Letter to Europe

[snafu]

Again, my reference to the 17 United Nations

 

[eisanbt]

Unilateral, my misinformed friend, means “done or undertaken by one person or party” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary); the United States is NOT the only Armed Forces engaged in Iraq, so your use of the word “unilateral” is A LIE (to use your preferred assertion).

Unilateral Action in the theatre of international relations is defined as action undertaken for the soul gain of one party (Or state) with disregard of the consequences as they effect other states/peoples.

AKA: I'm hungry so I steal the village's apple tree to feed myself for the next couple of day whilst everybody else is stuck eating ants and grass because some dipwad stole the only damn apple tree in town!

If however you were trying to state that it is not unlaterial in that other parties are involved on the side then you must also realize their own intentions such as piggybacking can be seen as unilateral in their own right. This by no mean that the main party is not acting first and foremost on their own behalf.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Poor wardmd...you are even more stupid and incompetent than I thought.


1. I have no idea what you mean about a font color. I do not change font colors and nothing appears out of the ordinary on my screen so I cannot say.


2. Unilateral is exactly what it was and still is. Bush badgered a few insignificant troops from other nations because they want to maintain good relations as well as their huge US cash subsidies, but the brunt of the fighting force in Iraq is the US and was initiated by the US and the cost is being bore by the US. Unless I was sleeping, the UN never agreed with the US's invasion and still to this day does not agree.


F.Y.I. - Data for mid-June 2005 show that the US accounted for 85.4 percent of coalition troops. The United Kingdom was second, with 5.1 percent. South Korea, Italy and Poland rounded out the top five coalition countries. The remaining 22 coalition countries account for 4.24 percent of coalition forces.


Aside from the obvious, this sure seems to still be pretty unilateral to me.


There have been 2,409 coalition deaths, 2,210 Americans (91.74%), one Australian (0.04%), 98 Britons (4.06%), 13 Bulgarians (0.54%), two Danes (0.08%), two Dutch (0.08%), two Estonians (0.08%), one Hungarian (0.04%), 26 Italians (1.08%), one Kazakh (0.04%), one Latvian (0.04%), 17 Poles (0.71%), one Salvadoran (0.04%), three Slovaks (0.12%), 11 Spaniards (0.46%), two Thai (0.08%) and 18 Ukrainians (0 .77%) in the war in Iraq as of January 11, 2006.

Again, same story, same conclusion.


3. I am amazed at your psychic powers which allow you to ascertain the feelings of most Iraqi citizens and to state that they are so happy now. Oh, I'm sorry, that's the party song you’re singing there; straight from the presidential pulpet. Good job. Funny, the Iraqis I see interviewed on the news shows think we have ruined their country, caused violence all over the place, and basically made the whole damn country into a war zone. For the most part, they were not fans of Saddam Hussein, but they had peace and stability as opposed to constant gunfire, bombs, and constant fear.


4. The world has many governments and elected leaders who came to power in less than scrupulous ways (our current President comes to mind with regard to this) and many of these governments are not friendly towards us. Should we then invade all governments we don't like and establish puppet governments of "democracy" to suit our whims? I hope not. I dread the thought of a world of mini-USA's under our direct or indirect control. Once again, this was the world view of the Fascists and the Communists. Perhaps you have confused your politics?

5. Once again, I love your quote of ""We have in the past prepared for peace-keeping operations with a best case scenario. The parties sign an agreement; we assume they will honor it, so we send in lightly armed forces to help them. The time has come for us to base our planning on worst -case scenarios to be surprised by co-operation, if we get it. And to go in prepared for all eventualities, including full combat, if we don't.”, especially since it is used completely outside of its original context. What this was in reference to was the use of ill prepared UN forces for the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone and the Angola. What he was saying was that they were woefully unprepared for the level of fighting and that next time they must be fully prepared (troops and weapons) to fight back on a defensive strategy with the same level of firepower and intensity, not to make outward aggressions as you would like to believe. You should do your research better.


The fact of the matter here is that we have created huge sociological, religious, ethnic, and political rifts in Iraq. Holding elections doesn’t change this or make it better. The acts of domestic violence within Iraq are increasing daily and will grow even higher after we leave. Civil war is inevitable and we will be the cause of it. Hell, we've already completely fanned the flames of resentment to where suicide bombers are a dime a dozen now. What a crowning achievement.

You see, just because something seems to look good on the surface, and seems the right thing to do, like invading and deposing Saddam, doesn’t mean that we should do it, or that it will bring about a better outcome. Clearly, our doing so has made a bad situation worse, bankrupted this country in the process, and cost the lives of thousands of men and women who joined the military to serve, protect and defend the USA, but unfortunately they were simply sacrificial sheep at the altar of G.W.’s private war.

Personally, I would rather have spent the money on 11,300,000 students four-year scholarships at public universities. At least we would have received something worthwhile for our investment. Also, I would rather have had 2,210 military families who had their loved ones back safe and sound.

Now that I’ve indulged you and your sophomoric liturgy in your diversion, perhaps we could go back to the original topic of “Letter to Europe”?

 

[eisanbt]

And I agree with everything you said except what a terrorist is. It's plain to see that a terrorist uses terror to gain there objective.

1) I start off the post with putting on the right hat because although I see the logical train of thought behind it, I completely disagree with what I said. Hence the sarcasim slipped in via parenthesis. Congrats on following a logical path to your ends but that does not means your end is logical or just.

2) The terrorist definition used by the US includes much more then the arse****s who are booby-trapping children's corpes. They also include such groups as the animal right front and basically anybody who uses direct action against the establishment as their final alternative a state's failure to address the groups concerns. So no, the terrorist definition is not limited to bus riding suicide bombers.

 

[snafu]

I guess that is up to debate. Terrorists are the ones that target innocent people. The media might be labeling the insurgents as such but I disagree. What animal groups are you referring to? The ones that are taking pot shots at our troops on the roof tops of local homes in civilian cloths. Then running home and hiding their weapons? Hiding in Mosques and sacred grave yards? Maybe the ones putting the road side bombs out? They are still killing Iraqi civilians. There true mark is the Iraqi Police, Contractors and then our soldiers. Who are the majority of victims? The civilian population that’s who. NO they are Terrorist trying to falter the ideas of a free Democratic State that you your self noted by the numbers of Iraqi’s that risked their lives to vote. If they take out there objective targets they have no qualms of taking out the innocent. That is terrorism! If they are Iraqi revolutionist they are trying to instill fear in their fellow countrymen. Again that is terrorism. They should target only the government, police and military without innocent collateral damage. Form a militia and denounce there newly elected government. Don't scare people from voting or just plain walking down the street. Don't take innocent victims and put them on TV to be beheaded. That all my friend is TERRORIZIM!!!

But I like your right hat ! you are correct when its' worn.


CES I personally would’ve liked to have had spent that money on education and saved the countless lives we’ve lost. But then again how would you know how much money and lives were saved on the next attack that didn’t accrue because of our intervention in Iraq?
I guess we’ll never know will we. I call it preventive maintance.
I believe it was and is a sound investment!

 

[eisanbt]

The right hat comes out only for the sake of debate! It is otherwise tomfoolery. I find it necessary to understand reasoning of various viewpoints on an issue in order to reach the most logical conclusion, the right hat I find is seldom that.

And I agree with your definition of terrorist, but that is not the state's. Their's includes, as I stated earlier, pretty much ANYBODY using direct action against any establishment. This i find to be a bullshit way of labeling people. While I don't practice this, I understand the arguments for it. I am not a black-bloc anarchist, but I'm not going to stop them.

 

[snafu]

And that I believe is the media's fault. Like the term Insurgents.
Iraqi's have every right to fight for what they belive is right. It sounds stupid but there are rules of ingagment in this day and age of so called human dignity and should be practiced. If not we need to do our best to wipe it of the face of the earth.

 

[wardmd]

Poor wardmd...you are even more stupid and incompetent than I thought.

1. I have no idea what you mean about a font color. I do not change font colors and nothing appears out of the ordinary on my screen so I cannot say.

2. Unilateral is exactly what it was and still is. Bush badgered a few insignificant troops from other nations because they want to maintain good relations as well as their huge US cash subsidies, but the brunt of the fighting force in Iraq is the US and was initiated by the US and the cost is being bore by the US. Unless I was sleeping, the UN never agreed with the US's invasion and still to this day does not agree.

F.Y.I. - Data for mid-June 2005 show that the US accounted for 85.4 percent of coalition troops. The United Kingdom was second, with 5.1 percent. South Korea, Italy and Poland rounded out the top five coalition countries. The remaining 22 coalition countries account for 4.24 percent of coalition forces.

Aside from the obvious, this sure seems to still be pretty unilateral to me.

There have been 2,409 coalition deaths, 2,210 Americans (91.74%), one Australian (0.04%), 98 Britons (4.06%), 13 Bulgarians (0.54%), two Danes (0.08%), two Dutch (0.08%), two Estonians (0.08%), one Hungarian (0.04%), 26 Italians (1.08%), one Kazakh (0.04%), one Latvian (0.04%), 17 Poles (0.71%), one Salvadoran (0.04%), three Slovaks (0.12%), 11 Spaniards (0.46%), two Thai (0.08%) and 18 Ukrainians (0 .77%) in the war in Iraq as of January 11, 2006.

Again, same story, same conclusion.

3. I am amazed at your psychic powers which allow you to ascertain the feelings of most Iraqi citizens and to state that they are so happy now. Oh, I'm sorry, that's the party song you

 

[wardmd]

And that I believe is the media's fault. Like the term Insurgents.
Iraqi's have every right to fight for what they belive is right. It sounds stupid but there are rules of ingagment in this day and age of so called human dignity and should be practiced. If not we need to do our best to wipe it of the face of the earth.

Well said!

There are so many "politically correct" terms being thrown out with the hopes that they will alter the impression by the general public.

The term

 

[phreakwars]

To clear up the text font issue before proceeding here, I just want to clarify that C.E.S. did have a black font originally, which was a slight editing error on his part. I edited his post for him and changed it back to the standard GF colors. CES probably hadn't noticed this because he is probably using a different color sceme then the black and white, therefore in HIS window, the colors look normal. Anyways... good debate... carry on..
.
.

 

[wardmd]

Unilateral Action in the theatre of international relations is defined as action undertaken for the soul gain of one party (Or state) with disregard of the consequences as they effect other states/peoples.

AKA: I'm hungry so I steal the village's apple tree to feed myself for the next couple of day whilst everybody else is stuck eating ants and grass because some dipwad stole the only damn apple tree in town!

If however you were trying to state that it is not unlaterial in that other parties are involved on the side then you must also realize their own intentions such as piggybacking can be seen as unilateral in their own right. This by no mean that the main party is not acting first and foremost on their own behalf.

Hey, nice title for a book - "It takes an apple tree".

Perhaps that better analogy would be, "Let's tax the **** out of those who produce and give it to those who sit on their asses, complaining that the rich get all the breaks, then complain that the rich are the only one's getting tax breaks"?

I guess you could consider it "unilateral" action to shoot some punk who broke into my house, raped my wife, and is now coming at me with a baseball bat (when all he wanted was someone to play ball with, right?).

But then, there's the guys in New Orleans who broke into stores to steal Microwave Ovens and Television sets (never mind that there was no POWER available) - I'm sure THEY felt that they were “entitled” to it, ‘cause some dipwad Mayor couldn’t find the keys to the hundred or so school buses to evacuate the citizens, or that the dipwad Governor couldn’t make up her mind for 24 hours if she would allow Federal troops into her state…

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I have NO DOUBT that you have no idea what I mean (regarding the font color and the substance of the arguments [that much is obvious]). But when all of your text was wrapped with COLOR="Black" markup directives, that's an indication that you selected a text color (I see that those directives are no longer present in your post).

How trivial of you. As Phreakwars pointed out, I do not use the standard black and white screen but rather the blue with black text, so although there may have been color codes embedded in the text, I am quite sure that I did not place them there. Perhaps it is a bug in the software, but who cares anyway as you obviously were able to read my post. Do try not to be so trite will you?

Using your definition of unilateral, then Federal Taxes in this country are assessed unilaterally (by "the rich" [83.88% of taxes paid are paid by the top 25% of income earners]). Clearly one cannot assert that ALL taxes are paid by

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

PART II.

I fully understand the context in which the Secretary-General made his comments… What YOU, obviously, do not grasp, is that, regardless of the context, he CLEARLY and UNABIGUOUSLY stated that “including full combat” (as a proper response from the United Nations forces) – which completely debunks YOUR assertion that the U.N. is ONLY concerned with sanctions (clearly a LIE on your part, because YOU KNOW that it’s not true).

Are you completely brain dead? You must smoke crack. "Full combat" refers ONLY to the ability to mount a full combat DEFENSIVE. The United Nations Charter prohibits military aggression. It only provides for peacekeeping forces. Where in the hell did you get your viewpoint of the United Nations anyway? Perhaps from Rush "I'm an illegal prescription drug dope head hypocrite” Limbaugh or perhaps the “fair and balanced” FOX news network. You really do make me laugh.

There have been ”huge sociological, religious, ethnic, and political rifts in Iraq” for hundreds of years before the United States set foot on Iraqi soil (or is the entire world WRONG in it’s belief that Saddam used WMD on the Kruds and Shiite Muslims?). Human rights officials put the number of Kurds and Shiite Muslims buried in mass graves in Iraq close to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.

You are the consummate Niccoló Machiavelli thinker. Your end result, justifies your means. Perhaps you have read The Prince; it is probably your manifesto. Nowhere do I ever claim that Saddam Hussein was a good guy. He wasn’t. Yes, he used chemical weapons on his own countries soil. No doubt about it. However, this is not justification for the US to invade Iraq. There is no justification for invasion other than declared war as a result of direct military conflict. In this case, there simply was none except for the politically spun hype of WMD frenzy that turned out to be nothing more than balderdash. I still laugh at an old copy of Newsweek and Time where the US government released DETAILED drawings of chemical weapons manufacturing facilities and even mobile trailers! All bullshit. Smoke and mirrors. It’s great to know that the US propaganda machine still works like a charm, especially on its own citizens.


Claims of massacred political opponents exist in every 2nd and 3rd world nation on this planet. This is nothing new. After the installation of any new government, the old guard is purged by the new. What’s your point? Is this another reason in your mind for invasion? Well then we need to go back to Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Argentina, Armenia, the former Yugoslavia, just about everyplace in Africa, etc. etc. etc. Oh hell, given your head up the ass logic, we have the right to invade most of the world based upon this one. But then of course, with your flawed logic, the rest of the world should have the right to invade us for our genocide of the indigenous population of America.

We could have save BILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of lives, if Saddam Hussein had simply COMPIED with the United Nations Resolutions! Contrary to your continued assertions that President Bush was just chomping at the bit to go to war, if Saddam had simply COOPERATED with the inspectors, and provided the evidence that Iraq was in compliance, then there would not have been a need for 1441, nor the resumption of military action, AND Saddam would, probably, still be the President of Iraq.

Oh what a spin doctor you are. On National TV, Bush ordered Saddam Hussein and his sons out of Iraq. How arrogant can a President be? It’s comforting to know that we can demand the exile of the leader of another nation and if we don’t get it, we can invade. Classic!

The problem, Sir, is that Saddam had NO INTENTION of living peacefully with his neighbors (again, HE invaded Kuwait).

This is a matter of opinion Sir. From Saddam’s perspective, he retook stolen Iraqi lands. Personally, I was there and fought in the first gulf war and I think I know the circumstances probably better than you.



Of course, “living peacefully” was never the intentions of the United States with regard to Iraq or any other nation in that region. Hell, for over 10 years, the US was the arms dealer to both Iraq and Iran simultaneously. How hypocritical yet how deliciously destabilizing for us. Our intention was clearly to allow them to thin each other down to a minimum amount of soldiers and munitions. You do not tell the story correctly. You whitewash everything and gladly ignore the actions and events of our government which do not look good in the light of day. Isn’t it peculiar that we are the only nation in the world, where the sun never sets on our military troops? We’ve got them scattered around the world in a dozen countries at the same time. Yep, we’re all for peace. I need to take a break from the keyboard for a few minutes because I cannot stop laughing at you. You should be a comedian!

Finally, as to your assertion that the country is “bankrupt”, The largest annual U.S. federal budget deficit, as a percentage of gross domestic product, was at the height of World War II when it hit 30.3% of GDP. By comparison, the federal budget deficit for 2004 as a percentage of GDP was 3.6% of GDP. Last year, it was 2.7%. This year, it is projected at 2.4% (that’s a downward trend – good thing we’ve got tax cuts stimulating the economy and generating jobs, huh?). We’re FAR from “bankrupt”.

Now I’m convinced you smoke crack. You’ve never had an economics or accounting class in your life have you? I don;t know where you get your numbers but they have a nice smoke and mirrors effect. Let's get real numbes and real percentages shall we.



Ever heard of NATIONAL DEBT. It’s a real number, not a percentage and certainly not a smoke and mirrors trick like you just tried. It’s the “account balance due” on the national credit card and the one that every American citizen instantly recognizes and understands. Let’s look at that one shall we.



First off, ALL Presidents from Truman on have reduced the gross federal debt EXCEPT Reagan and both of the Bushes. That’s right, every other one.


Bush Jr. has now taken us into 8.2 trillion dollars of debt, the highest amount ever in the history of this country and now it stands in excess of 70% of the yearly G.D.P.! You can do the math yourself [ (8,200,000,000,000 (the National Debt) / 11,750,000,000,000 (The G.D.P.) ] 100 = 69.79%


Let’s put this is real numbers for a sec. In order to pay off the national debt right now, EVERY SINGLE living person in the USA, regardless of age, would need to pay $27,500 to the Federal Reserve today. Every living person. Holy ****ing ****! Jesus, Mary and Joseph! If you cannot classify that as bankrupt in every sense of the word, you are a complete idiot.


No Sir, you have it backwards. You are the KING of false and misleading statements. Your rose colored glasses virtually ensure that!


Lastly and most importantly, it has been a long time since somebody gave me this kind of action. Kudos to you! I hope you stick around.

 

[wardmd]

PART II.



Are you completely brain dead? You must smoke crack. "Full combat" refers ONLY to the ability to mount a full combat DEFENSIVE. The United Nations Charter prohibits military aggression. It only provides for peacekeeping forces. Where in the hell did you get your viewpoint of the United Nations anyway? Perhaps from Rush "I'm an illegal prescription drug dope head hypocrite

 

[wardmd]

PART II.




Are you completely brain dead? You must smoke crack. "Full combat" refers ONLY to the ability to mount a full combat DEFENSIVE. The United Nations Charter prohibits military aggression. It only provides for peacekeeping forces. Where in the hell did you get your viewpoint of the United Nations anyway? Perhaps from Rush "I'm an illegal prescription drug dope head hypocrite

 

[snafu]

In all the resolutions that the U.N. gave to Saddam they were backed up by sanctions. Yes the U.N. doses not engage in war. They rely on us to do that. How many sanctions or chances do we give them?
That’s why they worded 1441 the way they did “serious consequences”. What would you say that meant? As wardmd pointed out this was a Cease Fire agreement after the invasion of Kuwait. The war had not ended. They refuted the no fly zone. They shot at our planes. They did not comply with any of the other resolutions. They threw out the inspectors and waited for another resolution. These are aggressions to the World Peace keeping U.N. (**** the U.N. but we also have to comply with them) “Serious consequences” can only mean one thing to me and others after diplomacy fails. After fighting with France and Russia( who had financial investments with Saddam) we did end up with a 15-0 vote on this resolution. After so much diplomacy we can only assume that “serious consequences” would result in a military conflict. What other serious consequences could have taken place in order to get the results the U.N. was looking for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

I know of no stipulations that the US placed on the elections that took place in Iraq. I guess I’ll have to do some homework but I believe it was a no bias election. It had to be less bias as the one that put Saddam in power.

 

[wardmd]

In all the resolutions that the U.N. gave to Saddam they were backed up by sanctions. Yes the U.N. doses not engage in war. They rely on us to do that. How many sanctions or chances do we give them?
That

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Sorry, I forgot to ask you to clarify where, EXACTLY, does "DEFENSIVE" appear in the Secretary-General's comments?

Or is that another example of a "living, breathing document" (it's meaning changes with the need of Liberals to make their points)?

No, I'm sorry, I guess you cannot read...

Remarks by
Professor Ibrahim A. Gambari
Under-Secretary-General and
Special Adviser on Africa
United Nations

at

The National Convention
Zumunta Association, USA Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
October 14, 2000

...The three conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone and the Angola also reaffirm one of the most important lessons we have learned in Namibia: the need to intimately link peacekeeping with peacemaking. In Namibia, peacekeepers were constantly engaged in negotiations with parties concerned about issues relevant to the final resolution to the conflict. Namibia was again an innovation for peacemaking because it proved that peacemaking is not an activity restricted only to a phase prior to the deployment of peacekeeping but it is a constant aspect of the entire peace process. But perhaps, the most important lesson being learned by the United Nations from the recent debacle in Sierra Leone and the difficulties of deployment of peace-keepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is for the Organisation to match "robust" mandates or rules of engagement with equally robust means of accomplishing them. As the Secretary-General also reminds us all: "we have in the past prepared for peace-keeping operations with a best case scenario. The parties sign an agreement, we assume they will honour it, so we send in lightly armed forces to help them. The time has come for us to base our planning on worst -case scenarios to be surprised by co-operation, if we get it. And to go in prepared for all eventualities, including full combat, if we don't"...

The UN as mandated in its charter is a DEFENSIVE Peace-Keeping organization with regard to military force.

Get a grip and do your homework. It's funny that you bear such a hatred to an organization you don't even understand.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

And to relate this back to the "Bush stole the election" crap...

Curious, is it not, that the Iraqis didn't seem to have ANY trouble locating their desired candidates EVEN THOUGH there were 7,000+ candidates (too bad we don't have more Iraqi Immigrants living in Miami-Dade County - I bet THEY could have found Al Gore's name on the DEMOCRAT designed "butterfly" ballot).

Oh, and I suppose you believe all of the information fed to you by the US Military controlled media in Iraq.

I am especially fond of the paid for articles that the US government arranged.

With each futile grasp at credibility, you and your political party only further reveal the levels to which you will stoop down to in order to hoodwink yourselves and the American public at large.

Oh and for the record, I'm not a liberal nor a conservative. I'm a free thinker. I examine issues and decide based upon the facts and information I have at my disposal. Political parties are for mindless sheep such as yourself, who gladly march up and into the doors of the political slaughterhouse.

 

[phreakwars]

I like this, perhaps we can give our newest member a PRIZE if he can out debate you C.E.S. , but if he FAILS, .... well... you know.. , but we won't be THAT harsh... And of course YOU can do the honors.
.
.