Did we score a victory?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Lincoln
If we waited for democracy to work we would still be waiting for Russia to approve a UN resolution to solve the problem we solved for Europe in Yugoslovia.

And you would have avoided a great mistake. What problem did you solve in Yugoslavia? Expell all Serbs from Kosovo?

[notyoueither]

A lot of these posts seem to assume that the UN is, or should be, a democratic institution of world government. It isn't, and it shouldn't be.

It is an international organisation intended to facilitate better relations among the world's nations and to coordinate international efforts to help populations in peril.

To criticise the United States for not behaving as if the UNSC were their political master is a bit bizarre. To criticise the French for persuing their own interests within that organisation is likewise bizarre.

For myself, I'm just baffled by what interests the French think they are protecting. From the POV of some others, I can see the sense of... betrayal (not a very good word for it) at the break precipitated by the French.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Agathon
Rubbish. I favour the coercive inspections that the Germans suggested.

Are those the same coercive inspections that were proposed by the United States approximately 1 1/2 years ago, but were rejected by our European friends at the time as too excessive?

Gatekeeper

[Ned]

I still do not understand what France and the left think they achieved. Saddam is still in power. Is this it? Saddam will not cooperate. Is this what they wanted? North Korea and Iran and virtually everyone else can now simply ignore the UN because in the end, there is no THERE there. Is this what they wanted to achieve?

Did they want to force the US to act without UN sanction, now? Forever?

Are they trying to destroy the UN?

They cannot prevent war, but the certain can destroy the last chance to disarm Saddam without war.

The blood of dead Iraqi's will be credited to the duplicity of France.

[Agathon]

Well on this topic - more protests again today. Not as big as they were last time in Canada, Australia, Britain and the US, but almost as big in Spain and bigger in other countries.

Probably due to less buzz this time because no international organised day of protest like there was on the 15th (esp in Britain). However, I was surprised to see that the Spanish remain undaunted putting out a million in Madrid acc to CNN. Since anti-war sentiment seems to have remained the same or increased in the last month I guess people are waiting to see what happens.

There were even some pro-US rallies in the states that attracted reasonable crowds, although they shot themselves in the foot by having speakers complain about the anti-war movement being a bunch of "lesbians". Way to go to make yourself look like a bunch of dumb rednecks.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I still do not understand what France and the left think they achieved.

From my standpoint, we forced a little bit of democracy on that Texan bastard in the White House.

We'll see what comes out of this weekend's conference in the Azores, but Blair and Aznar are very vulnerable right now. If Bush pushes forward, Blair falls. I don't know how politics is in Spain, but I can't see Aznar really looking forward to the political consequences of so blatently going against the will of his nation. They need the blessing of the UN if they want to have a political future.

[Agathon]

I'd put money on Blair falling, but I don't think it's a cert. He has a chance if the war lasts less than two weeks all up and has fantastic results. Even then I think its dodgy.

Looks like the protests have affected the SC though - there is no way the second resolution will get nine votes as of today.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


From my standpoint, we forced a little bit of democracy on that Texan bastard in the White House.

So, you sent Bush a message. But what good will come from this? I think even Democrats are going to have a hard time in the future arguing that we have to refer matters of national security to the SC. We are all going to remind ourselves on how Clinton simply acted when he felt it necessary - did not go to the SC and did not consult Congress.

Yes you forced democracy on Bush. But this has turned into such a giant fiasco that it will NEVER be repeated.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
I still do not understand what France and the left think they achieved. Saddam is still in power. Is this it? Saddam will not cooperate. Is this what they wanted? North Korea and Iran and virtually everyone else can now simply ignore the UN because in the end, there is no THERE there. Is this what they wanted to achieve?

If the UN is simply the international rubber stamp depository for the Wolfowitz doctrine, it's credibility is already destroyed.

Did they want to force the US to act without UN sanction, now? Forever?

Why is it France forcing the US? Are you saying the US position is "give us your permission, we're going to do it anyway? - Gee, that is the US position. How is any credibility attached to a UNSC vote that effectively says "Given a choice between being your pets, or taking a different view on policy options, we'll gladly be your pets."

Are they trying to destroy the UN?

No, the US is. The right in the US has loathed the UN and most everything it stands for. The right's perception is that the only proper foreign policy for other nations is to ask the US what the US expects of them. The notion of consensus, compromise, and adopting common policy based on those factors is considered ludicrous by Bush, Wolfowitz, et al. Which is great until you actually need cooperation from other countries, and it becomes half-assed to non-existent.

They cannot prevent war, but the certain can destroy the last chance to disarm Saddam without war.

Nobody can prevent war when a belligerent party is determined to initiate it. And how is the UN refusing to authorize the US to invade Iraq destroying a chance to disarm Saddam without war?

The blood of dead Iraqi's will be credited to the duplicity of France.

What duplicity? That the French dare to say they'll use the veto power they were granted, as the US has numerous times to protect Israel?

The blood of dead Iraqis will be on Bush and Hussein's hands.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm glad che was able to hack MtG's logon like that.

[Guest]

The value of the UN is as a meeting place to discuss and debate. When it comes to forming a plan of action, it is ultimately doomed to failure. The whole concept of UN SC resolutions is flawed and non-sequiture. The UN has NO authority.

It should be left to diplomats and other useless types (lawers) to debate and carry on whilst the nations of the real world get on with getting on together and making a living for their people.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger
I'm glad che was able to hack MtG's logon like that.

I just hate it when these right-wing nuts like Wolfowitz make me sound like a friggin' leftie. Occasionally, though, even the left is right.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I just hate it when these right-wing nuts like Wolfowitz make me sound like a friggin' leftie. Occasionally, though, even the left is right.

Bad pun.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
If the UN is simply the international rubber stamp depository for the Wolfowitz doctrine, it's credibility is already destroyed."

The UN's credibility is nessecarily faltered when Iraq was allowed to piss on it. Iraq has sucsesfully defied the UN for 12 years. 1441 called for full, immediate, absolute disarmanent. That hasn't happened.

"No, the US is. The right in the US has loathed the UN and most everything it stands for."

The UN is a negative influence on our international affairs because it seeks to give hostile powers such as France, Russia, and China a veto over our foreign policy.

"Which is great until you actually need cooperation from other countries, and it becomes half-assed to non-existent."

We can get co-operation from other countries through other means then the UN. The US is not going it alone in this country and has a coalition of several powers willing to help the US. I think you are mistaken if you believe that foreign countries are going stop persuing their interests because the US isn't operating through the UN anymore.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

The UN is a negative influence on our international affairs because it seeks to give hostile powers such as France, Russia, and China a veto over our foreign policy.

Compare: "having to consider the interests of other people has a negative influence on my personal affairs because it gives other people the ability to prevent me from doing whatever I want, be that rob, cheat or steal."

Doesn't sound too good this way.