetorically effective, and not wholly unfair, but pretending at this point that we had to do things the way we did them because there was no alternative is a crock.

of course we don't know what would've happened, but France at least HAS an army. they might have had some troops there.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It's this growing need for everyone to be a public face and to brag openly to anyone and everyone in earshot of their personal exploits.

I invented tying the commonplace to political issues.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Look, club said something stupid, and I'm just pointing out that he was wrong. Once the war was over, many countries -- including the UK -- wanted the UN to run Iraq. It's bogus to say that the UN never wanted the responsibility. It's just not true.

I'll give you one concession, and one concession only. The UN should have been organizing a democratic government in Iraq after the war. In the future, I'll stand on your side of the internationalization debate once the shooting stops and we are looking for poll monitors, voting machines and the like.

Because, as the last 12 months has absolutely unequivocally showed, the Pentagon cannot stand the idea of a fucking democratic election in any country where they have troops.

Organizing an election there would have been a great way to bring the world back together. Seriously. It would be like that scene in Casablanca where the Baathists and terrorists start loudly singing the Horst Wessel and Humphrey Bogart gets the band to play the Morrocan National Anthem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'll give you one concession, and one concession only. The UN should have been organizing a democratic government in Iraq after the war. In the future, I'll stand on your side of the internationalization debate once the shooting stops and we are looking for poll monitors, voting machines and the like.

Because, as the last 12 months has absolutely unequivocally showed, the Pentagon cannot stand the idea of a fucking democratic election in any country where they have troops.

Organizing an election there would have been a great way to bring the world back together. Seriously. It would be like that scene in Casablanca where the Baathists and terrorists start loudly singing the Horst Wessel and Humphrey Bogart gets the band to play the Morrocan National Anthem.

I'm not sure that the UN would be much more competent than the Pentagon in running elections, and I'm not sure why you say that the Pentagon cannot stand the idea of a democratic election. But I think there would be less Iraqi resistance to the occupation if they thought the UN was running the show. E.g. (and although I don't give it credence), many Iraqis think all of this is a US plot to steal their oil.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
One idiot - enough blog entries so it got out and she got fired

Numerous idiots - taking enough photos that they got out and are getting court martialed.

Tell me again how this comparison isnt apt?

The blogger in question was doing something she knew would be disapproved, but believed the anonymity of the Internet would protect her, at least for a while. Here, we're talking about the fact that the soldiers are almost universally claiming they thought it had been permitted or encouraged. And the fact they did what they did openly indicates they're telling the truth. Your take on this is that it's merely coincidence that they did what they did as a group, and photographed it. I say, if they honestly believed they were getting away with something that they knew would get them in trouble, they would have been putting those hoods over their own heads, get it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The blogger in question was doing something she knew would be disapproved, but believed the anonymity of the Internet would protect her, at least for a while. Here, we're talking about the fact that the soldiers are almost universally claiming they thought it had been permitted or encouraged. And the fact they did what they did openly indicates they're telling the truth. Your take on this is that it's merely coincidence that they did what they did as a group, and photographed it. I say, if they honestly believed they were getting away with something that they knew would get them in trouble, they would have been putting those hoods over their own heads, get it?

I don't think you're saying they should argue mistake of law, right? You're trying to say their universal belief indicates the belief was accurate. Someone high up "permitted or encouraged. what they did as a group, and to photographed it."

But just like bush lied, you have a motive problem. What possible reason would someone higher up the food chain encourage the photos?