NYTimes on Bush Interview

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


The UN got the inspectors back in after the Congress voted for war if they did not go back in.

So much for the UN's credibility and for anyone who contends the UN means anything without the US.

Sorry, wrong..

The admin. wanted congressional backing before going to the UN-that was the admins. arguement and aim, not driven by anyone at the UN. The UN passed 1441 when it got a majority vote of the UNSC and no vetos (congress nowhere involved). Of course the UN needs the US-it also needs China (either could veto)

[Q Classic]

well, china provides significantly less peacekeeping/financial strength to the un than the us...

[Ned]

GePap, I think you missed the point.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, I think you missed the point.

No, I got your point and it was wrong.

The admin. argued it needed comgressional backing to go to the UN- they did NOT need it, they simply wanted it becuase they thought it made their hand stronger. note that congress did not vote for war, but to allow war as an option...

1441 passed not becuase of anything congress did, but becuase it was vaguely written, since it allowed for "serious consequences" to be interpreted in many ways- nly one of which was regime change.

[GePap]

What the vote in congress allowed was for the admin. to, once it chose war, to move without having to return to congress.

[Ned]

GePaP, you are in denial.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePaP, you are in denial.

God Ned, come back from the Nedaverse to the real world once in a while. It might surprise you.

[Ned]

GePap, it is amazing that you liberals (or worse) actually believe that the UN would have done something, anything, effective without the arm-twisting of the United States. It did nothing at all effective to get the inspectors back in from 1998 until 2002, when the United States threatened war if the UN did not act and act effectively.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, it is amazing that you liberals (or worse) actually believe that the UN would have done something, anything, effective without the arm-twisting of the United States. It did nothing at all effective to get the inspectors back in from 1998 until 2002, when the United States threatened war if the UN did not act and act effectively.

Is that what I said? NO, but of course, logic seems to escape you. You assertionw as tha without congress having voted, nothing would have gotten done in the UN-this was false: the amdin. asked congress to move- the admin could have applied pressure at the UN without congress voting- hence your congressional claim was false.

As for the UN needing US pressure- no sh1t sherlock- for the UNSC to move one major power has to start pushing- if China wanted, chinese pressure could get the UN to meet- if the UK wanted, if Russia wanted so forth..this is a simple strcutural issue, and you don;t get a cookie for pointing out the obvious. From 1998 to 2002 the US did not care enough to push hard enough to get something done, and neither did any other power.

NOW, the only place in which you make any sort of point is this: the US is the one power strong enough to pressure the other 4 veto holders to relent or give the US something (the UN is a committee-its actions are solely collecitve actions of its members) it wants- the US threatened to skip the UN unless the UN gave the US 1441- and the US and other members compromised and wrote 1441. What happened after december shows the other side of the process- once the US got 1441, it wanted to use its own interpretaion of it, which allow the US to go to war- other powers resisted, and for all the US pressure to get a second resolution giving a UN greenlight to the war, the US failed.

The UN can do a lot without the US pressuring-the question always is though that each veto power has the ability to derail any process, so if the US ever balks at something, obviously it won;t happen, due to the veto system.

Now come back form the Nedaverse, please.

[Ned]

GePaP, I am sure you are wrong about the desire of getting the inspectors back in between 1998 and 2002. The US desired it. The UN did nothing. The ONLY reason the UN acted was the US said it meant war if they did not act.

[Ned]

And, BTW, the only reason Saddam agreed to the inspectors was because of the US threat of war.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Agathon


I can't believe I have to say this again..

Once more with feeling....

1. HE DIDN'T KICK THEM OUT!!!! THEY LEFT BECAUSE THE US TOLD THEM TOO BECAUSE CLINTON WAS GOING TO BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF IRAQ!!!!!

2. IF SADDAM HAD WANTED TO KICK THEM OUT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO DO SO BECAUSE IT'S A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THE US WAS USING THE INSPECTIONS TO SPY ON IRAQ!!!!

3. THE UN RESOLUTIONS WERE SUPPOSED TO PREVENT IRAQ FROM BEING A THREAT TO IT'S NEIGHBOURS. THE INSPECTORS WERE PRETTY SURE THEY'D GOTTEN RID OF MOST OF THEM AND THUS IRAQ WAS NO LONGER A THREAT!!!

4. UN RESOLUTIONS ARE THE UN'S TO UPHOLD. IF THE UN CHOOSES NOT TO UPHOLD THEM, THAT IS ITS BUSINESS, NOT AMERICA'S!!!!

I don't think you emphasized your points clearly enough -- should have increased the font size in addition to caps and bold.

[rev]

Ned: are you saying Clinton wanted something done about Iraq?

Anyway, you're right: the UN probably wouldn't have done anything without the arm-twisting of the United States. That is the inherent nature of diplomacy and politics. Had Bush put large quantities of troops into the areas surrounding Iraq, told Hussein to allow inspections to continue, and forced the UN to return inspections teams to Iraq by way of threatening war, it would have been political and diplomatic genius.

Instead, weapons inspectors were put in, told us our intelligence was "garbage", and Bush decided the threat presented by Iraq (according to our "garbage" intelligence) was too immediate to allow continued inspections over a forceful seizing of the entire country.

[Ned]

rev, the point I was trying to make was that it was not the UN that had contained Saddam Hussein. Without Bush and without the U.S. Congress threatening war, absolutely nothing would have been done by the UN.

But even in the final analysis, certain parties to the UN Security Council never intended the UN to do anything effectively at all. When Saddam Hussein did not comply with its last and final demands, UN Security Council resolution 1441, a resolution that threatened dire consequences if he did not comply, France began to make the argument that there should be no dire consequences because Saddam was not a threat.

So much for complying with UN Security Council resolutions. So long as France has a veto, the UN is a joke.

[Ned]

Also, take a look at this book synopsis. Apparently there are many so-called "neocons" who think the same way as I do that France is on the other side in this war on terror.

"David Frum, best-selling author and Richard Perle, former assistant secretary of defense map the path of what is next in the war on terrorism in their book AN END TO EVIL. They raise concerns by addressing significant topics such as: why the United States risks its security if it submits to the authority of the United Nations, why France and Saudi Arabia have to be treated as adversaries, not allies, in the war on terror, why everything you read in the newspapers about the Israeli-Arab dispute is wrong, and more. "

http://www.opinionjournalbookstore.com/