“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 inks ‘preliminary chip-making agreement’ with Intel: A major step in American semiconductor revival
Apple and Intel have struck a preliminary agreement under which Intel will manufacture some of the chips that power Apple devices…
Apple’s U.S. Education Store discount now requires proof that you’re a student or teacher
Apple is tightening its education pricing program with a new verification process that officially rolls out in the United States today…
Apple shares hit new all-time intraday and closing highs
In Nasdaq trading today, shares of Apple Inc. rose to hit a new all-time closing high. Apple’s all-time intraday high was also set today…
Apple TV’s ‘The Dynasty: UConn Huskies’ set to premiere globally August 21st
Apple TV announced that the new three-part docuseries, “The Dynasty: UConn Huskies,” featuring the legendary University of Connecticut…
Apple pushes back against Canada’s encryption bill
In a move that underscores the growing friction between Silicon Valley and governments worldwide, Apple and Meta have formally…
I believe the UN is currently working on it, no?
And what are they doing? And when would force be necessary?????
Great question Stanley. I’ll answer it. They won’t do a god damn thing. The usual suspects will keep selling them the technology necessary to develop WMDs. Those WMDs will make their way to the terrorists, period. We all know it. The rest of the world outside of our coalition are corrupt, low life, scum bags. That means you One Guy From Finland!
Well I know that they’ve engaged in talks, which obviously would be the first step. Diplomacy usually needs to have a stick and carrot approach, and the US’s military capabilities certainly add a lot of stick. Europe normally would add a lot of stick as well, but unfortunately our “go it alone” attitude has weakened that. I do know that Germany, Britain and France amng others are on board in the diplomatic efforts and I’m sure part of that is the threat of their military capabilities. It’s a shame so much of our efforts are tied up in Iraq, it reallly weakens our stance, right?
Now what about the carrot? I mean I know it’s a sin to most conservatives that we even consider that Iran might be actually telling the truth when it says it’s using this for electricity. It would seem appropriate to me to look into the matter at least, before rushing to war and getting another Iraq.
When would force be necessary? Well, force should, as it always has been, be a last resort. It should be used when it becomes apparent that Iran is unwilling to bend, unwilling to let inspectors find out the truth.
I imagine you are probably an individual that thinks they know what Iran is up to (even though you probably don’t know shit about Iran) and have anger and racism in general towards the Middle East, and like to hear that “we” blow the fuck out of them, wether or not we are justified. Just a guess.
This must be the record thread length. Way to go MDN.
Fword, actually, Libya “ended” its weapons program AFTER UN sanctions were lifted, and only because US sanctions remained in place. Get a computer and look for something called “Google”.
The UN is obviously an intractable organisation. It has been a part of exactly 2 wars, Korea and Iraq1, and those only because of egregious invasions that it could not ignore. Think of it as a family meeting, where everyone, from Uncle Bobby the arsonist in prison to Louise the generous millionare aunt, with Bubby the goth 15 year old and Harper the transvestite vacuum sales(wo)man and everyone else in between getting an equal vote on everything. Any American who knows the true story of Blackhawk Down, when Dutch peacekeepers sat in their barracks a few miles from where US troops were dying, doesn’t put much creedence into the UN, its efficiency, or its ability to achieve its stated aims.
It is never surprising to find that countries act in their self interest. It is becoming less amazing, with time, that so many ignore the inevitable pitfalls the UN continuously drops into. Perhaps some day a large enough scandal will happen, beyond the kickbacks, beyond oil for food, and beyond the raging nepotism, so that even the last of the UN lovers will admit the truth.
a great example of that intractabliliy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm
for those who can’t click on stuff they don’t agree with:
“As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan”
This from the BBC, mind you.
Great posts Joe.
Gspank,
Do you think that after all other means were exhausted that the rest of the UN nations (not the US) would vote to use force to stop Iran and North Korea and others? I sense you know you’re losing this argument because of your beligerent comments about me. You don’t know anything about me buddy.
Yeah, G-Spank, the UN is engaged with some of the states in question. Stanley, you need to pay attention. The UN has sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. As for the other questionable states, again, the UN is only moved by its member nations. Nothing being done against Pakistan? Blame us.
Why isn’t the UN using force to stop the crisis in the Sudan Msr. Fword?
Joe, you’re missing the point(s). First, all sanctions against Libya contributed to their eventual compliance, giving credit only to the US because we ended our sanctions last is foolish. Second, the US sanctions started back in the 82. GW was drunk and snorting coke back then, wasn’t he? Why would you give Bush’s administration credit for something started under Reagan and pursued by every administration since?
The UN intractable? How naive. Welcome to the real world. Diplomacy is hard. It’s more difficult than war. It takes much longer than an invasion. It’s fraught with setbacks, noncompliance, subversion, and corruption. It’s a human institution. Managing things on a global scale requires more patience than most Americans are used to tolerating.
The UN has specific rules of engagement that are arguably flawed but they are cautious to prevent exactly what happened in Iraq. The UN is not meant to foster war, it is meant to broker peace. Threat of military action is a diplomatic tool to encourage peaceful resolutions, not a capricious war policy to propel nations into battle.
Abandoning an institution like the UN, and all it represents to humanity and history, simply for transient and correctable flaws is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Turning our back to the UN is a radically isolationist move. We would engage the world as a rogue state.
Stanley, the world’s problems aren’t solved with your 101st Keyboarders Boo Yah attitude. Don’t expect the UN to act as stupid as you would. Force is a measure of last resort.
I agree that the UN has it’s share of problems, as any beauracracy (spelling???) would have, including any government – and that the UN fundamentally has more beauracracy than anything else. The alternative being that the USA goes outlaw style and imposes it’s will (as if it were a fascist state for the world) is a much worse situation. What would you recommend there Stanley? All it seems you can do is say the UN is messed up but you don’t offer any plan as to what should be done? There have been actions the USA has done that have been righteous that the world for the most part has gotten behind. This war in Iraq has not been one of them. It signals a new and very ineffective and dangerous strategy in which the USA is willing to go to war without any *real* reasons. This is a signal for other countries/organizations to do the same.
The purest sign of ignorance: voting a second time for Bush!
If he lied to us, and the World, about Iraq’s WMD, how can any Republican believe what he says about John Kerry?
And when I type ‘Bush’, read: Rove, Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell (sigh), Rumsfeld: PARTNERS in crime, every one of them!
To anyone that calls themselves a ‘Republican’, and uses the term ‘betrayed’ in a sentence about John Kerry:
You’re saying he ‘betrayed’ the USA by *testifying* to *Congress*!
You want to go think about that for two minutes, and come back here and devise some stupid cover story for your sense of Kerry’s ‘betrayal’
If Bush ever testifies to Congress, it will be in his impeachment hearing, for High crimes, Treason, and lying to Congress about Iraq, Medicare, etc.
Promise.
A zogby poll of New York City residents in august found that 49% of those surveyed knew that Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11 (and let it happen).
http://www.911truth.org
http://www.911visibility.org
http://www.911forthetruth.com (9/11 widow suing Bush, et al)
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org
http://www.fromthewilderness.com
http://www.oilempire.us
You left wingers have totally lost it, That is if you ever had it to begin with. John Kerry and Ken Doll Edwards both saw the same evidence Bush saw and agreed and voted to take out Saddam. If you think they lied and I don’t then your boys Kerry and Edwards lied too.
Why can’t any of you liberals give Stanley a straight answer. You’re totally dodging his question. Why is it always up to the US to use force for humanitarian reasons????? The UN will never use force to stop anything. NO matter how bad it is. You know it. It’s a useless organization. If you don’t think so give a couple of instances when you think the UN would vote to use force against a very bad situation without having the US involved.
Mark,
You are insane dude! Watch out the men with the butterfly nets are right behind you and closing in. They’ve got a great padded room for you sally.
Why aren’t any liberals answering Stanley’s question???????????
In watching the debates, I keep hearing that Kerry has a plan.
I still don’t know what the plan is.
Well, I have a plan, too � to vote for Bush.
If anyone is not being straight with the American people, it’s Kerry.
Two things were obvious to anyone who watched Friday’s debate.
Kerry will say anything to get elected, and he was lying when he said he won’t raise taxes to pay for all his promises.
up yours Finland!
I’ve answered Stanley’s question. You right wingnuts are just too stupid to understand it. The UN doesn’t have any troops of their own. Threat of force is predicated on having force to threaten with. The UN is only as useful as its member nations make it. Get a fucking clue and maybe read up on how the UN works.
That is not an answer. That’s the typical left wing nut case answer, no answer.
WHEN WOULD THE UN VOTE TO USE FORCE WITHOUT THE US BEING INVOLVED? UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD THEY USE FORCE AGAINST IRAN AND NORTH KOREA WITHOUT THE US??????
ANSWER IT!
re: Gary’s false dilemma regarding the Dems’ stance on Saddam. I refer you to my post from 8:20 the other day…
It must be difficult for you guys to see the world in shades of gray. Do you understand that all of those quotes don’t prove your point that Bush made the right decision in Iraq and the Dems are being inconsistent by having said all of those things?
The Dems were as caught up in the fervor to oust Saddam as most of the Washington politicos were. Nonetheless, they were still calling for measured action, not brash unilateralism. They wanted a comprehensive approach, not some half-assed one like Bush implemented.
No matter how you try to spin Bush’s incompetence, the fact of the matter is the UN sanctions were working. We could have easily found a way to contain Saddam without having to invade Iraq. Would Saddam work against the sanctions? Of course. Would upholding the sanctions and containing Saddam be difficult? Of course. But none of this difficulty would ever reach the level that Iraq is at now. Diplomacy takes bravery, confidence, and moral certitude. Bush has none of these.