Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The Bush administration is a history lesson in unintended consequences. Iraq, war on terror, deficit spending which now limits our options, and appeals to the religious right and hawks which now deeply divide our nation’s populace over constitutional issues. And now replacing terrorism with tyranny as the object of our ire and military/economic strong arming, but with the caveat that tyranny that works with us is OK, only tyranny that resists us will feel our wrath.

Some legacy.

AP- I think you missed the point with this post. When people (like myself) critize the UN- we are not talking about the IDEA of the UN, we are talking about the actual nations in charge of the UN that make it a useless organizations, currently. These are the countries who allowed Rwanda to happen (including us), these are the people who are letting Darfur happen (including us, again). and yes, these are the people who allowed Sadam to kill his people for 30 years (as summed up by Iraq’s foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari at his moving speech at the UN last year).

The bottom line is I do not think the member states of the UN have any sort of commitment to human rights (i also question our commitment given our lack of action in Rwanda and now Darfur). The bottom line is, at least, when America does show such commitment (like in Iraq), I do not want the irresponsible nations of the UN to stand in the way- nor do i want them to have a veto power on our decision to do the right thing (for example, if the US had decided to help in Rwanda, it would have been more than appropriate to ignore any UN nation who did not agree)

Misha said: The bottom line is, at least, when America does show such commitment (like in Iraq), I do not want the irresponsible nations of the UN to stand in the way- nor do i want them to have a veto power on our decision to do the right thing (for example, if the US had decided to help in Rwanda, it would have been more than appropriate to ignore any UN nation who did not agree)

This is the height of hypocrisy the rest of the world hates about America. Does the Kyoto Treaty ring any bells. They should get out of our way, but, its OK for us to obstruct their way intended to benefit all the people’s of this earth.

That is choice, Misha.

American has made great strides in cleaning up our own environment by every indicia of polution. We are NOT stopping any nation that wants to join either an individual or collective method of stopping any sort of polution. If they want to do Kyoto, thats their right- go for it. We just did not want to be a part of that particular approach to polution reduction (Although, I will point out htat Kyoto uses cap and trade as part of its system, exactly the mechanism that has drawn such ire when proposed in American by the Bush administration.. hmmmm).

Given the above considerations, your parallel falls pretty clearly.

It does seem ironic that the U.S. is criticized for doing something in Iraq and not doing something in Rwanda. If President Clinton had acted in Rwanda, the world community as would have criticized us happened when he did do something in Kosovo.

I am resigned to the fact that the U.S. will get blamed every time it does something and every time it doesn’t do something. It is the price of being big, powerful and active. Rather that than the alternative.

Misha is right about Kyoto. If everyone else is so enthusiastic about it, why aren’t they just doing it? The U.S. switched to lead-free gasoline fifteen years before the Europeans followed. We made our own system to fight acid rain. In fact, Kyoto imitates that system. The world is happy that the U.S. stays out of Kyoto because they can use it to avoid doing anything themselves and their populations can blame the U.S.

Jack, you are right. Might makes right. The only problem is, the U.S. would rather the world not see it that way. So, when are we going to act accordingly?

David

Might doesn’t make right. But you can’t expect everyone to agree on what is right and you can expect grumbling from those who are not or cannot or don’t want to participate.

Exercising might always creates trouble, but the mighty can’t avoid it. That’s why people say leadership is lonely. Every decision pisses somebody off. Really fair decisions usually piss everyone off. Whether or not the decision was good depends on subsequent events.

U.S. ambivalence about its great power is a cause of many problems. The most egregious example is the interwar period, where we very often took the moral high ground (or what looked like it) by holding ourselves above European politics. Without U.S. power, Europe descended into the biggest war in world history. Our aloofness was a big contributor. Many commentators, some openly, many more obliquely, wish that the U.S. would behave more like a hegemon in the British tradition. I am not sure we are up to the job.

Jack, I was speaking of Iraq. Bush has vowed time and again we will continue to pound Iraq with our troops until democracy is established and safeguarded. Regardless of how many must die, (btw, our death toll of all involved may yet exceed that of Saddam Hussein’s), regardless of how many social programs here must be scrapped to pay for our Iraq blunder, regardless of the lost alliances with people in the world and the mistrust of former allies and deepening of mistrust by others, whom one day we may need to call on for assistance, yet again.

The true cost of any decision is not correctly summed until the opportunity costs have been added to the equation. Certainly the SS problem would be a half trillion less of a problem were it nor for invading Iraq. Now Bush is threatening to cut social programs across the board to pay for his tax cuts and Iraq war. The cost of Bush in office is going to be far higher than most American’s even have a hint of yet.

Excellent conversation, but you guys (except David) are all missing the point: Some of Kofi Annan’s reforms put the UN on the road to autonomy.

When people (like myself) critize the UN- we are not talking about the IDEA of the UN, we are talking about the actual nations in charge of the UN that make it a useless organizations

And rightly so. But. After the modernists, who believe the institution’s mandate requires accountability to its own agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the public gain more influence, the UN member nations (including us) will - less and less - be the guys responsible for its actions.

It does seem ironic that the U.S. is criticized for doing something in Iraq and not doing something in Rwanda.

Jack, you don’t really believe that. Rwanda was in the middle of a genocidal race war, Iraq was minding its own despotic business: no WMD, no WMD programs, and no meaningful terrorist connections - even the killings were over a decade old.

If everyone else is so enthusiastic about it, why aren?t they just doing it?

They are. Kyoto was ratified, it’s being implemented, and now they’re all working on the next steps.

Misha, the caps aren’t the problem. It’s the fact that elswhere, the caps reduce the gas levels. Bush’s proposed caps just reduce the rate of growth.

At the end of WWII and the Holocaust, the world said “Never again.” Many assumed that the world meant they would never again allow an apparently internal issue like the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany grow to the point that it would result in mass extermination of its own citizens and threaten the rest of the world. What they actually meant was they would never again stick their neck out for anyone else if in doing do they could avoid even the least bit of inconvenience, to say nothing of the sort of sacrifices seen by the WWI and WWII generations. This, despite the fact that we routinely, and hypocritically, heap great praise on those hardy folks while all the time muttering under our breath “pass me by, pass me by” while the monsters of our own era do their bloody work.

Which is worse, to stand by and allow these atrocities to take place without comment and thereby be implicated in their commission? Or to get step between the innocent and the aggressor, despite whatever unintended consequences the might be unleashed?

So did you write your representatives and urge them to send US troops into Darfur, Todd?

I see where Kofi Annan just took our leaders to task - again - for doing nothing.

Then we had that paragon of humanity, Paul Wolfowitz, address the UN assembly,

Wolfowitz praised the U.S. and allied forces who liberated the Nazi death camps. He said the most important lesson of the Holocaust is that “peaceful nations cannot close their eyes or sit idly by in the face of genocide.”

I guess, technically, President Bush didn’t “sit idly by” while tens of thousands were massacred in the Sudan. He did offer up a $20 million DynCorp logistics contract and a couple airplane rides to anyone who wanted to intervene.

Annan’s participation in the Auschwitz commememoration is perhaps fitting given his oversight of peacekeeping operations during the massacres in Rawanda. A path to atonement, perhaps?

Wolfowitz’s comments were, of course, ceremonial, but consistent with his thinking over the long term. “Stopping the Holocaust” was an Allied war aim tacked on after the fact (or not at all, for the USSR.) All parties involved would have been unbothered by a Third Reich that liquidated its internal Jewish population if it only would leave the rest of Europe alone. Fifty years later, this was again the European and UN position in regards to Serbia/Yugoslavia.

So, having said that, yes, I’d have liked to see US troops deployed to Darfur.

Annan’s participation in the Auschwitz commememoration is perhaps fitting given his oversight of peacekeeping operations during the massacres in Rawanda.

Ahh… See, this is what I’m talking about. Annan requested more troops and a more forceful role in Rwanda. No one heeded the call. What was he supposed to do, wade into Rwanda by himself with a Bowie knife clenched between his teeth?

If the US, Britain, France, Germany, et al won’t put up the troops or authorize the use of force, how is it the UN’s fault?

And did you want to see US troops in Darfur enough to send an email to your Congresspersons, Representative, and the White House? Did you ask them to heed Annan’s call for intervention?

SAW the film. Shows how a big country goes to a small country, identifies favorites and gives them power and jobs. All the while, creating new HAVES and lots of HAVE-NOTS. Then , time goes by, the big country leaves, the HAVES are fewer than the pisssed-off HAVENOTS, and then it’s time for revenge. And when people say they were never going to allow another HITLER to emerge (and cause GENOCIDE), it is hard to detect this bad element when the HITLER is in the form of half a country (taking its hate pills from guerilla groups over the radio).
In the end, only poor people die, only stupid people get into power. And then, hatred simmers until poor people can unite, arm, and go after the people in power. The cycle never ends because people in power do not value HUMAN LIFE.

Sign, Albert from Whenna-Pinner , Calif