Exactly what will happen soon after the Nov. elections. My opinion of course. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ok, lets pretend you are president. There is a war in Lebanon that you disagree with. Do you... A) Send in US or UN troops to end the war B) Deem which side we believe would be best to win for whateevr reason, be it world saftey or just which side we like better, and help them win indirectly, by giving money and weapons and such. C) Do nothing, let them worry about theiir own problems and dont get involved. D) tell them to I beelive I have covered all possible options, directly interfere, indirectly interfere, do not interfere, or diplomatic action. I will now point out your hypocrisy. If you choose A, people like you will become furious for the same reason they are furious we are in Iraq. They would complain that we are wasting money and lives in an area we should not be involved in. The troops would have to stay there to keep the peace (ssounds familiar huh?) eating more lives and money. So this option basically calls for creating a war in lebanon to parallel the same war in Iraq. And seeing how popular that war is, I think choice A is wrong. If you choose B, that is what we are doing now with helping Israel, since we view them to be a safer bet for the future with their democracy and such, and we like them better. Obviously you dont think this is the right choice because we are doing it now and you view it as further fueling the war there. Choice C is wrong because you say not doing anything to stop it is like murdering children. Yikes thats not good, scratch off C. Finally Choice D. "You better stop fighting or else!" what an effective ultimatum. what do we threaten with? embargoes? This diplomatic statement would not work at all so D is out. Hmm, it seems liek tehre are no choices left. It seems you complain about our response to Lebanon, yet I can not conceive any plan that would suit all of your idealistic expectaions of not costing money or lives. Instead of just complaining, I would like to see someone actually offer an alternative. Its not a perfect world, you cant solve all problems easily, sometime you have to get your hands dirty.
Why wouldn't an embargo work? We could threaten nations with an embargo not only from us, but all our European allies (if they still respected us). That's alot of money. We could even implement a Naval blockade, or shut down the airspace over any nation we wish.
embargo's also hurt our economy remember, and seond to the war in iraq thats the next most complained about thing, the economy. Also, I dont know if our allies would go along with that because most other nations dont seem to care much about the rest of teh world and its problems so long as it does not diectly affect them, hence the diminishing international support for eevrything we do to try and stop terrorism and oppression. And remember, Israel is our ally and expects our support. It is in our best interest that they remain a very powerful influence there because they actually see eye to eye with America and its values. We either need to bolster Israel to a level of uncontested authority or get rid of it entirely, becasue as for now it is the source of much of the middle eastern conflict because thee middle easterners are deperately trying to destroy it becasue tehy are infidels in THEIR holy land. Israel would view an embargo as a stab in the back, and we want to keep our frineds.
When, in all of history, has an embargo worked? And just which European nations would go along with that? Most European nations can't agree on any-fuckin'-think, and that's throughout most of Europe's history! Get real, Spider! Baron Max
Just look how well the embargo went against Iraq, and that was U.N. sponsored! The French, Russians, Germans, Chinese, and the U.N. were all selling embargoed items to Saddam, and getting kick backs on the Oil for Food Programs, yah, tell me how well a embargo works!
The US embargo against Cuba has strengthened the government there. Embargoes don't work in the Caribbean either.
You didn't complete letter D.... You forgot the allowing-the-UN-to-do-their-job-rather-then-exploiting-the-war-to-sell-weapons-for-your-own-profit option. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You certainly haven't covered all options. When are you going to point out your own hypocrisi? I'm furious about Iraq because they did it to get oil. It has nothing to do with saving or protecting people. It wouldn't be like Iraq in any way whatsoever! Lebanon has no oil to save! Only people! But people don't matter, do they? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Israel is wreaking havoc in the Middle East. They are safer? I don't think so. Study history. Britain destroyed the homes and the lives of thousands of palestinians to put jews and create Israel just because Israel is their "holy land". Israel is the cause of the mess in the Middle East. And the US is just making it worse. Huuum... I don't know if there is something in D that would work. But I tend to agree with you on that one, yes. As I said before, let the UN interfere. The US prevented UN from interfering. They could have saved lives. But saving lives is not profitable, so Dubya preferred to sell weapons to Israel.
TruthSeeker, yes let the U.N. do their job: U.S. senator wants Annan to resign as U.N. leader Coleman looking into alleged fraud in oil-for-food program run by U.N. Wednesday, December 1, 2004 Posted: 8:01 PM EST (0101 GMT) "The world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that occurred under the U.N.'s collective nose while Annan is in charge." Coleman's committee has charged that Saddam Hussein was able to siphon off $6.7 billion in oil revenues from the program and made an additional $13.7 billion smuggling oil in contravention of international sanctions. Annan's son, Kojo, received money for consulting work done in Africa for the Swiss firm Cotecna, which inspected goods entering Iraq under the oil-for-food program. On Monday, the secretary-general said he was disappointed to learn in news reports that his son remained on the Cotecna payroll until earlier this year, despite earlier U.N. statements that he had stopped receiving money from the firm back in 1998.
So? Did I ever say the UN is perfect? UN is certainly not perfect. But at least, it is better then the US... :bugeye: I personally think we need a new international body to do the work. The UN seems to be no better then the League of Nations.What we need is an international body which is completely impartial and is able to enforce fundamental principles of peace. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a good example of such principles(though it's certainly not perfect). Now, how to create this... well, that's the challenge...
Well, first and foremost, it can't be run or operated by humans! All humans are, by their very nature, greedy, lying, selfish bastards. Thus any and all organizations run by humans will ultimately be greedy, lying, selfish organizations ...even if it's well hidden and secret. Baron Max
No, they're lying and/or attempting to keep it hidden and secret. If you find someone who you think is honest and sharing and truthful, be very careful and just watch him ........in time, he'll prove to you just how greedy, dishonest and selfish he really is. Baron Max
