Then the real competition begins between television content providers, and also VOIP providers have a fair chance. And you just explained why your dream will never happen. Market leaders (and monopolists, as often the case in this particular market) do not want competition. They also happen to have lots of legislators to make sure that "open" and "free" are always bad.
Shows wouldn't need so much financing if they didn't pay the few star actors hundreds of thousands of dollars per episode. You look at a show like Seinfeld or that one with that annoying long island guy, and it's basically 98% of the budget for 3 or 4 actors/producers, and 2% for the rest of the cast, crew, production, sets, distribution, licenses, etc. A few star actors couldn't demand outrageous salaries if advertisers weren't willing to pay out the nose for those valued slots. A show like Seinfeld pulls in millions of viewers and Pizza Hut wants those folks to see their pizza ads.
I guess the general public is not paying enough for their service to be ad-free. I would like to know, for once, how much money each cable subscriber would have to pay for their TV service if it paid for all the advertisement that would normally be there? I had free television for years with fewer advertisements than what you see today. Cable television gets monthly subscriptions from all viewers (with rates that seem to double every five years), more advertising money than over-the-air ever dreamed of, and kick-backs from all the home shopping channels that they won't let you remove because it subsidizes the cost of your television service.
I can promise you that any number claimed to be adequate to eliminate advertising would be a die roll with a bunch of zeros on the end. And, it would be so large that most wouldn't consider it. Yet, the same folks will accept their annual cable bill increases while getting more ads per hour.
So I'm paying for a TV show using on-demand and then am forced to watch ads also? Or is the on-demand service otherwise free. It sounds like a lucrative new revenue stream to me. Fixed that for you.
This is obvious and should surprise no one. Of course companies who make money from advertising want to make sure those advertisements are being seen. And, Cox stands (uh huh huh) to make much more money from this agreement than they may lose from customers who may go to dish or a third-party DVR.
The big killer will be in a few years when cable providers have everyone on digital cable and include DRM in the cable boxes that prevent you from using third-party DVRs. Just as they don't want you putting a VCR on the output of a DVD player, they will no longer allow anything but TVs on the outputs of their boxes.
Think of it this way. We know the standard Slashdot opinion of politicians and lawyers. A judge is a lawyer that is more politically savvy than most./shiver
+5 Insightful? Sheesh. I considered not responding to this because I felt it was an obvious troll. However, with the mods not thinking so, I reconsidered. I hope I was right the first time.
I got a benchmark for ya. "Are things running well?" Yes? Yes they are? Then shut the fuck up and stop asking me to waste time comparing myself to other people.
Exactly. Because an organization should never strive for better.
Seriously, it's not an "innocent" request. It never is. First, they just want to know how you compare. Then, they want to know why you're not the absolute bestest in the whole universe. Then they compare you against departments with fewer people. "Hmm, seems we could get comparable results with 2 fewer bodies". Then each employee is evaluating their specific performance trying to justify their job. Or you're filling out "Time code sheets" to tell them what you do in each 6 minute block of time. Pretty soon you're hearing about their buddy Steve, who has his entire office and web presence run by one part time summer intern who happily works for $6/hour plus tips.
There no doubt are places like this, and you would do well to exit such an organization sooner than later. Trying to avoid accountability or fighting audits only make you appear aware of and afraid of your own incompetence. If you are providing no benefit above what Steve and his summer intern can do for a tenth of your salary, then management needs to act. If you can't explain why going with Steve and his summer intern is a bad idea, you have left it to management to decide with the information they have. If management makes a stupid decision in selecting Steve and his summer intern, the organization will eventually pay for it and you can find a better job elsewhere.
Evaluate your performance based on internal expectations. You want great uptime on the web server? Why, we were only down for 2 hours last month. Compared to previous months, that's great! You want quick response to employee problems? Our average response time for properly filed tickets was down %4 compared to last quarter. That's the way you evaluate.
This is pretty common in IT, but it often leads to a bloated and stagnant IT structure and itself leads to outsourcing. A well-managed IT department in an organization with competent leadership rarely will be outsourced, especially in the smaller to mid-size environments (yes, bits and pieces will be as it makes sense to do so, but I'm talking about the whole shooting match). I can't count the number of companies that I've seen outsource IT simply as a clean-slate housecleaning move, because someone finally realized that IT was grotesquely oversized, wrapped in red-tape, and lagging behind the industry in technology.
If you start giving these fuckers examples of how other companies are doing, they'll cherry-pick and start challenging you to match. "Why, there's a place in Wisconsin that only has 1 tech covering 400 people! I don't know what this 'Wyse terminal' thing is, but surely if just one guy can cover all those people, we're overstaffed here!"
And you ought to be able to explain why that example isn't relevant to your place of employment or why it would be a bad idea.
I know it seems like it could be good. "Why, we're outperforming most other companies, surely they'll see this and use it as criteria to give us better raises/more benefits/better perks". NO. NO, they won't. Just NO. Come review time, you could be leading 90% of the field, and they'll go on about the top 10% and how those guys earn less than you, so they shouldn't give you a raise. Or they'll go on about how other companies have their helpdesk techs do server support too, so they don't need your $80k server admin. If you're underpaid, and everyone else makes more than you, you can show them that too, and they'll nod in an interested fashion, they'll hum and haw, and they'll end up giving you some bullshit excuse about budget constraint
If you are being asked to do that, then the PHB's are looking for a cheaper option. Work on your resume and get out NOW. Otherwise, you will training your replacements. That's not necessarily true. Peer benchmarking is old hat in some industries. For example, higher education regularly does such comparisons for academic departments, which sometimes includes IT.
If bin Laden's goal is to, by terrorist attacks, cause material damage to the USA, he doesn't have to attack us. The USA has an autoimmune disorder of the first degree -- we're doing more damage to ourselves than bin Laden could ever dream of doing. Osama's goal was to get the US out of the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. The corporate ownership of the US is destroying the country (the environment, the economy, the people) while moving the profits off-shore. And the US populace is happy to let it happen as long as both political parties blame the other for all the ills and American Idol is on the television.
They develop because the marketers say that there is no way Madden 08 cannot make a profit, and they ship because anyone muscleheaded enough to buy it will buy it bugs and all. They ship it because they make lots of money with little development. The engine has not changed significantly in years - their biggest cost is now the exclusive licenses they paid the NFL and NCAA to guarantee their monopoly in this market (deemed necessary because of real competition from the 2K series).
Recycle 95% of last year's game.
Update rosters.
Create commercials using prerendered movies instead of anything resembling actual game play.
Profit!
I'm a long-time EA Sport gamer, going back to Madden and Bill Walsh College Football on the Genesis, but I stopped buying the new games three or four years ago after several years of disappointment. It seemed stupid to spend another $50 or $60 each summer to get the new rosters, especially when I play dynasties and quickly have my own unique teams. Also consider that industry recognition of this process means that used games lose 60 - 75 percent of their value within nine months of release and are usually in the $5 bin after a year. I'm still playing EA's college game from 2005, which I bought used for less than $10.
I wish I could say I don't understand how the GP was modded +5, but I'm not that new here. Most or all current implementations of DRM have been skewed toward the copyright holder at the expense of the consumer, but that does not invalid the concept of DRM or the importance of it.
I am ashamed of all of them, and you should be too. Haven't you noticed that your government has been ransomed by elites on both sides? There's two sides?
I love the proof by assertion. So I think you are incorrect, and you think I am incorrect. Thats a big shocker.
No doubt, but that wasn't what I said. I pointed out that a few other people saying what you say doesn't automatically make it right.
To repeat myself, I believe the Security Council did make this decision, over a dozen times, ending with the council affording Iraq one final chance to comply or face "serious consequences". I don't think that "If you don't comply we will keep talking about it" qualifies as a serious consequence.
And I can only repeat that this is incorrect. Only the Security Council can undo the cease-fire and authorize force. I can see your objection to them sitting around with a thumb up their collective butt, hoping Saddam will finally bare his soul and be a good boy. However, short of an explicit action by the Security Council, aggressive actions (by two of the permanent members, no less) are still illegal. How can you accept that three-fifths of the Security Council and the Security-General of the UN disagree with your interpretation yet still claim that the Security Council did authorize it?
I find it interesting that you dismissed a direct quote from a relevant Security Council resolution about why they have authorized the multinational force in Iraq, and instead you pull this out of thin air without any evidence to support it. So I guess here we go again, from Resolution 1546 on why they authorized the force...
I didn't dismiss any direct quote. I used the facts available to draw an obvious conclusion. Two of the five permanent Security Council members had invaded and occupied another member country, against the wishes of the Secretary-General and the wishes of the Security Council. The US had demonstrated the useless of the UN if the big boys decide to ignore it. A fight by the UN would be pointless because the US would veto any resolution condemning them. That left two options, go away and ignore Iraq or attempt to ensure a clean-up and transfer of power to a new Iraqi government. Your quoted paragraph in no way disputes what I just said.
I'll also pose my question yet again. Given that international peace and security are worse and show no immediate prospect of improving, at what point the Security Council must take action to correct it? Perhaps the third time is a charm...
Is the effort to dismiss and denegrate the contributions of other states not also a propaganda effort to make the United States appear more isolated? The force is a "multinational force" because, well, it is made up from multiple nations, and I can't believe we are having this debate.
I have no problem with giving credit (whether positive or negative) to other states for their participation. However, the "multinational force" and "coalition of the willing" folks don't want to be honest about the participation of the other nations. Do you even know how few non-US forces have been involved? The UK is the only other nation with anything more than a blip on the radar. Despite GWB's claims of 49 countries in his coalition, only five nations had troops in the initial invasion; the US and UK accounted for 99% of these troops. Remember Bush making a big deal about Kerry's failure to mention Poland during a televised debated? Poland's 194 troops accounted for 0.06 percent (that's six one-hundredths of one percent) of the total force. I guess you might want to count some of the troops deployed after the initial fighting, like Armenia's 46, Moldova's 12, or Bosnia's 36. Official reports show that the US accounts for 93% of total military causalities thus far. The UK has borne 4% and the rest of the coalition the remaining 3%. The US bears almost 100% of the budgetary costs (excluding, of course, the costs of each nation to provide their military presence), now estimated total over $100 billion within a few more years.
I also restate my questions regarding the portion of the reso
This is not some crackpot theory that I came up with in isolation.
And I certainly didn't mean to insinuate otherwise. Yet, that doesn't make it one bit more logically, legally, or morally correct.
After 12 years, Iraq was in violation of this mandate, and with that the basis for the cease-fire was destroyed.
Unfortunately for people who use this argument, that was a decision for the Security Council to make.
I can't believe that you don't see the straw-man here. The UN has already authorized the presence of the multinational force in Iraq because of this standard.
No. The Security Council authorized this force because it was already there, lead by and composed almost entirely of US forces. Given that international peace and security are worse and show no immediate prospect of improving, I again ask at what point the Security Council must take action to correct it.
It fascinates me that you seem so intent on these types of semantic games. I refer to it as the "multinational force" because that is what both the Security Council (in 1546) and the Iraqi government call it. I guess I can't stop you if you want to read more into it than that.
I can't speak to you personally, but supporters of your position refer to them as "multinational" forces because of the propaganda effect - it gives the US actions the appearance of world support and international legitimacy. What is the standard for "multinational"? Does one representative from any other government satisfy this word or does it actually require the active
involvement and cooperation of multiple nations?
The Security Council has made it clear that our presence there is "essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq". This is based on their recognition of what would most likely happen if troops were withdrawn prematurely.
The relevant text actually says:
Recognizing that international support for security and stability is essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq as well as the ability of all concerned, including the United Nations, to carry out their work on behalf of the people of Iraq...
Where in that statement does it say that US military occupation is necessary? I see nothing about the need for 14 permanent military bases. I noticed nothing calling for the largest US embassy in the world.
Your language is betraying you. The current government is legitimate in every sense of the word, and was installed by over 12 million Iraqis in a popular vote.
And Saddam garnered 100% of the popular vote in 2002, up from 99.96% in 1995.
I also note that you ignored the rest of that paragraph to nitpick my use of one word in one sentence.
The Bush Administrations refusal to agree to an artificial timetable is based on the hard realities of warfare rather than the political ambitions of President Bush's opponents. How would an artificial timetable bring us any closer to a victory in Iraq? Answer- it wouldn't. In fact, it pretty much guarantees defeat
Would you mind sharing your definitions of victory and defeat? What "hard realities of warfare" do you refer to? When are the American soldiers allowed to go home? As I've said, the refusal to set any milestones (not the mm/dd/yyyy straw-man you love to toss out) coupled with the massive construction projects demonstrate no plan to leave.
We are not going to lose militarily unless we give up.
The real battle has always been right here in the United States, and I am sad to say that we are losing on that front. How are the Iraqi people to take any promise of continued support by the Americans seriously when the Senate Majority leader is on TV claiming that war is already "lost" while he sponsors legislation to force us to leave?
Fine, though I humbly do suggest that said contractors be required to hire a certain number of people who come back crippled (either physically, emotionally, or mentally) from Iraq or Iran if we go in there. Call it their way of repaying society for the opportunity to make fuck-you money. They already do their part. With the $10 billion profits they made this year, Exxon's executives will be buying even larger houses and replacing their out-dated private jets. Both create jobs and probably are good for the environment in some manner. And Halliburton is moving their headquarters to Dubai to save the American taxpayers money - with all corporate records out of the US there is little point in wasting money on expensive investigations.
People don't own something just because they were born within 300 miles of it...Besides, the natives already were given generous cuts of the profits, despite the total absence of justice for such generosity. Private property rights are only for those who can afford them?
Before the Western oil companies sank hundreds of millions of dollars into the area in order to develop that oil, it didn't exist...The oil belongs to whoever caused it to be accessible... and Western utilization of it does not, itself, harm the natives. I'm going to use that same logic for your bank account. After all, that money belongs to whoever caused it to be accessible. Surely my use of it won't harm you.
That's a problem to be solved by international arbitration, NOT by deposing democratically elected leaders and putting thuggish princelings back in power. Not just from a humanitarian standpoint, but from a pragmatic one as well -- the coup against Mossadegh lead to the 1979 revolution, which lead to the 80s Iran-Iraq war in which we armed Hussein's Iraq, which lead to a strong Iraq that could bully Kuwait... etc. And now it's 2007 and we're mired in the Iraqi situation. And both defense contractors and oil companies have made grotesque profits through it all, so it appears to be working after all.
Partly because he was all for nationalising an oil company largely owned by overseas interests which simply wouldn't do, not with all that profit to be made. Absolutely! Can't have those profits staying in the country, where they might benefit locals instead of foreign billionaires.
*sigh* Of course it is. That is the whole reason for the UN mandate for the multinational force in Iraq...By the way, I'm not that interested in debating these kinds of sarcastic straw-men. Sorry.
The question you quoted was of course asked in a sarcastic manner, but the point itself was quite valid and absolutely not a straw-man. You want the US invasion of Iraq to be justified because of stock language in a resolution passed nearly 17 years ago - a resolution that authorized force to put Saddam back into Iraq and that was no longer applicable thanks to a cease-fire in Resolution 687. I'm pointing out that if you are relying the establishment of international peace and security, then you can't just ignore it now. As you've granted, things are worse on the ground now than they were prior to the invasion. What is the appropriate window of opportunity for the new government to meet this standard before the UN must again take military action?
Do you acknowledge that the Iraqi government has asked for the continued presence of the multinational force...
Yes, the US-backed government has been quite unsurprising in parroting the US administration's line. Yet, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, a recent poll showed that nearly 80% of the Iraqi population wants the US out of the country. Isn't democracy supposed to be something about government of the people for the people? I also note that you love to use "multinational" to describe the US forces. Is there any standard for this term? Does the verbal support of another nation count, or must they at least commit troops? If they commit troops must they be authorized to fight, or can they sit at the base? Over 90% of all troops have been provided by the US. Only five nations had troops involved in the initial invasion and international support has fallen since.
The US condemned Syria's interference in Lebanon for years. Despite repeated public statements from Lebanon's government that they wanted Syria to remain, the US (and the UN) pushed to remove Syria. Other than the difference in UN mandates (which must be ignored thanks the US position on the Security Council) how are these two situations greatly different?
...and the Security Council has unanimously voted multiple times to extend the mandate of the multinational force precisely for the international peace and security of the area?
The UN had no choice - they could either admit defeat, disband, and bow out of the international community or they could ignore defeat and try to save face by at least trying to get a government in Iraq again. I'd love to hear your defense of the CPA and how the US abused its authorization.
Do you realize how much worse it can get if we did pack up and leave right now?
What can happen is much different than what would happen. The civil war likely would grow and eventually someone would emerge victorious (something like the war that allowed the American nation to exist a few hundred years ago). I know that the number of US casualties would drop significantly. I also imagine that the multi-billion dollar budget pipe to military contractors in Iraq would at least shrink a little. There is a chance that the legitimate government would not allow the US to occupy the country as they can do now. It is likely that a new government would undo many of the provisions put in place allowing US and multinational corporations to ensure that no significant local economy can compete with them. And I know that these possibilities scare the US administration and their corporate sponsors.
No, what the US refuses to do is agree to an artificial timetable for withdrawal. The US has made it explicitly clear that we have no long term ambitions there, and that the number of foreign troops in Iraq is directly proportional to the ISF's capabilities. Is this not a clear message on our objectives? Further, how would s
Every word in the resolutions passed by the Security Council is scrutinized. You cannot just dismiss this phrase as "nothing significant".
Legal documents routinely include common wording. As I said, that wording exists for the explicit tie back to this phrase that existing throughout the UN Charter. If you believe that the inclusion of those words were intentionally designed to allow a wider mandate than just that provided in 660, perhaps you can provide the UN's definition of restore international peace and security in the area and what actions will fulfill that? And, you could review the nearly 2000 resolutions and the full UN Charter to see how many hundreds of times you will encounter that phrase without definition or clarification.
There was no authorization to use military force in this resolution
Paragraph three states:
...to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the Force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States
The UN established a force for the purpose of restoring international peace and security to a particular area. A subsequent relevant resolution (467) explained that self-defense would include resistance to attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council. If Israel's military is preventing UN peacekeeping forces from implementing international peace and security, then it seems we've met the requirements. In fact, only last year, some were arguing that Israel's ongoing violations of the numerous UN-Lebanon resolutions should enable UNIFIL to use force for more than self-defense.
Also of interest, in commenting on Resolution 1701 (also a Chapter 6 resolution), Israel noted that:
The last paragraph of the preamble, paragraph 10, states that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security. This language was adopted from Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and strengthens the operative parts of the entire resolution.
In other words, the fact that it includes the traditional Chapter 7 stock language gives it more bite than the average Chapter 6 resolution.
And lets also not forget that the situation in Lebanon that led to this resolution began with terrorists from the PLO massacring 37 innocent Israeli citizens on a bus ride to work one morning in Tel Aviv.
I agree that such an event is terrible and should not be accepted in a civilized world. However, let's not forget that Israel's responses generally have been out of proportion and overly devastating to civilians. One of their more recent battles with forces in Lebanon (primarily Hezbollah militants) resulted in around 1,000 casualties in Lebanon (almost all civilian) and approximately 150 casualties for Israel (all military).
You also left out the fact that Israel did withdraw completely from Lebanon later in 1978 on accordance with 425, after they had driven the PLO out of South Lebanon, and all that accomplished was to allow the PLO back in there so they could start attacking Israel again. This finally culminated in the 1982 conflict where Israel retook South Lebanon...
If Israel met the requirements of 425 later in 1978, why did the UN not consider the matter closed until 2000? Why did the Security Council find it necessary to pass resolutions 427, 434, 444, 450, 467, 483, 488, 490, 498, 501, and 508 over the next 3+ years? The Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that from August 1981 to May 1982 there were 2096 violations of Lebanese airspace and 652 violations of Lebanese territorial waters by Israel. And, despite numerous attacks launched after the Jul
Slashdot Mirror
I can promise you that any number claimed to be adequate to eliminate advertising would be a die roll with a bunch of zeros on the end. And, it would be so large that most wouldn't consider it. Yet, the same folks will accept their annual cable bill increases while getting more ads per hour.
The average American ranks cable (or satellite) TV and cell phone service up there with food and water. It will be a lonely boycott.
The big killer will be in a few years when cable providers have everyone on digital cable and include DRM in the cable boxes that prevent you from using third-party DVRs. Just as they don't want you putting a VCR on the output of a DVD player, they will no longer allow anything but TVs on the outputs of their boxes.
Think of it this way. We know the standard Slashdot opinion of politicians and lawyers. A judge is a lawyer that is more politically savvy than most. /shiver
I got a benchmark for ya. "Are things running well?" Yes? Yes they are? Then shut the fuck up and stop asking me to waste time comparing myself to other people.
Exactly. Because an organization should never strive for better.
Seriously, it's not an "innocent" request. It never is. First, they just want to know how you compare. Then, they want to know why you're not the absolute bestest in the whole universe. Then they compare you against departments with fewer people. "Hmm, seems we could get comparable results with 2 fewer bodies". Then each employee is evaluating their specific performance trying to justify their job. Or you're filling out "Time code sheets" to tell them what you do in each 6 minute block of time. Pretty soon you're hearing about their buddy Steve, who has his entire office and web presence run by one part time summer intern who happily works for $6/hour plus tips.
There no doubt are places like this, and you would do well to exit such an organization sooner than later. Trying to avoid accountability or fighting audits only make you appear aware of and afraid of your own incompetence. If you are providing no benefit above what Steve and his summer intern can do for a tenth of your salary, then management needs to act. If you can't explain why going with Steve and his summer intern is a bad idea, you have left it to management to decide with the information they have. If management makes a stupid decision in selecting Steve and his summer intern, the organization will eventually pay for it and you can find a better job elsewhere.
Evaluate your performance based on internal expectations. You want great uptime on the web server? Why, we were only down for 2 hours last month. Compared to previous months, that's great! You want quick response to employee problems? Our average response time for properly filed tickets was down %4 compared to last quarter. That's the way you evaluate.
This is pretty common in IT, but it often leads to a bloated and stagnant IT structure and itself leads to outsourcing. A well-managed IT department in an organization with competent leadership rarely will be outsourced, especially in the smaller to mid-size environments (yes, bits and pieces will be as it makes sense to do so, but I'm talking about the whole shooting match). I can't count the number of companies that I've seen outsource IT simply as a clean-slate housecleaning move, because someone finally realized that IT was grotesquely oversized, wrapped in red-tape, and lagging behind the industry in technology.
If you start giving these fuckers examples of how other companies are doing, they'll cherry-pick and start challenging you to match. "Why, there's a place in Wisconsin that only has 1 tech covering 400 people! I don't know what this 'Wyse terminal' thing is, but surely if just one guy can cover all those people, we're overstaffed here!"
And you ought to be able to explain why that example isn't relevant to your place of employment or why it would be a bad idea.
I know it seems like it could be good. "Why, we're outperforming most other companies, surely they'll see this and use it as criteria to give us better raises/more benefits/better perks". NO. NO, they won't. Just NO. Come review time, you could be leading 90% of the field, and they'll go on about the top 10% and how those guys earn less than you, so they shouldn't give you a raise. Or they'll go on about how other companies have their helpdesk techs do server support too, so they don't need your $80k server admin. If you're underpaid, and everyone else makes more than you, you can show them that too, and they'll nod in an interested fashion, they'll hum and haw, and they'll end up giving you some bullshit excuse about budget constraint
Those must be metric consoles. Anyone know how to convert this to Asspiles or Shitloads?
I'm a long-time EA Sport gamer, going back to Madden and Bill Walsh College Football on the Genesis, but I stopped buying the new games three or four years ago after several years of disappointment. It seemed stupid to spend another $50 or $60 each summer to get the new rosters, especially when I play dynasties and quickly have my own unique teams. Also consider that industry recognition of this process means that used games lose 60 - 75 percent of their value within nine months of release and are usually in the $5 bin after a year. I'm still playing EA's college game from 2005, which I bought used for less than $10.
I wish I could say I don't understand how the GP was modded +5, but I'm not that new here. Most or all current implementations of DRM have been skewed toward the copyright holder at the expense of the consumer, but that does not invalid the concept of DRM or the importance of it.
I love the proof by assertion. So I think you are incorrect, and you think I am incorrect. Thats a big shocker.
No doubt, but that wasn't what I said. I pointed out that a few other people saying what you say doesn't automatically make it right.
To repeat myself, I believe the Security Council did make this decision, over a dozen times, ending with the council affording Iraq one final chance to comply or face "serious consequences". I don't think that "If you don't comply we will keep talking about it" qualifies as a serious consequence.
And I can only repeat that this is incorrect. Only the Security Council can undo the cease-fire and authorize force. I can see your objection to them sitting around with a thumb up their collective butt, hoping Saddam will finally bare his soul and be a good boy. However, short of an explicit action by the Security Council, aggressive actions (by two of the permanent members, no less) are still illegal. How can you accept that three-fifths of the Security Council and the Security-General of the UN disagree with your interpretation yet still claim that the Security Council did authorize it?
I find it interesting that you dismissed a direct quote from a relevant Security Council resolution about why they have authorized the multinational force in Iraq, and instead you pull this out of thin air without any evidence to support it. So I guess here we go again, from Resolution 1546 on why they authorized the force...
I didn't dismiss any direct quote. I used the facts available to draw an obvious conclusion. Two of the five permanent Security Council members had invaded and occupied another member country, against the wishes of the Secretary-General and the wishes of the Security Council. The US had demonstrated the useless of the UN if the big boys decide to ignore it. A fight by the UN would be pointless because the US would veto any resolution condemning them. That left two options, go away and ignore Iraq or attempt to ensure a clean-up and transfer of power to a new Iraqi government. Your quoted paragraph in no way disputes what I just said.
I'll also pose my question yet again. Given that international peace and security are worse and show no immediate prospect of improving, at what point the Security Council must take action to correct it? Perhaps the third time is a charm...
Is the effort to dismiss and denegrate the contributions of other states not also a propaganda effort to make the United States appear more isolated? The force is a "multinational force" because, well, it is made up from multiple nations, and I can't believe we are having this debate.
I have no problem with giving credit (whether positive or negative) to other states for their participation. However, the "multinational force" and "coalition of the willing" folks don't want to be honest about the participation of the other nations. Do you even know how few non-US forces have been involved? The UK is the only other nation with anything more than a blip on the radar. Despite GWB's claims of 49 countries in his coalition, only five nations had troops in the initial invasion; the US and UK accounted for 99% of these troops. Remember Bush making a big deal about Kerry's failure to mention Poland during a televised debated? Poland's 194 troops accounted for 0.06 percent (that's six one-hundredths of one percent) of the total force. I guess you might want to count some of the troops deployed after the initial fighting, like Armenia's 46, Moldova's 12, or Bosnia's 36. Official reports show that the US accounts for 93% of total military causalities thus far. The UK has borne 4% and the rest of the coalition the remaining 3%. The US bears almost 100% of the budgetary costs (excluding, of course, the costs of each nation to provide their military presence), now estimated total over $100 billion within a few more years.
I also restate my questions regarding the portion of the reso
This is not some crackpot theory that I came up with in isolation.
And I certainly didn't mean to insinuate otherwise. Yet, that doesn't make it one bit more logically, legally, or morally correct.
After 12 years, Iraq was in violation of this mandate, and with that the basis for the cease-fire was destroyed.
Unfortunately for people who use this argument, that was a decision for the Security Council to make.
I can't believe that you don't see the straw-man here. The UN has already authorized the presence of the multinational force in Iraq because of this standard.
No. The Security Council authorized this force because it was already there, lead by and composed almost entirely of US forces. Given that international peace and security are worse and show no immediate prospect of improving, I again ask at what point the Security Council must take action to correct it.
It fascinates me that you seem so intent on these types of semantic games. I refer to it as the "multinational force" because that is what both the Security Council (in 1546) and the Iraqi government call it. I guess I can't stop you if you want to read more into it than that.
I can't speak to you personally, but supporters of your position refer to them as "multinational" forces because of the propaganda effect - it gives the US actions the appearance of world support and international legitimacy. What is the standard for "multinational"? Does one representative from any other government satisfy this word or does it actually require the active involvement and cooperation of multiple nations?
The Security Council has made it clear that our presence there is "essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq". This is based on their recognition of what would most likely happen if troops were withdrawn prematurely.
The relevant text actually says:
Recognizing that international support for security and stability is essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq as well as the ability of all concerned, including the United Nations, to carry out their work on behalf of the people of Iraq...
Where in that statement does it say that US military occupation is necessary? I see nothing about the need for 14 permanent military bases. I noticed nothing calling for the largest US embassy in the world.
Your language is betraying you. The current government is legitimate in every sense of the word, and was installed by over 12 million Iraqis in a popular vote.
And Saddam garnered 100% of the popular vote in 2002, up from 99.96% in 1995.
I also note that you ignored the rest of that paragraph to nitpick my use of one word in one sentence.
The Bush Administrations refusal to agree to an artificial timetable is based on the hard realities of warfare rather than the political ambitions of President Bush's opponents. How would an artificial timetable bring us any closer to a victory in Iraq? Answer- it wouldn't. In fact, it pretty much guarantees defeat
Would you mind sharing your definitions of victory and defeat? What "hard realities of warfare" do you refer to? When are the American soldiers allowed to go home? As I've said, the refusal to set any milestones (not the mm/dd/yyyy straw-man you love to toss out) coupled with the massive construction projects demonstrate no plan to leave.
We are not going to lose militarily unless we give up.
But you already won.
The real battle has always been right here in the United States, and I am sad to say that we are losing on that front. How are the Iraqi people to take any promise of continued support by the Americans seriously when the Senate Majority leader is on TV claiming that war is already "lost" while he sponsors legislation to force us to leave?
When
*sigh* Of course it is. That is the whole reason for the UN mandate for the multinational force in Iraq...By the way, I'm not that interested in debating these kinds of sarcastic straw-men. Sorry.
The question you quoted was of course asked in a sarcastic manner, but the point itself was quite valid and absolutely not a straw-man. You want the US invasion of Iraq to be justified because of stock language in a resolution passed nearly 17 years ago - a resolution that authorized force to put Saddam back into Iraq and that was no longer applicable thanks to a cease-fire in Resolution 687. I'm pointing out that if you are relying the establishment of international peace and security, then you can't just ignore it now. As you've granted, things are worse on the ground now than they were prior to the invasion. What is the appropriate window of opportunity for the new government to meet this standard before the UN must again take military action?
Do you acknowledge that the Iraqi government has asked for the continued presence of the multinational force...
Yes, the US-backed government has been quite unsurprising in parroting the US administration's line. Yet, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, a recent poll showed that nearly 80% of the Iraqi population wants the US out of the country. Isn't democracy supposed to be something about government of the people for the people? I also note that you love to use "multinational" to describe the US forces. Is there any standard for this term? Does the verbal support of another nation count, or must they at least commit troops? If they commit troops must they be authorized to fight, or can they sit at the base? Over 90% of all troops have been provided by the US. Only five nations had troops involved in the initial invasion and international support has fallen since.
The US condemned Syria's interference in Lebanon for years. Despite repeated public statements from Lebanon's government that they wanted Syria to remain, the US (and the UN) pushed to remove Syria. Other than the difference in UN mandates (which must be ignored thanks the US position on the Security Council) how are these two situations greatly different?
...and the Security Council has unanimously voted multiple times to extend the mandate of the multinational force precisely for the international peace and security of the area?
The UN had no choice - they could either admit defeat, disband, and bow out of the international community or they could ignore defeat and try to save face by at least trying to get a government in Iraq again. I'd love to hear your defense of the CPA and how the US abused its authorization.
Do you realize how much worse it can get if we did pack up and leave right now?
What can happen is much different than what would happen. The civil war likely would grow and eventually someone would emerge victorious (something like the war that allowed the American nation to exist a few hundred years ago). I know that the number of US casualties would drop significantly. I also imagine that the multi-billion dollar budget pipe to military contractors in Iraq would at least shrink a little. There is a chance that the legitimate government would not allow the US to occupy the country as they can do now. It is likely that a new government would undo many of the provisions put in place allowing US and multinational corporations to ensure that no significant local economy can compete with them. And I know that these possibilities scare the US administration and their corporate sponsors.
No, what the US refuses to do is agree to an artificial timetable for withdrawal. The US has made it explicitly clear that we have no long term ambitions there, and that the number of foreign troops in Iraq is directly proportional to the ISF's capabilities. Is this not a clear message on our objectives? Further, how would s
Every word in the resolutions passed by the Security Council is scrutinized. You cannot just dismiss this phrase as "nothing significant".
Legal documents routinely include common wording. As I said, that wording exists for the explicit tie back to this phrase that existing throughout the UN Charter. If you believe that the inclusion of those words were intentionally designed to allow a wider mandate than just that provided in 660, perhaps you can provide the UN's definition of restore international peace and security in the area and what actions will fulfill that? And, you could review the nearly 2000 resolutions and the full UN Charter to see how many hundreds of times you will encounter that phrase without definition or clarification.
There was no authorization to use military force in this resolution
Paragraph three states:
The UN established a force for the purpose of restoring international peace and security to a particular area. A subsequent relevant resolution (467) explained that self-defense would include resistance to attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council. If Israel's military is preventing UN peacekeeping forces from implementing international peace and security, then it seems we've met the requirements. In fact, only last year, some were arguing that Israel's ongoing violations of the numerous UN-Lebanon resolutions should enable UNIFIL to use force for more than self-defense.
Also of interest, in commenting on Resolution 1701 (also a Chapter 6 resolution), Israel noted that:
The last paragraph of the preamble, paragraph 10, states that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security. This language was adopted from Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and strengthens the operative parts of the entire resolution.
In other words, the fact that it includes the traditional Chapter 7 stock language gives it more bite than the average Chapter 6 resolution.
And lets also not forget that the situation in Lebanon that led to this resolution began with terrorists from the PLO massacring 37 innocent Israeli citizens on a bus ride to work one morning in Tel Aviv.
I agree that such an event is terrible and should not be accepted in a civilized world. However, let's not forget that Israel's responses generally have been out of proportion and overly devastating to civilians. One of their more recent battles with forces in Lebanon (primarily Hezbollah militants) resulted in around 1,000 casualties in Lebanon (almost all civilian) and approximately 150 casualties for Israel (all military).
You also left out the fact that Israel did withdraw completely from Lebanon later in 1978 on accordance with 425, after they had driven the PLO out of South Lebanon, and all that accomplished was to allow the PLO back in there so they could start attacking Israel again. This finally culminated in the 1982 conflict where Israel retook South Lebanon...
If Israel met the requirements of 425 later in 1978, why did the UN not consider the matter closed until 2000? Why did the Security Council find it necessary to pass resolutions 427, 434, 444, 450, 467, 483, 488, 490, 498, 501, and 508 over the next 3+ years? The Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that from August 1981 to May 1982 there were 2096 violations of Lebanese airspace and 652 violations of Lebanese territorial waters by Israel. And, despite numerous attacks launched after the Jul