The Country that Cried "Wolf!"

[falconwind]

So imagine that you are a delegate in the UN. The United States presents the security council with evidence that Libya is building nuclear weapons, and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons.

You are asked to authorize the use of military force against Libya.

How do you vote?

 

[bliink]

What evidence?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The United States presents the security council with evidence

Libya has a right to defend itself in this case. I would'nt allow US Forces to go in just yet -- I'd send in inspectors. If inspectors were not enough, and there was no existing evidence that might otherwise sufficiently combat the US Claim, I might have to allow them their own inspections from their own criteria.

If they did infact, find what they needed, I'd allow military forces. Nulcear Weapons are far to devastating to leave for chances.


BTW, you've already shared your bias to this situation. The US is inherently wrong, because of the title to this topic. When someone cries wolf, it means their probably lying.

But lets assume for fun, what you think is correct, is correct -- the US Cries wolf, people believe its a lie. Then Berlin is wiped off the map.

New Scenario: How do you acknowledge you were wrong?

 

[falconwind]

What evidence?

Reports from Intelligence Services from other countries. Report on amount of nuclear, biological, chemical material.

Satellite imagery of stockpile sites. Computer diagrams of mobile biological agent labs.

Same sort of evidence that was presented by Colin Powell to the UN in relation to Iraq's WMDs.

Libya denies everything, and UN Weapon Inspectors cannot confirm, nor deny the existence of the WMDs.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh, well thats not fair. Your basing your situation that if the United States did'nt find anything from Iraq, that into going for Libya, they would'nt have learned a trick or two ...

Or, your assuming we had'nt invaded Iraq yet. Why the hell Libya anyway? What has Libya done?

Libya denies everything, and UN Weapon Inspectors cannot confirm, nor deny the existence of the WMDs.

UN Weapon Inspectors cant find anything, eh? Like I said -- I would allow US Weapon Inspectors to follow their said criteria, and investigate.

 

[falconwind]

Oh, well thats not fair. Your basing your situation that if the United States did'nt find anything from Iraq, that into going for Libya, they would'nt have learned a trick or two ...

Or, your assuming we had'nt invaded Iraq yet. Why the hell Libya anyway? What has Libya done?

I picked Libya for no real reason other than they aren't the friendliest of nations. Whether or not Libya is actually doing anything is beside the point.

The question is whether or not you, as a delegate for a foreign nation, would take the United State's evidence at face value, given that it is the same sort of evidence that was presented against Iraq. Condolezza Rice gives the presentation with a sort of "we're sure this time" assurance.



Oh, btw, the Security Council needs 9 votes out of 15 (3/5 or 60% majority) to pass a resolution or it automatically fails, with the permanant members all in consensus. Since we can't represent specific nations, we'll assume the first 33.3% (5/15) to approve are those members. If there is not 60% approval the resolution is defeated.

 

[bliink]

I would want far more evidence than what was presented for Iraq, because clearly that wasnt enough- if I was to authorize war, I would want all WMD's accounted for and captured within a very small timeframe from the beginning of the conflict- that requires real intelligence work, not whatever the hell they messed up with iraq

 

[Tr0n]

WOLF!!!!!!!111!!1

Kill ze wolf!!!That bastard ate little red riding hoods grandma!

/me grabs teh shotgun

 

[seinfeldrules]

Whether or not Libya is actually doing anything is beside the point.

Actually, Libya dropped its WMD program after the US entered Iraq, so they probably arent doing anything.

 

[CptStern]

in exchange for lifting of sanctions ...blackmail, strong-arming, string pulling, underhand-ing ....you know, the stuff they excell at

 

[seinfeldrules]

in exchange for lifting of sanctions ...blackmail, strong-arming, string pulling, underhand-ing ....you know, the stuff they excell at

Well if it made the world safer, all the more power to us. :cheers: You know they were shitting their pants knowing they might be next.

 

[CptStern]

Well if it made the world safer, all the more power to us. :cheers: .

no, the world is not safer

You know they were shitting their pants knowing they might be next

have you been spoonfed so much propaganda that you fail to see how incredibly wrong that is? You're saying that because you have the biggest stick you can do as you please, but that's exactly the attitude that led to airplanes slamming into buildings. It's really a shame that 9/11 taught you nothing.

 

[seinfeldrules]

have you been spoonfed so much propaganda that you fail to see how incredibly wrong that is? You're saying that because you have the biggest stick you can do as you please, but that's exactly the attitude that led to airplanes slamming into buildings.

You need to step back and realize you are defending some of the cruelest dictators on the planet. I know you think all war is wrong, but the only losers in Iraq and other potential wars will be the American soldiers and families of those soldiers.

It's really a shame that 9/11 taught you nothing.

Yeah, it taught us not to sit back and wait for them to try and pull the same crap again. Its the lesson we should have learned after WWII, but as time goes by people tend to forget. Playing the role of a little school girl that runs away from the fight and allows the terrorists to win is not the American way. Another few years may have gone by in Iraq, and they would have developed chemical or biological weapons again. Then, when these weapons were used in NYC or DC, we really would have learned our lesson.

 

[el Chi]

Nulcear Weapons are far to devastating to leave for chances.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this idea that all "rogue states" are in desperate desire for nuclear weapons and that they have every over-zealous intention of using them as soon as possible.
I think most countries accept the devastating impact that such weapons have and that use of them really is only a last resort. Nuclear weaponary, at the moment, is really more of a symbol of power and importance than anything else. It's called "swaggering" - non-violent display of military or political strength.

I find it very unpleasant that we in the Western world have thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons yet we have decided that no-one else ought to and that we're the only ones responsible enough to be trusted. Of course though we turn a blind eye when Israel acquire them and just tut when India and Pakistan get them. India and Pakistan may despise one another over Kashmir, but they have more sense than to fire their nuclear arsenal at one another. One could argue that it's mutually assured destruction, but I'm positive there's more to it than that. You want to keep your biggest and best cards till the end, so to speak, thus keeping some standing of power for as long as possible. Especially if you don't have ridiciulous numbers of them. If one country (country a) were to use nuclear power against another (country b) in a manner deemed suffficiently unnecessary by other nations - and in most cases it would be indefenseable - then country a would get completely and utterly f*cked by other countries invading, and probably deservedly so. And nations know that, even if they are "rogue", they're not entirely stupid. Chemical weapons are different in terms of willingness of use and are slightly more difficult to use than the indiscriminate might of a nuclear attack.

Of course, "terrorist" groups are more dangerous in these terms, so of course taking chances there wouldn't be the best idea ever...

 

[XBORGZORZ]

Sorry guys, but half the world right now believes that you are the opressors (By saying you I mean your government).
So with your own logic if the rest of the world thought that they should liberate the american people from their brain washing government and because of the dangers your administration might bring to the world then by all means they should invade you!!
Even without proof that you actually pose a threat to them or the approval of the american people that they will "liberate"...
Sounds logical? I think not.

 

[Tr0n]

Sorry guys, but half the world right now believes that you are the opressors (By saying you I mean your government).
So with your own logic if the rest of the world thought that they should liberate the american people from their brain washing government and because of the dangers your administration might bring to the world then by all means they should invade you!!
Even without proof that you actually pose a threat to them or the approval of the american people that they will "liberate"...
Sounds logical? I think not.

Yes they could invade...but they won't.

 

[XBORGZORZ]

Of course they wont! It was just an example. The fact that this would lead to world war 3 does not justify another war, (Iraq)with a clear outcome but no logical reasons...
What Im saying is that the reasons given for the invasion in Iraq are the WMDs that were never found and the liberation of the people that was never requested by them.

I will point out that I have no problem with the American people since most were raised to different views and beliefs than me or the rest of the world and many seem to be against the current administration.
I hope you can clearly see my point though.

 

[falconwind]

One good thing about the US being in Iraq is that while they're in there, they can't be anywhere else. Or perhaps that's a bad thing, 'cause maybe they should be trying to HUNT DOWN OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!

 

[HateCrime]

in exchange for lifting of sanctions ...blackmail, strong-arming, string pulling, underhand-ing ....you know, the stuff they excell at

Right, and what country do you hail from? At least in mine, we fought a war against the Germans. So we understand about terror and APPEASEMENT. The UN can go screw themselves. When your wife and daughter are wearing Burkhas, go ask the French for help.

BTW, stop being a hypocrite and posting your 4,000 + posts about an AMERICAN made game on an AMERICAN server. You dislike the USA so much, find your own spider-hole in your own country to crawl into.

 

[HateCrime]

One good thing about the US being in Iraq is that while they're in there, they can't be anywhere else. Or perhaps that's a bad thing, 'cause maybe they should be trying to HUNT DOWN OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!

Canadians - hiding like cowards with the moose. Eh? Easy to talk tough with America running interferance for you (to use a "football" term.) Of course, half of you are French...no wonder.

 

[MadHatter]

I have a feeling this guy ^ is going to compose fun posts to read.


HateCrime, how bad is the immigration over there? Just curious....

 

[falconwind]

Canadians - hiding like cowards with the moose. Eh? Easy to talk tough with America running interferance for you (to use a "football" term.) Of course, half of you are French...no wonder.

Gee, with a name like HateCrime I wonder why your trying to start a flame war. I doubt you're even from Norway. Well, I'm not going to take the bait. As you can see, I'm wearing my flame resistant suit.

Besides, I've never personally seen a moose, don't even like football, and I'm not a francophone. And as a point of fact, half of us are not French.

And thank you, but the last time I checked, Iraq was never a threat to us, or even America for that matter.

By the way, what great Norweigan war stories can you tell us? That happened before the 16th century, I mean.

Now, with no malice or anger, in my words, I post. Having used not a single exclamation point, emoticon, or emphasized phrase.

 

[CptStern]

Canadians - hiding like cowards with the moose. Eh? Easy to talk tough with America running interferance for you (to use a "football" term.) Of course, half of you are French...no wonder.

you border on the criminally retarded :upstare:

 

[Spartan]

So imagine that you are a delegate in the UN. The United States presents the security council with evidence that Libya is building nuclear weapons, and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons.

You are asked to authorize the use of military force against Libya.

How do you vote?

Un Guy: "But Mr. Bush, you have nuclear weapons as well. Isn't this a double standard?"
Mr. Bush: "Don't try to change the subject! We need to destroy Libya!"

That's how I'd like to envision it, anyway.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Wow ... so, basically this thread was a reverse psycology project aimed at probing a Liberal stance out of conservatives, with which they did'nt provide, for the invasion of Iraq. You hide Libya for Iraq -- but, what I still dont get ... is why Libya?

Is it just easier for the thread author to fathome Libya having Nuclear Weapons? Sounds like a paranoid conservative bias to me ... IMHO.

 

[falconwind]

Wow ... so, basically this thread was a reverse psycology project aimed at probing a Liberal stance out of conservatives, with which they did'nt provide, for the invasion of Iraq. You hide Libya for Iraq -- but, what I still dont get ... is why Libya?

Is it just easier for the thread author to fathome Libya having Nuclear Weapons? Sounds like a paranoid conservative bias to me ... IMHO.

No, this wasn't meant to illicit a liberal stance from everyone. I am simply asking that, from a foreign point of view, is the US's credibility damaged?

You're thinking about this scenario WAY too literally. I could have used any country.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yes, you'd be willing to use any country, because each one is such a light and easy cover to place over for "Iraq". Why not ask us directly, what would you have done different?

I think all of us know our own answers.

I am simply asking that, from a foreign point of view, is the US's credibility damaged?

You could've cut Libya a lot of pain by just making a thread about this directly.