English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

3 answers

There is a dance they do, it is called diplomacy. It is pretty window-dressing trying to keep civility in international affairs even though the real power bosses of their respective countries often don't give a flip for it. "We need to do something", they say, but all they do is talk.

This is going to ruffle some feathers, but George Bush was doing something other than talk when he sent troops to Iraq. There had been senseless blather for years, including from his predecessor (Bill Clinton) that Saddam was a dangerous man and getting more dangerous every day. We were lied to about the actual WMD state of affairs, and everyone is ready to point to that, but we had the goods on Saddam's torture and oppression of his own people, as well as how Saddam and his French, German, and Russian friends were quietly profiting from the Oil For Food (OFF) humanitarian program. That which was supposed to provide medicines and food for the poor of Iraq instead bought new weapons, and built nearly a hundred palaces for Saddam, as well as bloated the bank accounts of high persons in France and the United Nations committee in oversight.

Peace was Bush's interest. Saddam was, and still is, a catalyst of turmoil. Early plans included turning over the occupation of Iraq to the United Nations. One terrorist bomb in the UN office sent the diplomatic mission that survived scurrying for the exits and the United Nations once more absolved itself of a role in Iraq's restoration, though not removing itself from the ranks of critics.

We didn't have peace before. We don't have peace after. We weren't going to change anything before Bush acted. The only thing we changed is the target of our criticism, instead of an ineffective United Nations, we can complain at Bush because he did something. Diplomacy isn't stopping the Sunnis from killing more Shiites. Diplomacy isn't sending peacekeeping troops in protect Iraqis from Iraqis and those violent extremists who everyone used to say did not exist in Iraq.

What is the importance of peace? The health, safety, and well-being of every human soul on the planet. What is the international understanding? Smoke and mirrors, as usual, and heaping invective upon those who will not settle for smoke and mirrors.

2006-07-13 03:32:27 · answer #1 · answered by Rabbit 7 · 0 0

When watching the news, it would appear the international understanding is a tool used to promote the interests of corporations wishing to globalise their operations in tax friendly countries and to minimise expenditures on labor and tarifs. International understandings by their nature should respect the ideals and sovereignity of those governments whose signatures appear upon them although it would appear that, realistically, they have been used as a means to an end in place of gunboat diplomacy. As for the question of peace - it would appear that peace can only be established when powerful governments achieve favorable trade benefits with smaller and weaker countries. Thus Peace = Money = Stability and complacency of the governed. Peace is a wonderful dream, but will always remain as such as human nature (although desiring of such) negates and rejects its own ideals. When looking at history, peace is temporary.

2006-07-13 09:57:52 · answer #2 · answered by Rather Notsay 2 · 0 0

international understanding:
stand under an international (import - export) office.

importance of peace:
you can hear everything clearly.

2006-07-13 09:49:31 · answer #3 · answered by harshad 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers