Did the UN fail?

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually we contained Iraq for a decade with just a few lead elemenst and the troops we had based in Kuwait and SA.

(emphasis mine)

Somebody finally brought up this point, so allow me to blow away this reason for continued containment: The troops based in Saudi Arabia to contain the Iraqi threat to the region were a major cause behind 9/11. The Saudi Arabian government has been effectively able to cast themselves as an "ally of the West" while at the same time oppressing their people and underhandedly funding terrorist organizations. The presence of US troops in the "holy land' has been one of Osama bin Laden's most oft-cited grievances and a source of recruitment propoganda. The USA has been able to take no effective action against the Saudis because of the continuing containment policies -- or does anyone believe for a second that the Saudis, other Arab regimes, and the UN wouldn't have *****ed and moaned if the USA pulled out of the country and/or begun to exert diplomatic/economic pressure on the Saudis? Hence the need to end the containment policies, but Saddam's continuing noncomplaince with UN resolutions made that impossible. Since the UN offered no peaceful means for the USA to extricate itself from the situation -- I didn't see France, Germany, Russia, or China offering to take over the USA's presence in Saudi Arabia, for example -- removing Saddam's regime became the only viable solution.

So to put your pro-war/anti-war question into another light, GePap: would you continue to keep American troops in Saudi Arabia to contain Iraq, knowing that further terrorist attacks against the USA because of those troops, was not only possible, but likely? That's the "imminent threat", the threat that steps can now be taken toward removing with an Iraq that no longer needs to be contained.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by GePap
Blix and his boys did not have 150,000 men and general control of large sections of the country.

It should be painfully obvious that almost every one of those 150,000 men are soldiers not inspectors. They are there to fight, not dig around looking for WMD.

Oh, and your statement is factually wrong. The inspectors did find huge amounts of WMD

I never said they didn't.

and destroyed far more then the coolition in the first gulf war.

Destroying WMD was not even remotely part of the agenda of GWI. And before it is mentioned, regime change was also not a primary goal of GWI.

Even during the time Blix was there he found a few munitons and the Al Samoud II's.

Proof positive that Saddam is a lying bast@rd but I supposed we can just trust him about all the unaccounted for WMD, especially when there is so much at stake finacially for German, French and Russian fat cats.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap

GePap: What does Kurdish inability to respond in kind have to do with the fact that Saddam HAD the goods to do it? Or, with the fact that he undoubtedly didn't use 100% of his supply in the effort (and therefore, would still have some left to use later)?

It tells us that he would not use them against somoene, I don;t know, like the US, who could respond with far greater force, menaing that if the only thing we had to worry about was the threat he possed with whatever ha had, he could be easily detered. It tells us that as far as the threat from Saddam's WND;s was concerned, deterence was a viable and successful strategy, and that henece, the UN process had put him in a box, even if he had any WMD's left.

GePap, this is nonsense. Saddam did authorized the use of WMD against the US in this war. It so happened, though, that his field commanders did not use the WMD's. The thinking is that the Republican Guard commanders heeded Bush's warnings about prosecution for war crimes if they used WMD's.

[Ned]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
perhaps iraq does not have any chemical weapons. the US has not found any yet... this is still the case, right?

Something else how France is trying to change direction now. I'm guessing most people here feel that france should be able to collect from iraq (debts/contract deals) and they should have a roll in rebuilding iraq. i can't understand why... but i'm MWHC. i'm learning to deal with it.

I don't think France, or any debtor for that matter, should be able to collect on debts incurred for sales in violation of UN sanctions. This may constitute a good deal of the debt owed France, Germany and Russia.

Also, I believe the Iraqi debts must be rescheduled so that the primary emphasis in the short-term is reconstruction.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by optimus2861

(emphasis mine)

Somebody finally brought up this point, so allow me to blow away this reason for continued containment: The troops based in Saudi Arabia to contain the Iraqi threat to the region were a major cause behind 9/11.

Excuse, not cause.

The Saudi Arabian government has been effectively able to cast themselves as an "ally of the West" while at the same time oppressing their people and underhandedly funding terrorist organizations.

Of course. And the House of Saud will continue to buy off and play various factions, so long as it remains in power. That's their method.

The presence of US troops in the "holy land' has been one of Osama bin Laden's most oft-cited grievances and a source of recruitment propoganda.

Read al Qutb, OBL and al Zawahiri's spiritual and ideological inspiration. There's an endless list of things they can come up with, but the real objection to US forces in the region is that it derails the fundamentalist's initial goals of establishing Islamic states in the region.

removing Saddam's regime became the only viable solution.

So they're pissed off because we have a few troops in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, but they won't be pissed off when we invade another Arab country?

So to put your pro-war/anti-war question into another light, GePap: would you continue to keep American troops in Saudi Arabia to contain Iraq, knowing that further terrorist attacks against the USA because of those troops, was not only possible, but likely?

So, gee whiz, now that we knocked off Saddam, our troops can all come home and we can leave the ME alone, so the fundamentalist *******s won't pick on us any more?

That's the "imminent threat", the threat that steps can now be taken toward removing with an Iraq that no longer needs to be contained.

We're years from figuring out if and when Iraq no longer needs to be contained.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


I don't think France, or any debtor for that matter, should be able to collect on debts incurred for sales in violation of UN sanctions. This may constitute a good deal of the debt owed France, Germany and Russia.

Also, I believe the Iraqi debts must be rescheduled so that the primary emphasis in the short-term is reconstruction.

There is no accounting made for debts owed after sanctions. The published amounts owed foreign countries predated the invasion of Kuwait. On top of those debts, there's some ten billion in UNSCR mandated reparations to Kuwait.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
If the UN are supposed to reflect some democratic trend in the community of nations, it seems impossible for a great democracy to refuse to be part of it. The argument that the UN are impotent is not relevant : they have not been created to govern the world, only to make possible that the problems can be described, analysed, and appropriate solution recommended.
The fact that the US disagree with one recommendation (even if they have sentimental reasons to believe otherwise) does not mean that the UN has failed.

The problem with this statement is that a great many states in the UN are not democratic and do not accord their own people human rights. Were the UN a great force for democracy, I for one would be an enthusiatic supporter. But, what I see, is that is an organ that excuses abuses by dictators, and does everything in it power to see that they are not overthrown.

I think the UN needs reforming. We should have it actually adopt democracy as the only acceptable form of government and provide the people of the world its guarantee that the democracies of the world, represented by the UN, are on their side.

But this is a fantasy, of course. It also illustrates why the UN is not, ultimately, an organ for advancing civilization and making the world a better, more humane and good place in which to live.

[centrifuge]

Has anyone checked the news recently?

Fox News (yeah, yeah I don't want to hear it) is reporting the finding of what initial tests say may be weapons grade plutonium.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html

[gsmoove23]

So the UN is not an organ for advancing civilization because it exists in the real world where the majority of the world's population do not live in democratic nations? It is a world organization not a democratic government country club.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned


The problem with this statement is that a great many states in the UN are not democratic and do not accord their own people human rights. Were the UN a great force for democracy, I for one would be an enthusiatic supporter. But, what I see, is that is an organ that excuses abuses by dictators, and does everything in it power to see that they are not overthrown.

I think the UN needs reforming. We should have it actually adopt democracy as the only acceptable form of government and provide the people of a world its guarantee that the democracies of the world, represented by the UN, are on their side.

But this is a fantasy, of course. It also illustrates why the UN is not, ultimately, an organ for advancing civilization and making the world a better, more humane and good place in which to live.

The US do not refuse, and they are right, to discuss with non democratic countries, why should the UN refuse ? And an imperfect UN is certainly better than nothing for advancing civilization and making the world a better, more humane and good place in which to live.

[SlowwHand]

Did the UN fail????

How anyone could take the position that the former U.N. didn't fail, is beyond any reasonable comprehension.

[DAVOUT]

Former UN ?

What is that ?

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
So the UN is not an organ for advancing civilization because it exists in the real world where the majority of the world's population do not live in democratic nations? It is a world organization not a democratic government country club.

Hah, and we, who are interested in advancing democracy should turn Iraq over to such and organization?

We need a new UN - one truly committed to human rights and democracy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


The US do not refuse, and they are right, to discuss with non democratic countries, why should the UN refuse ? And an imperfect UN is certainly better than nothing for advancing civilization and making the world a better, more humane and good place in which to live.

No it is not, because it maintains dictators and abusers and slave traders and other artifacts of medieval history. So long as a majority of the UN are composed of states that suppress freedom and human rights, the UN is not a force for good.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, this is nonsense. Saddam did authorized the use of WMD against the US in this war. It so happened, though, that his field commanders did not use the WMD's. The thinking is that the Republican Guard commanders heeded Bush's warnings about prosecution for war crimes if they used WMD's.

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.