Bush to UN: We are Nice Marauders

[gr8fuldaniel]

Resident Bush has a story to tell the UN on Tuesday

Bush Signals Softer Approach to U.N. Saturday, September 18, 2004 ABC News KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine - President Bush opens a new effort next week to focus attention on the compassionate side of his foreign policy, promising a vision for "building a better world." In his weekly radio address Saturday, Bush previewed the speech he's to deliver to the U.N. General Assembly in New York. Tuesday's speech will strike a different tone from his address to the world body last year, which emphasized anti-terrorism and postwar Iraq. "This week, I will speak in New York to the United Nations General Assembly, and I will talk about the great possibilities of our time to improve health, expand prosperity and extend freedom in our world," Bush said in the broadcast, aired as he spent the weekend at his family's seaside home. He said he will not back down in confronting terrorists, but he blended that message with talk of humanitarian causes. "Our country is determined to spread hope and economic progress and freedom as the alternatives to hatreds, resentments and terrorist violence," the president said. "In hopeful societies, men and women are far less likely to embrace murderous ideologies."

So, is he saying we are hopeless? He is expecting us to "embrace murderous ideologies"
Seems to me Bush is backpedalling from the war on terrorism and actually creating an environment for terror in Iraq. So, now this bloody business is "humanitarian"?

TruthOut Article The Resort to Force     By Noam Chomsky     TomDispatch     As Colin Powell explained the National Security Strategy (NSS) of September 2002 to a hostile audience at the World Economic Forum, Washington has a "sovereign right to use force to defend ourselves" from nations that possess WMD and cooperate with terrorists, the official pretexts for invading Iraq. The collapse of the pretexts is well known, but there has been insufficient attention to its most important consequence: the NSS was effectively revised to lower the bars to aggression. The need to establish ties to terror was quietly dropped. More significant, Bush and colleagues declared the right to resort to force even if a country does not have WMD or even programs to develop them. It is sufficient that it have the "intent and ability" to do so. Just about every country has the ability, and intent is in the eye of the beholder. The official doctrine, then, is that anyone is subject to overwhelming attack. Colin Powell carried the revision even a step further. The president was right to attack Iraq because Saddam not only had "intent and capability" but had "actually used such horrible weapons against his enemies in Iran and against his own people" - with continuing support from Powell and his associates, he failed to add, following the usual convention. Condoleezza Rice gave a similar version. With such reasoning as this, who is exempt from attack? Small wonder that, as one Reuters report put it, "if Iraqis ever see Saddam Hussein in the dock, they want his former American allies shackled beside him."     In the desperate flailing to contrive justifications as one pretext after another collapsed, the obvious reason for the invasion was conspicuously evaded by the administration and commentators: to establish the first secure military bases in a client state right at the heart of the world's major energy resources, understood since World War II to be a "stupendous source of strategic power" and expected to become even more important in the future. There should have been little surprise at revelations that the administration intended to attack Iraq before 9-11, and downgraded the "war on terror" in favor of this objective. In internal discussion, evasion is unnecessary. Long before they took office, the private club of reactionary statists had recognized that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." With all the vacillations of policy since the current incumbents first took office in 1981, one guiding principle remains stable: the Iraqi people must not rule Iraq. More...

I am currently reading Chomskys latest book: "Hegemony or Survival". We need to be honest about this. Are we conquering marauders or can we really (with a straight face) claim self-defense?

(Edit only to change topic title)

Topic title edited by Moderator.

[gr8fuldaniel]

BBC Article [SIZE=2]Iraq war illegal, says Annan[/SIZE] The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time". Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January. The UN chief said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq. "Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said. 'Valid' "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added. He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections. And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added. When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Opinion:
I am glad the UN has proclaimed to the world the "criminal" nature of these persons who administrate our nation. I believe we may need them to help protect us from our leaders some day.

Ad hominems and unsubstantiated claims removed by Moderator.

Sub-topic: Is Kofi Annan right? Was the War on Iraq illegal? Who is in charge of the United States of America...the UN or the people of the US?

Subdiscussion added by Moderator.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Kofi is a real good source for legal vs illageal I would suppose. I mean he's at the heart of the Food for oil scandel, and that cost his family, and many opponents of the war billions when we removed Saddam. So on those grounds alone, I would take his word on how good or bad the war was, I mean just cause he and his friends were out all that money from Saddam doesn't stop them from being objective does it?

[Scribbler1]

And of course a lot of people will say "who the hell cares what the UN thinks", as they want us OUT of the UN to begin with.

I believe the biggest problem our involvement in Iraq has caused is the potential for war with countries we will find it extremely difficult to justify and label as our enemies. When Russia announced they had the same intentions toward their terrorists as we do, in that they said they would hunt down terrorists anywhere in the world, I wondered what would happen when Russia's interests conflicted with OURS.
On the one hand, I believe Bush was right in going to Afghanistan, and pretty much the rest of the world did too. But Iraq did NOT attack us, yet we went after them. Using that logic, although unlikely, we could attack FRANCE under the exact same standards as with Iraq. France's population is about 8-10% Muslim and a case could easily be made that a lot of these people are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. I think the world sees that too, as we are still the big dog in the neighborhood.

I'm no Nostradamus, but I see a terrible possibility of entering into a war which we will probably not win and will be impossible to get out of. How long can we invade little jerkwater countries like Iraq and then tiptoe around countries like S. Korea (who'se leader DID REPEATEDLY threaten us directly) without either looking like big bullshit artists with zero international credibility or being forced into an unwinnable war with a small country and its BIG ally!

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Kofi is a real good source for legal vs illageal I would suppose.  I mean he's at the heart of the Food for oil scandel, and that cost his family, and many opponents of the war billions when we removed Saddam.  So on those grounds alone, I would take his word on how good or bad the war was, I mean just cause he and his friends were out all that money from Saddam doesn't stop them from being objective does it?

Mr. V, you know as well as I that if the message is true it is irrelevant as to who the messenger is. The whole world backed us up in Afghanistan, even the French, and I'm sure THEY felt they could sleep a little better because of it. But they offered no support or consent regarding Iraq. They said no and we did it anyway. If Iraq HAD been shown to have been a real and direct threat to us, I'm sure the feeling would have been different but it didn't and we still are in the wrong as far as the world in general sees it.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the UN said no, we went anyway, and that equals an illegal action as far as the UN goes.

Frankly, I'm amazed Bush or Powell bother going to the UN anymore for ANY reason. We have already told them flat out we will listen to them ONLY when it suits us, and otherwise what they say is meaningless to us. I wouldn't be surprised to see a boycott of any address Bush or Powell make to the UN.

[Sonart]

KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine - President Bush opens a new effort next week to focus attention on the compassionate side of his foreign policy, promising a vision for "building a better world."

Wait a second, I'm confused. Isn't this exactly what the Bush campaign was raking Kerry over the coals for a couple of weeks ago? You know, for saying we needed a 'nicer' foreign policy?

[gr8fuldaniel]

First of all,
I am angry that my thread has been butchered, I have been contacted by Kyran the moderator in a pm and responded to his PM and I am waiting for his response. He did address it here in open forum, in a brief manner. I will do the same. It seems like everyone should be aware of the reasons why your words can be changed to fit somebody elses mold. Let it be known I want to comply with Ettiquette
These address the 2 warnings he gave me.
1) If we cant show bias in our topic title then I see hundreds of targets for censorship.
2) If we have to wait until crooks are judged and condemned formally before we can call them crooks, then we are going to have some busy little moderators around here.
The way ad Homs are described in the definitions:

No Ad Hominems If I were to say, "you are a moron, therefore your views are wrong", that would be an ad hominem. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It doesn't help arguments, and it's not tolerated. Other forms of personal attacks should also be reported-just use the 'report' button within the suspected post.

It seems to refer to the way we treat our fellow debaters, rather than the subjects of debate.
3) On throwing in a sub-topic: Thanks, but, No Thanks. That is the bulk of the topic. The whole deal is about Bush getting caught like a little kid stealing a case of oil from his neighbors garage, killing the neighbors kids because they might attack him someday, and trying to backpedal out of it.
I dont want this thread to get hijacked on some tangent :) I just felt something had to be said in the open.
I am willing for Kyran to address the issue in another thread, if necessary. Or here as it relates to this topic. I am not ashamed. Maybe you can point me to a topic with these issues already addressed under an Ettiquette Topic
Just post a link to it here in this thread, I think we all need to know about it.... Before you take a hatchet to our stuff.

Of course Sean overrides all votes :)

Enough of that, Lets argue!

GW Bush appeared before the UN today.

He opened his mouth and somebody elses words came out, as usual. It would have been better, had he entered the room, sat down on his hands and listened to what the world community had to say to him.


Right now I wanted to bring this to the top for debate as the event has just now happened.

ABC News [SIZE=2]Bush Defends Iraq War in U.N. Speech[/SIZE] Bush Defends Decision to Overthrow Saddam Hussein in U.N. Speech, Urges World to Fight Terrorism The Associated Press UNITED NATIONS Sept. 21, 2004 — President Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq in a speech on Tuesday to the United Nations, urging the world community to turn its attention to the fighting the war on terrorism and humanitarian concerns. He told a subdued U.N. General Assembly session that the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein delivered the Iraqi people from "an outlawed dictator." Two years after he told the world body that Iraq was a "grave and gathering danger" and challenged delegates to live up to their responsibility, Bush did not dwell on his decision to invade without the consent of the U.N. Security Council. Instead, he urged the world community to "fight radicalism and terror with justice and dignity." Bush said that terrorists believe that "suicide and murder are justified ...And they act on their beliefs." And he cited recent terror acts, including the death of children in their Russian school house.

Do you feel like you are being conned again? Bush and Kerry are both trying to play the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. IMO, War is Terrorism and is like trying to put out a fire with kerosene.

Bush said that terrorists believe that "suicide and murder are justified ...

Isnt that what he is doing? Claiming justifiable homicide. In his unilateral, (with the exception of a few unwitting and and a few other profiteers and most allies joined under duress)

duress; 2 : compulsion by threat; specifically : unlawful constraint

Remember Bushs own cowboy-terrorist threat "If you are not wit us, you are agin us".

[Nono]

Yes, Kyran, tell us, did gr8fuldaniel personally denigrate any of the debaters on this board? If not, then I'm damned if I know what you mean by "ad hominem" in the Volvonvo context.

C'mon out and explain yerself.

[bishop]

bush simply had to talk to the u.n. because it's custom, not because he cared or wanted to.. hell, he'd rather be campaigning to crowds of born again christians. the world doesn't have to like bush, and they certainly don't have to (and don't want to) work with bush. i'm sure whatever he said fell on completely unenthusiastic and unimpressed ears.

that said, why are you surprised that mr. vic introduced a red herring? isn't that the SOP of the bushistas whenever a topic comes up that they can't debate their way out of?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Kofi is a real good source for legal vs illageal I would suppose.

Did you see the faces in that room? Kofi Annan is not a rebel voice in a sea of adoring Bush groupies.

From my Chomsky quote above:

In the desperate flailing to contrive justifications as one pretext after another collapsed, the obvious reason for the invasion was conspicuously evaded by the administration and commentators: to establish the first secure military bases in a client state right at the heart of the world's major energy resources, understood since World War II to be a "stupendous source of strategic power" and expected to become even more important in the future.

When one excuse for murder fails they just grab "Felix the Cats" magic bag for another. Imagine appearing before a judge with a defense as flimsy as our leaders for attacking other people. You are not allowed to change your plea from self defense (especially when you are an accomplice to crimes by your now-victim) to World class police, exacting justice on all sovereigns bowing to none and bent on singular rule over all. Sole ruler of the world doesnt win, for you and me, as a defense in civil court and it shouldnt carry water in the world court of opinion.
That dog dont hunt.

[Sean]

This moderation issue has been addressed privately..carry on. PM me if you want to change back the topic title.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Thanks for changing my Topic Title back, Sean. Pardon the one liner. :)

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, I see a terrible possibility of entering into a war which we will probably not win and will be impossible to get out of.

Are you old enough to remember one that we've won?

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Compugasm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Compugasm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler1, I see a terrible possibility of entering into a war which we will probably not win and will be impossible to get out of.

Are you old enough to remember one that we've won?[/b][/quote]

Sure! Errr, uh...hmmm.

Sure, I remember the decisive win we achieved in the Faulklands. No...Wait.

Seriously, I can only think of Desert Storm, and whether that was an actual win or not is debateable.

I personally don't think it was, but its been played like that since it happened.

[Sonart]

Seriously, I can only think of Desert Storm, and whether that was an actual win or not is debateable.

Sure it was, but then it was a war our military was designed to win. Set piece battle, driving an opposing military across clearly defined lines. That done, we handed Kuwait back to their existing government, tell them they're welcome, tip our hats and leave. No occupation of hostile territory, no insurgency, a universally grateful populace. Game, set, match.

Just like the Falklands

[bishop]

important distinction: we're VERY good at winning wars. we're VERY bad at winning peace.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Bush 2004 Address to UN [SIZE=3]Transcript of Bush's U.N. address[/SIZE] Tuesday, September 21, 2004 Posted: 12:45 PM EDT (1645 GMT) UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Following is a transcript of President Bush's address Tuesday to the U.N. General Assembly: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for the honor of addressing this General Assembly. The American people respect the idealism that gave life to this organization. And we respect the men and women of the U.N., who stand for peace and human rights in every part of the world. Welcome to New York City. And welcome to the United States of America......

This is my favorite part:

Originally posted by GW Bush+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (GW Bush)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace.[/b]

I dont make a habit of quoting scripture; however, I cant resist this one:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bible
JOB 15:6 Thy own mouth shall condemn thee, and not I: and thy own lips shall answer thee.[/quote]

[gr8fuldaniel]

I wish I could write like this: (Be sure and click on the link, I only posted 1/2 of the article)

[SIZE=2]Bush at the U.N.: Sugarcoating Failure [/SIZE] By Marjorie Cohn t r u t h o u t | Perspective Truthout Editorial Friday 24 September 2004 In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday, Bush spoke of spreading "freedom" and "human dignity" in Iraq and Afghanistan. He decried dictators who "believe that suicide and torture and murder are fully justified to serve any goal they declare." He accused the terrorists of seeking to destroy the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But he failed to say that the UDHR declares: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." And he forgot to mention the torture and murder of prisoners in U.S. custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Bush claimed "the people of Iraq have regained sovereignty." But he omitted any reference to the 150,000 U.S. troops on the ground there, who enjoy immunity from prosecution for any crimes they might commit. Bush maintained that the interim Iraqi government "has earned the support of every nation that believes in self-determination and desires peace." But he didn't say that the countries in the "coalition-of-the-willing" are becoming increasingly unwilling to support his failed Iraq policy, and no new countries are jumping on the occupation bandwagon. Bush painted a rosy picture of an Iraq moving inexorably toward democratic elections in January. He didn't acknowledge, however, the admonition of former President Jimmy Carter that free elections cannot occur when people are unable to safely walk down the street, or U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's warning that there can be no "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now." Bush didn't state that well over 1,000 Americans and as many as 30,000 Iraqis have died and continue to die in a war that his administration single-handedly fashioned from whole cloth. Bush's speech did not refer to the utter absence of any weapons-of-mass-destruction, his rasion d'être for invading a sovereign country. Bush overlooked the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared by the government's senior analysts that paints a pessimistic assessment of the prospects for a secure and stable Iraq. He said the CIA was "just guessing" when it predicted Iraq was in danger of civil war. And Bush didn't tell the General Assembly that Afghanistan is in chaos, with continuing violence, and the resurgence of the Taliban. He ignored the claims of several Afghan presidential candidates who seek to challenge U.S.-installed President Hamid Karzai in the upcoming "democratic" election there. They say that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, affectionately known as "the Viceroy" for the power he wields over the Afghan government, is pressuring them not to run against Karzai. Both Karzai and Khalilzad are former consultants to Unocal, the company with deep oil interests in the region. The New York Times characterized Bush's remarks to the General Assembly as "an inexplicably defiant campaign speech" that "glossed over the current dire situation in Iraq for an audience acutely aware of the true state of affairs, and scolded them for refusing to endorse the American invasion in the first place." The delegates from 191 nations at the U.N. were nonplussed by Bush's assessment of the tragedy he's created. In his comments preceding Bush's speech, Kofi Annan observed pointedly: "Those who seek to bestow legitimacy must themselves embody it, and those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it." For example, Annan cited "Iraqi prisoners disgracefully abused." Annan finally took the gloves off last week when he declared the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal because it violated the U.N. Charter. Last September, Annan had criticized Bush's new policy of preemptive self-defense, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Likewise, former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali last week blamed the Bush administration for the rising wave of terrorism, saying its unilateral approach has fuelled civil wars around the world. Boutros-Ghali advocated Bush remove his forces from Iraq and permit Arab countries to mediate a peaceful settlement in Iraq. More.....

[Scribbler1]

Bush apparently thinks he can sway the whole world as easily as he has swayed a large number of Americans into thinking everything is just fine simply because he says it is.

My concern is if he's gone past just political speechmaking and actually BELIEVES what he says, even while the news reports, a growing number of members of Congress, a HUGE number of Americans and his own people contradict him. If that's the case, he should be relieved of duty on medical grounds, much like the military he avoided would do under the circumstances of a leader mentally unfit for duty.

[Sonart]

My concern is if he's gone past just political speechmaking and actually BELIEVES what he says,

There's not a doubt in my mind he actually believes what he says.