Is Iran Next?? Where will it end??

““Lets undermine and ignore the UN at every turn then blame it when things go wrong.”

Yes, I have no doubt that if I only believe more the UN will actually have power and work in the world. Bawhawhawhawhaw! [wiping tear from my eye] Tell that to the black christians in the Sudan or the slave children in the Congo. It's all Nigal's fault for not believing enough. This reimnds me of the story where Santa's sleigh can't make it's rounds because not enough people believe in Santa any more. BAAAAAAWWWWHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one Y2! sigh...
last edited: 7/31/06 1:13:53 PM”

“Can't we just all get a loan.”

“Well as it's largest, wealthiest and most powerful member shouldn't the US be trying to get the UN to work rather than seeing it as the enemy.

The problem is there's no real alternative.

The UN is a long long way from being perfect but has ended up as a punchbag for those in the US who can't see that America's failing foreign policy is the main problem and blaming the UN for not being up to the task of papering over the cracks.

There is a singnificant prospect of a major war in the middle east now, not this 'skirmish' - largely due to the policies of a failed regime which looks to confrontation as it's solution to everything.

And Condi - the person they send in to resolve the problem, looks so far out of her depth it's not funny.

I don't blame the administration for this speicific incident, but they've allowed things to deteriorate in the region in general. They seem to be constantly fighting fires and never seem ahead of the game or able to work the huge advantages they have in America and the Wests favor.”

“Just days before the US invasion started, UN inspectors confirmed that Saddam had destroyed missles that violated UN rules.

Obviously Lesson: it's better to have weapons that to try to please the UN.
last edited: 7/31/06 1:34:25 PM”

““Well as it's largest, wealthiest and most powerful member shouldn't the US be trying to get the UN to work rather than seeing it as the enemy."

How many years did the USA give the UN to sort out Saddam? And to what eneds? Nothing. The UN is so blatently Anti-American and Islamic leaning it's not even funny.”

“Give the UN to sort out Saddam? - the USA is part of the UN.
And if by sort out you mean invade like the US did - well that might not have been the right answer either given how Rummy, Brenner and pals messed up that operation.

Personally I think the world would be a much safer place now if Saddam was still in power and nicely in his box.

One of the aims of invasion of Iraq was to bring more stability to the middle east, now the problem is getting worse rather than better and the terrorist have more support than they ever have had in the past.

It's long been said that the key to middle east stability was not getting rid of the dictators, but finding a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem - partisan backing of Israel's every move does not put the US in the position to achieve it.

We could be far further down the road towards achieving this had every action in the past six years not alienated any support America had in the region and turned an extremist element in the mountains of Afganistan to a widespread anti-American, anti Israeli, anti western movement spreading and gaining strength across the region.”

“Face the fact that terror has never been defeated by military means alone, at least not in countries with a degree of freedom. You have to employ some smarts in dealing with it and in many instances, the best way to do this is by gradually cutting off it's support, not providing the terrorists with their next recruiting poster.”

““Give the UN to sort out Saddam? - the USA is part of the UN.
And if by sort out you mean invade like the US did"

We let the UN run it's course and it came up a failure. 12 years the UN was messing around with Iraq. 12 years!

"Personally I think the world would be a much safer place now if Saddam was still in power and nicely in his box."

I have no doubt you would think this. Screw those hundreds of thousands who were killed by the bassturd. I think you mean "quieter" not safer. Sometimes the noisey thing is the right thing and thank G-d there are those who don't turn a blind eye to evil in this world.”

“The UN's voice was so low that at first Y2 could not make out what it said. Then he made it out. It was saying that it thought it could get well again if people believed in the United Nations.

Y2 flung out his arms. There were no people there, and it was night time; but he addressed all who might be dreaming of the Unitedland, and who were therefore nearer to him than you think: boys and girls in their nighties, and naked papooses in their baskets hung from trees.

"Do you believe?" he cried.

The UN sat up in bed almost briskly to listen to its fate.

It fancied it heard answers in the affirmative, and then again it wasn't sure.

"What do you think?" it asked Y2.

"If you believe," he shouted to them, "clap your hands; don't let teh UN die."

Many clapped.

Some didn't.

A few beasts hissed.

The clapping stopped suddenly; as if countless moderators had rushed to their forums to see what on earth was happening; but already the UN was saved. First its voice grew strong, then it popped out of bed, then it was flashing through the room more merry and impudent than ever. It never thought of thanking those who believed, but it would have liked to get at the ones who had hissed.”

“The pressure could have been kept on Saddam while working for revolution from within.

We're not talking about turning a blind eye - but just that sending in the tanks and B52s isn't the answer to everything and can in the long-run create more problems than it solves.

You have to deal with the root of the problems. If you accept they were going to invade iraq, then there should have been more of an effort to find a solution to the palestinian/Isreali problem.

You'll get peace and stability when you give people something to lose - you force them into corners and you play into the hands of the extremists.

I was in favor of invading Iraq, but said all along it's a hugely risky policy that could create chaos, and it has. It's been #&%!$ed up so badly that it's made doing anything else in the region next-to impossible.
It's a complete failure of this Administration's foreign policy.”

““The pressure could have been kept on Saddam while working for revolution from within."

That's the falicey Y2; thinking the UN can exurt pressure. There was no pressure. Go find the outlines of how UN inspections were carried out. There was never a threat of being caught doing anything by the UN. The Food for oil scandle showed there was not only no pressure but there was help for Saddam from the UN.”

“Hyway - Bush came to power on the promise of a more isolationist foreign policy and the actions of the administration in the first months backed this up - withdrawing from international treaties and accords.

9/11 changed all this and led to the conclusion that even if America wanted to pull up the drawbridge, that the rest of the world would still be there and problems could still emerge.

The response has been an aggressive engagement with the rest of the world, with the threat of force never far away - yet still they seem to want to weaken internatinal bodies at every turn.

What were you taught as a kid and a bully - if you stand up to them then they back down. Many of the worst regimes of the world have now decided that the answer is to stand up to america.

The current foreign policy is all take and no give - leading most of the world to conclude that there is little to be gained by working with America.

Sure, you can laugh at the UN - but what's the alternative - America going it alone and failing in its foreign policy goals as it is now.

I just think it would be far better to get it working and get it working to America's advantage.”

“"Annhole" LMFAO!”

“Well then Nigal, the UN needs to be reformed from the inside, and over a period of time. Standing outside and throwing stones never gets anything done.”

“Or we could do away with it like the League of Nations when it had outlived itself. If the US left it would crumble. And who says we even need a global overseer?”

““Well then Nigal, the UN needs to be reformed from the inside, and over a period of time. Standing outside and throwing stones never gets anything done.”

Ya can't change it from within when the bulk of the members are against you. Face it, it's like Joe Lieberman changing the DNC from the inside out. You know it and I know it.”

“Why are most of the members against America Nigal? - because of a failing foreign policy.”

“America has failed at every turn to gain significant support for its policies - maybe because it's been on confrontation mode with most everyone since Bush was elected. Shouldn't the fact that it can't get widespread support for anything it does indicate something?”

“Don't get me wrong - I think the aims of this Administration are generally admirable - but policy has been carried out clumsily since day one.
Basically the 'my way or the 'hyway'' routine will only work for so long.”

“Why are most of the members against America

They hate freedom”

“wait a minute, which is my way? my way or hyway or is hyway myway?”

“I knew we'd end up back at "It's all Bush's fault".

Tell me some of the wonderful fights the UN has won or stopped. The Bulkens? They're still there. Somolia? Ha! Congo? Nope, wrong again. Sudan? Door to door death! They can't even pass out bags of food without everything getting messed up.”

“Actually, with the threat of US invasion - the UN inspections were producing results, as the destruction of Saddam's missles demonstrates. The UN alone is impotent unless its members will back it up.”

“No nigal - it's not all Bush's fault - these problems pre-date him for a long time - some may say thousands of years - but with a foreign policy aim of bringing peace and democracy to the middle east, I'd say he hasn't been particularly successful and seems powerless to do anything about a potentially bigger conflict in the region.”

“Nigal - I said earlier the UN is messed up - but there's no real alternative at the moment - America acting alone or with the odd poodle in line here or there just isn't cutting it.”

“Every president has said they want to bring peace to the Middle East. Bush would have been way out there if he said he didn't. Clinton drove himslef half mad trying to be the one to do it.

The American problem is that we think free people = peaceful people. It doesn't always work that way. Especially when it's a false democracy like we are setting up in the middle east where the only real freedom you have is who to vote for. Pick your own dictator, if you will.”

“bullseye Nigal. well said.”

“"but there's no real alternative at the moment -"

As I said before, who says we must have a global body or council in the first place? Must there even be an alternative? How about every country making it's own way? The scariest part about the UN is their thirst for power over every country. THAT is what drives them crazy about the USA. We don't fall in line at every turn and we don't surrender our sovereignty to them.”

“Nigal, I make you right about the freedom assumption - but I think the problem at the moment is not some UN global grab for power - but the fact that America is out of step with the rest of the world in most of it's gains.

The complaints about the UN coming from America seem to stem from the fact that the rest of the world won't do what America tells it to.

How on one hand can the UN be completely ineffective, and on the other a threat to American sovereignty?”

“1)Afghanies should produce hashish not opium.
2)Turn all US indian casinos into peace pipe manufactures.
3)Get an online fedX account,save 15%,and ship pipes and hash all over the world.”

“I simply stated I did not like the way the UN wishes to have power over every country. It doesn’t mean they are a true threat to our nation’s independence. Unless of course someone like the Bush’s and the Clintons are allowed to keep running the country. I do worry about people who feel America should go along with whatever the world says simply to not make waves.

I’d rather be right than popular.”

“Regarding the U.N.:

“The problem is there's no real alternative.”

Y2



“His imagination resembles the wings of an ostrich.”

Thomas Babington Macaulay



There are plenty of alternatives. Isn’t this the typical leftist approach: “It isn’t working. Expand it then, and throw more money at it.”




And ya gotta love this:

“The UN is a long long way from being perfect but has ended up as a punchbag for those in the US who can't see that America's failing foreign policy is the main problem and blaming the UN for not being up to the task of papering over the cracks.”

Y2


Another shining example of leftist thought:

“It’s all the U.S.’s fault. The Sudan, Rwanda, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Bosnia, … all of it is due to U.S. foreign policy.”

And the best part:

“If only you stupid people could see!”


That is such a pathetic ideology, but I keep hearing the same sentiments over and over from those incredibly brilliant leftists. It’s too bad that we all can’t see it their way. If all of us stupid people did, our problems would be solved…like magic! Leftists are such white knights. How could the rest of us miss the brilliance of their incredible solutions?

I’ll bet that a guy like this believes he would NEVER allow his personal feelings to influence his professional ethics. Because he's just... right!”

“The key factor in a go-it-alone foreign policy is that you keep your forces strong and focused enough to combat the true dangers.

The United States, under ordinary circumstances, can take care of itself. We are big enough and affluent enough to do that.

What is ironic about the current situation is that the decision to ignore international diplomacy at the start has made the UN/G8 the only mechanism left to deal with Iran and North Korea and Lebanon.

We can't place troops in Lebanon because we don't have them and they'd be viewed at invaders, so the UN has to step in. We can't invade Iran because we've used all of the troops in Iraq, so we go to the G8 and Europe for help.

By rejecting the UN, President Bush has made it more powerful. BTW, this is also true of Iran and Syria.”

“Another shining example of leftist thought:

“It’s all the U.S.’s fault. The Sudan, Rwanda, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Bosnia, … all of it is due to U.S. foreign policy.”

And the best part:

“If only you stupid people could see!”

No Arclite - that's your rather poorly illuninated comment that has little or nothing to do with what was actually said.

I doubt anyone is expecting you to see their way Arclite.

Come on then Mensa Boy - present some alternatives.

I'm sure there must be some report you can scurry off and read to enlighten us all as to your 'rightist' beliefs.

On a more serious note Nigal - I think, that given the increasing globalism of the modern world, there does seem to need to be some forum for the setting down common themes to do things like improve trade, to at least discuss dealing with dictators and other such matters. Even if not much is achieved I think there needs to be some common stage for the great powers and even the smaller ones to meet.”

“Or this is just the world's way of tricking us into going metric! Ah ha! Your true plot has been uncovered! LOL!”

“Y2, You never change your approach. To put it bluntly, your denial and rationalizations aren't worth my (or anyone else's) time.

I may not have all the answers (like you), but I've got you pegged.”

“Glad you think so Arclite. I never doubted a man of your immense abilities would deal with me in an instant.

Nigal - Metric is just the first step ;o)”

“The turkey ask the osrich,'how high is the sky'
'I don't know' said the ostrich and still waiting for the turkeys reply.”

“I like metrics.”

“Metrics be good. But conversion to metrics cause many problems for U.S., ugh.




Ahhhh….that’s better. Sitting at home with my fuzzy slippers on. I’ve got my barf bad and drool bucket so I can read your posts without getting any on me, Y2. Let’s play.

There’s really no need to keep bringing up the fact that my cognitive abilities are superior to yours. You don’t need to embarrass yourself. You don’t need to keep beating yourself up like that. I can handle that part.


According to you, I’ve misinterpreted this statement:

“…but has ended up as a punchbag for those in the US who can't see that America's failing foreign policy is the main problem…”

Y2



According to you, this statement does not mean that people who disagree with your belief, cannot see clearly:

No Arclite - that's your rather poorly illuninated comment that has little or nothing to do with what was actually said.”

Y2



Besides the “punchbag” and “illuninated” parts, I MUST have misinterpreted your attempt at clear communication.


Because when I see a statement such as, “If only people could see that stealing from others is a problem”, I take it to mean that there are some people who are not well enough informed or intelligent enough to understand this fact.

When I see a statement such as, “If only people could see that spending more than you earn is not a good thing”, I take it to mean that there are some people who are not well enough informed or intelligent enough to understand this fact.


But I’ve obviously misinterpreted your syntax, vocabulary, sentence structure, and cultural meanings. Or you’ve found an entirely different way to communicate meaning that escapes me.

I await enlightenment, not rationization.”

“Arclite - you seem to not be able to grasp the difference between this administration handling foreign policy issues badly in recent years, and America being responsible for all the bad things that happen in other parts of the world where the UN has failed to intervene.

I guess this wouldn't fit in with your desire to group anyone with different views to you as leftist and America-hating.

I'll say it again for you in simple terms.

1) this administration handling foreign policy issues badly in recent years

and, ready now

2) America being responsible for all the bad things that happen in other parts of the world where the UN has failed to intervene.

See the difference?

Now to put this in practical terms relating to recent events.
America's key foreign policy objective, promoting freedom Middle East via the invasion of Iraq, has fallen down in conceptual and in practical terms. This has made the chances of further troubles in the region all the greater. It has also provided more support for the terrorists than ever before. The invasion of Iraq was a high-risk strategy, and at the moment is not looking like it has worked.

In broader terms the abrasive confrontational methods of recent American foreign policy have made it diffcult to achieve any multi-national progress on any front.

Now I don't blame the Administration for the failings of UN operations - there is a weakness in the organization in that few countries are prepared to back their words with actions - but I think that if the US worked with the UN rather than in confrontation with it, we could see progress being made.”

“"Nigal - Metric is just the first step ;o)"

Damn Euro-Illuminati! LOL!”

“Now I don't blame the Administration for the failings of UN operations - there is a weakness in the organization in that few countries are prepared to back their words with actions - but I think that if the US worked with the UN rather than in confrontation with it, we could see progress being made.

I won't argue that the UN is basically a dysfunctional organization. Why should the US should work with the dysfunctionality rather than confront it?

The way I see it the UN was formed to prevent wars by fostering a better understanding between countries... and given the track record of war and genocide I don't see that it's done a very good job. I recognize that it has functions that serve a useful purpose but in general I see it as ineffective.”

““…a basic law of logic called the law of bivalence, which stipulates that any unambiguous, declarative statement must be either true or false. It cannot be neither true nor false; nor can it be both true and false…”




Y2, what makes your position even more B.S. is the fact that I made my point using a passive voice: “If only people could see …”


You’re statement is declarative: “…those in the US who can't see that America's failing foreign policy is the main problem …”


People who can’t see are people who are incapable of seeing. So your declaration states that those who don’t believe that “…America's failing foreign policy is the main problem …” are incapable of seeing this belief. It means either that they are incapable of understanding or that they are being denied access to information.

(And make no mistake, “…America's failing foreign policy is the main problem …” is your belief. It is not a fact. This is unproven speculation on your part. It is a theory, not a law. Do you understand this? Are you capable of processing this fact?)


I am one of those who do not think that “…America's failing foreign policy…” is the MAIN reason for the failures of the U.N. nor do I believe it is a significant reason. I am quite capable of seeing your belief. I am quite capable of researching enough public information to come to my own conclusion. I have enough mental capacity to process this information.

But I may process this information in a flawed way. Obviously I don’t have the same infallible confidence as you do in your ability to reach factual conclusions.


So when I said that, “If only you stupid people could see! “, mine is, if not an accurate interpretation, surely a common one. Unless you are saying that there are, ““…those in the US who can't see…”, because of medical disability? Or maybe you meant there are, “…those in the US who can't see…”, because they are being held in isolation where they are denied access to information?

We’ve all been subject to rhetoric about how Republican Presidents are idiots. Republican voters in the South all drive pickups, drink beer, and display Confederate flags. We’ve all heard about the diminished capacity of “Red Staters.” The lists, and the rhetoric, have been long, they’ve been loud, and they’ve been undeniably obvious. Leftists espouse a philosophy of belief that they are so smart they know what is best for everyone else, and if you disagree with leftist dogma, you must be stupid (or a fascist). And you are such a shining example, Y2.




Y2, chances are very high that you are, once again, completely full of B.S. Do you have enough mental capacity to process this information?”

“It is heartwarming to see Y2 admit his mistakes of logic.

It takes courage to admit that we've used flawed thinking to reach erroneous conclusions.”

“Is Iran next?

Let's hope so.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/11/iranian_dissident_trapped_in_m.php”

“Ready to go, Sarge?

That's what we need, one more war that will drag on for years with no probable and worthwhile end.”

“I've done my time MarkO. Thanks for asking.

Stop being such a whoosie when it comes to Iraq. Don't be such a baby. Take off that skirt and throw on some Levi's.”

“Oh, you hurt me deeply, you silly savage!!!

Iraq is broken and Dubya, with help from those who worship and adore him, broke it.”