Did the UN fail?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman

I reiterate:

You are trying to get me into a corner since I have been quick to point out the US's many failures yet seem never to recognize it's successes. Nice try but no cigar.

The UN has been given the role to maintain world security and order AMONG OTHER THINGS, the security issue is something it has failed to do during conflicts regarding the great powers as I have previously stated. On the other hand, there is no international intitution which grants these rights to the United States. Unlike the UN, the US chooses to do things on behalf ot its own interests, not those of the world community. Therefore, a US "success" can more accurately be described as a success in its foreign policy for the safeguarding of its interests, not as a success to rid the world of some evil. Intent - side-effect. Like in the Iraq example, if freedom is given to the Iraqi people, it is only a side-effect from a conflict waged for less than noble reasons which we have argued about enough so far.

Thus, now I ask you to reiterate, how if you believe the US to have failed and succeeded, why the UN has only failed

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned


MZ, but Saddam never really cooperated. All he had to do is demonstrate how he had destroyed his WoMD or produce the scientists for interviews outside of Iraq. He knew what he had to do - we laid it out in the five points that the UN SC failed to adopt as a compromise solution.

But still he persisted.

Mr. Hans Blix, the only person authorized to say whether Iraq had been in material breach of resolution 1441 never said those words. He even up to his last report said that Iraq had increasinly collaborated with the inspectors. BTW, where are the WMD? Oh, right, they are in Syria now... nice excuse.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman

no, its what saddam COULD do if he had enough WoMD to serve as a deterant against any coalition reprisal for any invasions Saddam my undertake.

Kramerman, there is no evidence to support the fact that the US would not totally obliterate Iraq if they decided to use WMD. If Iraq used these weapons the response would have made the most massive bombing of Baghdad seem like bird droppings. Even crazy dictators are not that stupid. If Iraq built WMD it would have been for its own deterrent, not for aggression. I ask you, why didn't Iraq use WMD when invading Kuwait? They had them at the time right?

[Kramerman]

Thus, now I ask you to reiterate, how if you believe the US to have failed and succeeded, why the UN has only failed

I never said anything about the UN failing or succeeding.. i actually agree with you on the point that it does both... nobody is perfect.

Kramerman, there is no evidence to support the fact that the US would not totally obliterate Iraq if they decided to use WMD.

This could only feasiblely happen if Iraq uses them on the US... Saddam aint that stupid!!! Rather, Saddam would threaten Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or any other neighboring countries that it is not invading. If a coalition moves in to remove him, he could threaten to take out one of those countries.

. If Iraq used these weapons the response would have made the most massive bombing of Baghdad seem like bird droppings.

This possibility is still even unlikely if Saddam used WoMD directly on the US. By nuking Baghdad, we would just inflame the world, even if it was a retaliation...

Even crazy dictators are not that stupid

yes, i know this. that is why i dont even begin to suspect that Saddam would openly use them on the US... and probably not on Israel either.

If Iraq built WMD it would have been for its own deterrent, not for aggression.

yes, it would be a deterrent against a coalition to remove saddam from a country(ies) in which he has invaded.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Mr. Hans Blix, the only person authorized to say whether Iraq had been in material breach of resolution 1441 never said those words. He even up to his last report said that Iraq had increasinly collaborated with the inspectors. BTW, where are the WMD? Oh, right, they are in Syria now... nice excuse.

I believe your point is that Saddam was justified in relying on what Blix was requiring even though he knew the US, the UK and Spain, among others, were going to go to war if he did not comply in the manner of the 5 points? What was he thinking? --that France, Germany and Russia would go to war with 50+ countries lead by the US in order to protect him? Didn't he take George Bush seriously. And, if he did not, why not?

The only thing I can think of is that Saddam either is crazy or wilfully misinformed by his advisors. The last part may be the more likely answer given that dictators like to kill bearers of bad tidings.

[Master Zen]

Kramerman, when Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1991 it did not attack the US. Your argument is that if Iraq attacked a country which is not a nuclear power it would do so using WMD. In 1991, Iraq had WMD yet did not use them which invalidates any argument that it would do the same now.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned


I believe your point is that Saddam was justified in relying on what Blix was requiring even though he knew the US, the UK and Spain, among others, were going to go to war if he did not comply in the manner of the 5 points? What was he thinking? --that France, Germany and Russia would go to war with 50+ countries lead by the US in order to protect him? Didn't he take George Bush seriously. And, if he did not, why not?

The only thing I can think of is that Saddam either is crazy or wilfully misinformed by his advisors. The last part may be the more likely answer given that dictators like to kill bearers of bad tidings.

Saddam had to show the world he was at least a little willing to comply with the resolution. Iraq could have just said screw you, you're going to invade me anyway so do it now. That would have not been very favorable to world opinion. If you ask me, the war started at the preciesely exact timing in which had the US delayed, it would have soured its foreign policy to an unacceptable level. The war could not have come at a better time in which the interests of the US and Iraq reached a certain equilibrium, not too soon nor too late.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
What was he thinking? --that France, Germany and Russia would go to war with 50+ countries lead by the US in order to protect him?

What fifty plus countries? There's Britain, and a handful of troops provided by the Aussies. Who else was there? Just because the US claims it has the support of all these countries doesn't mean its so. If they supported us, they would have sent troops or something. Where's the beef?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What fifty plus countries? There's Britain, and a handful of troops provided by the Aussies. Who else was there? Just because the US claims it has the support of all these countries doesn't mean its so. If they supported us, they would have sent troops or something. Where's the beef?

good one

same people who say the UN just gives "vocal" support and no action to solve problems, claim that they have 50+ allies who give "vocal" support and no action either... doesn't surprise me considering the degree of double-standards in their arguments.

[yavoon]

I dont think its a double standard, I think we're just speaking in terms the other members of the UN can understand.

afterall they are use to just saying things and claim that they have this vast coalition of ppl saying things against the US. so the US fights back w/ its own coalition of ppl saying things.

hardly a double standard.

[chequita guevara]

It's ****in' pathetic. After alienating the population of the entire planet, we have a punch of little sycophants carrying our shadow to make sure it doesn't touch the ground, and we pretend that this is something significant. I could problably show you fifty governments that won't be in office after the next elections.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What fifty plus countries? There's Britain, and a handful of troops provided by the Aussies. Who else was there? Just because the US claims it has the support of all these countries doesn't mean its so. If they supported us, they would have sent troops or something. Where's the beef?

Che, its not the number of countries, it is the fact that France, Germany and Russia were not going to war against the US to protect Saddam. He must have realized this. But still he persisted.

[yavoon]

chegi off topic, but ever since u claim that bush didnt win the presidential election I haven't taken u very seriously. sometimes toning it down gets ppl to listen to u more.

sorta random but meh

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned

Che, its not the number of countries, it is the fact that France, Germany and Russia were not going to war against the US to protect Saddam. He must have realized this. But still he persisted.

what in the world makes you think that France Germany and Russia would have gone to war for any reason!!!!! This is unbelieveable!! I have told you why he persisted, it could have never conceivably crossed his mind that these three countries would have gone to war!! You've been playing Civ too much... countries, hell, ALLIES, don't just go to war for things like that. Do you think Saddam even for once thouth that two NATO allies would go to war over the US over the issue of his WMD or whatever? N-O.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by yavoon
chegi off topic, but ever since u claim that bush didnt win the presidential election I haven't taken u very seriously. sometimes toning it down gets ppl to listen to u more.

sorta random but meh

People can go from a whisper to a scream but it will still not make a mule budge.