“Back in May, tech leaders such as John Chambers, chief executive officer of Cisco Systems Inc., and Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc., threw their support behind George W. Bush. John Kerry has industry backing of his own, including that of Apple Computer Inc.
Previous Post
Apple releases Apple Remote Desktop 2.1 Update253 Comments
Leave a Reply
Apple to raise prices due to memory chip crunch, says outgoing CEO Tim Cook
Apple’s outgoing CEO Tim Cook confirmed that price hikes across Apple’s product lineup are now “unavoidable” due to skyrocketing costs…
iPhone 18 to sport 12GB of unified memory to support Siri AI and Apple Intelligence features
The standard iPhone 18 launching next year will include 12GB of unified memory to power Apple’s on-device AI model and its new Siri AI…
Apple rolls out new firmware updates for AirPods Pro 3, AirPods Pro 2, and Beats Studio Buds
Apple this week released fresh firmware updates for the AirPods Pro 3, AirPods Pro 2, and Beats Studio Buds…
Apple sets new iPhone sales records in China; while beleaguered Huawei faces empty stores
Millions of Chinese students are engaging in “revenge spending,” driving record activations of over 32 million iPhone 17 units and Apple…
As an interested foreign bystander, then the US should bomb the f*ck out of those other countries too a-hole.
No Gspank you just got killed. Nothing you have said makes sense. You just admitted that under no circumstance would you use force and you fully support the low life UN. Good going dip shit.
There two problems with the question.
First you are trying to separate the UN from the US. As a member of the Security Council, the US has veto power over any action. So your assumption that the UN will do anything without the US is disingenuous. It’s a false dilemma, a logical fallacy.
Second, you seem to believe that the UN is a war machine of some sort. It’s not. As I said earlier, the UN is an agent to broker peace, not to start war. Even when circumstances get bad enough to require military action, the UN does not take the action, member nations do.
Did the UN fight Gulf War I? No.
“A U.N. ultimatum, Security Council Resolution 678, followed on November 29, 1990.� It stipulated that if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did not remove his troops from Kuwait by January 15, 1991 a U.S.-led coalition was authorized to drive them out.” (source)
Forces under UN auspices (blue berets) have specific duties and according to their charter they will not exacerbate the situation, which is why their rules of engagement are so strict and primarily for defense.
When will the UN find it necessary to authorize use of force in situations like North Korea, Iran, or Sudan? When conflict is unavoidable. The fact that you don’t like this answer is tough shit. What answer would you prefer? Tuesday? Unlike the US, the UN will not preempt. That isn’t what it was created for.
When threat of force is used, the UN will lay out what is necessary to avoid such conflict through resolutions. If there is any sign of cooperation, it behooves the UN to treat this as more valuable than any lack of cooperation or even subversion. This is because the UN is meant to broker peaceful resolutions, not march headlong into war at the drop of a hat. This is why one resolution is broken and another is passed. Like I said, diplomacy is hard work. You neocons might feel free to play fast and loose with people’s lives but that’s because you’re assholes. Luckily for us all, the UN is braver and more resolved than you are.
And Christoff, read the thread or shut the fuck up. Neither G-Spank nor I have said or implied that under no circumstances should force be used.
word.
It’s a hypothetical question dip shit that proves that the rests of the world won’t ever lift a finger to stop phsycopaths and neither will liberal left wingers.
The US alone with it’s closest allies will. UN = Pile Of Garbage!
Yeah, I know it’s a hypothetical. It’s a poorly thought-out hypothetical. As I said while you and your ilk belligerently demanded an answer to this nonsensical question, you obviously don’t understand the UN or its processes. Why didn’t you just save us all a bunch of time and effort and just state your stupid opinion. I could have spent all this time ripping that apart.
Also, you are far from proving anything.
I want US forces to fight the war on terrorism. I supported action in Afghanistan (I had been following the insane policies of the Taliban for years before 9/11/01). I think preemptive war is more than justified in the face of a clear and present danger. Iraq was not a clear and present danger. Iran and North Korea are. It would have been nice to have the forces available to deal with these real problems. I want our battles to matter.
It sure did prove that you idiot liberals will not use force under any circumstances. In your opinion we should all just surrender to the terrorists and let the French, Germans, Russia, China, etc., tell us what to do.
Never going to happen fturd! You a-hole!
You are completely out of touch with reality, Jay. Seek help.
no fword you are one not playing with a full deck. let’s hope the terrorists and your foreign friends don’t introduce you to reality.
So, Stan falsely asserts that I (and G-Spank) don’t advocate use of force. I assert that I do in fact advocate use of force. You then assert that I don’t. I call you out of touch with reality (since you are contradicting what I had just claimed to be fact). And you come back by saying that I’m not playing with a full deck. Okay. I guess that proves my point.
After reading throught he posts effword, you never said when the UN members, without the US, would vote to use force against Iran and North Korea without the US sending a single troup.
If they wouldn’t vote to use force then what teeth does the UN really have?
October 12, 2004
We Have an Obligation to Eliminate Terrorism, Not Tolerate It
By Rudy Giuliani
(Note: The following remarks were delivered at Bush-Cheney conference call yesterday).
For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.
I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?
This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s — they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.
As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’ This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion. Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not on the rise,’ it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?
The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.
It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.
Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that’s why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite. I think that rather than being some aberrational comment, it is the core of the John Kerry philosophy: that terrorism is no different than domestic law enforcement problems, and that the best we’re ever going to be able to do is reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising with it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?
This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made – significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we’re going to face up to terrorism and we’re going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There’s no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there’s no reason to tolerate organized crime.
So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we’ve talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn’t understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it’s just a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does.
Rudy Giuliani is the former Mayor of New York City.
Oscar, learn how to read.
“When will the UN find it necessary to authorize use of force in situations like North Korea, Iran, or Sudan? When conflict is unavoidable. The fact that you don’t like this answer is tough shit. What answer would you prefer? Tuesday?”
— posted Oct 13, 04 | 8:28 pm
Rudy Giuliani is another scary ultra die hard neo-con, but that’s beside the point.
I don’t really care anymore about points for or against. Everyone has pretty much made up their mind by now, and this country is so divided that noone is gonna convince anyone to consider other choices at this point. In my opinion, Bush carries the emotionally charged people (who vote by religion, fear, hatred or all of the above), and Kerry has the more intellectual side (who are often made fun of by the other side as people who *think* they’re so smart, and so on). So in November we’re gonna find out what America is made of. God help us if Bush is re-elected. In my opinion, it will signal a time of where the once great USA will be ruled by a semi-fascist regime who uses propaganda & fear to achieve its egocentric goals. The term “Neo-Con” will not be looked at favorably by those in the future. Again, these are my opinions, and hopefully I’m wrong. If Bush is re-elected, my prediction is that there also will be a fairly large exodus from this country – which will comprise mostly artists and more free thinking people. Artists are wanted by other countries (nice bonus) and are offered incentives as such. It saddens me to think that this country could get taken over by bullies so easily…
Here’s another interesting and sad story on the cost of the USA’s current selfish leaders. Sometimes I really think they do represent what this country is all about. What happened to the country who could ask it’s citizens to buckle down and work hard so that our children won’t have to pay the cost? Has it been replaced with a bunch of me-first and fuck-them baby boomers? Are these the people driving the huge SUV’s and buying the same identical giant houses?
and yes, it’s even on a technology site:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/view.html?pg=5
Wow, what a long thread. I have to totally disagree with effwerd. I would also like effwerd to explain exactly what would make the UN vote to use force without the US being involved. And why the rest of the world won’t do anything to stop Iran and North Korea from developing nukes. And why the rest of the world doesn’t try to go after terrorists. Why isn’t Spain hunting down Osama??????
I’ve just watched the video of the third debate.
I am now very worried about Bush winning. Comparing his performances this time round to 2000, I wonder if he’s actually losing his mind. It’s the inane grin in the third debate that gives him away. Something seems seriously wrong with his mental health.
Even you Republicans must have seen it if you watched. Put Bush back in office, and you will have President Cheney before the four years are out.
Dave H,
You’re the one who’s out of his mind. You need some serious medical attention.
George Bush will win and continue to make this world a better place. How anyone could ever vote for that flip flopping idiot we’ll never know.
John Kerry and you Dave H are terrorist lovers!
The rest of the world outside of the US coalition could care less who gets killed, tortured, etc. They just want $$$$$$$$. Otherise they would do something about Iran and North Korea and Sudan.
Kareem, put the partisan politics to one side and watch the debates. Maybe it’s just the stress of the election contest, but George Bush back in 2000 was far more “real” than George Bush in 2004. Something isn’t right.
I don’t know if you remember the tail end of the Reagan presidency, when there were definitely times when Ronnie just “wasn’t there”. Of course, we found out later exactly why.
Before entering politics, Bush abused his body with all sorts of substances for years. I’m certain there is something either physically or mentally wrong with him, and when he does leave the White House we will be told exactly what, whether that be next January or 2009.
dave h,
what f*ck are you talking about??? you’re the one with mental problems. You’re anti-aids drugs are frying your brain more than it already was.