Make War & Money

  1. With the announcement of contracts for the rebuilding of a post-war Iraq, the Bush administration shows a lack of respect to the UN and the efforts of other governments to come to a peaceful conclusion. To award these contracts whilst ostensibly negotiating a consensus is either incredibly stupid, or incredibly arrogant.
    •  
  2. 45 Comments

  3. by   Q.
    Or being "prepared" as some have criticized the defense department for not being.

    I'm not convinced that the UN is deserving of any respect anyway. I disagree with you completely. The UN has been nothing but utterly useless, ineffective and weak. Poor decision-making; wait, make that NO decision-making, just obstruction. They have offered no alternatives, no solutions, have shown no effort at diplomacy.

    And that's how I feel about THAT.
  4. by   Mkue
    Originally posted by Susy K
    I'm not convinced that the UN is deserving of any respect anyway. I disagree with you completely. The UN has been nothing but utterly useless, ineffective and weak. Poor decision-making; wait, make that NO decision-making, just obstruction. They have offered no alternatives, no solutions, have shown no effort at diplomacy.

    Well put Susy That pretty much sums it up.
  5. by   SusyZeke
    Giving friends (Cheney's old company) first bite of the cherry - that really is being prepared.

    How can Bush decide to go to war with Iraq on the one hand, because "Saddam Hussein hasn't complied with UN resolutions", and then object to the direction/guidance of the UN, because the UN isn't in total agreement with Bush. Does that make sense to any logical thinking person?

    So after Iraq, who next? If the US and UK start a conflict without the support of the UN, then it may lead to other nations starting wars based on their own customs, laws and principles. i.e. North Korea, Iraq, etc. and the US would be in harms way. I believe that the UN must be respected because the stability of the world is at stake.

    Whose diplomacy? Two senior diplomats have resigned from the Bush Administration over his current direction with Iraq. Bush keeps saying he'll go to war anyway, but is still trying to armlock weaker voting nations through threats. Not exactly democratic.
  6. by   Q.
    Originally posted by SusyZeke

    How can Bush decide to go to war with Iraq on the one hand, because "Saddam Hussein hasn't complied with UN resolutions", and then object to the direction/guidance of the UN, because the UN isn't in total agreement with Bush. Does that make sense to any logical thinking person?
    Bush wants to go to war with Iraq, and mistakenly approached the UN about it, because he was under the impression that when the UN said something (via a Resolution) that it meant something. HE was the one who had to begin pressing the UN to live up to it's own Resolution. The UN however, over the course of nearly 2 years (since Bush first approached them Sept 12, 2001) has shown that it's Resolutions mean nothing. Nothing at all.

    So why Bush is continuing on to obtain their support is beyond me - knowing that they have established themselves as irrelevant. I think it's more so because once Iraq is invaded and occupied, and everything is discovered, he wants it "on record" who the opposing nations were - so that this can't come around again and be blamed on the United States.

    There is some massive dirty laundry in Iraq, and the nations of the UN are making it clearer by the day that they will NOT have it discovered as long as they can help it. Their motives are not about diplomacy. It's about sparing themselves from the rage that the world will have once they find out France and Germany's sinister marriage to the Middle East and terrorism - and all in the name of money.
  7. by   cwazycwissyRN
    GO SUSY K !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  8. by   Mkue
    Originally posted by SusyZeke

    So after Iraq, who next?
    Who? continued hunt for Bin Ladin.

    So in answer as to who is next?.. let me answer that... Bin Ladin.. and his cohorts..until he is caught he will always be next.. the work and hunt continues.
  9. by   Q.
    I'll answer that as well.

    Who's next?

    ANY nation that is or supports or harbors international terrorism. I for one, refuse to live in a world where terrorism goes unchecked and dismissed as part of life.
    NO, it's not part of life. And no where is it part of the "world peace" that so many of you espouse.
    Last edit by Susy K on Mar 11, '03
  10. by   RNonsense
    Originally posted by Susy K
    I'll answer that as well.

    Who's next?

    ANY nation that is or supports or harbors international terrorism. I for one, refuse to live in a world where terrorism goes unchecked and dismissed as part of life.
    NO, it's not part of life. And no where is part of the "world peace" that so many of you espouse.

    MAN...she's good!!!!!
  11. by   WashYaHands
    Heard this last Sunday on Fox news and thought it was interesting:

    "When it comes to war, how essential is the support of the United Nations and the international community? Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign relations notes that of 26 international conflicts waged since the U.N.'s inception, only three have received U.N. support: the Korean War, which was fought under U.N. auspices; the Gulf War and the War in Afghanistan.

    Note that the United States requested all three - and that the Russians, French and Chinese, all of which have waged war in the U.N. era, have not sought permission once. Nor has Jimmy Carter previously complained about unilateralism on the part of such aggressors."



    Fox News Sunday
  12. by   SusyZeke
    The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.
    Bush to the U.N. General Assembly on 9-12-02

    Officials from the Bush administration co-drafted the documents in Resolution 1441; and you know that they pored over every word of every passage. It would seem that the Bush administration saw Resolution 1441 as a way to justify the coming war because they assumed that Iraq would block the inspections. However, access was granted everywhere without delay or obstruction.

    France and Germany have never denied doing business with Iraq, other countries have. And I agree with you - it is for money.

    I am, however, confused as to the reference "sinister marriage to the Middle East and terrorism" - could you please explain.

    This has never been about Osama Bin Ladin. Pakistan is currently hot on his heels. Osama must have known that when, he caused the terrible atrocities on 9/11,he would never find rest - the whole world is after him, not just the US. And yes, we will get him.
  13. by   SharonH, RN
    Originally posted by SusyZeke
    With the announcement of contracts for the rebuilding of a post-war Iraq, the Bush administration shows a lack of respect to the UN and the efforts of other governments to come to a peaceful conclusion. To award these contracts whilst ostensibly negotiating a consensus is either incredibly stupid, or incredibly arrogant.

    You forgot option C: both stupid and arrogant. SusyZ, the Bush administration's respect and usefulness for the U.N. comes and goes when it is convenient for them. Obviously, in the case of Iraq they(the U.N) are irrevelant and we are prepared to go it alone! But in the case of North Korea, a country who has openly declared their possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction and their intent to use them, we are content to ask Japan, China, and South Korea to intervene and we are in favor of a multilateral approach. Hmmmm......
  14. by   pickledpepperRN
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

    washingtonpost.com
    GOP Consultant Named in Enron Ruling
    By PETE YOST
    The Associated Press
    Monday, March 10, 2003; 7:41 PM
    In a controversy that touched White House political adviser Karl Rove, Enron Corp., signed contracts with GOP consultant Ralph Reed worth more than half a million dollars, the Federal Election Commission revealed in a ruling.
    Enron paid Reed, the former Christian Coalition leader, about $300,000 before the energy company's collapse.
    The payments came to light as part of an FEC inquiry into whether Enron's hiring of GOP consultant Reed was a sham designed to disguise an in-kind contribution from Enron to Bush's presidential effort.
    In dismissing a complaint against Rove and the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign, the FEC disclosed that the Enron-Reed ties involved far more money than has previously been reported.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printsto.../front/1812724

    March 10, 2003, 11:02PM
    Charges loom in Enron probe
    Broadband unit examined
    By MARY FLOOD and TOM FOWLER
    Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle
    Prosecutors are expected to bring charges as early as this week against former Enron Broadband Services executives involved in the ill-fated Blockbuster Video deal, according to sources familiar with the case.
    Enron Task Force prosecutors have informed several defense lawyers that their clients likely will be charged with conspiracy and other counts in connection with efforts to improperly turn a 20-year deal to supply video-on-demand over the Internet into a quick source of cash for the company. ..
    Those likely to be charged are executives who are hardly household names. Former Enron Chief Executive Jeff Skilling, the highest-profile name involved in the selling of Enron's broadband vision to investors and analysts, has not surfaced as a target for charges over the deal.

close