Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
sdedalus83:
--- Quote from: xfreidax on November 04, 2012, 07:18:54 AM ---If the invasion wasn't, then sanction of the following occupation is kinda irrelevant and after the fact. Not that UN resolutions mean much in the first place. But when he said UN sanctioned, the implications were the UN said "Go ahead invade Iraq". When in reality, the opposite happened. :P
--- End quote ---
Honestly, the UN as an entity said nothing. Individual members and Kofi Annan criticized the invasion but they never officially acted to prevent it.
What we think of as the Iraq war is everything that occurred after the invasion and the UN authorized it as a way of putting responsibility solely on the US and UK. Had Bush not been a cunt(i.e. a front for Cheney's attempt to privatize war) and appealed to the UN for cooperative oversight of Iraq, no one would remember that the invasion took place without explicit UN authorization. Hell, if a UN occupation had gone smoothly, people would have probably forgiven, if not forgotten, Colin Powell's little charade as an 'honest' mistake. Unfortunately that didn't happen, Bush's attempt to transform Iraq into a "bastion of freedom" failed miserably, and we spent an extra few trillion trying to preempt an Iraqi civil war rather than just waiting to clean up the mess.
xfreidax:
UN as an entity said and did nothing because both the UK and US have veto powers in the security council. Essentially there was no way to prevent the invasion through the UN. Sure dissenting countries could have brought it up for a vote in the council, but that would just lead to a veto.
If there was no invasion, there would've been no war and subsequent occupation. What I think of as a war is the actual fighting, not what happens afterwards when the government has already been defeated. As far as UN authorisation goes, the only one that matters is for that first act in the conflict, the actual invasion.
Otherwise I agree with most of your points.
Burkingam:
--- Quote from: 5Cats on November 04, 2012, 05:01:46 AM ---Afghan: Bush Prez, Nato run, No UN, Congress approved, Obama supports.
Iraq: Bush Prez, UN sanctioned, Congress approved, Obama opposes.
Libya: Obama Prez, Nato run, No UN, NO Congress (in violation of the CotUS) Obama = not his fault.
--- End quote ---
5Cats, perhaps you are too young to remember or perhaps your world view was filtered through foxnews or others rightwing medias but WTF are you talking about? The UN did exactly the opposite.
I'm now over 50% sure that 5Cats is just trolling.
--- Quote from: xfreidax on November 04, 2012, 09:06:43 AM ---UN as an entity said and did nothing because both the UK and US have veto powers in the security council. Essentially there was no way to prevent the invasion through the UN. Sure dissenting countries could have brought it up for a vote in the council, but that would just lead to a veto.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: sdedalus83 on November 04, 2012, 07:45:48 AM ---
--- Quote from: xfreidax on November 04, 2012, 07:18:54 AM ---If the invasion wasn't, then sanction of the following occupation is kinda irrelevant and after the fact. Not that UN resolutions mean much in the first place. But when he said UN sanctioned, the implications were the UN said "Go ahead invade Iraq". When in reality, the opposite happened. :P
--- End quote ---
Honestly, the UN as an entity said nothing. Individual members and Kofi Annan criticized the invasion but they never officially acted to prevent it.
--- End quote ---
Which I interpreted at the time as the closest you can get to saying the war was illegal.
Lillymon:
--- Quote from: zherok on November 04, 2012, 05:39:25 AM ---And here's why Romney is such a joke: cutting Obamacare at this point is reported to increase the deficit, not lower it, according to the CBO. It's pretty much a token gesture, kick the Democrat's program (modeled after his own program) aside, and then offer vague promises to do it one better. Ryan's plan doesn't even begin to par down the deficit for decades, and seems a lot like it's aimed at appeasing current seniors at the cost of the generation behind them. But that's not even it, you toss the revenue cuts and the increased military spending, and how is Romney supposed to be serious about the deficit here?
It's nothing new. Republicans turn into deficit hawks when a Democrat is in power, but it suddenly becomes unimportant when they have control. Romney can't even be bothered to wait till he's in office to tip his hand; instead opting to see if he can softsell a plan that doesn't even try to justify how it'd actually add up.
I'll take Obama's record over that. Romney would have to offer something that at least pretends it's got something more behind it than seeing income inequality rise.
--- End quote ---
It's interesting that I saw this not long after reading The Economist and seeing their endorsement of Barack Obama for a second term, with part of their reasoning going as follows:
--- Quote from: The Economist ---Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.
--- End quote ---
That is why I've become such an avid reader, you get the impression they're actually serious about balanced budgets. A rare thing.
--- Quote from: 5Cats on November 04, 2012, 05:01:46 AM ---Libya: Obama Prez, Nato run, No UN, NO Congress (in violation of the CotUS)
--- End quote ---
Yeah, just like the individual mandate was clearly unconstitutional. There's no way any court could... oh wait. Have you ever read The Boy Who Cried Wolf?
I've always thought how funny it would be if the United States did somehow end up with a brutal, Soviet-style socialist as President someday. The right-wing would call him a brutal socialist dictator 24/7 only to have everyone else go "Yeah, right, just like that nice centrist Obama you tried to destroy. Give it a rest" as the Fox News lineup all get marched off to gulags. Someone must have a comedy sketch like that already, the joke is just so obvious.
Ixarku:
Huh, according to this, I live in one of the most important counties (Volusia) in the country, at least as as far as predicting the election's outcome is concerned:
http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20121104/NEWS/311039968/-1/COLUMNS01?p=1&tc=pg
I still think Florida is going to go to Romney regardless. Taking a few guesses, I think the election is going to go something like 274 for Obama, 264 for Romney, with states like Florida, Arizona, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin going to Romney, and Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire going for Obama.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version