The Left finally takes a beating

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

So again what is your grand theory of how social relations work? I'm feeling like you're good with critique but short on big picture. And your critique's are pretty weak sauce thus far. You are excellent at being insulting in an arrogant tone however!

Here is my grand theory on social relations: Incentives matter.

Why do you care about what I write? All I said was that you went off on a rant that reminded me of a freshman in college getting their first Poly Sci course. I'm not trying to insult you, so get a thicker skin and ease your finger off the trigger.

So what pearls of wisdom will you lay before us swine?

First of all, you're the one who believes people are different. I believe everyone is equal. Why do you have an inferiority complex?

I see alot of mainstream right wing thinking thus far which is to say lacking in critical thinking.

I'll have to live with your disappointment.
 
Here is my grand theory on social relations: Incentives matter.

Why do you care about what I write? All I said was that you went off on a rant that reminded me of a freshman in college getting their first Poly Sci course. I'm not trying to insult you, so get a thicker skin and ease your finger off the trigger.



First of all, you're the one who believes people are different. I believe everyone is equal. Why do you have an inferiority complex?


---Post Edit--

I read your political thread. I think you and I have more in common then we think. I'm a bit surprised I wasn't closer to center or on the libertarian side of economics. I just think the environment is too big a concern as it is the life support system on spaceship earth.


I'll have to live with your disappointment.
Feelings of inferiority? Not so much. Comparing someone to a Freshman in Poly-Sci getting their first intro class is insulting and please don't pretend it wasn't intended to be insulting. I asked you what you meant to give you a chance to explain yourself and you said "no you understood me"in response to the "are you trying to say what I'm saying is a basic concept". The insult was crystal clear no sense trying to feign innocence now.

"Incentives matter" is not exactly a breakthrough in particle physics my friend. Funnily enough, that is precisely why I think being stoked about one head or other of the beast winning is silly because incentives DO matter. Which is why the incentives offered by the powerful will far exceed whatever incentives you or I could offer (a meaningless vote in a fiction of a democracy). Thinking either wing represents you is naive. Hence, who cares if the Left takes a beating anymore then they cared that the Right took a beating this past fall in the US. It hardly matters. Were McCain president the policies would likely be very similar minus a speech in Cairo and a handful of window dressing. The only difference would be the stupid left wouldn't be so cocky, arrogant and self-righteous. Not to mention blind to the realities of Obama's foolish policies foreign and domestic.

Can you explain to me how Obama doing TARP II is substantively different from the Bush admin policy TARP? If anything it is mildly better. Still a disaster in the making. Right Left what a joke!
 
Last edited:
Feelings of inferiority? Not so much. Comparing someone to a Freshman in Poly-Sci getting their first intro class is insulting and please don't pretend it wasn't intended to be insulting. I asked you what you meant to give you a chance to explain yourself and you said "no you understood me"in response to the "are you trying to say what I'm saying is a basic concept". The insult was crystal clear no sense trying to feign innocence now.

You stated a basic concept. I told you so. And if you feel insulted, that's your problem, not mine. Like I said before, get a thicker skin.

"Incentives matter" is not exactly a breakthrough in particle physics my friend.

It's not. What's your point?

Funnily enough, that is precisely why I think being stoked about one head or other of the beast winning is silly because incentives DO matter. Which is why the incentives offered by the powerful will far exceed whatever incentives you or I could offer (a meaningless vote in a fiction of a democracy).

You don't give yourself enough credit. Be a lemming if you wish. If you're outraged, do something about it. No one told you that you were limited to your vote. There are other courses of action.

Thinking either wing represents you is naive.

My thinking isn't encapsulated by either wing, so your statement is an assumption on your part.

Hence, who cares if the Left takes a beating anymore then they cared that the Right took a beating this past fall in the US. It hardly matters.

On this matter, we disagree. I think it matters greatly.

Were McCain president the policies would likely be very similar minus a speech in Cairo and a handful of window dressing. The only difference would be the stupid left wouldn't be so cocky, arrogant and self-righteous. Not to mention blind to the realities of Obama's foolish policies foreign and domestic.

It would be uncharacteristic of John McCain to allow Nancy Pelosi to write a $787B spending bill which he would sign without reading.

Can you explain to me how Obama doing TARP II is substantively different from the Bush admin policy TARP? If anything it is mildly better. Still a disaster in the making. Right Left what a joke!

TARP was meant to infuse capital into the banking system, which was undergoing a systemic collapse. It was a loan, and with the recent repayment, the taxpayers made a $2B profit on a $68B eight month investment. Not great, but at least it was a positive NPV.

TARP II rewards individual homeowners from defaulting on their mortgages. We'll never see a penny of that money; we'll just pay for the bad behavior of others. There's no option to recoup any investment by adjusting these mortgages.
 
I got an idea how about we exchange ideas without being insulting. Incentives matter is every bit as fresh and complex as my above rant so that was my point about that one. It's not about thicker skins it's about reasonable discourse.

TARP I also paid for the bailout of AIG which was a backdoor payment to OTC derivative holders (Goldman Sachs one of the biggest) who then used it to repay the TARP money so as to avoid anyone opening their books. That along with constraints on CEO pay under TARP, is why there is a big rush to repay the TARP money. I am pretty sure when you include the AIG bailout (HUGE amounts of it went to Goldman and other OTC Derivative holders) that the government took a net loss on TARP I. I loathe Pelosi on a level I reserve for the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney.

The part in TARP II that keeps mortgage holder in homes is a big mistake I agree with you on that. I see it as another subsidy to the banks with the illusion of it being for the little guy. In reality it keeps prices inflated beyond where they should be due to propping up the leverage mistakes of the early "Aughts". It's unfortunate that under the Bush Administration the FED pushed interest rates unnaturally low for political purposes of not reaping the dot-com bubble collapse. It was every bit as political to make the ruling party look good (Repubs) as this new TARP II is a populist political move.

I agree that I am more powerful then a meaningless vote. I was saying that my ability to offer incentives to major leaders is fairly limited without extreme exertion, luck and an eventual debasement of my values as I succumb to the ends justify the means mentality of politics. I prefer to invest my money in a way that reflects my values and to use my influence to build local community.
 
Last edited:
I think you raise some good points Denny but i think that unfortunately this:



is no longer true. I agree that say in the 1940's we were a beacon of moral values in comparison to the rest of the world and certainly the fascist states. Unfortunately, 60 years of increasingly immoral advertising and a decaying public education system have rendered this country as one of the least values driven in the world. Unless, you consider the value of an item at Walmart being something to drive your values. I also can't help but think of the Founding Fathers warning us against seeking dragons to slay abroad and the avoiding of foreign entanglements. Really our power began to wane due to the incredible expense of the Vietnam war and the parallel plunge in trade where we went from a trade surplus to a deficit. Once Nixon cut the Gold Standard and made us DeFacto an Oil backed currency (the only currency that could be used to buy oil) things got really out of hand. Since then the power elite have spent alot of time whipping up frenzy's over gay marriage, the war on drugs, the war on crime, abortion and other civil issues to direct our attention away from the real action in economics.

I do however completely agree with this:

It's still true. We use diplomacy where possible, we invent state of the art weapons with pinpoint accuracy to minimize collateral damage, and the generals had to explain to Bush that it wasn't possible to drop food from airplanes in Afghanistan before taking out any anti-aircraft weapons they had.

I'm not saying it's our obligation to take out every despot ruler out there, but it is the ones we made or propped up. If we had done so with the Shah back in the 1970s, Iran would be an ally still. It is our moral obligation to send troops to somalia to feed starving people, and we should have sent troops to Rwanda to prevent the genocide, etc.

As far as trade goes... It was a big deal that the entire US balance of trade hit (minus) $80B/year under GHW Bush, and Democrats refused to grant China MFN status Bush sought because of human rights violations. Then Clinton got in, asked for MFN and got it. The balance of trade with China hit $80B pretty quick, and $800B overall before 2000.
 
It's still true. We use diplomacy where possible, we invent state of the art weapons with pinpoint accuracy to minimize collateral damage, and the generals had to explain to Bush that it wasn't possible to drop food from airplanes in Afghanistan before taking out any anti-aircraft weapons they had.

I'm not saying it's our obligation to take out every despot ruler out there, but it is the ones we made or propped up. If we had done so with the Shah back in the 1970s, Iran would be an ally still. It is our moral obligation to send troops to somalia to feed starving people, and we should have sent troops to Rwanda to prevent the genocide, etc.

As far as trade goes... It was a big deal that the entire US balance of trade hit (minus) $80B/year under GHW Bush, and Democrats refused to grant China MFN status Bush sought because of human rights violations. Then Clinton got in, asked for MFN and got it. The balance of trade with China hit $80B pretty quick, and $800B overall before 2000.
Great stuff in there Denny. I agree that IF we are going to get involved abroad it should be over things like Rwanda etc. However, the best way to do this is to really help out the local people by empowering them with money and sustainable things such as farming equipment in the case of Somalia. You also have to commit to nation building because simply dropping off of supplies doesn't cut it when Warlords swoop in to take over. If you get into nation building you have a real potential to get bogged down.

I'm not saying it's never worth it, I mean clearly the Marshall Plan was a rousing success. I feel that is in part because we were similar enough in culture with the europeans as to support them in a sustainable way. The more different the culture the harder it gets.

For example the best success in Afghanistan in regards to women's rights has been to support local women who act within the context of their culture to bring about change. Western feminists caused more problems then they helped according to Afghani women in the struggle for women's rights there.

I think it is noble to help when we can and our duty to take out a dictator we propped up, like Saddam for instance. However, the way in which we took out Saddam went catastrophically wrong. I believe this is because of two factors: one a lack of culture understanding among the forces on the ground and two the primary policy makers on the ground in Iraq were interested in consolidating a grip on the local economy and resources and not empowering the local people while gaining a sweet heart deal on resources and a special trade relationship. Of course not working with dictators in the first place (Regan/Rumsfeld empowered Saddam, W. Bush worked with the despot in Uzbekistan) is the best idea. No, I don't think only Republicans make foreign policy blunders Johnson is one of the worst presidents ever for foreign policy mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Either that, or you have to adapt your foreign policy over time. It's not like Clinton got a lot of that kind of experience as governor of Arkansas, and our policies didn't change much toward Saddam. GHW did put a serious hurt on Saddam, but didn't finish the job. The embargo against Iraq was a farce and a means for the french and germans and russians and the UN to do side deals with Saddam at the expense of the Iraqi people.

Saddam had to go. It's a shame it had to be W to make it happen. I don't see that things could have gone much better than they did.
 
Saddam had to go.

Why did he have to go again? What would have happened had he been left in (limited) power?

Who has to go next? Iran? N. Korea? Someone else? Everyone else? When do we stop?

barfo
 
Why did he have to go again? What would have happened had he been left in (limited) power?

Who has to go next? Iran? N. Korea? Someone else? Everyone else? When do we stop?

barfo
no doubt... thats one of the craziest things I've ever read here.

STOMP
 
Why did he have to go again? What would have happened had he been left in (limited) power?

Who has to go next? Iran? N. Korea? Someone else? Everyone else? When do we stop?

barfo

What would have happened is this. France already was normalizing trade with Iraq (resumed civilian air flights to Iraq). Several members of the UN Security Council were pushing to end the sanctions. The no fly zones would have been lifted and Saddam would have resumed murdering and torturing his citizens with impunity. The $billions in oil revenues would have been unsupervised entirely (not that the UN demonstrated anything but corruption in oil for food...). There'd be no UN inspectors hanging around to keep an eye on his WMD programs. With Iran going for nukes, so would Iraq and you have a serious potential they'd be used. When he died, his equally nasty sons would have taken over.

What happened while he was in limited power? He gassed his own people, built palaces while the children of Iraq died of easily treated diseases and starvation, cut down the date trees that fed the Shi'ia in the south.

His history is a matter of the public record.

It's also in the public record that in the 1st gulf war, he bombed Israel with SCUD missiles, his air force pilots flew their MIGs to Iran to avoid being destroyed, the guns used against us were AK 47s, and the gas used on the Kurds had a chemical signature that identified it of Russian origin. It's also in the public record that Saddam had a $9B deal with Russia for oil as soon as the sanctions would be lifted (IMO, we made a huge mistake not offering $9B to Russia at the outset to make up for that).

And there's no statute of limitations for crimes against humanity. Unless you're tried by the Hague - then you live in a country club prison until you die of old age.
 
Last edited:
What would have happened is this. France already was normalizing trade with Iraq (resumed civilian air flights to Iraq). Several members of the UN Security Council were pushing to end the sanctions. The no fly zones would have been lifted and Saddam would have resumed murdering and torturing his citizens with impunity. The $billions in oil revenues would have been unsupervised entirely (not that the UN demonstrated anything but corruption in oil for food...). There'd be no UN inspectors hanging around to keep an eye on his WMD programs. With Iran going for nukes, so would Iraq and you have a serious potential they'd be used. When he died, his equally nasty sons would have taken over.

So we attacked because the UN might have removed sanctions? That seems pretty damn flimsy. Couldn't we have waited until the day after the UN vote? Or would Saddam have done all those bad things in the first 24 hours of his freedom?

barfo
 
So we attacked because the UN might have removed sanctions? That seems pretty damn flimsy. Couldn't we have waited until the day after the UN vote? Or would Saddam have done all those bad things in the first 24 hours of his freedom?

barfo

He did all those things for years when there were no sanctions. The no fly zones were in response to his reprisals against the Kurds in the North and Shi'ia in the South.

The sanctions ultimately had to be lifted because they didn't hurt Saddam in the least but the infant mortality rates and general health of the Iraqi people were terrible.

The sanctions had to be lifted. Just not with Saddam there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Infant_and_child_death_rates

Casualty Estimates

Estimates of direct casualties of the sanctions remain a highly contested subject, complicated by other concurrent causes, including, according to UNICEF, "the effects of war" and "a dramatic increase in bottle-feeding of infants."[15] A short overview of claims:[33]

 
He did all those things for years when there were no sanctions. The no fly zones were in response to his reprisals against the Kurds in the North and Shi'ia in the South.

The sanctions ultimately had to be lifted because they didn't hurt Saddam in the least but the infant mortality rates and general health of the Iraqi people were terrible.

The sanctions had to be lifted. Just not with Saddam there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Infant_and_child_death_rates

Casualty Estimates

Estimates of direct casualties of the sanctions remain a highly contested subject, complicated by other concurrent causes, including, according to UNICEF, "the effects of war" and "a dramatic increase in bottle-feeding of infants."[15] A short overview of claims:[33]


I will stipulate that kids were dying in Iraq, so that I don't have to bother to read those links, none of which addresses my question to you: if we were worried about what might happen if the sanctions were lifted, why attack before the sanctions are lifted?

barfo
 
I will stipulate that kids were dying in Iraq, so that I don't have to bother to read those links, none of which addresses my question to you: if what we were worried about what might happen if the sanctions were lifted, why attack before the sanctions are lifted?

barfo

Asked and answered. The no fly zones were put in place because Saddam attacked his people from helicopters after surrendering in Gulf War I. There'd be no will to do anything to him while he did things inside his own borders, and I pointed out who his trading partners (especially arms) were. There's no will to stop Iran. There was diplomatic agreements with N. Korea (made by Clinton/Albright) and they secretly advanced their nuke program anyway. If Saddam wanted to hide such a program, we'd not likely know about it. Or he'd have the funds to do it outside Iraq somewhere.

Now I'll answer your other question. Who's next? I'm not a warmonger. If I had my way, we'd have no troops overseas at all (I am a Ron Paul/Libertarian Party voter).

However, the places where we should intervene are places like Rwanda, Darfur, and Somalia.

If there are any banana dictatorships left in S. America, I'd be fine undoing those.

And I'm fine with normalizing relations with Cuba.
 
Asked and answered. The no fly zones were put in place because Saddam attacked his people from helicopters after surrendering in Gulf War I. There'd be no will to do anything to him while he did things inside his own borders, and I pointed out who his trading partners (especially arms) were.

You didn't answer my question at all. You are just giving reasons why Saddam is a bad man, not why we needed to attack before the sanctions were lifted.

Now I'll answer your other question. Who's next? I'm not a warmonger. If I had my way, we'd have no troops overseas at all (I am a Ron Paul/Libertarian Party voter).

Who would you fight the Iraq war with, then? You can't be in favor of a war of choice and claim to want no overseas troops. Those positions aren't compatible.

barfo
 
You didn't answer my question at all. You are just giving reasons why Saddam is a bad man, not why we needed to attack before the sanctions were lifted.

Because we saw what he did when there were no sanctions already. I did answer your question, you just didn't like the answer.

Who would you fight the Iraq war with, then? You can't be in favor of a war of choice and claim to want no overseas troops. Those positions aren't compatible.
barfo
We could just apologize to the Iraqis for the 10 years of sanctions and for leaving Saddam in power and bring the troops home, but they'd hate us forever and we would still have their blood on our hands. Given that we meddled all along where we shouldn't have (in those banana republics, too), we have to at least try to set things right before bringing the troops home.

Your assertion that it was a war of choice is a false one. There were two decades (at least) of events that piled up making it a requirement to take out Saddam. The only choice, even by your admission, was sooner vs. later, and later would have harmed more people and benefited nobody but Saddam.
 
England is a lot more conservative than I've seen them in the a long time. You should of seen the BNP guys who were running for office--Holy shit they're insane.
Absolutely. Minstrel noted that nationalist parties are the on the upswing in Europe. I'd characterize a lot of those as borderline fascists, more than anything. I'm not sure self-proclaimed conservatives (in here or Europe) would want to be associated with a lot of their party rhetoric.
 
Because we saw what he did when there were no sanctions already. I did answer your question, you just didn't like the answer.

I didn't like the answer because it doesn't answer the question. Fine that Saddam does bad things when there aren't sanctions. We agree on that. However, sanctions were in place. You assert that the sanctions were about to be lifted, however that didn't actually happen. A hypothetical doesn't justify an invasion. Canada could turn mean and attack us, so maybe we better nuke Ottawa today.

Your assertion that it was a war of choice is a false one. There were two decades (at least) of events that piled up making it a requirement to take out Saddam. The only choice, even by your admission, was sooner vs. later, and later would have harmed more people and benefited nobody but Saddam.

Oh, there were more than 2 decades. But history does not require an invasion. If it did we'd have to invade lots of places. And I did not say that we needed to invade sooner or later.

barfo
 
I'd say the article's argument is overblown for a few reasons:

1. This was for the EU parliament, not national parliaments. EU parliament is seen as much less important to most Europeans, the voter turnout is much lower and there's a lot more "protest voting."

2. The big right-wing parties went from 264 seats to 264 seats. Which specific right-wing parties did well changed (nationalistic ones did much better than normal) but there really wasn't a big rightward shift overall.

3. One of the biggest rising parties was the Green party, a very liberal party. They got 16% of the vote in France, a huge increase in a country where they've typically done poorly.

So, I'd say that the more correct conclusion is that nationalism (various parties around Europe) and the Green party were the big winners. Not "conservatism." And even that is limited to the EU parliament. National parliaments are still very left-wing across Europe.

I do agree that there's a backlash against Labour in the UK. Of course, the UK parliament seats didn't change. It'll be interesting to see if seats change significantly the next time the UK has elections and how. This blow to Labour largely amounts to polling badly, not actually losing power.

This is very true, it's alarming that parties like the BNP got so many votes (and actually won seats), but some of what has been happening has been mis-reported. Their vote grew by 3.4% last time, but only grew by 1.9% this time. That's still 1000000000% too many, but it's not a fact being widely reported. Their leaders/politicians are a bunch of pricks though, you know, the type of people who were members of Neo-Nazi groups when they were younger (and I would argue still are; the BNP). It's appalling when you look at their history's, and even worse when you think they now get a say in our democracy. I don't care that this is democracy, we simply cannot have people like that in power.

Labour is at the end of its run. Blair skimmed the cream off the top and left Brown with the bitter grounds. It's akin to Thatcher/Major. The personal expense scandal is just the final blow.

This is also very true, but I feel bad for Brown. He's being given hell for two reasons: the shit hit the fan when he was in charge, and he's not charismatic. The lack of charisma is only accentuated when we see Obama, who has enough charisma for the both of them. It's not really been Brown's fault (apart perhaps from lack of regulation of banks whilst he was Chancellor of the Exchequer) and he is being persecuted for it. Either way, Labour will be gone by the next general election, which could be sooner than we think, especially with the government in crisis as it seems to be.

England is a lot more conservative than I've seen them in the a long time. You should of seen the BNP guys who were running for office--Holy shit they're insane.

I can't believe you referred to conservatism and the BNP in the same sentence without using the word "not". Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of conservatism, but to mention it in the same sentence as those racist, fascist scumbags that are poisoning our country and our democracy is simply unfair.
 
I didn't like the answer because it doesn't answer the question. Fine that Saddam does bad things when there aren't sanctions. We agree on that. However, sanctions were in place. You assert that the sanctions were about to be lifted, however that didn't actually happen. A hypothetical doesn't justify an invasion. Canada could turn mean and attack us, so maybe we better nuke Ottawa today.



Oh, there were more than 2 decades. But history does not require an invasion. If it did we'd have to invade lots of places. And I did not say that we needed to invade sooner or later.

barfo


http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/30/news/mn-9909?pg=1

U.N. Approves Overhaul of Iraqi Trade Sanctions

By WILLIAM ORME, TIMES STAFF WRITER
November 30, 2001

Also at Moscow's insistence, a paragraph was added to the resolution calling for "clarification" of the 1999 resolution that imposed the current sanctions. The Russians had long urged the Security Council to set more precise conditions and a timetable for the lifting of penalties if Iraq complied with U.N. demands.

"The criteria for suspension and lifting must be specific and must be unambiguous," Sergei V. Lavrov, the Russian ambassador to the U.N., said Thursday after the vote.

Without clear incentives and guidelines, the Russians contend, the sanctions will fail to persuade the Persian Gulf nation to open its doors to inspectors.

Yet even if Iraq were to suddenly buckle to world pressure and let in the inspectors, it would take at least six months to evaluate whether Hussein's regime has stopped trying to secretly develop weapons of mass destruction, say the U.N. experts who would be dispatched there.

"We are not going to drag our heels, but this takes time," said Hans Blix, director of the U.N.'s verification and inspection unit.

Technically, the products on the new review list would not be banned outright, and Iraq could argue for the legitimacy of its import requests.

"These are supposed to be goods under review, not goods under a ban," said a U.N. official who requested anonymity. The arms embargo that has been in place against Iran for the past decade already rules out all imports of weapons and military equipment, the official noted.

But U.S. officials have made it clear they expect most requests for goods on the list to be denied as long as Iraq refuses entry to inspection teams that could verify whether the imports were put to their authorized use.

An immediate toughening of the Iraq sanctions system would have met resistance from Turkey, Jordan and other U.S. allies in the region that are supporting the American-led campaign against Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorism network.


http://articles.latimes.com/1999/apr/17/news/mn-28249

U.S., Russia at Odds Over Iraq Sanctions


April 17, 1999

The U.S. dismissed Russia's proposals to lift sanctions against Iraq, but also said it had problems with a more amenable and detailed British-Dutch draft resolution concerning U.N. policy toward Baghdad. Britain and the Netherlands distributed a draft that would abolish the U.N. Special Commission in charge of Iraqi disarmament and replace it. In contrast, Russia's shorter resolution would leave the future of the commission to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and lift all economic sanctions in stages, except an arms embargo.
 
Last edited:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/202/41759.html

Russia and France, along with many elected members, were critical of the Iraq sanctions and tried to lift or substantially reform them. The United States and the UK used their political muscle and veto power to keep sanctions in force and to allow minor reforms, until they decided to lift them in May 2003, after the war and occupation.

Those seeking an end to Iraq sanctions have organized civilian flights in contravention of the sanctions prohibitions. Such flights came to symbolize crumbling international support for the sanctions, stirring hope that the sanctions would eventually be lifted.
 
And finally, excerpts from Bush's speech to the UN in Sept. 2002:

We created a United Nations Security Council so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes.

After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we've dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards and this security are challenged.

Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease.

The suffering is great. And our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to Unesco.

This organization has been reformed, and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts, ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable.

In one place and one regime, we find all these dangers in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources.

Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world.

Yet this aggression was stopped by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities, which the council said threatened international peace and security in the region.

This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the UN Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights and that the regime's repression is all-pervasive.

Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation and rape.

Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents; and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the UN Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise.

Last year, the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini and Armeni nationals remain unaccounted for; more than 600 people.

One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the UN Security Council through Resolution 687 demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

Iraq's regime agreed but broke this promise.

In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder.

In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American president.

Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of 11 September. And al-Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections.

Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil-for-food and the stick of coalition military strikes.

All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.

Are Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced or cast aside without consequence?

Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

The United States help found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective and respectful and successful.

We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime.

Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it - as all states are required to do by UN Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmens and others - again, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown.

It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program.

It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis, a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. They've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal.

The people of Iraq deserve it. The security of all nations requires it.

Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest. And open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder.

The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbour no illusions, and that's important today to remember.

Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel.

His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq.

He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the UN Security Council to meet our common challenge.

If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account.

We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions.

But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced, the just demands of peace and security will be met or action will be unavoidable and a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways. If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission.

The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbours, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future.

The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world.

These nations can show by their example that honest government and respect for women and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.

And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us.

We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress.

We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind.

By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand.

And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top