RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


What's next, prognosticators?(7 posts)

What's next, prognosticators?Me Dot Org
Mar 10, 2003 5:40 PM
After 12 years, and 5 months from 1441, the Security Council is lining up to vote. The amazing thing is that no one knows exactly what will happen.

It certainly appears the resolution will not pass. Some feel that there is still room to find a compromise that will allow France not to veto, but I don't think that's going to happen. The only question is whether a resolution will have a majority of the votes. But the fact that some countries are still deciding is incredible, and shows the gravity of the issue, as well as the intensity of the lobbying.

But the ramifications go on from there, not only for the future of Iraq, but for the future of the United Nations, and the United States' relationship with the U.N., France, Germany, Russia, and China, not to mention the government of Tony Blair.

This could well be the most significant week in the history of the United Nations (the Cuban Missile Crisis was pretty bilateral.)

Unless something totally unexpected occurs, the U.S., with a few allies, will be going to war without U.N. backing. Though the U.S. did not have U.N. backing in Kosovo, there was at least tacit understanding that this was a European problem, and it was handled under the auspices of NATO.

Can the U.S. claim a moral victory with a majority of the Security Council votes? Will the Security Council vote matter if the war is over quickly? If the war is over quickly, can it be claimed the U.N. is obsolete or diminished? What scenarios do you see for the war? How will a quick and effective war affect the world? What will be the effect of a long and messy one?

This is a very unusual time in history, in that we know something BIG is going to happen, but we don't know exactly HOW it's going to play out. There is a morbid fascination to watching it all, like knowing there's going to be a chain reaction car crash, but without knowing which cars and who is driving.
The UN fades quickly into history. So does NATO.OldEdScott
Mar 10, 2003 6:12 PM
The Bushites bite their tongues and refrain -- in PUBLIC, anyway -- from saying 'the American Empire,' but that's what they slap-happily call it in private as, one country at a time, they pre-emptively deploy troops to settle ahead of time any scores they figure we might someday have with them. Empires don't tolerate uppity foreigners.

You're right. The world will change. And America's character will change. I guess some folks will say that's a good thing, as they watch their sons and daughters being drafted for the American Foreign Legion.
Along with Social Security, graduated tax and everything else...cory
Mar 10, 2003 7:54 PM
...conservatives don't like. I don't think the Bushies SET OUT to do that (or, hell, maybe they did). But after we blow up Iraq (which has a military budget 1/200 of ours, BTW) and are "forced" to deal with North Korea and maybe Iran, there just won't be any money for all the programs the Repubs have been trying to get rid of for years, from Medicare to Soc Sec to Head Start.
I don't want to argue with anybody about it--just sit quietly for about 10 years and see if it happens.
And not a moment too soonCaptain Morgan
Mar 11, 2003 7:53 AM
...at least regarding the U.N. There are far too many countries in this world, each with its own goals, agenda, etc. It is impossible to get consensus on everything, particularly controversial issues. Its okay when its unanimous, but whenever there is a split, like there is now, it creates more problems than it solves. And yes, it is a split, it is not US vs. the world.

Just as members of the EU have been having problems coming up with common economic and foreign policies, the US is finding out that this is impossible on a worldwide basis.
Note to Old Ed...Jon Billheimer
Mar 11, 2003 8:18 AM
America's character has already changed...and not for the better IMHO.
I guess I'm holding out hope it's not too late. nmOldEdScott
Mar 11, 2003 9:21 AM
here is what we should doDougSloan
Mar 13, 2003 3:24 PM
I say we do an about face and take a new path.

Say, "alright, world, you don't want to support us, we're done being the world's policeman." Pack up all the troops, come home, and take care of ourselves within our borders. Of course, we'll have to ramp up the offshore and Alaskan drilling. But, you can't have it both ways. No wars? Ok, then we need domestic oil.

So, maybe we say "screw'em", take our ball and bat and don't play with them anymore. How long would it take before half the world is calling us sh!theads again for not defending some invaded country soon enough? Oh, and forget the UN, too. Ineffectual waste of time.

Doug