What are your problems with the presidential candidates?

[Wolf]

No, I didn't hear of that, nor would I blame him. And neither can we for his doing that. There are two possibilities.

"Dammit! Nothing besides war was going to get this man out of power. He was hampering our efforts in the UN, in the war on terrorism, he was tortuing his own people, and no one else was going to remove him. The Saudis? No. The Iranians? They tried -- and lost a million lives in the process. Costing the Iraqis a million more! I have ruined my political career for this, I thought I was doing the best thing possible, I endangered my nation's reputation, and I put the lives of thousands of Americans in jeoprady, because this was the right thing to do. This was the only right thing to do, from the perspective of humanity. Less lives were lost in removing him than if we let him stay in power, and we should never let ourselves think that American lives are more valuable than any others! And look at what they accuse me of. Don't they know that everyone is watching me like a hawk? Don't they know that every eye in the world is turned to Iraq? I would have to be an idiot to try something like that!"

Or...

"Dammit, they're catching on. I knew I should have planted WMDs in Iraq -- you know, since that makes logical sense. If I lied about WMDs in Iraq, that therefore means I knew there were none there. Yet, I also knew that I needed WMDs to justify the war. So why didn't I plant them? I had the foresight to plan this entire campaign, based on that one piece of evidence, and I never even followed up on it? How could this happen?"

I sincerely doubt that President Bush believed anything other than that there were WMDs in Iraq. I think that the President truly believed that he was doing the right thing, however misguided you may think that is. He may very well be right in the long run -- that the lives lost to stabilize Iraq will counterbalance the lives lost under the regime of Saddam Hussin. Its also possible that with a hostile Iraq out of the picture, the Middle East peace process might continue. It's also possible that the exact opposite will happen. History is a story of inertia and the unforeseen. No one knows how this will turn out, not even President Bush. I believe history will remember the 43rd President as a man who took a chance -- a man who gambled -- and lost. He will lose his reputation if he loses the election, and he knows this. He has endangered the reputation of America. No President, if he sought perosnal gain, would risk such a thing, for he would be forced to rely on other lackies as untrustworthy as he would have been. To say that he "lied" about WMDs is a cruel, senseless, blind, and emotional slur. It ignores the simple logic. If he lied, then he knew there was nothing there. Since he lied, he knew there had to be something there to justify what he was doing because this was what he was lying about. Therefore, he would have planted the evidence he needed. He did not. That, more than anything else, is the singular and irrefutable proof that George W. Bush thought he knew he was doing the right thing and was ultimately wrong. That, my friends, is a tragedy.

[SurlyPIG]

He may very well be right in the long run -- that the lives lost to stabilize Iraq will counterbalance the lives lost under the regime of Saddam Hussin.

Its pretty sad so few people know this, though considering the nature of media coverage of Iraq I can't blame them, but they already have.

[Wolf]

I had forgotten about that, ACE, thank you. I find that ironic -- that the media coverage is actually so helpful to the antiwar cause -- when the antiwar cause claims, in fact, that the media is 100% propaganda and works against them.

However, if you tell any of them this, they will refuse to believe you. I believe, however, that those who disagree with the war will tell you that your facts are incorrect, when I do recall there being figures stated before. I guess when you're determined to think one thing, you can only think that thing.

[HasimirFenring]

Oh it wouldnt surprise me that those statistics are true.  They are beside the point; if we invade countries to have the maximum life-saiving yield, then why is Iran still a sovereign nation?  Why is North Korea still communist?  Why aren't our soldiers deployed in several African nations?  If saving lives was our prime objective (rather than WMDs, as we were told), then there are more and better targets than Iraq (though perhaps not "easier" ones).

[Wolf]

True, if that was our goal -- an easily justified goal that it is -- we would have to invade quite a few more countries. International policeman-style. I think then, our only excuse is that we have to start somewhere. Now, that's an interesting question I'd like to have answered. So you say, so many countries require invasion to be brought to stability and recognition of human rights. Yet, I think many of us here are opposed to the idea of an international policeman. Why, if so many countries in the world seem utterly incapable of taking care of themselves -- the Sudan, for instance.

[HasimirFenring]

First of all, if there is to be an international policeman, it should be the UN, not the US.  Secondly, I don't like the idea.  I'm just saying, if that is in fact the current administration's (revised) justification for the war, then they are obviously being inconsistent.

[Wolf]

Right, and even though the administration always trumpeted the need to preserve human rights, the WMD cause was trumpeted even louder. And I definately agree that it should be the UN doing this sort of thing, not the US. So... how do we reform the UN so that it's capable of doing its job?

[HasimirFenring]

We strengthen its credibility by complying with its wishes--oh wait, a little late for that.  Each nation needs to give up a little piece of its sovereignty (for example, allowing UN election inspectors in the country...) for the sake of international peace (send humanitarian or military aid as the UN specifies, condemn invasions without provocation, etc).  As to how to do this on a more specific level, beats me.  I can't even vote yet.

[Wolf]

Well, I can! (sticks tongue out)

In the past, we've seen UN member nations cooperate militarily to achieve a military goal; the First Gulf War, for example. The problem with the UN, I think, is that it relies too much on political cooperation to respond to disasters. In the Sudan, general inhumanity has been taking place for quite some time, and only recently, I believe, has the UN taken a tougher stance on the issue. Sending humanitarian aid sometimes isn't even an easy thing for the UN to do, because the 150 developing nations that demand aid point to the 40 industrialized nations to provide it. The industrialized nations demand that the 150 nations clean up their human rights acts and increase national stability before they send in hard-earned cash, the 150 sometimes do or don't, and the 40 sometimes do or don't.

To really make the UN function as a global policeman, which is sort of what it should have been -- read the UN charter, the UN has to be able to have the power to react to almost any global crisis with whatever force is necessary to resolve it. Naturally, the reason why the UN isn't the global policeman is the reason why the UN doesn't have this force -- everyone is afraid of abuse of power. The real problem here is that no one trusts anyone else -- just look at any of these countries, can you blame them? Trust me, America is far from the only one, and far from the only industrialized one that no one trusts and trusts no one. I'm not so sure the war in Iraq even damaged American credibility in the UN that much because no one really thought anyone else had any credibility in the first place! This [iraq] isn't even the first escapade of this type. I recall Britain and France doing something quite similiar to this in one of the many Israeli conflicts about 30 years ago.

The result, then, if the world distrusts itself so much as to prevent a consensus-based group for acting in the best interest of humanity, what do we do? Can we afford to fall back on the next best thing and say that, "since our mutual distrust has made consensus impossible, the nation or entity or force best capable of acting in the best interest of humanity should do so?" No, we wouldn't, and we never will. As I said, consensus, even consensus for the resolution that there can be no consensus, is impossible. Therefore, we get what we have. The single force most capable of acting in the best interest of humanity is doing whatever it wants to, anyway. The only problem is that, without international consensus, no one is sure what the best interest of humanity really is...

[HasimirFenring]

How about this (not that anyone would agree, and I'm not sure I like it myself): each member nation would be required to commit some number of troops (based perhaps on population size, or maybe just a set number) and place them under UN control.  A vote of the security council can authorize some UN official (secretary general, maybe) to use them to resolve a conflict (this is rather like the president commanding the army but congress having to declare war).  This idea is probably unworkable, even if people could agree on something for a change.  An internationally controlled army does sound like a neat idea though.

[Wolf]

Well, that would certainly give the UN the force to handle almost any crisis, as we can assume that this military force is versatile to do pretty much anything. Fight armies, police actions, rescuse hostages, humanitarian aid distribution, all of that. It still doesn't solve the basic problem, though, which is that every country in the world simply doesn't trust any of the other countries. Mind, when I use the word "trust," I mean, "no country in the world is willing to entrust its safety to another." Everyone pretty much feels that they're on their own with regards to who will look after their own interests. Its this sort of mindset which makes the consensus-dependent UN ineffective. Its also why the single country actually capable of doing what the UN should do is doing its job without that consensus.

[HasimirFenring]

But that single country invites even more conflict and criticism and distrust than the UN ever could.  Wheather it's true or not, it would be easy to accuse that nation of fighting for its own economic interests rather than for the good of humanity. 

How would you feel if say, China was in that roll?  That probably isn't quite how people feel about the US, but it gives you some idea.

[Wolf]

No, I totally agree with that. But I don't think the extra criticism the US invites on itself by undertaking the UN's role is actually ever going to slow the US down, so to speak. The extra criticism, in my mind, is just the result from a world where people are unwilling to reach a consensus. Of course they would be even more critical of the US than they were of the UN; with the UN, they only thought everyone was in it for themselves. With the US, they know the US is in it for itself. (I'm not saying this is necessarily what the US is doing, the US has sacrificed a lot of credibility, resources, and lives in Iraq, but this is how the international mindset is probably set up.) It's easier to accuse an individual nation of being in it for itself, because there's no chance of your being able to input your own interest into its actions, therefore, its probably doing it for its own well-being, not the world's. Bear in mind, though, that we're really oversimplifying this. By creating a Coalition, the US sort of set up a mini-UN. Basically, "all countries willing to invade Iraq go here, all countries who aren't get to stay with the UN." About 40 countries or so came to a consensus to remove Saddam from power, and that's what they did. The same problem remains, however, that the world didn't come to a consensus. Then again, bearing in the mind that the world probably never will come to a consensus, what do we do?

[HasimirFenring]

A minor note: yes, 40 countries are in our little mini-UN Coalition of the Willing, with god on their side and all.  How many of those original 40 nations comitted over 100 troops?  US and UK of course, but who else?  (I'm really asking, I'd like to know) The Philippines had 51, I think...

The obvious solution: a strong, free, centralized, liberal world government ;D

[Wolf]

(sigh) Come on, be serious, now. We're discussing a serious issue, and I've been trying to bring up a lot of points here about how to go about fixing this problem.

Poland: 2,500 troops

Hungary: 354 troops

Ukraine: 1,650 troops

Those are the only ones I know right now. More research will bear thee more fruit.

[HasimirFenring]

Sorry, I get too cynical at times.

My point was, although thre are mnay nations in this coalition, only the US and the UK do much fighting, and up until the handover of power (and probably for that matter still) the US made all of the policy decisions.

[Wolf]

Why does it matter, we're talking about consensus, right? As long as these countries reached a consensus as to what would be done, however it's done really doesn't matter. Anyway, we're missing the point. The point was, it doesn't matter how many countries are in your consensus as long as its not the entire world -- you'll always attract criticsm. And the entire world will never reach a consensus, or will it?

[HasimirFenring]

If the entire world was in consensus, then there wouldn't be a conflict to resolve, would there?  It might agree (in a rare case) on how to handle a humanitarian crisis, but a military conflict...  Not likely.

[Wolf]

Right, so when we're talking about military conflicts, someone is invariably left out? "The bad guys," ostensibly? Does this mean that our consensus need not include the whole world, and if so, who does it include?

[HasimirFenring]

Now we get at the difficult question.  A majority of the population?  A government(s) representing that majority, even if not democratically elected?  The only consistent rule taht I can think of is only to invade a nation that has provoked that attack by its own military actions (such as Iraq in the first Gulf War, Germany in the world wars, Japan in World War II, etc). 

[The_Sadukar]

A minor note: yes, 40 countries are in our little mini-UN Coalition of the Willing, with god on their side and all.

[HasimirFenring]

500 compared to the nearly (this is pulled out of the backwaters of my memory, don't quote me) 150,000 troops the US has in Iraq.

[Wolf]

Well, assuming all countries are democratically elected, the consensus then requires the majority of the countries to come to a consensus. Since the governments are democratically elected, we must assume that they represent the peoples' mandate. If nations are not democratic, then, should they be excluded from an international mandate, or should  their positions not even matter? What do we do about totalitarian dictatorships?

[HasimirFenring]

Supposing that it is a popular dictatorship?  In spite of everything, Castro is quite popular with many Cubans.  Should they be denied a voice in the UN just becuase they don't VOTE to see who is most popular?  For the time being, it seems fairest that all nations should have an equal voice in the UN (except for a few nations that have permanent seats on the security council).

[nemafakei]

Per capita, that's about 30-50% of the US committment, off the topic of my head.