Tone it Down Mr. President

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:59 am

I think President Obama basks in his oratory skills, I think he likes the attention to his words and the praise he receives. I think it is easy to lay out grand plans and with appealing words solve all the world’s problems. He is very good at that.

On the other hand he is placing so much on the agenda so soon there is no way he or Congress can deliver lasting results to America or the rest of the world. He is getting ahead of his own party in many areas. Some would say behind that rhetoric are a number of mistakes, some minor others so large we may not know the impact for years or even decades.

It is easy to be seduced by his golden tongue, he seems to know exactly what to say to which audience, but is there substance to the cheers from the crowds? Do world leaders accept his message or are they merely polite?

Experience tell us that a nice bob of the head to a speech is not the same as getting a massive change in political positions or any level of real cooperation for that matter.

Frankly, I think the magic will wear off and the stress test will be applied to the ideals of a liberal administration. Perhaps it’s time to tone it down a bit and let action speak louder than words.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:14 am

magic?

actions do speak louder than words:

He was in Iraq yesterday and ordered the troops home.

He commended them for their bravery and courage.

Iraq will now be their own government.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:02 am

Odie;1171648 wrote: magic?

actions do speak louder than words:

He was in Iraq yesterday and ordered the troops home.

He commended them for their bravery and courage.

Iraq will now be their own government. Yes very well done to Obama for going into Iraq and ordereing the troops home. Months after Britain did it first :yh_eyerol:yh_eyerol It would be even more comendable if Obama was not taking those troops from Iraq and piling them into Afghanistan with a few thousand more for good measure. Your boys will still be coming home in body bags....

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:12 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1171642 wrote: I think President Obama basks in his oratory skills, I think he likes the attention to his words and the praise he receives. I think it is easy to lay out grand plans and with appealing words solve all the world’s problems. He is very good at that.

On the other hand he is placing so much on the agenda so soon there is no way he or Congress can deliver lasting results to America or the rest of the world. He is getting ahead of his own party in many areas. Some would say behind that rhetoric are a number of mistakes, some minor others so large we may not know the impact for years or even decades.

It is easy to be seduced by his golden tongue, he seems to know exactly what to say to which audience, but is there substance to the cheers from the crowds? Do world leaders accept his message or are they merely polite?

Experience tell us that a nice bob of the head to a speech is not the same as getting a massive change in political positions or any level of real cooperation for that matter.

Frankly, I think the magic will wear off and the stress test will be applied to the ideals of a liberal administration. Perhaps it’s time to tone it down a bit and let action speak louder than words.

Interesting....... I have long said that he is all talk. He doesn't even write his own speeches.

The problems facing him are so humungus, I don't know how he can do it. So far I have seen his problems actually get worse. You have this real problem with North Korea, nad Iran issuing ultimatums. I remember one of his speeches where he 'promised' no more bombs or no more nucleur bombs. Yet Korea, Iran etc are racing ahead on him. He went back on his 'promise' as he is going ahead with the Iran missile shield. That could lead to further conflict if Russia install more missiles arounf Eastern Europe.

Throughout the G20 summit, I think it's fair to say that most leaders don't get on but they all have to pose for the camera's. A lot of people in britain including some attacks in the press say that Obama was 'lack-lustre' and other leaders shone at the summit. It all ended with France's Sarkozy telling Obama to keep out of Europe. We have a real debate here weather Turkey join the EU or not and Obama wants to embrace the muslim world.

This is all before he's sorted his own country out which frankly, he needs to concentrate on first.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:25 am

oscar;1171657 wrote: Yes very well done to Obama for going into Iraq and ordereing the troops home. Months after Britain did it first :yh_eyerol:yh_eyerol It would be even more comendable if Obama was not taking those troops from Iraq and piling them into Afghanistan with a few thousand more for good measure. Your boys will still be coming home in body bags....

He is not taking our troops and piling them into Afghanistan, he is bringing these troops home.

well done Obama!:guitarist

Posted: April 7, 2009, 11:00 AM ET

In Surprise Iraq Visit, Obama Tells U.S. Troops Much Work Remains

During his first visit to a war zone since taking office, President Barack Obama told U.S. troops in Iraq that many tasks remain before the war can end and they can come home.

President Obama in Iraq with Gen. Ray Odierno; AP

"There is still a lot of work to do here," he declared.

On an unannounced trip shrouded in secrecy, President Obama told the troops that the time to "transition to the Iraqis" has come.

The troops erupted in huge cheers as their commander in chief said Iraqis also need to take responsibility for their country, the Associated Press reported.

The U.S. military has been a presence in Iraq since leading the March 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

President Obama has pledged to end the war and bring home most troops by next summer.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:30 am

Odie;1171667 wrote: He is not taking our troops and piling them into Afghanistan, he is bringing these troops home.

well done Obama!:guitarist

Posted: April 7, 2009, 11:00 AM ET

In Surprise Iraq Visit, Obama Tells U.S. Troops Much Work Remains

During his first visit to a war zone since taking office, President Barack Obama told U.S. troops in Iraq that many tasks remain before the war can end and they can come home.

President Obama in Iraq with Gen. Ray Odierno; AP

"There is still a lot of work to do here," he declared.

On an unannounced trip shrouded in secrecy, President Obama told the troops that the time to "transition to the Iraqis" has come.

The troops erupted in huge cheers as their commander in chief said Iraqis also need to take responsibility for their country, the Associated Press reported.

The U.S. military has been a presence in Iraq since leading the March 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

President Obama has pledged to end the war and bring home most troops by next summer.

Obama outlines new Afghanistan strategy - Los Angeles Times

Barack Obama diverts 17,000 soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan | The Australian

A lot will come from Iraq :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:36 am

oscar;1171671 wrote: Obama outlines new Afghanistan strategy - Los Angeles Times

Barack Obama diverts 17,000 soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan | The Australian

A lot will come from Iraq :rolleyes::rolleyes:

As I have said so many times, newspaper tabloids tend to have writers either lie or stretch the truth...that is why so many people read them...it's what people want to hear.

What I witnessed live on t.v last night was Obama giving that speech right from Iraq.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:50 am

Odie;1171677 wrote: As I have said so many times, newspaper tabloids tend to have writers either lie or stretch the truth...that is why so many people read them...it's what people want to hear.

What I witnessed live on t.v last night was Obama giving that speech right from Iraq. The links i posted you were from AMERICAN newspapers. If you read this link, and check the date of the article, you will see that Gordon Brown met troops in Basra, Iraq on the frontline in 2007 to talk about British troop withdrawal..... a whole 2 years before Obama :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Statement on Iraq (8 Oct 07) | Number10.gov.uk

If you read this link you will see that Obama is to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq after 2010 much to the dismay of world leaders.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/fe ... ldiers-usa

But then, all these political research journalists in the US and England are lying arn't they?????????

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:55 am

BTW...... Thanks Spot..... you taught me well with the links :wah:

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:56 am

Transcript: Obama's Speech To Troops In Iraq | Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Point number two is, this is going to be a critical period, these next 18 months. I was just discussing this with your commander, but I think it's something that all of you know. It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis. (Applause.) They need to take responsibility for their country and for their sovereignty. (Applause.)

Obama's Afghanistan plan calls for 4,000 more U.S. troops - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced Friday a proposal to stem the worsening insurgency in Afghanistan by sending 4,000 more U.S. troops and additional civilian aid workers, while also increasing aid to neighboring Pakistan.

Obama said his objective is to suppress the spreading insurgency by placing more emphasis on building local governments, wooing the civilian population with aid and providing more help to the Afghan army instead of a deploying a large number of combat troops.

I say just bring all the troops home, Obama.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:58 am

oscar;1171688 wrote: The links i posted you were from AMERICAN newspapers. If you read this link, and check the date of the article, you will see that Gordon Brown met troops in Basra, Iraq on the frontline in 2007 to talk about British troop withdrawal..... a whole 2 years before Obama :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Statement on Iraq (8 Oct 07) | Number10.gov.uk

If you read this link you will see that Obama is to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq after 2010 much to the dismay of world leaders.

Dismay at Obama plan to leave 50,000 US troops in Iraq after 2010 | World news | The Guardian

But then, all these political research journalists in the US and England are lying arn't they?????????

That newspaper article is a year and a half old?:rolleyes:

-what has Gordon Brown a year and a half later, in a newspaper, have to do with Obama now?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:03 am

oscar;1171657 wrote: Yes very well done to Obama for going into Iraq and ordereing the troops home. Months after Britain did it first :yh_eyerol:yh_eyerol It would be even more comendable if Obama was not taking those troops from Iraq and piling them into Afghanistan with a few thousand more for good measure. Your boys will still be coming home in body bags....

Is it better that we fight them on our streets here or over in that sheet hole of a country, Afghanistan?

No, I am glad that Obama is not stickin his head in the sand and pulling out of Afghanistan and glad he plans on setting up a good front there........ Otherwise the wolves would be at our front doors.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:04 am

Odie;1171691 wrote: That newspaper article is a year and a half old?

-what has Gordon Brown a year ago, in a newspaper, have to do with Obama now?:rolleyes:
This is what you wrote in your first post:

"He commended them for their bravery and courage.

Iraq will now be their own government."

Just pointing out to you that Obama was not the first leader to go to Iraq and it certainly was not him who talked of Iraq having their own Government. Brown was instigating Iraq having their own government long before Obama was even elected as did other world leaders. You seem to be thinking that the credit goes to Obama when all he is doing is following what GB has done.

My, you did read those links quick didn't you?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:07 am

BTS;1171701 wrote: Is it better that we fight them on our streets here or over in that sheet hole of a country, Afghanistan?

No, I am glad that Obama is not stickin his head in the sand and pulling out of Afghanistan and glad he plans on setting up a good front there........ Otherwise the wolves would be at our front doors.

We are also sending more troops into Afgan as well as European countries. I think the aim could be to get it over and done with and wipe the Taliban out quickly. The Taliban have never been the real threat for me..... it's what's going on in Pakistan that is getting dangerous.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:09 am

oscar;1171703 wrote: This is what you wrote in your first post:

"He commended them for their bravery and courage.

Iraq will now be their own government."

Just pointing out to you that Obama was not the first leader to go to Iraq and it certainly was not him who talked of Iraq having their own Government. Brown was instigating Iraq having their own government long before Obama was even elected as did other world leaders. You seem to be thinking that the credit goes to Obama when all he is doing is following what GB has done.

My, you did read those links quick didn't you?

I'm not going to argue with you. Gordon Brown is a Prime Minister......Obama is the President of the United States.....he calls the shots, not GB.

Nope, I never read all of your links......as said, I get my information first hand from live t.v.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:12 am

oscar;1171703 wrote: This is what you wrote in your first post:

"He commended them for their bravery and courage.

Iraq will now be their own government."

Just pointing out to you that Obama was not the first leader to go to Iraq and it certainly was not him who talked of Iraq having their own Government. Brown was instigating Iraq having their own government long before Obama was even elected as did other world leaders. You seem to be thinking that the credit goes to Obama when all he is doing is following what GB has done.

My, you did read those links quick didn't you?

The Iraqis did have their own government just not one GW bush approved of. Also Gordie boy is one of the lying hypocritical bastards that go us in to iraq in the first place. I begin to worry you have lost all grip on reality.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:16 am

Odie;1171708 wrote: I'm not going to argue with you. Gordon Brown is a Prime Minister......Obama is the President of the United States.....he calls the shots, not GB.

Nope, I never read all of your links......as said, I get my information first hand from live t.v. Funny,,, Britain has got tv as well :yh_rotfl Incase you didn't know, we also have running water and electricity. We also get SKY American news 24 hours a day non stop.

No, you don't read the links do you Odie..... Is that because they tell you the opposite of what you have posted?

In one of those links, the report of Obama leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq came from the Pentagon. Or is the Pentagon's official announcements lie's as well?:yh_rotfl

As for GB being a Prime Minister...... well done. However, you obviousley know nothing of the EU. Britain is part of Europe. they act together as a continent the same as the States of America. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:19 am

gmc;1171711 wrote: The Iraqis did have their own government just not one GW bush approved of. Also Gordie boy is one of the lying hypocritical bastards that go us in to iraq in the first place. I begin to worry you have lost all grip on reality.

yes they did have their own government and it stunk.

Canada also got involved in the war...that being bush's askings....and that is fine as they are our neighbours and we always help each other out.

-not losing reality.......just facing what I know.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:20 am

gmc;1171711 wrote: The Iraqis did have their own government just not one GW bush approved of. Also Gordie boy is one of the lying hypocritical bastards that go us in to iraq in the first place. I begin to worry you have lost all grip on reality. I can't argue with you there. The one wholly responsible for British invasion of Iraq was Blair however it is true that his entire Cabinet went along with him and GB was one of the Cabinet. We went in on the lie of wmd much to the Blair governments embarressment when none where found. In my own humble opinion, i think even if there was total withdrawal from Iraq with their own government in place, the whole dictatorship scenario would rise up again very shortly anyway. What do you think?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:32 am

Odie;1171728 wrote: with you it is.........and this is not a debate thread.:rolleyes:

and I am tired of you always thinking your right.

If you check out Quinns opening post, he posted a debate into Obama's oratory skills and how he is putting that into practice. You were the one who as usual took the thread off on a tangent about Obama pulling troops out of Iraq when Quinn made no refernece to Iraq at all. But then, that's what you always do..... take everyone's threads off onto the subject that uou want until it's pointed out to you that you are wrong. How anyone can seriously expect to contribute to a thread when they won't even look at links is beyond me.

Now Quinn, back to the subject that you originally posted. Yes, i agree, Obama has talked alot and now needs to show he can do it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:50 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1171642 wrote: I think President Obama basks in his oratory skills, I think he likes the attention to his words and the praise he receives. I think it is easy to lay out grand plans and with appealing words solve all the world’s problems. He is very good at that.

On the other hand he is placing so much on the agenda so soon there is no way he or Congress can deliver lasting results to America or the rest of the world. He is getting ahead of his own party in many areas. Some would say behind that rhetoric are a number of mistakes, some minor others so large we may not know the impact for years or even decades.

It is easy to be seduced by his golden tongue, he seems to know exactly what to say to which audience, but is there substance to the cheers from the crowds? Do world leaders accept his message or are they merely polite?

Experience tell us that a nice bob of the head to a speech is not the same as getting a massive change in political positions or any level of real cooperation for that matter.

Frankly, I think the magic will wear off and the stress test will be applied to the ideals of a liberal administration. Perhaps it’s time to tone it down a bit and let action speak louder than words.

I agree with you Quinn. Obama inherited a right mess as will the Conservatives here if they win our general election. I can not see Obama being able to deliver in one term. I think truely that he has a vision but the problems facing him are over-whelming and can't be put right in one term. Folk here seem to think that if the Conservative's win, all our problems will be solved over-night and the same as Obama, our leader of the Opposition is making some very good speeches. Unfortunately, i do think that folk have heard the talk and now want to see action.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:50 am

Odie;1171720 wrote: yes they did have their own government and it stunk.

Canada also got involved in the war...that being bush's askings....and that is fine as they are our neighbours and we always help each other out.

-not losing reality.......just facing what I know.

It wasn't your good self I was accusing of losing touch with reality it was oscar. I'm becoming concerned her apparent adoration for gordie boy is actually real. For a while there I thought she had referred to america as being neighbours then I realised it wasn't she who had posted.

Lots of governments stink but we don't go around invading them.

posted by oscar

The one wholly responsible for British invasion of Iraq was Blair however it is true that his entire Cabinet went along with him and GB was one of the Cabinet. We went in on the lie of wmd much to the Blair governments embarressment when none where found.

Bollocks. Blair can't take us to war without the cabinet and parliament supporting him. parliament should have passed a motion of no confidence once they finally realised blair and brown were liars. Brown was complicit in everything that has happened.

i think even if there was total withdrawal from Iraq with their own government in place, the whole dictatorship scenario would rise up again very shortly anyway. What do you think?

Left alone saddam would have eventually been deposed and the iraqis would have sorted their own problems out. More likely there will be civil war between sunni and shia with the kurds going for their own state-guess where the oil is-that's perhaps why obama is so keen on Turkey getting in to the EU and america turned a blind eye to the turks sending troops against the kurds. be interesting to see what obama does.

posted by quinns commentary

On the other hand he is placing so much on the agenda so soon there is no way he or Congress can deliver lasting results to America or the rest of the world. He is getting ahead of his own party in many areas. Some would say behind that rhetoric are a number of mistakes, some minor others so large we may not know the impact for years or even decades.

Compared to the damage bush has done I think he will have to go some to make things worse. The rest of the world is not going to be hanging around waiting for america to sort everything you know. After the last decade it's going to take some doing to restore the good will that has been lost.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:58 am

Yes, the point really was the ability for Obama to deliver on his considerable rhetorical skills. Which, of course, is the same old story for most politicians except he seems to be on a quest to solve the worlds problems in the next 6 months.

With regard to Iraq or any similar situation we all seem to be rather ambiguous. If there never should have been a war in Iraq, does that mean we simply condone a brutal regime that terrorizes people, just like we ignored Russia in the 20's or the people in Africa murdered by their government?

The point is where, if ever, do you draw the line? Is it only if you are personally attacked and the rest of the world can fend for itself?

I'd like to see a world without war, but that has never happened and never will, so what to the more rational countries do (I hope that includes all of us)?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:10 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1171829 wrote: Yes, the point really was the ability for Obama to deliver on his considerable rhetorical skills. Which, of course, is the same old story for most politicians except he seems to be on a quest to solve the worlds problems in the next 6 months.

With regard to Iraq or any similar situation we all seem to be rather ambiguous. If there never should have been a war in Iraq, does that mean we simply condone a brutal regime that terrorizes people, just like we ignored Russia in the 20's or the people in Africa murdered by their government?

The point is where, if ever, do you draw the line? Is it only if you are personally attacked and the rest of the world can fend for itself?

I'd like to see a world without war, but that has never happened and never will, so what to the more rational countries do (I hope that includes all of us)?

You certainly draw the line well before invading a soverign state in order to further your own political agenda no matter what excuses you dress it up with.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:15 am

gmc;1171825 wrote:

Bollocks. Blair can't take us to war without the cabinet and parliament supporting him. parliament should have passed a motion of no confidence once they finally realised blair and brown were liars. Brown was complicit in everything that has happened.

. If you read my post, you would see that i said that the Cabinet went along with Blair and yes, GB was one of the cabinet. So ner :p

Or are you so used to my defending his hunkiness that you jumped to the thought that i was doing it again? This time, i agreed with BTL that GB was as bad as all the rest :p:p Ha..... that shocks you doesn't it?:wah:

Have you seen the thread that Chezzie put on yesterday titled 'Shock, Oscar is NOT standing for labour'? You will see that i have resisted in re-joining the labour party and I'm going else-where :p:p:p

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:17 am

gmc;1171825 wrote: It wasn't your good self I was accusing of losing touch with reality it was oscar. I'm becoming concerned her apparent adoration for gordie boy is actually real. For a while there I thought she had referred to america as being neighbours then I realised it wasn't she who had posted.

Lots of governments stink but we don't go around invading them.

That's alright gmc, we all get a little confused at times.

I was to when you said that!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:08 pm

Bryn Mawr;1171833 wrote: You certainly draw the line well before invading a soverign state in order to further your own political agenda no matter what excuses you dress it up with.

Nobody said anything about any political agenda. Would it have been justified for someone to "invade" Rwanda to help save 400,000 people from massacre as an example? Or what about Cambodia and Pol Pot?

When does the world look away and when does it do something, if ever? How do you draw the line? Who makes that determination?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:59 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1171852 wrote: Nobody said anything about any political agenda. Would it have been justified for someone to "invade" Rwanda to help save 400,000 people from massacre as an example? Or what about Cambodia and Pol Pot?

When does the world look away and when does it do something, if ever? How do you draw the line? Who makes that determination?

Rwanda lost over half a million in three months of genocidal massacres and internecine conflict but sees no intervention.

Pol Pot's regime killed a third of his countries population and the world stood by.

Yet Saddam is accused of killing tens of thousands of the population over several years and was invaded during a time when the country was peaceful and quiet.

Do you really see no political agenda?

How can you cite Rwanda and Cambodia as evidence that Iraq was the result of pure motives? If police action was needed it should have been carried out by the UN in Rwanda and Cambodia - not by the US and UK in Iraq.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:32 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1171852 wrote: Nobody said anything about any political agenda. Would it have been justified for someone to "invade" Rwanda to help save 400,000 people from massacre as an example? Or what about Cambodia and Pol Pot?

When does the world look away and when does it do something, if ever? How do you draw the line? Who makes that determination?

That's one that's bugged the heck out of me for years. How do you justify not stepping in for everyone who we feel needs saving? I think we will be judged on those we did not care for.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:37 pm

flopstock;1171901 wrote: That's one that's bugged the heck out of me for years. How do you justify not stepping in for everyone who we feel needs saving? I think we will be judged on those we did not care for.

The World should step in as necessary but no individual nation or small group of nations has the right to do so for several reasons :-

National self interest - it is what drives politicians but it is *not* what is required when deciding to intervene in the affairs of another country.

Cultural misunderstanding / intolerance - two countries can totally disagree about how to run a society without either of them being wrong or evil. The main driver to intervention should be those who are culturally closest to the country involved, not those who disagree with them most.

Abuse of power - get used to it, it happens, and far more often when left to individuals or small groups. Decisions of this nature must be taken by as broad a base as possible to mitigate the risk.

Most of us recognise that the UN is a flawed concept - its structures are open to abuse and its funding and ability to act are grossly inadequate for the task at hand. If you want the World to be able to prevent the likes of the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides then it needs to be replaced by a truly independent organisation of nations with sufficient power to be able to step in as necessary and sufficient controls not to abuse that power.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:22 pm

Bryn Mawr;1172004 wrote: The World should step in as necessary but no individual nation or small group of nations has the right to do so for several reasons :-

National self interest - it is what drives politicians but it is *not* what is required when deciding to intervene in the affairs of another country.

Cultural misunderstanding / intolerance - two countries can totally disagree about how to run a society without either of them being wrong or evil. The main driver to intervention should be those who are culturally closest to the country involved, not those who disagree with them most.

Abuse of power - get used to it, it happens, and far more often when left to individuals or small groups. Decisions of this nature must be taken by as broad a base as possible to mitigate the risk.

Most of us recognise that the UN is a flawed concept - its structures are open to abuse and its funding and ability to act are grossly inadequate for the task at hand. If you want the World to be able to prevent the likes of the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides then it needs to be replaced by a truly independent organisation of nations with sufficient power to be able to step in as necessary and sufficient controls not to abuse that power.

You can't have a UN that allows certain countries to veto actions against themselves.. I mean, seriously... :rolleyes:

I don't think we should be deciding that we need to step in anywhere but home. The problem with that, is that my instinct is to rescue. and when you butt out, you are trashed for letting something happen that you could have tried to prevent.

You are damned either way, IMO. May as well at least try and do what you feel is right, if you are to be damned for it anyways.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:22 pm

flopstock;1172050 wrote: You can't have a UN that allows certain countries to veto actions against themselves.. I mean, seriously... :rolleyes:

I don't think we should be deciding that we need to step in anywhere but home. The problem with that, is that my instinct is to rescue. and when you butt out, you are trashed for letting something happen that you could have tried to prevent.

You are damned either way, IMO. May as well at least try and do what you feel is right, if you are to be damned for it anyways.

You're only damn'd either way when it is a single country trying to take on a role that it does not and cannot own.

At the moment we're like a Wild West community in an isolated part of the country. Whilst everyone hopes that the people will abide by the rules no one knows quite what they are and the weaker peop0le are at the mercy of the stronger. Even if the powerful rancher shoots up the baddie with the best of intentions it is still murder and lawlessness.

We need to move to the rule of law where even the weakest can go to the court and have his case heard according to a known and accepted set of laws that apply equally to all and, not only can be but also can be seen to be, enforced.

To do that we need an independent supernational organisation with the backing of all and the teeth to make their decisions stand. Up to now we've had two attempts at it and they've both failed through lack of knowledge and experience when they were set up but, now we know the pitfalls, it should be third time lucky.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:41 pm

Bryn Mawr;1172004 wrote: The World should step in as necessary but no individual nation or small group of nations has the right to do so for several reasons :-

National self interest - it is what drives politicians but it is *not* what is required when deciding to intervene in the affairs of another country.

Cultural misunderstanding / intolerance - two countries can totally disagree about how to run a society without either of them being wrong or evil. The main driver to intervention should be those who are culturally closest to the country involved, not those who disagree with them most.

Abuse of power - get used to it, it happens, and far more often when left to individuals or small groups. Decisions of this nature must be taken by as broad a base as possible to mitigate the risk.

Most of us recognise that the UN is a flawed concept - its structures are open to abuse and its funding and ability to act are grossly inadequate for the task at hand. If you want the World to be able to prevent the likes of the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides then it needs to be replaced by a truly independent organisation of nations with sufficient power to be able to step in as necessary and sufficient controls not to abuse that power.

How many UN resolutions were levied against Saddam?...................

I

forget....

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:43 pm

BTS;1172159 wrote: How many UN resolutions were levied against Saddam?...................

I

forget....

I know, not enforced, toothless - that's why I'm saying we need to start again.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:23 pm

Bryn Mawr;1171879 wrote: Rwanda lost over half a million in three months of genocidal massacres and internecine conflict but sees no intervention.

Pol Pot's regime killed a third of his countries population and the world stood by.

Yet Saddam is accused of killing tens of thousands of the population over several years and was invaded during a time when the country was peaceful and quiet.

Do you really see no political agenda?

How can you cite Rwanda and Cambodia as evidence that Iraq was the result of pure motives? If police action was needed it should have been carried out by the UN in Rwanda and Cambodia - not by the US and UK in Iraq.

I'm not citing Rwanda or Cambodia as evidenced of anything, I am talking in general terms of the concept of any way. I was never talking about or trying to defend the Iraq invasion.