You think you're so smart?

[idkew]

I am tired of hearing people bitch and moan about how things are going poorly in Iraq, but few offer ways to fix the situation. Mostly it seems that Bush=bad and Not Bush=good.

So- this thread is for people to voice their opinions about what to do in Iraq. (You can't take back that it happened, because it has. We can't immediately pull out and leave the region, because complete anarchy would reign and more would die.)

Sample questions:
How would you fix the situation?
How would you stop militia fighters from implementing another dictatorship?
How would you protect the innocents?
.... you get the point


I am hoping both sides of the fence will jump in the fray.

[Backtothemac]

I am tired of hearing people bitch and moan about how things are going poorly in Iraq, but few offer ways to fix the situation. Mostly it seems that Bush=bad and Not Bush=good.

So- this thread is for people to voice their opinions about what to do in Iraq. (You can't take back that it happened, because it has. We can't immediately pull out and leave the region, because complete anarchy would reign and more would die.)

How would you fix the situation?
How would you stop militia fighters from implementing another dictatorship?
How would you protect the innocents?
.... you get the point


I am hoping both sides of the fence will jump in the fray.


1st. You have to have a larger force. IE impose a draft, and get enough men there to do the job. Controlling the influx of anti-US forces is key. Seal the border with Syria and Iran, and make it know that anyone caught coming accross the border will be met with extreme predjudice.

You stop the militia fighters by killing them for forcing them to surrender. Period. It is tough, but it is neccessary.

Protect the innocents by eliminating the militia's. They are the ones that are fighting behind children and women.

You have to get control, and you have to get control in the hands of Iraqi's.

[miloblithe]

The first step is to increase goodwill among muslims/Arabs/Iraqis. Show them that we are committed to peace, democracy, and justice in the middle east: stop funding Israel, support the immediate creation of a Palistinian state and the withdrawl of Isreal from the occupied territories (inlcuding all "settlements"), protect Palistinians from Israel (and vice versa), spend the money we gift to Israel on schools, infrastructure, social development, business, etc. in Palestine.

Make all efforts to internationalize the occupation of Iraq.

Fire Rumsfeld.

[Neserk]

I would have never gone in the first place. An ounce of prevention and all ;)

[idkew]

I would have never gone in the first place. An ounce of prevention and all ;)

and how would you fix what has happened now?

or, how would you have prevented?

[Neserk]

and how would you fix what has happened now?

or, how would you have prevented?

My plan for fixing it is to get Rid of Bush come November. No country in their right mind will trust him ever again. Without a new leader we can't get support from other countries or the UN. Hopefully when they see the US public as ousted their own dictator and put in a democratic leader (vs. dicatator) they will be willing to work with us again.

Prevented??? I wouldn't have gone in. There was no justifiable reasons for going in.

[idkew]

My plan for fixing it is to get Rid of Bush come November.

getting rid of bush does not change anything for iraqis. maybe for you, but not for the people in the war zone.

[Neserk]

getting rid of bush does not change anything for iraqis. maybe for you, but not for the people in the war zone.


I disagree. If the International Community will deal with us because we have gotten rid of Bush we will be able to turn over power to the UN forces and to the Iraqi's. If not, were stuck.

[idkew]

I disagree. If the International Community will deal with us because we have gotten rid of Bush we will be able to turn over power to the UN forces and to the Iraqi's. If not, were stuck.

but giving UN the control does not make problems disappear magically.

let me phrase it this way for you: if you were the UN, how would you fix it?

[Neserk]

but giving UN the control does not make problems disappear magically.

let me phrase it this way for you: if you were the UN, how would you fix it?

For starters I'd bring Bush to trial. Then I would try and work with the Middle East community to bring self-rule to the Iraqi people.

[howard]

i could sit and speculate about what i would do, but i doubt i'd come up with a good answer, in the end i'd try and find out what the iraqi people would want to do... however my guess is that since the majority is shiite they would end up with the most power, which isn't fair to sunni muslims or the kurdish people...

its complicated, i'd need a lot more info than i can get from the damn twisted media to even think about deciding.

i'd have to agree though that getting rid of bush is a good step that i can take as a citizen of america. and for what its worth now i would not have gone in. but as you said its to late now.

another thing i would do in the future is try and educate the people of the us more about the culture and society of Iraq, something that i certainly missed out sorely in my education unfortunately, and i know i'm not alone. Incompetence is exactly what we don't need when we read newspapers about Iraqi's and Americans killing eachother, it only brings about a bias.

[kuyu]

For starters I'd bring Bush to trial. Then I would try and work with the Middle East community to bring self-rule to the Iraqi people.

This thread is OBVIOUSLY not about Bush. Rather, this thread serves to provide a 'forum' for discussion regarding different strategies for stabilizing and securing post-war Iraq. If you want to spout off about how Bush has ruined the world, get a job as a reporter or at least use one of the other umpteen anit-bush threads on this site and stop misguiding this one.

I'd follow the coalition plan to a T, except i'd get us some of that new Iraqi oil. Then, I'd ask congress to give everyone who served a huge bonus. Next, I'd help the Iraqi's prepare a team for the summer games, and let them light the torch, in front of the world.

Finally, I'd allow more foriegn investment and more multinational corporations to set up shop in Iraq. If they could begin to use of that oil capital to create other profitable industries, perhaps the use of force will not be required in other middle eastern nations. hopefully, Iraq's huge economic success could serve as an example to other nations in that region. "Capitalism makes everybody richer, our system makes all the bin Whoever's richer. Hmmm. Whatever shall we do??"

[yahooz]

My plan for fixing it is to get Rid of Bush come November. No country in their right mind will trust him ever again. Without a new leader we can't get support from other countries or the UN. Hopefully when they see the US public as ousted their own dictator and put in a democratic leader (vs. dicatator) they will be willing to work with us again.

Prevented??? I wouldn't have gone in. There was no justifiable reasons for going in.

Even 8th graders know the proper definition of dictator.

[Neserk]

Even 8th graders know the proper definition of dictator.

Yup. So do I. Bush is a dictator.

[Neserk]

This thread is OBVIOUSLY not about Bush.

It *is* about Bush because Bush is the reason we are in this mess. Dealing with him is step 1 for dealing with the problem *he* created in Iraq.

[idkew]

kuyu- how observant of you!

neserk- please start a new thread if you want to complain more about bush. that is not the point of this thread.

[idkew]

another thing i would do in the future is try and educate the people of the us more about the culture and society of Iraq, something that i certainly missed out sorely in my education unfortunately, and i know i'm not alone. Incompetence is exactly what we don't need when we read newspapers about Iraqi's and Americans killing eachother, it only brings about a bias.

i agree that ignorance causes problems, but i do not think that it is possible or correct to teach in compulsory school the history of every nation in the world. yes, we could use more middle east history in the books, but we can't focus on each and every country and get our children out and working within 18 years. there is a point where you have to say "good enough".

[Frohickey]

I would have never gone in the first place. An ounce of prevention and all ;)

Construction of a device for the sole purpose of travelling back in time is against the laws of the Federation.
If your middle name is Tiberius or you are a British-sounding French captain are you allowed to travel back in time to undo something that was done. ;) :D :D

But if you do, you have to smooch every female guest star, even if they are of a different race... err... species. :eek:

[howard]

as far as education goes, in middle and high school the only history education children receive is western history. Maybe some highschools have the advantage and at least offer eastern culturn courses, but they are few and far between as are the students attending those classes. throughout my public schooling i learned western and us history probablyt about 3 or 4 times, every time regurgitating the same things. I personally think there should be a world history or split all these classes into regions, eastern western and US history. whatever, anything to start of the process.

The fact that there is NO education about the middle east in most public schools when that is arguable the most influential area of the world scares me.

[Neserk]

neserk- please start a new thread if you want to complain more about bush. that is not the point of this thread.

You brought up the subject and asked the questions. I answered them. If you don't like my answers that is your problem, not mine. As far as I can tell getting rid of Bush is the solution to the problem, or at least the start of the solution. If you don't want to know what others think, don't ask.

[Neserk]

i agree that ignorance causes problems, but i do not think that it is possible or correct to teach in compulsory school the history of every nation in the world. yes, we could use more middle east history in the books, but we can't focus on each and every country and get our children out and working within 18 years. there is a point where you have to say "good enough".

Sure we can. You pick one region a month and let the students experience pieces of different cultures. And you don't have 18 years. You have 13.

[Neserk]

as far as education goes, in middle and high school the only history education children receive is western history. Maybe some highschools have the advantage and at least offer eastern culturn courses, but they are few and far between as are the students attending those classes. throughout my public schooling i learned western and us history probablyt about 3 or 4 times, every time regurgitating the same things. I personally think there should be a world history or split all these classes into regions, eastern western and US history. whatever, anything to start of the process.

The fact that there is NO education about the middle east in most public schools when that is arguable the most influential area of the world scares me.

In high school I had (trying to remember) Far Eastern Studies, US History, and Western History. Never was even given the opportunity to study the Middle East. In College I had Western Civilization (Yawn) and US History. Again, no opportunity to study the Middle East. I did do ancient studies of the middle east in Graduate School as I was a Theology student. But that goes back too far to help today.

[howard]

no chance to study the middle east in college either? thats crazy, we had an elective that i took on the middle east in college, but no courses on anything but western culture in high school...

btw this also applies for art, all the art history i have ever had the chance to study has been western. this bugs me

[Frohickey]

Okay, forgive me my one diversion from the thread, but that was to reply to Neserk who couldn't wait to commence with the Bush-bashing and not even forward a credible solution to the problem at hand.

Let's see...

Increase the number of troops in country.

Recruit some of the Iraqis to augment US troops in doing border patrol and stopping of *ANY* border incursions.

Border entry, if not done via border checkpoints, are to be considered a hostile act and will be met with immediate devastating force.

Get the Army Corp of Engineers to start laying mines, starting with the favorite entry corridors from Syria, Iran, etc.

Institute a bounty system whereby the capture of known terrorists/fugitives from justice will be rewarded.

Subdivide Iraq into tribal areas, and ask to have elections be held for each tribal area, for delegates to a Constitutional Convention to be held at a future date and place.

Insurgent uprisings, that threaten the peace and tranquility of the area will be dealt with in the following manner...
a) the area will be surrounded by US and Coalition forces
b) residents of the area will be encouraged to leave within 72 hours
c) equipment and supplies will not be allowed into the area
d) US and Coalition forces will innundate the entire area with bacon grease and pork byproducts... :p ... lacking the adequate amount of pork byproducts, the entire area will be demolished with judicious use of MOAB and other high-yield conventional explosive devices rendering the uninhabitable. Insurgents get their 72 virgins in a single joint ceremony. :p
e) rinse and repeat when necessary :eek: :eek: :eek:

[zimv20]

what does it mean to "fix the situation?" if it involves iraqi self-rule w/o any commentary on the US' reputation, then that's a military pullout.

if the question is: how do we place democracy in iraq while maintaining (whatever that means) a good US reputation, then i'm highly doubtful it's even possible.

however it ends, i don't think it'll end better than vietnam, the ramifications of which are debated to this day.

[IJ Reilly]

Just for the record, we flogged this very same topic about a month ago:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=69116

Not sure what's to be gained by going through it all again. Of some interest: in the month that's passed, we're starting to see the Right at least begin to admit that all isn't rosy, and a new approach might be needed. Maybe that's a start.

[Frohickey]

as far as education goes, in middle and high school the only history education children receive is western history. Maybe some highschools have the advantage and at least offer eastern culturn courses, but they are few and far between as are the students attending those classes. throughout my public schooling i learned western and us history probablyt about 3 or 4 times, every time regurgitating the same things. I personally think there should be a world history or split all these classes into regions, eastern western and US history. whatever, anything to start of the process.

The fact that there is NO education about the middle east in most public schools when that is arguable the most influential area of the world scares me.

Its not influential. Its the most troublesome area, not infuential.

I think that discussion of which history courses should be taught to whom and when belongs to another thread, and not this one. Also, with the amount of scholarly resources available; i.e. library books, internet, etc., there should be no excuse for people wishing to educate themselves in other cultures if the desire is there.

[blackfox]

As far as what to do in Iraq, I advocate something along the line of what was mentioned in the thread concerning StratFor(linked below):
http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/index.neo?page=basicsample

Generally speaking, it is advocated that the US remember that it is fighting a war on Terrorism, not on Iraq. The US should move it's forces outside of all major cities, occupying a crescent around the Western side of Iraq, free from urban-warfare of which the USs' stategic or tactical advantages are nil, despite advanced weoponry. Desert living would be harsh, but easily defended and borders could be protected. The Iraqis would from some sort of government, which could be a dictatorship, or a loose federation of regional leaders, or most likely, a theocracy. The US could help supply logistical and technical support to the Iraqis, as well as financial assistance, to a soverieign government of Iraq, and whatever form it might be, it would most likely be friendly to US interests, if we prove to be nice guests. Iran is said to be very pro-american (in terms of the layman, not gov.). Pacification of insurgents in Iraq, as well as the building of a geniune democracy, are both near impossible tasks, and distract from the war on terrorists. Many Muslims are not fans of Al Qaeda, and if the US behaves, our job finding them would be greatly assisted by cooperation of locals who know the language and the area and area governments, who have similar advantages. The US should also be fairer in regards to Isreal (ie: tougher)

Most of what I have written above was paraphrased from the link, but it is interdispersed with some of my thoughts, to alay any potential confusion....

As far as whether we should have gone in...I don't know, but my feeling is no. Definitely should have gone in a different manner politically. Since it has happened, though, I don't really care too much any more, outside of whether any criminal activity has transpired...and that still deserves attention and resolution.

[Frohickey]

however it ends, i don't think it'll end better than vietnam, the ramifications of which are debated to this day.

If only we listened and took HoChi Minh seriously when he asked the United States for help in Vietnamese independence after WW2. If only we did *NOT* honor our alliance with France to the point of denying the Vietnamese their cry for freedom and liberty. :eek:

What was that good ol' George said in his farewell address???


Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm)

[Sayhey]

kuyu- how observant of you!

neserk- please start a new thread if you want to complain more about bush. that is not the point of this thread.

You started this thread asking "how would you fix the situation," but you don't want to hear the first and most important step in "fixing Iraq" - removing Bush and his gang of neocons who have created this mess?

Bush has, through his actions, alienated not only most of the world but most of the people of Iraq. It will take new leadership in the White House to get to any possible acceptable solution. In short, it is the one indispensable step that must be taken for peace to be possible.

Next, the turnover to the UN and Iraqis has to be genuine. There can be no US veto over the direction of a new Iraqi government and of the day-to-day management of Iraqi resources. That includes, most importantly, the communications network of Iraq.

After that, a new administration must build a new consensus on monetary resources to rebuild Iraq and provide security help to a new Iraqi government. This is not something the Bush administration has any credibility in trying to accomplish.

It is important that the Bush administration has moved toward the use of the UN, but it is not possible for them to make full use of the UN or other nations. There are other steps, including the reconfiguration of US forces, but again most would be much more likely under new US leadership.

[howard]

Its not influential. Its the most troublesome area, not infuential.

I think that discussion of which history courses should be taught to whom and when belongs to another thread, and not this one. Also, with the amount of scholarly resources available; i.e. library books, internet, etc., there should be no excuse for people wishing to educate themselves in other cultures if the desire is there.


not influential? do you drive a car?


i wouldn't brush them off so negetively as "troublesome" either. and i'm talking middle and highschool public education, i doubt any highschooler is going to pick up a book about the middle east on there friday night out at the library. I think the history of these areas are important and should be taught.

[idkew]

what does it mean to "fix the situation?"

i was deliberately vague. i want to leave that up to each poster to decide.




and nererk, yes i brought up bush. i was mocking the people who think bush=bad, not bush=good. are you one of these people?




but- i think it is my turn to put in my opinion.

i agree with most of the posters so far. we need more troops on the sand to get the job done. we need to stop not attacking because someone is hiding in a mosque. we need to quickly and severely get rid of the people who are fighting so they can institute their own dictatorship, people who are fighting just because the "invaders" are white or black or whatever skinned, and not true arabs. we need to close the boarder lands to all unsanctioned traffic.

we need to try harder to reduce civilian casualties but still be efficient in going against anti-coalition fighters. this is as much a pr war as a fighting war. abusing prisoners has hurt the effort more than any bullet or bomb as of yet.

along those same lines, we need a concerted effort to gain the trust of the bullied iraqi people. let them know we are there to make good, and not bad. we want to give them their country back as soon as we can, within reason.

basically, we have a lot yet to do, and it will be hard. we are in it deep, and there is no easy way out. i wouldn't mid UN help, but i do not know if i would trust any money in their hands. we already have seen what they did with the oil for food program.

[idkew]

You started this thread asking "how would you fix the situation," but you don't want to hear the first and most important step in "fixing Iraq" - removing Bush and his gang of neocons who have created this mess?

i have no problem with removing bush as PART of a solution. the solution only being the removal of bush is not worth the electrons it is written on. taking one man out of power does little to nothing to change the reality on the ground in iraq.

[Steradian]

It *is* about Bush because Bush is the reason we are in this mess. Dealing with him is step 1 for dealing with the problem *he* created in Iraq.
It was not solely Bush that brought us into this war, and although I have had little faith in the checks and balances, remember that in order for anything to be done it has to be paid for by the house, which of course we have a greater control of, as we elect its members. If I were to take this mess on, I would follow the current plan, with the exception of the exchange of power. That should be post-poned, as it is far too soon with the current shortage of man power that we have. I would call out *all* the reserves, and have them working to encourage the training of an iraqi military capable of handling the attackers and militia that we are dealing with now. The power needs to be turned over, however at the current time in order to promote peace between the ****es, and other sects a sold leader must be put into power. Iraqi is not ready for democracy yet, despite the resolve of it's brilliant people. Government projects should be planned through the city, building new monuments, bridges and roads to employ the people. Give them something to be proud of.

[Neserk]

no chance to study the middle east in college either? thats crazy, we had an elective that i took on the middle east in college, but no courses on anything but western culture in high school...


I know. I went to a small college so it would have required a professor in the history department with actual expertise in the subject.

[miloblithe]

Frohickey. You want to mine the Iraqi borders?!?! Jesus. Now that would win over some 'hearts and minds'. I'm sure that there's nothing Iraqis would appreciate more than their children wandering out into minefields and being blown up--for decades. Minefields are a very bad, very long-term problem. Look at the Kashmir, Cambodia, etc. Not good.

[Neserk]

It was not solely Bush that brought us into this war, .

It was his lies. And the buck stops with the President. Especially when he lies and goes to war.

[pseudobrit]

Get the troops out of the urban areas; they're not providing security or hunting down terrorists, they're targets.

Let Iraq sort itself out with as little interference as possible. It's none of our business who rules Iraq and never should have been.

[mactastic]

Step 1: Fire Rummy
Step 2: Fire Wolfowitz
Step 3: Fire Pearle, and the rest of the neocon gang
Step 4: More US troops initially in theater
Step 5: Go to UN with hat in hand and ask for help. If that doesn't work, beg for help. Admit we were wrong in our assesment of WMDs and Saddams level of threat to the region let alone the US. Do whatever it takes to get some troops from Muslim nations such as Turkey to help supplement US troops.
Step 6: Rehire the Iraqi army and start to deploy them into the cities with US troops as backup outside the cities. Return order and security to the cities.
Step 7: Stop skirting the Geneva Conventions. Putting the screws to the innocent causes more long term harm than getting some intel from low ranking soldiers via force. Prove we are the anti-Saddam. Prove through every action the US takes that we are as concerned about them as we are about ourselves. This involves treating them like equals even if they aren't responding in kind initially. Turn the other cheek and all that.
Step 8: Vote Bush out of office in November.
Step 9: Give real control to the Iraqi people. If that means an Islamic theocracy, so be it. We can't hold self-determination sacred, then deny it to others.
Step 9: Sit back and watch as Iraq rejoins the world community.
Step 10: American taxpayers pay off the costs of the war and Iraqi reconstruction for decades.

[zimv20]

if what's discussed in this thread about iran's intelligence tricking the neocons into deposing saddam (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=73071) is true, then i submit the solution to maintaining balance in the region is to restore saddam to power.

<flame suit on>

[idkew]

OR,

iraq could become a true democracy in the middle east, and eventually spread its influence and peacefully topple iran.



both seem possible to me.

[Thanatoast]

despite the argument this has already caused, i believe it's an important step. vote out bush in november. he has no credibility with his allies and less with the people of the nation he is occupying. even if kerry decides to use the exact same plan, he will be in a better position to implement it because the world doesn't distrust his motives (yet).

otherwise, i'd say that the transfer of full soveriegnity needs to happen, and it needs to be real. tony blair is on video as having said that if the new government asks troops to go, they will go.

i think that all the oversight committees need to be run by the UN rather than the US, to remove any doubt of influence or impropriety.

i think we should continue to train iraqi forces while pulling our own forces out. continuing to attack neighborhoods and shrines (no matter how "justified") continues to create more enemies than friends.

we need to start following those "quaint" geneva conventions, and convince the world that we're not the hyporcrits we seem to be.

the biggest factor, i think, is to hand over power, and then follow whatever directives come from that power. if we hand over power and continue to do whatever the hell we want, everyone will know (especially the iraqis themselves) that it was a joke from the start.

[blackfox]

OR,

iraq could become a true democracy in the middle east, and eventually spread its influence and peacefully topple iran.

Explain how, and in what time frame...I think it would be great, but I don't see it happening, in fact I cannot think of a single example of successful democracy building of recent memory...

[Frohickey]

Frohickey. You want to mine the Iraqi borders?!?! Jesus. Now that would win over some 'hearts and minds'. I'm sure that there's nothing Iraqis would appreciate more than their children wandering out into minefields and being blown up--for decades. Minefields are a very bad, very long-term problem. Look at the Kashmir, Cambodia, etc. Not good.

Yep. I want to mine the Iraqi borders, that would dissuade foreign terrorists from coming into Iraq and causing chaos and mayhem. Heard about the children that were killed in Iraq recently by the terrorist bombings?

Oh, if there are children present near the border, that would mean that there is a village or town near the border. That would then mean that the town/village is ripe to be a border checkpoint, and therefore, it would not be mined.

After the country has calmed down and has enough security, the minefields can be deactivated.

[zimv20]

Yep. I want to mine the Iraqi borders, that would dissuade foreign terrorists from coming into Iraq and causing chaos and mayhem.
what percentage of the insurgents do you think are non-iraqi?

[Neserk]

despite the argument this has already caused, i believe it's an important step. vote out bush in november. he has no credibility with his allies and less with the people of the nation he is occupying. even if kerry decides to use the exact same plan, he will be in a better position to implement it because the world doesn't distrust his motives (yet).


OMG YOU ARE TRYING TO THROW THIS THREAD OFF TRACK WITH BUSH BASHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! HERETIC!!!!!!!!! UNPATRIOTIC!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!


:rolleyes: Bash away.

[idkew]

Explain how, and in what time frame...I think it would be great, but I don't see it happening, in fact I cannot think of a single example of successful democracy building of recent memory...


all i said was that it was equally as possible as iran invading iraq.


neserk- how old are you? 11?

[pseudobrit]

Yep. I want to mine the Iraqi borders, that would dissuade foreign terrorists from coming into Iraq and causing chaos and mayhem. Heard about the children that were killed in Iraq recently by the terrorist bombings?

Oh, if there are children present near the border, that would mean that there is a village or town near the border. That would then mean that the town/village is ripe to be a border checkpoint, and therefore, it would not be mined.

After the country has calmed down and has enough security, the minefields can be deactivated.

You forgot about the nomadic tribes.

[takao]

mining the borders...wow that would really help...
how long would it take to place them ?..and after a few years to remove them ?...you can't lay mines everywhere..you know..desert = sand (not always but common)...sand moves.....so after a few _days_ those mines are lying openly there.....how long would it take until some terrorists try to disarm a mine and lay it somewhere else ? (you never know )

there are already enough mines lying around in iraq/afghanistan... adding more doesn't help much....

what about the proven-that-it-works borderpatrol system..the US army has the most modern equipment...i assume that they should be able to control a border in a plain desert region ...

[IJ Reilly]

You forgot about the nomadic tribes.

Ah, who needs them anyway? Those Bedouin are all just a bunch of terrorists and smugglers. Open-minded guy that I am, I'm willing to go along with Frohickey's minefield plan, so long as he personally removes the mines himself when the time comes. I understand jumping up and down on one foot with your hands over your ears is a very effective method of clearing mines.

[skunk]

Ah, who needs them anyway? Those Bedouin are all just a bunch of terrorists and smugglers. Open-minded guy that I am, I'm willing to go along with Frohickey's minefield plan, so long as he personally removes the mines himself when the time comes. I understand jumping up and down on one foot with your hands over your ears is a very effective method of clearing mines.
Isn't the US practically the only country which has not signed up to the mine ban? Now we know why. It's for blowing up sheep and camels. Probably the livestock lobby.

[takao]

Isn't the US practically the only country which has not signed up to the mine ban?

actualy there are quite a few missing
http://www.icbl.org/ratification/ (hope this is the correct site)

oh they have even the list of those who not _banned_ them
http://www.icbl.org/treaty/nonsign.php3
nice company for the USA i have to admit..... (but i'm surprised about those fins on that list)

[skunk]

actualy there are quite a few missing
http://www.icbl.org/ratification/ (hope this is the correct site)

oh they have even the list of those who not _banned_ them
http://www.icbl.org/treaty/nonsign.php3
nice company for the USA i have to admit..... (but i'm surprised about those fins on that list)
Well, actually I meant practically the only industrialized country. :)
The Finns have probably not signed up because they were invaded and occupied once already by the Russians (and fought them to a standstill): they are touchy about their eastern border. What's the US excuse?

[IJ Reilly]

Well, actually I meant practically the only industrialized country. :)
The Finns have probably not signed up because they were invaded and occupied once already by the Russians (and fought them to a standstill): they are touchy about their eastern border. What's the US excuse?

We're touchy about all of our borders, especially the one with Iraq.

[miloblithe]

Isn't the US practically the only country which has not signed up to the mine ban?

As of May 16, 2004, 43 of 194 states have not signed. The U.S. is in the good company of ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN, BAHRAIN, BHUTAN, CHINA, CUBA, EGYPT, FINLAND, GEORGIA, INDIA, IRAN, IRAQ, ISRAEL, KAZAKHSTAN, KOREA, NORTH, KOREA, SOUTH, KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LATVIA, LEBANON, LIBYA, MICRONESIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR (BURMA), NEPAL, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALAU, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, RUSSIA, SAUDI ARABIA, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SRI LANKA, SYRIA, TONGA, TUVALU, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UZBEKISTAN, and VIETNAM.

Russia would sign as soon as the U.S. does.

It should be noted, the Mine Ban Treaty covers only anti-personnel landmines.

I'm always impressed that Frohickey stands by his statements. Mine the Iraqi borders... Are you a fan of agent orange as well? Hey, you know, this mining sounds like a great idea. While we're at it, we should mine the border with Mexico. That'd stop that illegal migration. Kaboom!

[skunk]

We're touchy about all of our borders, especially the one with Iraq.
The Bedouin understand that only too well, especially when getting married. By the way, isn't there an apology due from that prick Kimmit any day now?

[takao]

as an addition to the "mines discussion":
considering finland: i read a few articles and it looks like that finland is looking forward to sign the anti personnal mines ban treaty in 2006 (but some conservative parties want it to be more 2010 )

[miloblithe]

as an addition to the "mines discussion":
considering finland: i read a few articles and it looks like that finland is looking forward to sign the anti personnal mines ban treaty in 2006 (but some conservative parties want it to be more 2010 )

Thanks. I was actually pretty curious as to why Finland wasn't on board. Estonia seems to have joined in recently. Speaking of the neighborhood.

[skunk]

Thanks. I was actually pretty curious as to why Finland wasn't on board. Estonia seems to have joined in recently. Speaking of the neighborhood.
I can't for the life of me see why Micronesia hasn't signed up: some of their islands are so small that if you laid a mine on them there'd be nowhere left to stand... :confused:

[mactastic]

Now, now... we're getting too far off the stated topic of this thread here with talk of mines. :eek:

Only posts about how you would deal with the situation in Iraq please!

[miloblithe]

Mac, the mines issue was part of Frohickey's solution to Iraq's problems. Calm down.

[mactastic]

Mac, the mines issue was part of Frohickey's solution to Iraq's problems. Calm down.

I'm kidding. I only posted that because of all the other dustups in this thread about off-topic comments. Calm down. ;)

[sethypoo]

For starters I'd bring Bush to trial. Then I would try and work with the Middle East community to bring self-rule to the Iraqi people.

I think we should stop using Bush as a scapegoat, and that yes, the IC should be included much more.

Still, bringing Bush to trial would help nothing. Really, what would be accomplished? The news networks would love it: Bush On Trial! Come one come all! We all know he screwed up. We need to move on and focus on fixing what we messed up: Iraq.

[miloblithe]

I'm kidding. I only posted that because of all the other dustups in this thread about off-topic comments. Calm down. ;)

No, you calm down!

Clearly I've had a bit too much vodka this evening. Long day at work...

[sethypoo]

No, you calm down!

Clearly I've had a bit too much vodka this evening. Long day at work...

Take it to the Drunk Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=6144) guys! :cool: :p

[Neserk]

I think we should stop using Bush as a scapegoat.

Bush doesn't fit the definition of a scapegoat. He *is* the one to blame. And if you read responses you will see why getting rid of him in November and bringing him to trial will help fix the problem in Iraq.

[Frohickey]

what percentage of the insurgents do you think are non-iraqi?

When the borders are closed, we will know the percentage.

A country that cannot control its own borders is not a country.

[mactastic]

When the borders are closed, we will know the percentage.

A country that cannot control its own borders is not a country.

IOW, there are no countries in the world? Certainly the US cannot control it's own borders. Are we not a country?

[numediaman]

When the borders are closed, we will know the percentage.

A country that cannot control its own borders is not a country.

Excuse me. But we got rid of their army. We are the ones who control the borders in Iraq. But Rumsfeld believes we have all the troops we need. So if foreigners are coming into Iraq to kill Americans, then I guess you have a beef with Rumsfeld and the Bushies, huh?

[zimv20]

When the borders are closed, we will know the percentage.

not good enough. you've asserted that the problem is w/ foreign fighters. do they make up 100% of the insurgency? if not, what percentage of the insurgency do you think are iraqi? 10%? 30%? 80%?

[Neserk]

When the borders are closed, we will know the percentage.

A country that cannot control its own borders is not a country.

Then the US is not a country. Our borders are most definately not controlled. Damn Canadians :p

[blackfox]

I think we should stop using Bush as a scapegoat, and that yes, the IC should be included much more.

Still, bringing Bush to trial would help nothing. Really, what would be accomplished? The news networks would love it: Bush On Trial! Come one come all! We all know he screwed up. We need to move on and focus on fixing what we messed up: Iraq.
There is a difference between using Bush as a scapegoat, and holding him accountable for his mistakes. The fact that it is common knowledge that Bush "messed up", does not relieve him and other members of the administration from any responsibility in these mistakes, and if it is proven that these are of a criminal nature, then they should be prosecuted accordingly. Relieving Bush of the Presidency in November, would of course open up the chances of such proceedings, while the Iraq situation is dealt with by a new administration. The extraordinary fact of having many members of the current administration facing what could be construed as criminal behavior, has the odd effect of, assuming Bush wins a second term, making the country choose between perhaps removing and/or prosecuting most of the high-level administration in the middle of an ill-defined "war or staying with Bush and Co. despite any wrongdoing, and making a huge leap of faith that things will turn around, perhaps letting them off the hook...it would/could be a major war of propaganda...and of important choices for the American people to make...between perhaps a chance at victory or at justice.

[mactastic]

I'll settle for a just victory.

[Stelliform]

....

[IJ Reilly]

I don't think Iraq will ever see other UN nations coming in. The other countries lost too much money when the U.S. took over. And really should the UN be allowed to oversee Iraq? What else would they steal from those people?

Nice effort at baiting, but since essentially all of the world's nations belong to the UN, don't you think you're condemning the United States to going it alone in Iraq, from now until whenever or whatever?

[wwworry]

all i said was that it was equally as possible as iran invading iraq.


neserk- how old are you? 11?

Well the whole idea of this thread is pretty far fetched. Do any of us here have the power to increase tropp strength etc.? What we can do is vote Bush out of office. Clearly he and his minions have had a lot of billion dollar bungles that not only will cost us for years to come but have resulted in a lot of deaths.

Why did he throw out state department planning that could have prevented all the looting and chaos?

Why did he fire the general with experience who dared to tell the truth about what would be needed in post-war Iraq?

Those Bush guys are stupid. They have made a lot of mistakes.

The only thing we can do is vote him out and try our best to convince others to vote him out.

To please idkew: let's fire off a round of peace-gass (http://www.stomptokyo.com/badmoviereport/things2come.html) and dope the water with democracy-drink. Then lets switch to bio-diesel! (http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html)

[Stelliform]

.....

[idkew]

Well the whole idea ...[/URL]


i called him 11 for his all caps post. not for disliking bush. besides, where did i say i liked bush and that i plan on voting for him?


call me crazy if you think that people shouldn't try to back up their beliefs.

[wwworry]

I just wonder where the left outrage is over the massive oil-for-food corruption? Where are the calls for Kofi Annan's resignation? I know I won't vote for him in November.... oh wait... You and I don't have a voice in the U.N. Or at least not a direct one. That is why we shouldn't bow to the U.N. and think they are so much better than we are. If you hate Bush, you can vote against him next November. If you hate Kofi Annan, you can do nothing about it.

(And I have completely lost my faith in the UN. They only appear to be an ineffectual bureaucracy, which is also corrupt...)

The thing you do not take into account is that the "left"'s aim (though condemning this administrations mistakes in Iraq makes one neither left or right) is to get one's own house in order. Comparing our abuse with Husseins or whatever is pointless. We are not supposed to be the "better" dictator. We are not supposed to be a dictator at all!

Left us make sure our own actions are without fault. Of course, people from other countries will be corrupt but this is America. We do not allow corruption in our own govt. officials.

[idkew]

I just wonder where the left outrage is over the massive oil-for-food corruption? Where are the calls for Kofi Annan's resignation? I know I won't vote for him in November.... oh wait... You and I don't have a voice in the U.N. Or at least not a direct one. That is why we shouldn't bow to the U.N. and think they are so much better than we are. If you hate Bush, you can vote against him next November. If you hate Kofi Annan, you can do nothing about it.

(And I have completely lost my faith in the UN. They only appear to be an ineffectual bureaucracy, which is also corrupt...)


amazing how the media (and, the public) seem to have forgotten about the oil for food corruption after a day or two, but anything done wrong by the military is all over the news for weeks on end. if, gasp, bush were to have lead that corruption, we would still being seeing stories about it on page one, but, he didn't, and we don't.

i agree with you, i think the UN is an "ineffectual bureaucracy". this is seen in the aforementioned corruption and the failure to follow through with multiple threats to iraq.

[Thanatoast]

the reason the un didn't follow up their threats is because it was unnecessary. the weapons inspection program was working. you can't call the un ineffectual for not starting an unnecessary war and then bungling the aftermath. you can, however, call the us ineffectual.

and if you think the us has no influence over the office of secretary general, you are sadly mistaken. kofi annan was insisted upon for the office by us, back in the 90's.

[Neserk]

i called him 11 for his all caps post.

A) I'm not a him. B) All Caps indicates yelling. C) I was being sarcastic to make a point.

[zimv20]

A) I'm not a him. B) All Caps indicates yelling. C) I was being sarcastic to make a point.
now i'm imagining you yelling "A", "B", and "C" but speaking the other stuff. quite funny.

[Frohickey]

and if you think the us has no influence over the office of secretary general, you are sadly mistaken. kofi annan was insisted upon for the office by us, back in the 90's.

How come UN secretary generals never come from 1st world nations, and only from 3rd world nations?

I think that the UN can contribute a lot to Iraqi society. They can fuel the sex-for-money industry, same as the UN did in Kosovo. :eek:

[Stelliform]

.....

[Voltron]

How come UN secretary generals never come from 1st world nations, and only from 3rd world nations?

I think that the UN can contribute a lot to Iraqi society. They can fuel the sex-for-money industry, same as the UN did in Kosovo. :eek:
Whats wrong with sex for money? :(

[blackfox]

Whats wrong with sex for money? :(

I think that the UN can contribute a lot to Iraqi society. They can fuel the sex-for-money industry, same as the UN did in Kosovo.

Sometimes I get the best insights into peoples' character....

:D

[Sayhey]

How come UN secretary generals never come from 1st world nations, and only from 3rd world nations?

Right on with your usual accuracy. :confused:

Secretaries-General
Sir Gladwyn Jebb (United Kingdom, Europe), acting, 1945 to 1946.
Trygve Lie (Norway, Europe), February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.
Dag Hammarskj ld (Sweden, Europe), April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), September 1961.
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar, Asia), acting to November 1961, elected November 1962, served until December 1971.
Kurt Waldheim (Austria, Europe), January 1972 to the threat of Chinese veto of his third term in December 1981.
Javier P rez de Cu llar (Peru, South America), January 1982 to December 1991; did not run for a third term.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt, Africa), January 1992 to the American veto of his second term in December 1996.
Kofi Annan (Ghana, Africa), January 1997 to present.


Check your facts next time.

[Frohickey]

Right on with your usual accuracy. :confused:

Secretaries-General
Sir Gladwyn Jebb (United Kingdom, Europe), acting, 1945 to 1946.
Trygve Lie (Norway, Europe), February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.
Dag Hammarskj ld (Sweden, Europe), April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), September 1961.
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar, Asia), acting to November 1961, elected November 1962, served until December 1971.
Kurt Waldheim (Austria, Europe), January 1972 to the threat of Chinese veto of his third term in December 1981.
Javier P rez de Cu llar (Peru, South America), January 1982 to December 1991; did not run for a third term.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt, Africa), January 1992 to the American veto of his second term in December 1996.
Kofi Annan (Ghana, Africa), January 1997 to present.


Check your facts next time.

My facts are different than your facts...
UN Secretary General: The Office (http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/pages/sg_office.html)

Mr. Kofi A. Annan (Ghana) 1997
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt) 1992
Javier PÈrez de CuÈllar (Peru) 1982
Kurt Waldheim (Austria) 1972
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar) 1961
Dag Hammarskjˆld (Sweden) 1953
Trygve Lie (Norway) 1946

Lets see. I don't see a US citizen acting as UN Secy General, even though we pay 24.5%!!! of the UN budget (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/reg-budget/large04.htm). :eek:
I don't see a Japanese (18.9%), or German (8.4%), or English (5.9%) or French (5.9%) or Italian (4.7%) or Canadian (2.7%) or Spaniard (2.4%) or Chinese (2%) or Mexican (1.8%) or Korean (1.8%) in that list either.

[mactastic]

You gotta give a little if you want absolute veto power, not to mention a permanant seat on the SC, don't you think?

[amnesiac1984]

My facts are different than your facts...
UN Secretary General: The Office (http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/pages/sg_office.html)

Mr. Kofi A. Annan (Ghana) 1997
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt) 1992
Javier PÈrez de CuÈllar (Peru) 1982
Kurt Waldheim (Austria) 1972
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar) 1961
Dag Hammarskjˆld (Sweden) 1953
Trygve Lie (Norway) 1946

Lets see. I don't see a US citizen acting as UN Secy General, even though we pay 24.5%!!! of the UN budget (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/reg-budget/large04.htm). :eek:
I don't see a Japanese (18.9%), or German (8.4%), or English (5.9%) or French (5.9%) or Italian (4.7%) or Canadian (2.7%) or Spaniard (2.4%) or Chinese (2%) or Mexican (1.8%) or Korean (1.8%) in that list either.

I don't see why how much one pays towards the UN's budget should effect its leadership.

Nor do I see why it should matter what country the secretary general is from.

And lumping them all together as "third world" seems like you are implying something.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't see why how much one pays towards the UN's budget should effect its leadership.

Nor do I see why it should matter what country the secretary general is from.

And lumping them all together as "third world" seems like you are implying something.

He's implying that the UN should be on a "pay for play" basis, just like the US Congress. Because, you know, that system works so well.

Oh, and he's also trying to change the subject because he was caught misrepresenting a fact.

[Sayhey]

My facts are different than your facts...
UN Secretary General: The Office (http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/pages/sg_office.html)

Mr. Kofi A. Annan (Ghana) 1997
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt) 1992
Javier PÈrez de CuÈllar (Peru) 1982
Kurt Waldheim (Austria) 1972
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar) 1961
Dag Hammarskjˆld (Sweden) 1953
Trygve Lie (Norway) 1946

Lets see. I don't see a US citizen acting as UN Secy General, even though we pay 24.5%!!! of the UN budget (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/reg-budget/large04.htm). :eek:
I don't see a Japanese (18.9%), or German (8.4%), or English (5.9%) or French (5.9%) or Italian (4.7%) or Canadian (2.7%) or Spaniard (2.4%) or Chinese (2%) or Mexican (1.8%) or Korean (1.8%) in that list either.

They look pretty similar to me. You leave out Jebb, but other than that your list is the same. The point being the UK, Norway, Sweden, & Austria hardly qualify as "third world." As you have shown, you can look up a few facts if you want. Try it again next time before making categorical statements.

Oh, and before you get all huffy about the US share of the UN budget, perhaps you should look to see when the last time the US was current in its dues.

[takao]

The point being the UK, Norway, Sweden, & Austria hardly qualify as "third world."

hm one of my schoolfriends got _seriously_ asked during his US visit if we "have TV and refrigerators too" and if "he ever saw the emperor of europe" and other weird questions...
that just came back to my memory...when he told that we nearly broke apart because of laughing

[zimv20]

hm one of my schoolfriends got _seriously_ asked during his US visit if we "have TV and refrigerators too" and if "he ever saw the emperor of europe" and other weird questions...

i run into a lot of people who think arnold schwarzenegger is from australia

[Chappers]

1st. You have to have a larger force. IE impose a draft, and get enough men there to do the job. Controlling the influx of anti-US forces is key. Seal the border with Syria and Iran, and make it know that anyone caught coming accross the border will be met with extreme predjudice.

You stop the militia fighters by killing them for forcing them to surrender. Period. It is tough, but it is neccessary.

Protect the innocents by eliminating the militia's. They are the ones that are fighting behind children and women.

You have to get control, and you have to get control in the hands of Iraqi's.

Didn't you try that somewhere else?

The trouble is that it's been ******** up big time. Running around like the school yard bullies (yes us stupid Brits too - siding with the bully) that its going to take some serious work to sort out. Getting Bush out would be a good start. I've seen so much stuff about what a bad man Saddam was (and we know its true) but we still love China?!

[idkew]

Didn't you try that somewhere else?

The trouble is that it's been ******** up big time. Running around like the school yard bullies (yes us stupid Brits too - siding with the bully) that its going to take some serious work to sort out. Getting Bush out would be a good start. I've seen so much stuff about what a bad man Saddam was (and we know its true) but we still love China?!

china is one of our biggest trading partners...

hypocritical huh?

[skunk]

china isn't one of our biggest trading partners...

?

[idkew]

?
?

[skunk]

?
Didn't you mean "China IS one of our biggest trading partners"?

[idkew]

Didn't you mean "China IS one of our biggest trading partners"?


oh, my bad ;)


i guess i can't typr/read/think today.

[skunk]

i guess i can't typr/read/think today.
Evidently! :D

[sethypoo]

Neserk, from now on, please assume I have read the preceding comments. I know what you've been saying on this particular thread.

Bush doesn't fit the definition of a scapegoat. He *is* the one to blame. And if you read responses you will see why getting rid of him in November and bringing him to trial will help fix the problem in Iraq.

Not necessarily. Just because Bush is voted out does not mean our problems will just magically *fix* themselves. Just for starters, Kerry or whoever beats Bush may screw things up royally themselves.

I really don't think getting rid of Bush will significantly change things in Iraq. What we need to do is focus on fixing things REGARDLESS of who is in office.

[Neserk]

Neserk, from now on, please assume I have read the preceding comments. I know what you've been saying on this particular thread.


Okay.



Not necessarily. Just because Bush is voted out does not mean our problems will just magically *fix* themselves. Just for starters, Kerry or whoever beats Bush may screw things up royally themselves.

I really don't think getting rid of Bush will significantly change things in Iraq. What we need to do is focus on fixing things REGARDLESS of who is in office.

You are correct on your first point. But getting rid of him is a good start as several of us have stated already. The international community is likely to be more willing to work with us when they see that we are willing to get rid of him.

The problem with the second part is that things won't get fixed as long as Bush is in office. Somone, somewhere pointed out that if Bush was this awful of a president when he knew he could get elected for a second term, imagine how awful he will be when there is no chance for another term. :eek:

[billwest9999]

Okay.




You are correct on your first point. But getting rid of him is a good start as several of us have stated already. The international community is likely to be more willing to work with us when they see that we are willing to get rid of him.

The problem with the second part is that things won't get fixed as long as Bush is in office. Somone, somewhere pointed out that if Bush was this awful of a president when he knew he could get elected for a second term, imagine how awful he will be when there is no chance for another term. :eek:

You think you are so smart? Maybe YOU should run for president.

[billwest9999]

Please save us with your smart ideas neserk! I can't wait to hear them all!

[zimv20]

Please save us with your smart ideas neserk! I can't wait to hear them all!
are you planning on adding anything constructive?

[skunk]

You think you are so smart? Maybe YOU should run for president.
I've suggested that already... :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I can't see any progress being made until the gang responsible for this fiasco are out of the way. And for God's sake get rid of Kimmit: he's a monster.

[amnesiac1984]

Please save us with your smart ideas neserk! I can't wait to hear them all!

I think smart ideas might be a good thing to save us actually. I think smart ideas are better than monkey's ideas. Especially when running a country. :p

[Neserk]

You think you are so smart? Maybe YOU should run for president.


Skunk alluded to this but you would be the second person to suggest such a think. Sadly, I don't turn 35 until after the elections so you'd have to wait another 4 years.

[Frohickey]

They look pretty similar to me. You leave out Jebb, but other than that your list is the same. The point being the UK, Norway, Sweden, & Austria hardly qualify as "third world." As you have shown, you can look up a few facts if you want. Try it again next time before making categorical statements.

Oh, and before you get all huffy about the US share of the UN budget, perhaps you should look to see when the last time the US was current in its dues.

Okay, I admit that I was wrong in saying EVERY SINGLE UN Secy Gen is from a 3rd world nation. But how long has it been since it has not?

[Sayhey]

Okay, I admit that I was wrong in saying EVERY SINGLE UN Secy Gen is from a 3rd world nation. But how long has it been since it has not?

Since December of 1981 when the Waldheim was replaced. Given Waldheim's Nazi past, I'm not sure why we should long for those days. If you have a problem with Kofi Annan then I'm not sure what his country of origin has to do a specific disagreement. It seems to me it is much more constructive to discuss what one thinks the UN Secretary-General should or should not do on a given issue than sweeping characterizations of all UN representatives based on "third world" or "first world."

[IJ Reilly]

Since December of 1981 when the Waldheim was replaced. Given Waldheim's Nazi past, I'm not sure why we should long for those days. If you have a problem with Kofi Annan then I'm not sure what his country of origin has to do a specific disagreement. It seems to me it is much more constructive to discuss what one thinks the UN Secretary-General should or should not do on a given issue than sweeping characterizations of all UN representatives based on "third world" or "first world."

These terms are antiques and hardly relevant anymore anyway. When the scheme was created in the '50s it described three spheres, the West (first world), the Communist nations (second) and the rest (third). To which sphere did all the "Second World" nations migrate when the Soviet Union collapsed? I don't think anybody really knows, or particularly cares. These days, I believe we tend to speak of the poorer nations of South America, Africa and Asia as "developing nations," which, come to think of it, is where most of the world's population lives. I'm not sure why anyone would want to be dismissive of such a huge chunk of the planet.

[Sayhey]

These terms are antiques and hardly relevant anymore anyway. When the scheme was created in the '50s it described three spheres, the West (first world), the Communist nations (second) and the rest (third). To which sphere did all the "Second World" nations migrate when the Soviet Union collapsed? I don't think anybody really knows, or particularly cares. These days, I believe we tend to speak of the poorer nations of South America, Africa and Asia as "developing nations," which, come to think of it, is where most of the world's population lives. I'm not sure why anyone would want to be dismissive of such a huge chunk of the planet.

They are absolutely outdated terms. There is a huge question as to if they were ever relevant. The division of the world into the First World (the US and the Soviet Union), the Second World (their "satellite nations"), and the Third World (the rest of the world's nations) comes from Maoism. It was in response to the Sino-Soviet split and the need for the Chinese leadership to describe the world in a new way to reflect their antagonisms with both the US and the USSR. The only real validity that it every had was the adoption of the term "Third World" by many of the intelligentsia of the non-aligned nations of the world. This was not necessarily because of any agreement with a Maoist analysis, but a result of many nations feeling they were being caught up in the global contest between the US and the USSR without any real interest being shown to their own national concerns. Developing nations, although it too has its problems, is much more accurate in describing the nations in question.

The idea that the majority of nations of the world should be rejected as sources of leadership for international institutions is of course dismissive of those countries, patronizing, and absurd.

[IJ Reilly]

The idea that the majority of nations of the world should be rejected as sources of leadership for international institutions is of course dismissive of those countries, patronizing, and absurd.

Not to mention, nationalistic and chauvinistic.

[Frohickey]

People, all people, tend to want to have a say in the choice of their leaders. Remember during playtime, you always wanted to choose who will be team captain. Same thing in leadership.

I don't remember having a choice of which UN Secy General to choose from. If it can be called nationalistic, its probably because I think my nation is a great one, capable to churning out great leaders. The likelihood of a leader acting in my best interest is if that leader came from my own nation/country.

Nationalistic is only a bad trait if you consider yourself not part of a particular nation, or hold that nation, and everything it stands for in contempt, and that nothing good can come from that nation. This is not a belief that I subscribe to.

[IJ Reilly]

Nationalistic is only a bad trait if you consider yourself not part of a particular nation, or hold that nation, and everything it stands for in contempt, and that nothing good can come from that nation. This is not a belief that I subscribe to.

What a completely puzzling statement. When you don't like the language we've got, you just go right out and invent a new one.

BTW, I don't remember voting for the President of the United States. So what does that tell you about the selection of leadership in the US?

[skunk]

I don't remember having a choice of which UN Secy General to choose from.
Quite right, you did not. Your representatives did, though.

If it can be called nationalistic, its probably because I think my nation is a great one, capable to churning out great leaders.
Capable of churning them out, maybe. Capable of electing them to leadership positions, apparently not.

The likelihood of a leader acting in my best interest is if that leader came from my own nation/country.
Recent history should tell you otherwise.

Nationalistic is only a bad trait if you consider yourself not part of a particular nation, or hold that nation, and everything it stands for in contempt, and that nothing good can come from that nation. This is not a belief that I subscribe to.
I don't know what you are talking about, nor, I suspect, do you.

[Frohickey]

What a completely puzzling statement. When you don't like the language we've got, you just go right out and invent a new one.

BTW, I don't remember voting for the President of the United States. So what does that tell you about the selection of leadership in the US?

What is puzzling about that statement?

Lets see. I voted for the President of the United States, then depending on how the rest of the state voted, the electoral college votes goes to that candidate.

I voted for my Congressional representation as well, then depending on how the rest of my district voted, that Congressperson is the one elected.

[skunk]

What is puzzling about that statement?
Your statement about nationalism makes absolutely no sense.

[Frohickey]

Your statement about nationalism makes absolutely no sense.

some have used nationalism as an insult. I'm explaining why I don't think nationalism is an insult.

[blackfox]

Nationalistic is only a bad trait if you consider yourself not part of a particular nation, or hold that nation, and everything it stands for in contempt, and that nothing good can come from that nation. This is not a belief that I subscribe to.
I believe this is incorrect...for example, virulent Nationalism in 30's Germany and Italy (ie Fascism) certainly had its' people STRONGLY consider themselves part of their Nation, indeed they took strength from that very identification...and held OTHER nations, or minorities of other nationalities w/in their societies in contempt and believed that much good could come from their nation, since it was superior to others...there are many other examples of this "bad" trend...

[takao]

some have used nationalism as an insult. I'm explaining why I don't think nationalism is an insult.

for me it is ... nationalism is a far too dangerous ideology .period.

it set the world aflame like no other ideology before or afterwards

[Frohickey]

I believe this is incorrect...for example, virulent Nationalism in 30's Germany and Italy (ie Fascism) certainly had its' people STRONGLY consider themselves part of their Nation, indeed they took strength from that very identification...and held OTHER nations, or minorities of other nationalities w/in their societies in contempt and believed that much good could come from their nation, since it was superior to others...there are many other examples of this "bad" trend...

Its only bad if its combined with rampant interventionism. If 1930's Germany or Italy never invaded any country, and instead channeled their energy into making the next generation Volkswagen and BMW, that era would not be held in contempt.

I'm a nationalist, in the same way George Washington was a nationalist...meaning a non-interventionist. I like my country. I love my country.

A lot of good can come from my country, my nation. But I'm not about to give it away to you, or force you to have it. You gotta pay for it. :p

[mactastic]

Its only bad if its combined with rampant interventionism. If 1930's Germany or Italy never invaded any country, and instead channeled their energy into making the next generation Volkswagen and BMW, that era would not be held in contempt.

I'm a nationalist, in the same way George Washington was a nationalist...meaning a non-interventionist. I like my country. I love my country.

A lot of good can come from my country, my nation. But I'm not about to give it away to you, or force you to have it. You gotta pay for it. :p

We're forcing it on Iraqis right now. Unprovoked war sounds like rampant interventionism to me.

And it's not your nation. :mad:

[skunk]

Its only bad if its combined with rampant interventionism.
So rampant fascism doesn't bother you?

If 1930's Germany or Italy never invaded any country, and instead channeled their energy into making the next generation Volkswagen and BMW, that era would not be held in contempt.
So the extermination of Jews doesn't bother you?

I'm a nationalist, in the same way George Washington was a nationalist...meaning a non-interventionist. I like my country. I love my country.
Right or wrong, right?

A lot of good can come from my country, my nation. But I'm not about to give it away to you, or force you to have it. You gotta pay for it. :p
Your country, your nation, is borrowing money from everybody else to finance a disorganised foreign adventure. What the hell are you talking about? We're already paying for it.

[idkew]

Your country, your nation, is borrowing money from everybody else to finance a disorganised foreign adventure. What the hell are you talking about? We're already paying for it.

And we never gave money to other countries during any past war.