New International Organization

[udawg]

Everybody on this forum seems to agree that the UN is a useless, money-draining organization, but that something like it is necessary. I was writing an essay on Canada's military and armed forces in general, and got in a discussion with my father about a new international organization. The ideas we came up with follow.

1. The new internationl organization (NIO from now on) will comprise of every nation in the world. Whether a nation decides to participate and send delegates, etc, is up to them.

2. Every nation has equal rights. No veto powers to the major western superpowers.

3. The world's military forces fall under the jurisdiction of the NIO. (wait a minute to yell at me)

4. Military actions require 60 percent of the nations to agree, however, those who vote for it must be willing to contribute to the action.

To counter this, if a nation believes in the action, but does not wish to contribute, (a little hypocritical, but it happens nonetheless), the nation may declare an abstention, and the 60 percent will be taken from the remaining nations. (ie: 60% of 192, rather than 60% of 193 nations).

I chose 60%, because with 1/2 the nations, it becomes too easy to create an alliance FOR the vote, and with 2/3, too hard to get support.

Nations who decide not to participate will be considered an abstention in voting, but are welcome to participate whenever they decide to. This encourages participation, but does not punish anyone (the nation itself, or other nations in the NIO) for their non-participation.

Looking for a good discussion... what do you think of these ideas? What other powers should the NIO have? Any ideas about making the voting more equal in terms of population, or in terms of capability, etc?

One idea my father had was to tie in population to the 60% of nations: that is, for a vote to pass, 60% support among nations must exist, but also that those nations must have 60% of the world population as well. I think maybe 60/40: 60% nations, containing 40% population. More ideas?

[Neal.F.]

When a nation's military forces are subject ton the authority of a world body, such a nation ceases to be sovereign.

Whether you realize it or not, you have just advocated one-world-government, a concept the UNO since Dag Hammarskjold was killed (probably murdered), has been trying to sneak in through the back door.

I would approve of an international center where sovereign nations can meet or submit grievances to non-binding arbitration, but anything beyond that is playing with fire.

What do you suppose whould happen if, all nations had surrendered their authority over their armed forces to such an organization (assuming the originators were well intentioned) and then at a later date the organizatioon fell under the control of a ruthless dictator? Let's face it, ruthless dictators often come dressed in sheep's clothing.

Those who aspire to leadership, except in very rare cases, do so for the purpose of excercising power, and ruling, rather than serving.

Once a one-world governing dictatorship establishes itself, one of its first acts will be to disarm anyone who might threaten their position. At that point, what recourse would you have? There's be nobody else to come to the rescue.

Use that in your project.

[udawg]

I do realize that this idea could be seen as advocating a one-world-government.

However, there would never be one person in charge of the entire organization. It would have stewards, I suppose, but nobody who could make orders or actually command anything.

I guess I misstated myself earlier. The armed forces would still be under the direct control of their home nations, and any country that was attacked would have the right to defend its borders.

Their forces would only be used for the purposes of the NIO when they have expressly voted in favour of an action, and at all other times the nations are free to do with their armed forces as they wish.

The idea of the new organization is so that one country, commanded by a rogue leader or dictator, could not unilaterally do anything without repercussions. If they choose to invade another country, the victimized country could plead their case to the NIO, and the countries of the world will decide to support one side or the other. This would prevent any nation from doing something against the interests of the world at large. I believe this would be the first step to actual world peace.

[SirRiff]

i like the creative thinking...

without just blankly saying yes or no, let me just float an idea..

i believe that whatever flaws the current UN has is NOT a result of its fundamental design, but of the basic principles of human/cultural/national behavior.

thus i think like the prisoners dilemma, whatever the starting rules may be, the overwhelming cimcumstances (poverty, culterual divide, geo-politics) will force the outcome to resemble the current situtation again and again.

take for instance the 1 nation 1 vote rule. why would rich nations EVER agree to lesson their power? it just goes against the laws of human nation. a noble, yet unrealistic goal i think.

secondly, since some nations could free ride off the military actions of others (by abstaining) there is no incentive to put forth resources for the "greater good". the alternative is to require each nation to be able to reasonably contribute in some sense, however since most of the world is poor, this just punishes the poor nations for being poor, creating the resentment and alliances we see today.

i just see the same outcome regardless of the initial setup, but the outcomes of the current system reflect the realities of the world, not some fundamental defect of planning.

so in the end, any "new" UN could not end up operating any better then the current UN, and most likely identical results will follow.

but interesting thoughts anyway

[udawg]

I agree, SirRiff, the powerful nations would never agree to this new organization, human nature being what it is. But I still want to kick the idea around a little, see if we can reach some sort of consensus as to what an international body like this should be.

[Craig Read]

UDawg, i posted some info on the new international security alliance headed by the US - called PSI. It is a coalition of the willing and interested in security and military protection including prevention of laundering drugs, money and illegal goods/services to gain money to prosecute terrorism. The Cdn media has not uttered a whiff about it.

Canada just recently joined, though given that its military could be defeated by the Detroit Fire Dept in a pitched battle, i am not sure what effective usage the Cdns will make out of the group.

But at least it is a step in the right direction.

The Cdn media has not reported anything on the most important and RELEVANT multi-lateral initiative on security in quite sometime - called the PSI - the Proliferation Security Initiative. PSI is mandatory in a world of terror and WMD.

Canada just joined the PSI program btw. Though the media have reported 0 on this.

The PSI allies have agreed to interdict shipments of WMD, delivery systems and related materials at sea, in the air and on land. More than 50 nations have signed on to PSI's principles and may be called on should their help be needed.

The Proliferation Security Initiative's 11 original participants

Australia Italy Portugal

Britain Japan Spain

France Netherlands U.S.

Germany Poland

[Canada, Norway and some others have now agreed to join the original 11]

But to really annoy the socialists and libs there's no headquarters, no secretary-general, no talkfests -- and, perhaps most important of all, no French or Russian veto. "PSI is an activity, not an organization," a senior US official states It's an action-oriented group that "needs to be agile and move fast."

Case Example Libya:

The media dwell on helicopter crashes in Iraq and tell you that Afgh. and Iraq are disasters. Untrue - but easier to report on then say PSI and Libya.

QUOTE 

The Brits and the Yanks provided intelligence, learning in late September that a freighter bound for Libya was carrying thousands of parts for centrifuges, a key component in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. With the help of the German government and the German shipping company that owned the freighter, the U.S. got the ship diverted to a port in Italy, where it was boarded and the illicit cargo seized.

PSI is a worthy international operation and should receive more Cdn support - meaning de facto we need more military spend. As well the media should be reporting this not ignoring it.

[udawg]

Thanks for tellin me about this, Craig... haven't heard of it til now... time for a little research.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear udawg,

I have mentioned, in the past, the need for the UN to wield an effective and credible military force, through utilization of member's nation's armed forces. I don't believe anyone replied directly to this idea.

The problem I would forsee with a world body with equal voting rights is that countries that are, say for example, religion A, would seek to enable other countries that have large 'religion A' populations to take control of that country's gov't. Then, demographics and base warfare would undermine democracy on a global scale. Whom would declare a 'junta' legitimate?

[udawg]

Interesting point, and I don't know the answer. Do you have a suggestion?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Read,,

i posted some info on the new international security alliance headed by the US - called PSI. It is a coalition of the willing and interested in security and military protection including prevention of laundering drugs, money and illegal goods/services to gain money to prosecute terrorism. The Cdn media has not uttered a whiff about it.

I believe the CDN media has not run with the story because the 'whiff' causes one to wretch.

Arms interdiction, especially of the WMD sort, would be a good thing. I would expect that dictators that are 'moderate' (to the US) should have no worries, though. The 'coalition of the willing' that are displaying loyal 'interest' aren't going to interdict supplies from US manufacturers, are they?

Again, this sort of 'global policing' should be in the hands of a non-aligned group, such as the UN, or any other world body that could be somewhat recognized as 'benevolent'. It should not be controlled by a country that wishes for, and actively pursues, global domination.

[righturnonred]

Again, this sort of 'global policing' should be in the hands of a non-aligned group, such as the UN, or any other world body that could be somewhat recognized as 'benevolent'. It should not be controlled by a country that wishes for, and actively pursues, global domination.

The UN is considered benevolent according to who, two thirds of it's own membership which consists of rouge nations and dictatorships? absurd.

The US pursues global security, not global domination. equally absurd.

I understand that you oppose the policies of the Bush Adminitration but you need to operate within the realm of reality.

The 'coalition of the willing' that are displaying loyal 'interest' aren't going to interdict supplies from US manufacturers, are they?

We know for a fact that nations such as France, Russia, and Syria were supplying arms to Iraq up until the start of the war, for example. What evidence do you have that the US currently supplies dangerous regimes with weapons of any sort?

Judging from your rhetoric, not even Dean is radical enough for you.

[SirRiff]

We know for a fact that nations such as France, Russia, and Syria were supplying arms to Iraq up until the start of the war, for example. What evidence do you have that the US currently supplies dangerous regimes with weapons of any sort?

well thats a convienent timetable, if france and germany do it when its bad for the US, thats bad, but when the US has been doing it for 50 years, thats nothing of concern?

the ONLY reason 9/11 happened in teh first place is that Russia and the US played thier politics with the blood of a million afgans. then they both left. the land was left to be maimed and raped by 20 years of war, and soon it festered with violence that even reached accross the atlantic and ended with 9/11.

when you look at the USs involvement in latin america for the last 50 years, its dealings with iran, iraq, and afganistan, you see they are the WORST of all when it comes to supporting dictators and killing by proxy. the fact that they have yet to even admit thier past wrongs, education thier public about thier secret wars, and therefor show that they have collectively come to accept thier past immorality, means they still cannot be trusted to do the right thing, even if they rant and rave about "freedom".

[udawg]

the fact that they have yet to even admit thier past wrongs, education thier public about thier secret wars, and therefor show that they have collectively come to accept thier past immorality, means they still cannot be trusted to do the right thing, even if they rant and rave about "freedom".

Unlike Germany. Who have, over the last 50 years or so, have come to acknowledge the horrors their nation committed. Their children learn about the holocaust; their entire national psyche is painfully aware of it. Which is why Germany has made such progress. Once again regarded as a world leader (by most), by "accepting their past immorality", they have been able to move on.

[righturnonred]

SirRiff,

Do you think it's relavent at all to take into consideration the intent and reasons behind actions.

The US opposed communism singlehandedly for fifty years. Afghanistan is one example. Do you think the Soviet Union should have been permitted to conquer Afghanistan unopposed?

And what about France and Germany? Without American protection, they would have undoubtably become shinning members of the Warsaw Pact.

It's was called the COLD WAR Riff, and the entire world was at stake. The threat of communism was not manufactured by American politicians merely as an excuse to pursue world domination.

the land was left to be maimed and raped by 20 years of war, and soon it festered with violence that even reached accross the atlantic and ended with 9/11.

It was not our responsiblity to rebuild Afghanistan after the Soviets layed waste to it. Tell me, why do you think the US was committed to opposing Soviet expansion into that country? Was it for their rich resources of oil? The Afghans, to this day, should be greatful for the support we gave them. But ofcourse, as it's always been with Arabs, they sign allegiance to no one.

You are trying to attribute logic to Islamic fundamentalism, and the violence it creates, where none exists. America did not "deserve", nor did it ask for 9-11.

It is unfortunate that you have bought into this blame America crap without stopping to think about what American has done for you.

What do you think the world would be like today if there had never been an American counter balance to the evil forces of fascism and communism that posed an evepresent threat to freedom over the past fifty years?

Proxy wars were common place during the Cold War. The Soviets fought them to spread the disease of communism around the world. The US fought them to protect the world from the disease of communism.

The US supported dictators in order to protect Europe and the West. Today, France, Germany, and others support dictators for profit, or perhaps to oppose the United States.

It is ridiculas for you to place the US and the Soviet Union on parallel moral ground in their opposition to one another during the Cold War.

[udawg]

The US supported dictators in order to protect Europe and the West.

Well maybe the US should have stayed the hell out of foreign countries. Attack the Soviet Union, attack Soviet bases in foreign countries, but don't think that placing your own leader in power will make things better. American-supported dictators have caused more problems for the West than the Soviet Union and communism ever did.

Why go around wrecking third party countries in a stupid spat between your ideology and another's? The whole cold war was the most pathetic display of machoism I have ever seen. The entire first world, divided down the middle, whether they wanted to be a part of it or not. Whatever happened to the two sides meeting each other head on, firing volleys until someone retreated.

If the United States and Soviet Union want to have themselves a war, do it without involving the rest of the world.

[SirRiff]

Unlike Germany. Who have, over the last 50 years or so, have come to acknowledge the horrors their nation committed. Their children learn about the holocaust; their entire national psyche is painfully aware of it. Which is why Germany has made such progress. Once again regarded as a world leader (by most), by "accepting their past immorality", they have been able to move on.

excellant point udawg. look at germany and japan, who were taught to be recivilized by the very same US. japan now has apacifist constitution. germany has a very strong reaction to racism and religious intolerance. perfect examples of adapting and learning from national mistakes.

unlike the US, which after helping to destroy afganistan, and trading weapons with iran and iraq, STILL cant even collectively accept it. hell americans dont even know about it.

SirRiff,

Do you think it's relavent at all to take into consideration the intent and reasons behind actions.

yes, obviously it is. case in point- a bomb in japan. to stop that kind of insane aggression, the US was justified in punishing the entire japanese nation. unfortunate, but justified. the same would have been true with germany.

but this whole iraq thing is not even close to that. it was mass hysteria in an oil rich nation. everyone knows the US is completely dependant on an international stable oil market. without it american prosperity is halved overnight.

IF iraq was a potential threat to the US, then you must decide whether its an immediate threat, or a possible threat.

just like when police officers pull up to a crime. if someone is waiving a gun around, they can threaten deadly force. is someone is just ranting and raving, they cant shot him.

iraq was NEVER an immediate threat to the US, or anybody else in 2003. not even close. thus there is no reason to kill thousands of innocents and destabolize the world at that time. there was an internationally accepted method of sanctions and inspections and containment that had been going on for 12 years.

now you have to look at reasons why the US would lie and benefit from a quick invasion.

1) to sooth the fears of americans after 9/11, bush and his admin could gain alot of popularity as being strong

2) to use the war on terror sympathy of the world to try to include iraq, an unrelated yet hated former enemy-

3) to seize an opportunity to intimidate the region by projecting american power in the oil center of the world

4) to distract voters from economic domestic issues and to implement a conservative policy push under the guise of war

when you look at these reasons, and compare them to the numerous illegal secrat wars in latin ameirica, support for numberous dictators, weapons sales to afganistan, iran, and iraq, you see these kind of considerations are EXACTLY what all these previos immoral and violent action where based on. skewed US ambitions at the expense of innocents far away who are never heard or seen suffering.

its the same story, time, after time, after time, after time.

just look at teh declassified CIA documents from 1953, where they clearly spell out oil interests in the joint UK-US coup in iran. its the blueprint for 50 years of violent secret wars.

so when we talk about reasons and motives, any realistic viewof the sitution shows the stated reasons are just fancy talk, the real reasons have always been power, there are 50 years of examples since WWII.

the lack of WMDS shows that there was NO immediate threat from iraq. and the hype and rush to war fits right into the reasons i gave which would benefit the US to go in under false pretense.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear rightturnonred,

While the excuse of the 'cold war' tries to justify the actions of the US in the past, it cannot. The reason should be plain. The US supported (and supports) many brutal dictators throughout the world to ensure profits from the resources from those countries went to the US. (The right-wing claims that it was only to keep it out of the Red's hands)

However, the US did not once try to 'democratize' these countries. They helped keep people under these brutal dictatorships. The reason? If a country were to become 'democratic and free', there would be a chance that neither the US nor the USSR would have gotten the profits. The country might have had the audacity to use the resource profits for themselves. That was then, and still is now, anathema to the US' way of thinking.

Afghanistan is one example. Do you think the Soviet Union should have been permitted to conquer Afghanistan unopposed?

No one has been able to take Afghanistan. Not the Russians, not the British, and not the US. Mind you, the only ones 'friendly' to the tribal warlords in the countryside of Afghanistan who control the heroin trade have been the US. The tribal Muslims, such as the ilk of those that perpetrated 9/11, are still on good terms with the US. I guess they also are the ones that the CIA imports heroin from. What a funny coincidence.

[Rasputin]

What are you talking about ? Your post is entirely inaccurate you state;

No one has been able to take Afghanistan. Not the Russians, not the British, and not the US. Mind you, the only ones 'friendly' to the tribal warlords in the countryside of Afghanistan who control the heroin trade have been the US. The tribal Muslims, such as the ilk of those that perpetrated 9/11, are still on good terms with the US. I guess they also are the ones that the CIA imports heroin from. What a funny coincidence.

The British never wanted to conquer Afgh. they wanted a secure northwestern frontier for India. List your sources that they wanted to conquer Afgh. You also state the CIA imports heroin today from Afgh. List the sources to back this up.

Afgh. was conquered in 3 weeks [contrary to media reports beforehand] and is being slowly rebuilt. You seem to forget that it took Germany 7 years after WW2 to experience ANY economic and construction civil infrastructure growth, and only the Marshall aid package prompted spending and economic reforms that propelled Germany into a positive economic-political situation.

Afgh. will take years to rebuild. I don't remember the Americans stating that it was easy, simple or would be completed over the course of one month. It will take billions of dollars and various NGO's, IGO's, and associations to make it work. It is a poor, war torn, riven society that will be highly complicated to coordinate and make work.

Give the US and its allies there some credit. Billions of dollars are flowing into the country, roads, schools, hospitals are being built, and slowly Taliban remnants are being killed off.

Christina Rocca, Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs

Testimony before House Committee on International Relations

Washington, DC

November 19, 2003

As Prepared

Madame Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Sherman, distinguished members, thank you for inviting me to speak on the United States’ ongoing commitment to success in Afghanistan.

I am pleased to be able to report to you that progress to date has been good -- and that it is accelerating. Afghanistan has been making rapid progress in its reconstruction, and the United States has been working closely with international organizations, our NATO allies and members of the international community to help that country take its place among the world community of moderate democracies.

It has been two years since the liberation of Kabul and the defeat of the Taliban regime. Under the Taliban, twenty percent of the population lived as refugees and 200,000 had been disabled by mines. Roads, irrigation, and other infrastructure were barely usable, and few Afghans had access to healthcare and education.

Today, this is changing. Afghans enjoy restored liberties and opportunities that were unheard of in recent memory. An internationally recognized government is in power; schools have reopened; a new banking law is in place; businesses are blossoming around the country; and, most importantly, there is hope for a better future. It is also important to point out the challenges that remain before us, most importantly the threat to security posed by resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda attacks. These challenges can be overcome with continued support, and we remain committed to success in Afghanistan. Your recent approval of over $1.2 billion in supplemental funds will allow us to build on our successes and help the Afghans establish a government that is moderate and democratic, stable and at peace with its neighbors, representative of all Afghan people, and that will never again be a haven for enemies of the United States. The supplemental includes $69 million for support to democracy and governance. Additional funds will support security sector development, which will help train Afghan police and military in the run up to elections.

On December 5, 2001, various Afghan groups came together under U.N. guidance to sign the Bonn Agreement, laying the groundwork for democratic development in Afghanistan. In accordance with the Agreement, an Emergency Loya Jirga took place in June 2002, electing a transitional government (TISA) under President Hamid Karzai. Since then, lISA has continued to implement Bonn. In October 2002, President Karzai established a nine-member Constitutional Drafting Commission, which produced a preliminary draft constitution. In April 2003, a larger Constitutional Commission of thirty-five members began revisions of the draft and public consultations throughout the provinces and among refugee populations.

Afghanistan will soon mark its next important political milestone. In December, 500 delegates will convene a Constitutional Loya Jirga to ratify a final constitution. The Loya Jirga will represent the broad spectrum of Afghan society, including over 90 women delegates. For the first time in almost forty years, the Afghan people will have an opportunity to define the future of their country. The draft constitution unveiled on November 3 represents a genuine effort on the part of Afghans to reclaim their rightful place in the community of nations.

As with our own Constitution, the Constitution of Afghanistan is meant to be a document of the people, by the people, and for the people of Afghanistan. It must establish a democratic government in keeping with the unique cultural values of the Afghan people. Overall, the draft constitution is a good step toward these goals.

The draft constitution establishes a democratically elected government with a system of checks and balances. A president is to be elected for a five-year term with at least fifty percent of the votes nationwide. A single vice president is announced by each presidential candidate before elections, but does not stand for election.

The legislature resides in a bicameral national assembly. The Wolesi Jirga, or lower house, is directly elected for a five-year term. The number of Wolesi Jirga members is proportionate to the population of each region and will range between 220 and 250 members. The Meshrano Jirga, or upper house, is elected in three divisions. The provincial councils elect one third of its members for a four-year term. The district councils elect the second third of the members for a three-year term. And, the President appoints the remaining third for a five-year term. The draft constitution dictates that at least one woman will be elected to the Wolesi Jirga from each of the 32 provinces, and half of the President’s appointments to the Meshrano Jirga must be women.

Under the draft constitution, the judicial branch is composed of a single Supreme Court and two layers of appellate courts. There is no provision for a separate Constitutional Court or a Religious Court. The draft also provides for a Loya Jirga, the traditional assembly of Afghan leaders, which can be convened for decisions on changes to the constitution and other serious issues.

In addition to provisions on government structure, the draft constitution establishes protections for human rights. It provides for basic rights and freedoms and specifically cites Afghanistan’s obligation to abide by international human rights treaties. The draft also recognizes the important role of Islam in Afghanistan without prohibiting the practice of other religions.

The draft constitution also sets a timeline for elections. Presidential elections are to be held first, currently planned for June 2004 in keeping with the Bonn timeline. Legislative elections will then be held within one year of presidential elections. The United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) will begin registration for the elections in December, and UNAMA estimates the total cost will be $78.2 million. We have already contributed $15 million to UNAMA for registration and other donors have contributed $27.2 million thus far.

Throughout the drafting process, the United States has fulfilled its role as a friend to Afghanistan by providing resources and expertise to the drafting commission and giving counsel to the government of Afghanistan. The drafting of the constitution must be an Afghan process. As such, it is important to remember that the draft constitution is just that, a draft, and there will be no final constitution until one is approved by the Constitutional Loya Jirga. Until then, the United States will continue to support the constitutional process and offer our counsel when appropriate.

Our objective is to bring lasting peace and stability to a country that has experienced very little of either in the last quarter century. I am confident that with your continued support we will succeed.

Thank you.

[End]

Released on November 19, 2003

Here you have the US dedicating money to democratic development.

What other country has done this in world history ?

[KrustyKidd]

No one has been able to take Afghanistan. Not the Russians, not the British, and not the US

Yes. Hmmmmm. It is Brother Lonius, quite obvious that the US of America will need more than the ten thousand troops they have there presently whacking Al Queda here and there to occupy all of Afganistan. Yes indeed. They have failed. It is their VietNam for sure.

Quagmire.

Quite the opportunity for the other countries of the world. I can see how they have taken up the torch of humanity and huddled in Kabul to free the Afgans. What a generous lot they are! BYW, what do they bring to Afganistan that would benifit them? Oppression? Dictatorship? Aristocracy? Don't say freedom of choice or you might be seen as promoting democracy LOL.

[KrustyKidd]

Raz

What other country has done this in world history ?

Macedonians under Alexander the Great.

That was the last time this crap has been tried. He conquered more than the known world using the same tactics. Beat the living daylights out of the oppressors and install a people friendly (loyal to him) government. It was a hit. So much so that he was able to gather recruits from those beaten to help free the next enemy until he ran out of enemies.

What an idiot that Bush is. If he is going to follow history, why not something more better like Napolean or better yet, Lenin?

[Hohenzollern]

One question: What the heck ever happened to America that avoided getting involved in the quarrels of other nations?

Now-a-days my country is a just looking for trouble to fix. I am just thinking of all the tax dollars wasted to help democracise the world. Some places don't need democracy. Look at Germany after WWI, their Kaiser was taken away and to fill his spot for a national leader came Hitler.

Also, Napolean wanted to rule the world, which is not what citizens of the US want our government to do. Second, Lenin was a COMMY!!!! The US's doctrine is anti-Communism.

Another thing, what happened to good old fashioned alliances?

[Rasputin]

Well Hohen, the current strategy is the right one, and unfortunately the US' 'Allies' are just free loaders who use the UN system to get as much as possible without paying for it. Security is after 9-11, the prominent issue in the US and rightly so. You can't wait - and pull a Clinton and run and hide. Unfortunately cave by cave, house by house, country by country, these medieval actors will have to been 'taken care of' to quote Bush.

Allies you ask ? Only the Aussies, Brits, Poles, Spanish and a few others give a damn.

Tony Blair is being demonised in Britain for doing what is right. No wonder politicians run to the left and cower - any time you stake out a firm rational position your life becomes a misery.

I suppose Libs would prefer Saddam in power and his programs and torture chambers still in place. They have to make a strong case as to why that is better than what we have now.

The main issue that people don't understand is that Iraq financed terror, provided camps, trained, provided passports and documents and via Al Ansar [an AQ affiliate] was directly implicated in AQ plans. There is a long thread [2 in fact] on this site posting many sources for what i just said. Have a look at them.

Terror groups as Bush has said rightly many times, need nation states to help them - Bin Laden used Sudan until the US forced the Sudanese to kick him out. Then he ran to Afghanistan. [Now most likely he is chewing dirt 6 feet under somewhere.]

Terror must be dealt with and having a police station in a bad neighbourhood ie. Iraq, is a great first step.

[KrustyKidd]

Also, Napolean wanted to rule the world, which is not what citizens of the US want our government to do. Second, Lenin was a COMMY!!!! The US's doctrine is anti-Communism.

It was sarcasm Hoen. Bush did exactly what Alexander did. Alexander was the most sucessful politician the world has known and coupled with his brilliant military mind enabled him to conquer the entire known world. he only stopped when he ran out of places to free..

What the heck ever happened to America that avoided getting involved in the quarrels of other nations?

The chicken America? That was pre Pearl.

Another thing, what happened to good old fashioned alliances?

As in Canada and the US or France? Or Saddam and the US? Times change. Ask yourself something, if your best friend from when you were five called you up after so many years of nothing and asked to borrow ten grand, would you? LOL, times change.

BTW, that's two questions.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hohenzollern,

Old fashioned alliances went out the window when the dollar bill got invented. Just ask the Weimars or the Hapsburgs. If one wants to keep one's 'house' in order, one must concentrate on one's house.

Interesting that KK would use the word 'conquer' in one sentence, and 'free' in the next, to describe the same action.

Non-intervention, or isolationism, in America, ended pretty much the same time as the end of global colonialism. The US, and others, still believe colonialism is worthy. It's just easier now, because you don't have to control a whole country to get all the profits from that country.

You just have to own the dictator.

[KrustyKidd]

Interesting that KK would use the word 'conquer' in one sentence, and 'free' in the next, to describe the same action.

LOL. Can't keep up can you? Watch this, I'll now use them in the SAME SENTENCE!!

Alexander conquered the armies of oppressive rulers and in order to keep the territory he gained, allowed the people to be free under an appointed pfficial. I know you will pick up on the 'appointed official' part so will nip you in the bud and refer you to the latter part of the quote, the part that says he replaced those officials if they were like the Liberals of today. You know, in it for personal gain.

Such was the genius of Alexander Lonius. A man born thousands of years ago was ahead of the left today. Conquer the oppressors and allow the people to be free. Free as in Western Ideas and such. You know, Plato, Aristotle vs Saddam, Osama.

ALEXANDER, AHEAD OF HIS TIME BY MILLENNIA

At the height of his power, his realm stretched from the Ionian Sea to northern India.

Alexander encouraged intermarriages, setting an example by marrying a Persian princess himself. He placed soldiers from all the provinces in his army. He introduced a uniform currency system throughout the empire and promoted trade and commerce. He encouraged the spread of Greek ideas, customs, and laws into Asia. When he heard that some of his provincial officials ruled unjustly, he replaced them