Did the UN fail?

[Ned]

GePap, Yes it is the United Nations. All independent governements are welcome, no matter what kind they are. The UN approaches world security issues with only one goal, ending wars, without regard to whether a war is just or not. But, whether a war is just depends on value judgments, such as whether democracy is preferrable to communism. Since the UN cannot make those judgments, the UN cannot, IMHO, judge.

We need and interantional organization committed to democracy and human rights. The UN is incapable of being that organization. We need to end it and replace it with an organization, like NATO, who members are limited to democracies with certain standards of human rights, and whose purpose is to promote the spread of democracies and human rights in the world.

As to your point on the reasons for Iraq's wars in 1980 and 1990, I made the point earlier in a different thread that offensive wars, in order to be just, should ordinarily be conducted by a coalition of nations. In some measure, Iraq had that coalition in its 1980 war against Iran when the Gulf States and the US backed it.

1990, though, was clearly different.

[Velociryx]

I'm not ignoring anything GePap....but since you already have all the answers (obviously), there's not much point in the debate, true? GePap is correct on all counts, and woe to those who dare to disagree.

Sorry pal, but it is your thinking that is off. The actions of Saddam have been the same old tired song and dance as a long list of other little tin-pot dictators who came before him, just dressed up in a slightly different locale.

Nothing new, nothing surprising, and nothing we've not seen a thousand times before.

Where's the complexity in that? Give an a$$hole a gun and some power and he'll use both....yeah, that's pretty complicated all right.

I certainly agree that the world at large is vast, mysterious, and complex. Good thing then, that most rational, right minded people use trends and past actions as gages to help predict future actions.....we'd otherwise waste an awful lot of our time being mystified at why the rabid dog tried to bite us....again....

-=Vel=-

[gsmoove23]

Geez GePap, leave some arguement for the rest of us

Ned, you seem to be supremely disinformed about the UN. It requires the principal of self-determination when choosing governments which presumes democratic elections. There have been countless UN supervised elections throughout the world which in themselves uphold democracy. It has also sanctioned a number of military actions, based I presume on value judgements. This war lost the value judgement.

As to your point on the reasons for Iraq's wars in 1980 and 1990, I made the point earlier in a different thread that offensive wars, in order to be just, should ordinarily be conducted by a coalition of nations. In some measure, Iraq had that coalition in its 1980 war against Iran when the Gulf States and the US backed it.

This arguement would validate countless numbers of unjust wars. Does the US being involved automatically validate any coalitions?

[Velociryx]

I just had an epiphany!

GePap....are you *sure* you're not really Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf?

-=Vel=-

[SlowwHand]

"IN 1975 NOrth Vietnam invaded its neighbor South Vietnam and annexed it.
In 1979 Vietnam invaed its neighbor Kampuchea and overthrew its government and installed a proxy government.

The successor of that government is still in power.

By your extremely simplified thinking Vel, Vietnam is a dangerous threat to its neighbors...why? Becuase the communist government of vietnam has invaded it neighbors in the past. But the fact is Vel, that your simplified method of thinking is wrong"


The Chinese-backed North Vietnam was, and continues to be, a threat.
By your own admission, the North invaded, took over, and kept another soverign nation.
Hardly the same as Coalition troops freeing Iraq from a brutal Dictator.
Thanks for showing your ass, yet again, GePap.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Geez GePap, leave some arguement for the rest of us

Ned, you seem to be supremely disinformed about the UN. It requires the principal of self-determination when choosing governments which presumes democratic elections. There have been countless UN supervised elections throughout the world which in themselves uphold democracy. It has also sanctioned a number of military actions, based I presume on value judgements. This war lost the value judgement.



This arguement would validate countless numbers of unjust wars. Does the US being involved automatically validate any coalitions?

Gsmoove, the day I see UN membership removed or suspended when a nation fails certain minimum standards of democracy or human rights is the day I stand up and cheer for the UN.

[GePap]

If someone argues well with me, i do listen, but when someone bases their argument on:

Nothing new, nothing surprising, and nothing we've not seen a thousand times before.

Where's the complexity in that? Give an a$$hole a gun and some power and he'll use both....yeah, that's pretty complicated all right.

The problem with that "fact" Vel, is that you are left up to argue why not all dictators invade all their neihgbors all the time. Why didn't Saddam invade Turkey? Syria? He had 12 years to invade Syria. He didn't. Why not? He had a gun, as you claim, hell, Syria is a neighbor, and he has some pathological urge to invade people..Why didn't he invade Syria between 1991 and 2003? Would the US have done anyting? You claim the UN would not, so what stopped him? Plaese tell me why Saddam did not invade Syria, or Jordan, or Turkey...they are all next to him, are they not? He had the way, as you claim, did he not? and he is inclined to invade, is he not? So WHY DID HE NOT INVADE THEM?

Most dictators actually never invade anyone, so you have not seen it a "thousand" times. How many states have the dictators of Burma invaded? Hmmmm, oh, no one. They must not be dictators at all, since they haven;t invaded someone.....



Ned:

We need and interantional organization committed to democracy and human rights. The UN is incapable of being that organization. We need to end it and replace it with an organization, like NATO, who members are limited to democracies with certain standards of human rights, and whose purpose is to promote the spread of democracies and human rights in the world.

I would agree with this 100%. That does not change the current argument though.

[gsmoove23]

Now N Vietnam is a threat. GePap gives logical thought out arguements and you throw poo.

[gsmoove23]

Ned, I would only stand up and cheer if I saw it as an effective use of diplomacy.

[GePap]

To put it another way Vel:

You claim that if X, then Y. If Saddam is in power and has some military force (X), then he will invade a neighbor (Y).

The problem with this Oh so simple claim is that if at any time X is true but not Y, then your argument has to be false. Why did Saddam invade Iran in 1980, and not Kuwait? OR Saudi Arabia? Or jordan? Or Syria? Or Turkey?

Did he just pick Iran out of a hat?

Why did he only invade Iran in 1980? Hell, Hitler invaded dozens of states in just 2 years, even when he was till at war with other elsewhere. Why not invade Iran and Kuwait? And after Kuwait fell, SA? And then Jordan? Why not, he is just a mad dictator after all..bent on "world conquest", no?

My line of argument has an answer to "why not Kuwait in 1980, why not SA, why not Syria". It can also answer "why not Kuwait and Iran, or Kuwait and SA, or Iran, Kuwait, and SA". Your line of argument can't. You simply cant give us the reason why not Kuwait, since for you all that matters for Saddam to invade a neighbor is "having the means". Well, he had the means to take over Kuwait in 1980 while still invading Iran. He didn't/ I can give Poly reaons why. You, using the line of argument you are using, can't.

[Velociryx]

Assumptions piling onto assumptions, GePap. I don't have to explain why he didn't invade anybody. I said "give an a$$hole a gun and some power and he'll use both" - I didn't say he'd pathologically invade everybody around him, that's absurd. Not sure why, but you're operating well-below par, my friend...

These guys (little tin-pot dictators desperately trying to become more than they are) are a pretty predictable lot. They operate under a set of.....not rules, really, but historically observable guidelines. It happens that these guidelines closely parallel those of a school yard bully....something else I know that makes you chaffe...

Give an a$$hole a gun and some power, and he'll use it. How? He'll start by suppressing the rights of his people. Yeah, the particulars may vary....he might use gas against some....might just outright murder others with steel and bullets, leaving their bodies in unmarked graves, or giant warehouses filled with coffins. If his country is under sanction, it should come as no great shock when he diverts what resources he's got to his military, leaving his people to starve, and in any case, you can be assured that HE will never go hungry, and wind up in the best accomodations.

If given the opportunity....a measure of international support to bring the region's big dog down a peg, or if faced with a clearly inferior and weak neighbor, he'll strike if he thinks he has a good chance of beginning and ending the war before too much of a stink is raised.

But no....we've not seen any of this stuff before have we? Nope....not once. Never.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Further, in Saddam's case, he has a LONG, public track record of foot-dragging when it comes to UN compliance. We tell him to comply....scold him, and guess what? He thumbs his nose at us.

Only when the threat of violence against his country becomes real (US began imposing no-fly zones), did we see any sort of real cooperation.

The more US pressure increased, the more cooperation we got, but it was always reluctant. Always last minute.

To your mind though, each time Saddam makes a new promise, we must simply take him at his word and assume he is telling the truth.

I'm not buying it.

The man's a liar. He's proved it time and again. If you want to waste your time believing in him, that's your bag.

Don't make it everyone's....

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Oh God Vel.....

Assumptions piling onto assumptions, GePap. I don't have to explain why he didn't invade anybody. I said "give an a$$hole a gun and some power and he'll use both"

Fact is Vel that you do continue to make an immense asumption that you seem unwilling to attempt to prove.

Are the Chinese an immenent threat to world peace? They have far, far more power than Saddam ever would. They carry out internal oppresion of their people. Are they on the verge of invading anyone?
What about the Saudis, Egytptians, Turkmen, Tajiks and all the other tin-pot dictators out there that oppress thier people too?

These guys (little tin-pot dictators desperately trying to become more than they are) are a pretty predictable lot. They operate under a set of.....not rules, really, but historically observable guidelines.

See, that the problem Vel. Marx also had an argument about how behavior could easily be predicted from history. You think Marx is right? You see Vel, what you have failed completely to do is enumerate, classify and categorize all the factors which would go into such an equation derived from hisotry and lead to the conclusion you point to.

You claim X=Y, without havinmg at any time in this htread taken the time to explain X, explain Y, and how you got there. Doing that Vel requires arguments based on hisotry's particualrs, not continuing to issue the same tired lines. Dont expect me to buy X=Y until you give damned good explinations of X and Y and why X=Y. You have never done so in any of the threads you have used this tired line, and there have been many.

[Velociryx]

Ohhhh....the world is so mysterious and complex....I have no idea why that nice Saddam guy invaded tiny Kuwait....musta been something in the water. Or maybe a bad hair day? Got up on the wrong side of his prayer mat? Any of these could have contributed to it. Surely we mere mortals will never figure it out....too complex and mysterious for the likes of us....



Feel free to go on being mystified, GePap. I'm not saying X=Y, and I never have been. I just don't see why you're making such a big to do about a little rodent of a dictator's tired, well-worn routine. You treat it as though it belongs on the next Carl Sagan special, it's just THAT mysterious and complex.

I contend that it's not all that and a bag of chips. Not as linear as X=Y, but not mind-numbingly mystifying.

Is that so hard to understand? The guy's a bully. He pushes people around. Those under him, and other nations if he thinks he can get away with it.

But that's okay....you go on thinking its some big, deep mystery....'k

-=Vel=-

[Menlas]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Good thing we were founded on ideals then, as opposed to something silly, like say....the divine right of Kings, or the iron will of a dictator, eh?

You mean, the ideals that made your nation commit a genocide, exterminating native Americans ?

Wow. Good thing my nation wasn't founded on the same "ideals" indeed