The Dark Horse of the UN Security Council

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Back in London...

Poor thing - raining today is it?

Get a suntan and maybe we can talk about your role in the Security Council...

Celts can't tan.

[DinoDoc]

Damn it! I thought that I was the dark horse of the UN Security Council not Guinea or Horse!

Seriously though these Iraq threads are starting to get more common that the 9/11 threads and the "It's all about oil!" crap is starting to get tiresome especially in light of its constant rebuttal.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Poor thing - raining today is it?

S'OK, it's nice to come home after a year away - today was quite nice, 5 celsius...

Celts can't tan.

Oh I dunno, I didn't do too bad - you could always try boot polish.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Damn it! I thought that I was the dark horse of the UN Security Council not Guinea or Horse!

Seriously though these Iraq threads are starting to get more common that the 9/11 threads and the "It's all about oil!" crap is starting to get tiresome especially in light of its constant rebuttal.

I never said it was about oil, maybe Bush and the MP for Texa North are planning ahead for when the Saudis get toppled by Wahhabi extremists in a coup and need a base of operations from which to crush the revolution - somewhere like Iraq...

I'm more interested in US double standards where they want to topple a bad guy even though they're still supporting others around the World, and have been since anyone can remember...

[Velociryx]

I hear you, and I'm all for lining them up and knockin' 'em all down....but one at a time. One at a time.

The US should never have gotten in the business of supporting d*ck-taters at all....that we did is shameful, and I'd love nothing better than to see us start with every two-bit dictator we ever propped up, and (through the UN) using them as bowling pins. Further, when we're done, we ought to see that a truly Democratic government be put in place, and commit US-led, UN forces to ensuring that it happens.

And, since we've already got our toys arranged in the general vicinity of Iraq, starting with him seems like a goodish plan, but sure! I'm all for putting this lil' spud on the skewer next, assuming he lives for a few months.

What *I* find interesting though, is the unusual stance that certain of our "allies" in Europe seem to have (*ahem* France....*Cough* Germany) when it comes to lambasting the USA for taking a stand, railing and b*tching about how wrong we are, and yet, utterly failing to do anything to put forth a viable alternative.....which of course, implies that the proposed alternative is more of the same, or essentially....nothing.

Given the supreme effectiveness of "nothing" over the past ten years, one would think that at some point, the conclusion might be reached that it wasn't working so well, and so another approach might be needed.

Of course, nothing in the way of a viable alternative has been forthcoming from our "allies," who seem to think that simply complaining about the current course of action should constitute a sufficient level of input and support. Well....that and crowing and complaining loudly enough so that they get a few handouts (bribes) from Washington to line their pockets, in exchange for favorable votes on the UN Security council. Yep...that's coalition building for you.

For the record, I have very little respect for our current administration, or their handling of events of late (Dubya is, admittedly, a walking gift to European cartoonists), but is it any wonder that they scoff at the complaints of the vast bulk of our allies, when all they do is ceaselessly whine about what's wrong with the current plan, without stepping up to the plate to put their well-considered alternatives under the microscope? Without making even the slightest effort to step onto the world stage and show us how to do it right?

-=Vel=-

[Gatekeeper]

We can't do that, Vel. We'd get screamed at for interfering with other nations. After all, Saddam is our man, right, and here the planet's enlightened folks are howling at us for going in after him. Trust me, the screaming would just repeat if we actually went after any of the other Cold War relics that we backed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Gatekeeper

[Velociryx]

*sigh* I know it, GateKeeper....I know it.

And as I said in the related thread (the "EuroTwit" one)....rather than screaming, wouldn't it be refreshing if they'd just ante up and play the game, rather than exercising those lung muscles.

-=Vel=-

[Gatekeeper]

Vel:

Heh. I avoided the "EuroTwit" thread precisely because I figured there'd be a lot lung muscle action going on in there.

But, y'see Vel, you gotta have a military if you wanna rumble. And right now, a good chunk of Europe does *not* have the capability to go around the world in that fashion. They've got part of the superpower pie — decent economies and rep governments — but they don't have the piece of the pie that really counts when, in this dirty world of ours, you have to back up your high-minded morals and ideals: a big stick, either to really use it or threaten to use it, but don't (but everyone else *knows* you have that big stick).

So, aside from France's ongoing trip down memory lane in Ivory Coast, they have to settle for strong lungs.

Gatekeeper

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I hear you, and I'm all for lining them up and knockin' 'em all down....but one at a time. One at a time.

Be sure to put Myanmar at the top of the list. That country's been ripe for Democracy for quite awhile now, if the US was willing to lend a hand. I'm not sure if you guys actually had anything to do with them, but they deserve to be toppled nonetheless.

Nasty, nasty people!

[Dinner]

Mobius: When will you guys get it through your skulls? The U.S. gives money to EVERYBODY. Yes, even dictators. The funny thing about lefties is if they're not condemming the U.S. for greedally refusing to give money to the worlds poor then they are condemming the U.S. for giving development aid to countries like Guinea.

Here's a news flash for anyone who's interested. The majority of the world's poorest countries are run by dictators, ergo, if you give development money to the world's poorest countries you are helping to prop up a dictatorship.

[The Mad Monk]

We all know the Al-Qaeda links with Iraq are non-existent

Hey MOBIUS!

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76237

Come over and play.

[Kaak]

MOBIOUS, you are a moron. The US is not a hegemon. We are not the "world's police force." Those who are a serious threat to our way of life, like saddam and north korea, will be dealt with. no offense, but gunea, believe it or not, poses zero threat to anyone but itself.

If we started ousting all the bad guys, the goverments of the world would throw a fit.

Here we are trying to oust one bad guy, who obviously is making a mockery of the UN, and half the world throws a fit.

[Skanky Burns]

I don't see how supplying dictatorships with weapons helps the poor in that particular country any.

[Kaak]

the point is that it is not our job to help every poor person in the world

[KrazyHorse]

No, it's apparently your job to make their oppressors' lives easier (so long as they keep their noses clean wrt US interests).