Did the UN fail?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
1) War with Kuwait. (oh wait! That wasn't regional bullying....what am I thinking!)

2) Lobbing scuds at Israel (nahhhh....never happened)

3) War with Iran (nope....not regional bullying at all)

The proof has been in the headlines over the years....what more do you want?

And Rah...shhhh! We're not supposed to talk about that! We're the US....you know....our mission is to be the open check book for the UN.

-=Vel=-

Oh yes, Vel, and next we can hope the Apartheid government in South Africa will allow the black majority to rule, and then we can hope that Israel and Jordan can make peace..

Oh wait, its not 1991, its 2003! Well I'll be damned!

All those things you pointed out happened in, or before 1991. Now, i don;t know how you like to access the capabilities of states, but I prefer not to do it based on 12 year old info: I think it makes mroe sense to examine what sort of threat Iraq was based on its capabilities in 2003, not 1991. Since no SCUD's have been found, and the hunt for banned weapons is on, you can ahrdly cliam to know what its capabilities were as of the beginning of March. I do claim that those capabilities did not make Iraq an impending threat to his neighbors, specially given the extremely poor perfomance the Iraqi army at all levels put up.

RAH:

Let me start by saying that the UN did not approve of the no flight zones: that was something the US and UKon their own kept flying for 12 years. It was something we decided to fund ourselves, thorugh US and UK military budgets, not in any way throught the UN (that is right Vel, the UN had nothing to do with the no-flight zones), and I am positive that the costs of this one month of war far outweight the cost of those operation. If those ops. cost 2 billion a year, then we spent 24 billion on them...and could have kept them going 20 more years before they begun to equal the cost of this operation. If money was an issue, we would not have invaded.

[Velociryx]

So....a leader's past actions have no weight in determining possible future actions he might make? I see.

We should, therefore, simply ignore Saddam's past track record entirely, and when he uses the same stall tactics (as he did quite recently, and in fact, up until the day before the invasion to remove him began), we should in no way *percieve* this as the same old song and dance we've seen before, but simply assume that suddenly he has turned over a new leaf and is now an upstanding citizen.

Hate to break it to you, but here in the real world where the rest of us are living, that's not how it works. He has a time-tested PROVEN track record for regional bullying. EVERY indicator there is suggests that if allowed to rebuild, he'd continue along that path.

But that's not what you want to hear, so it comes as no real surprise that you choose to ignore it.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Until you give any link to confirm this, I can;t take it at face value, specially since I have heard no su claim made. Plus, we have overun RG positions and found nothing. So again, confirm this or I will ignore it outright.

Here is a link.

I also heard many times of a line drawn on some Iraqi map that authorized the RG to use chemical weapons if the coalition crossed it. The line ran through the Karbala Gap.

I have not been able to find a news story on the web to confirm what was all over TV concerning this "line."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81303,00.html

[GePap]

Hate to break it to you, but here in the real world where the rest of us are living, that's not how it works. He has a time-tested PROVEN track record for regional bullying. EVERY indicator there is suggests that if allowed to rebuild, he'd continue along that path.

Do you actually know Vel why iraq invaded Iran in 1980? or why it invaded Kuwait in 1990?

There were actual reasons for those wars: even if we come to some agreemnt that they were bad reaosns, it was not just "regional bullying" as you claim. In fact Vel, go to your neighborhood library and find some magazine from sept 1980, and read for yourself to see how the world saw Iraqs invasion of Iran..it sure wasn;t seen as just local bullying.
When you so utterly simplify a situation beyond recognition, any judgement based on that to me is highly supect. I also ask you to read up on the hisotry of the Iran-Iraq war. If it were up to hussein the war would have ended in 1983 or '84 once his innitial attacks were beaten back. That it went on until 1988 is more the fault of the Iranians. And it was in this second half that Iraq begun the widespread use of Chemical agents.

So no, just looking at what Hussein did in 1980 and 1990, speciually since he did what he did based ont he specifics of that time and what he saw as his capabilities versus that of the other guy, is no aguge of what he would do.

You say every indicator? What indicator? the actiuons he took from 1991 to 2003? cuase they hardly point to him as preparing to launch some war of aggression against his enhgbpors, given how he was mending fences with the Kuwaitis and saudis, if not very well. Who was he going to invade next? A much much stronger Iran, or an even stronger Turkey? or syria?

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Here is a link.

I also heard many times of a line drawn on some Iraqi map that authorized the RG to use chemical weapons if the coalition crossed it. The line ran through the Karbala Gap.

I have not been able to find a news story on the web to confirm what was all over TV concerning this "line."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81303,00.html

Ned:

The 'red line' was drwan by the US, the line at which they (the US_ believed Iraq was most likely to use chemical weapons. No iraqi has actually said what you claimed, and only Iraqis would be capable of making that claim with any believability.

[Frogman]

The UN is a failure. The failure to back 1441 with the serious consequences that were agreed to just made a joke of the whole organization. They have no credibility. The US might as well withdraw and tell them to meet somewhere else.

France, Germany and Russia sold out the UN for whatever business they were doing with Iraq. France in particular used it as a forum to grandstand and thumb their nose at the US. There is no United Nations. They should call it something else, maybe Sanctions R Us. To be United they need a charter that spells out exactly what they are united on and then back it up.

The UN will have a vital roll in Iraq. The French can bake some bread. Their whining is music to my ears. The ****ards.

[Chris 62]

Did the UN fail?

A better question is, "Did it ever succeed?"

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Did the UN fail?

A better question is, "Did it ever succeed?"

If some of you people hate it so much then why did you sign the Charter in the first place, and why do you still remain as members?

I find it pathetic that the UN get's slammed for everything just when it doesn't do whatever the heck the US wants it to. It is not there to satisfy the US's wishes. Believing that is the utmost of arrogance.

[Chris 62]

An answer filled with righteous indignation, that DIDN'T answer what I said.

Care to have another go, oh Master of Zen?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Frogman
The UN is a failure. The failure to back 1441 with the serious consequences that were agreed to just made a joke of the whole organization. They have no credibility. The US might as well withdraw and tell them to meet somewhere else.

"Serious Consequences" does not mean war. Diplomats refer to war subtly as "by all means necessary"

France, Germany and Russia sold out the UN for whatever business they were doing with Iraq. France in particular used it as a forum to grandstand and thumb their nose at the US. There is no United Nations. They should call it something else, maybe Sanctions R Us. To be United they need a charter that spells out exactly what they are united on and then back it up.

Oh, and the US has not used the UN for its own purposes too . Everyone with veto power has taken advantage of this institution for more than once. BTW, United Nations does not mean that everyone has to agree on everything, that is silly. It is called United because it is a forum which unites countries in their freedom to make known any issue they please.

The UN will have a vital roll in Iraq. The French can bake some bread. Their whining is music to my ears. The ****ards.

I find it very unnerving that the US/UK know say they will give the UN a very important role in Iraq when they shoved it down their asses in the first place.

[yavoon]

serious consequences almost certainly meant war by the US when they shoved the resoultion through. whether u think it does is sort of irrelevant.

we were sending 100 000's of troops, we already had them in sanctions. wut is the next level? starvation sanctions? do u think the US was planning on sitting 250 000 troops on iraq's border indefinitely?

[Chris 62]

No answer.

As expected.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Chris 62
An answer filled with righteous indignation, that DIDN'T answer what I said.

Care to have another go, oh Master of Zen?

Can't have enough of UN arguments huh?

Since once is apparently not enough for you (and many others), I'll be more than happy to comply

The UN HAS been successful in that it has given many nations a voice that they could not have before 1945 and were subject to aggression by the world powers or their neighbours. Before 1945 there was really no effective institution capable of resolving all but the most serious threats to peace (i.e. those involving the superpowers).

The UN has also promoted certain universally held rights and standards which if anything has bettered the overall perspective of man, if you consider how many countries in 1945 were true democracies, and how many are now, there IS a big difference, and the collective promotion of these values by the UN and other similar instituations has undoubtedly helped it.

You cannot expect the UN to solve every problem since it, like every other institution is not perfect. To expect the UN to do everything right is to expect the IMF to do the same, to expect your government to do what's right. Everyone screws up, the UN is no exception and there have been serious failures: Rwanda, Yugoslavia, etc. But considering its victories: Rhodesia, East Timor, the whole de-colonization process, etc. there is much to celebrate, much more in fact than to regret.

Now the UN has some major institutional flaws, not only due to countries like France as you right-wingers don't stop bashing, but ALL countries with veto power. These are the nations that always blame the UN for not working, yet they do not realize that the veto power in itself is the major obstacle to getting things done. It is an easy way to pull the plug when things don't go your way.

You should not that after the 1960s, the US has been BY FAR the biggest user of the veto, even more since after the Cold War.

Now on a personal note, I have worked at the UN and I know what gets done and what not. You may look at the news and see the UN's inablity to tackle a major power's muscle flexing but few people really realize the huge amount of things the UN is involved in, many things that go unnoticed by most people. So, before you go on a rant about how useless the UN is, I suggest you actually bother to investigate a little about ALL it does, before jumping to ignorant conclusion.

So, want to continue AoA?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Chris 62
No answer.

As expected.

Think again.

I'm not the one who disappears when their arguments get trounced...

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by yavoon
serious consequences almost certainly meant war by the US when they shoved the resoultion through. whether u think it does is sort of irrelevant.

we were sending 100 000's of troops, we already had them in sanctions. wut is the next level? starvation sanctions? do u think the US was planning on sitting 250 000 troops on iraq's border indefinitely?

"serious consequences" means a further resolution will explicitly authorize military force or any other means necessary.

That futher resolution was the US/UK/Spain draft resolution which wasn't even voted for before the war began.

BTW no one asked the US to send 250,000, that they did was proof enought that they never intended to follow whatever the UN dictated, and starting the war when they did was probably wisest because a humiliating defeat of their draft resolution would have been an even bigger blow to their foreign policy