Within a week the United Nations will be voting on quite possibly the most important issue in it's history. A resolution will be sent to the security council annoucing that Iraq is not complying with Resolution 1441 and all preceeding, relevant resolutions in respect to Iraq. The resolution's subtle meaning is to claim that 1441's "serious consequences" must be implemented to enforce the will of the UN and disarm Iraq of WMDs and Saddam Hussein's rule. If the UN passes the resolution, the world community will retain some respect for the body. Though the yes vote would not mean instant, God-fearing credibilty be bestowed upon the UN, it would mean that the UN -- when pushed -- will enforce it's own laws. This means the security council can continue passing resolutions and enforcing them, by a myriad of means, if they are defied. If the UN votes no, the effects will be widespread, with the heaviest ramifications falling upon the UN security council. A no vote means that all resolutions on the books, will never face enforcement, especially by forceful means. Given that Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein (the worst dictator on the planet, tied with Kim of N Korea), is allowed to produce the most lethal weapons, will mean that any lesser offense (Israel occupying territory past the '67 border, brokered peace between India and Pakistan, or UN peacekeepers in the Balkans, Mideast, etc) will not face UN scorn. In the event the no vote is passed, whether it be by a simple lack of votes, or a veto, the first man to flaunt the UN's inability will be Kim Jong-Il of North Korea. This vote will decide the fate of both Iraq and North Korea. If Bush even were to decide to go to the UN, or anyone else for that matter, and sanctions or the threat of military action was levyed against North Korea, it would be laughed off by the Boufant-headed Kim. It's likely even that scenario would never come to fruition, because sensable leaders would forge new alliances based on homogeneous political, ethnic and economic consistancies to form military, humanitarian and political alliances. The international collection of organizations may begin to unravel. The UN may remain to govern over humanitarian and political issues, but security will have been lost forever.
I partially disagree with you. I do think that those who are siding with the US will know that the US is an impotent power, unable to keep to its word. But I think those who at the moment honestly believe that there is no evidence that Iraq is violating 1441, will remain to believe in the UN’s power. This seems to be a significant amount of people. So while the UN will be de-clawed, they shall act in such a way that it isn’t. I think the bigger point here is that if they veto it, then they will be left out of the equation while US and company attack Iraq. The UN will be essentially sidestepped. This is an extremely embarrassing and threatening precedent for the UN.
There is also the possibility that the USA will be the one getting spanked in the long run, and the UN will emerge reformed and more relevant than ever.
Aldah : Describing the US as an impotent power, unable to keep its word, is simply innacurate. Sometimes they might lack resolve perhaps, more as a result of internal pressure rather then external, but impotent? Nope. Perhaps you meant the UN and were getting a little confused?
Yes... I did mean UN. A tpyo Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And I'm not just changing this to save face, I really did mean UN. I recently refered to the UN being like a Boxer that is paralyzed below the neck. And about keeping it's word... I'm quite baffled. I think I meant it couldn't follow through with it's word... I picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Note to self... work on proof reading.
If the UN Security Council doesn't pass the second resolution and the US attacks Iraq unilaterally, it clearly undermines the decision of the UN. That means the US is ignoring world wide opinion on the war and it shows that the UN is useless. I dont see how the UN can salvage its image and purpose if they dont endorse this war. I think the UN will soon join the ranks of NATO. I still donno why NATO is around. It should be buried with R.I.P.
"If the UN Security Council doesn't pass the second resolution and the US attacks Iraq unilaterally, it clearly undermines the decision of the UN" Bingo. UN says "Saddam, give up in the next two months or we launch a war". At the end of two months Saddam basically said; "Uh, no. But thanks for asking!" Now two possible scenarios face us... A) The UN passes a second resolution calling for Saddam to give up or face war within a certain amount of time (the French want to give him four more months, the US like 2 weeks and Canada like a month). If Saddam doesn't anti up the UN is then faced with either going to war or admitting it's a useless piece of shit. B) The UN says "no war, period" and the US goes in alone - making the UN the exact same useless turd I just described. The only problem is few of the Security Counsel members are really conserned with this. The U.S. just wants it's war, the Russians just want their money (and admit it), the Chinese just want to stop the Yanks, the British just want to stay on America's side and the French just want their money (and won't admit it). Everyone's on self-interest here.
sycoindian: "That means the US is ignoring world wide opinion on the war and it shows that the UN is useless" What kind of logic is that? After a thief escapes, should the public nullify all laws, and all courts, police be disbanded? This is just another example of the trouble many Americans have with reality. The rest of the world will not blame the UN for this. On the contrary, they will clearly, unanimously know exactly where to place the blame. There is a whole world out there, that does not revolve in it's thinking around the same delusions many Americans share. How much of the world has reacted to the launching of the Bush doctrine with derision? How much of the world wants America to succeed in this war? How much of the world will place the entire blame on America, for everything that goes tragicly wrong with this attempt at regional conquest? Don't discount the UN. The Busheviks who have spat and walked on the blue flag will have their "day in court", beginning with unfolding events, which have a very high probability of blowing up in America's face. When the Busheviks have sufficiently sullied America's credibility, the UN will have an unprecedented opportunity to reorganize, and they will likely use it.
Tell that to the UN. It's not the fault of the US that the UN permits Saddam to put a finger in each of its nostrils and lead it around the UN campus like a clueless dolt in a Three Stooges skit.
Ok, fair question. Let me pose another one: when you don't enforce a law, is there any point in having one? Doesn't that law become words printed on paper? If a theif steals a car, but the police see it happen, yet do not arrest him, is there a point to having the courts or the police? If they are not being used at all, if they are not enforcing the laws they themselves made, then they have nullified and disbanded themselves.
Specifically in Iraq, UNSCOM has had a very successful disarmament program. The UN has saved hundreds of thousands of lives around the world. The authority of the UN is limited, and they are not a world government to put down all challengers. Sometimes problems have not been approachable by the UN. The veto power of the permanent members of the UNSC has often hobbled the organization. I could go on, as everyone likes to with the problems the UN has experienced, but it is unfair to recognise the successes as well. Iraq has been an example of excellent service to the world, but has been superceded by a hyperpower with a different agenda than the world at large.
*rant on* Ah, the ramblings of his doltishness himself, the baiting jerk, the hypemeister. It's sad, because he's halfassed intelligent, but only as much so as to be dangerous. That is just SO typical of your short-sided stupidity. Can you answer your own question? While that question barely passes for applicable regarding the scenario in Iraq, the answer is no... but the dipshits in charge should be evaluated to see if they're fit to perform the duty they've claimed themselves capable of. Further, in this case, it's not "a criminal got away". Have you seen the tactics a 3 year old uses so they don't have to go to bed? Sadaam is using that exact tactic and it's working. It is unbelievable in my opinion that a "responsible organization" or an "organization charged with maintaining international security" cannot counter this infantile strategy. I'm simply floored. What a JOKE it is to say "don't discount the UN". And a side note: Is anyone else completely sickened by the idiots who claim things like "it's easy to avoid war if you don't have any enemies" when they participated in USO shows in Bosnia 6 years ago or whatever? Damn, I don't like Bush that much either, but wow, hehe, how is Bosnia any different? *rant off* Moderator edit - profanity
Wes, why is it I get under your skin? Are you truly comfortable with your opinions? "After a thief escapes, should the public nullify all laws, and all courts, police be disbanded?" wesmorris: "Can you answer your own question?" I truly expected you would know the answer. After a thief escapes, we clearly should not nullify all laws, all courts, and disband the police. The UN has successfully been exercising its capability to disarm Iraq. Each breakdown in the process has been a result of US belligerence. Even if the US were somehow bringing justice with the occupation, it would not be accepted from American hands. Because of long regional experience with American cultural ignorance, selfishness, and arrogance, any true Arab democracy will be instantly, vehemently, anti-American. When America's overly ambitious attempt to reshape the Middle East by force has been abandoned, the UN or its successor will return to the more laborious, less "glorious" process of repairing the damage. The United States is beginning a period of international vigilantism. When this is over, a war-torn region and economically weakened community of nations will return to building a framework of lawful international relations again. Iraq was a much smaller problem for the world to handle than will be the aftermath of this last bloody infatuation with colonialism. We return to law because life without it is to tenuous, too impoverished, too harsh, too drab. We return to law to survive and prosper. We return to law because without it there is no hope for us. In any complex conflict of cultures and economics, we have to avoid the knee-jerk, lazy tendency to start with the ignorant dichotomies: Good/Bad New/Old Advanced/Obsolete Powerful/Weak Aggressive/Submissive American/Arab West/East Rich/Poor Progressive/Regressive Conformist/Nonconformist ProAmerican/AntiAmerican etc/etc. Categorizing perspectives by how they initially "feel" familiar and comfortable, or conversely discordant with your own experiences, categorizing each opinion as for or against your own world view, is a mental crutch. Apathy avoids the intellectual effort required in gaining a larger perspective. This makes things seem confusing at first: Because the people of the Middle East are just like us, we sometimes fail to undertand them, because our expectations have too deeply influenced our perceptions. For my living, I teach people to operate aircraft in a mostly pleasant, mostly routine, but occasionally shockingly dynamic and lethal environment. The only way that I can increase their survivability is to remove them from thier comfort zones on a regular basis, challenge them often, but also provide much positive feedback when it is earned- I have to always take care to consider how each student's inner warrior, inner nurturer, and inner child are coming along in the process. I can't leave any of the 3 lagging. International relations are similar in many ways. If you want to understand the dynamics, and see solutions, you have to understand the big picture. This does not come by staying within your comfortable, chance, sheltered world view. Americans as a nation are presently on a collision course with the Arab and Islamic worlds. In another analogy with flying, there is extreme weather and rugged terrain ahead, and if we don't understand the situation before the pace of events begins to accelerate, we may find ourselves out of altitude, airspeed, time, and ideas, simultaneously. As I tell my budding aviators, "that's a bad thing". Keep learning. It isn't ignorant to admit you have more to learn. Get the picture. It's vital.
The trouble is, Saddam has refused to act in good faith. The only results has been when troops are at his door. Then only most grudgingly. Saddam has stalled, fought for more time (for 12 years) delayed, and done all he could to scuddle the inspection program. Where are the 13000+ rounds of Vx chemical artilley shells that were turned up in records, prior to the weapons inspectors being thrown out of Iraq? Think he just burn them after the inspectors left? So far, no trace of those shells have surfaced. His missle launchers are there for anyone to see. Where are the missles? Think he forgot to destroy the launchers because he didn't need them anymore. No, he has had a good long time to hide his weapons. It will be hard to root them out. It is not they are not there, it is that they are now well hidden, the records along with them. Funny, when the nuclear scientists were wanted to be questioned by the UN teams, everyone of them had a "friend" that wanted to be present during questioning. Think that is the only hold that Saddam has on them? Especially when their families are still within country? What would you do in their shoes? Somehow co-operation doesn't seem to fit in. Does this sound as if he is co-operating in good faith? Saddam is playing the same game he has always played. Give just enough to buy time and no more. When in another bind, he will give another tidbit and only then. He is doing his best to play the world stage to the hilt. The deal with the missles found on this latest round of inspections being destroyed is but yet another example. From first stating they were legal (even when the rules were spelled out in writing and clearly) to the final reluctant agreeing to destroy them while the troops mass nearer his borders. Had the troops not been gathering, he would be content to continue to thumb his nose at the resolutions already passed by the UN.
Saddam has been a bad boy. He has beat up other kids, and disrupted class. He must be punished. But when a foreigner bursts in the room and starts brutally beating half the class and starts rearranging the curriculum, the entire school is going to be unhappy with the arrogant American. He will leave the easy way, or the hard.
Since you are so stongly in favor for Saddam, have you considered being a human shield for him. You know he would welcome you with open arms...
Because IMHO you are intellectually dishonest in a dangerous manner. Tactics like "baiting" are simply infantile as far as I'm concerned. Further, almost every opinion I've ever seen you post seems to come from a perspective of fear, ridicule and support for all parties in the world except for your own country. While I'm not calling you a traitor, your opinions definately seem to align perfectly with those I would imagine a traitor to have. This is the gist if why you get under my skin. Mostly, never 100% becaue of my perspective on the nature of knowledge. I'm unconfortable with yours because you apparently are the intellectual indulgance of all that I find to be weak and pitifull. I have yet to reach the level of maturity that allows me to completely ignore that. Well, that's not neccesarily true. It's not the fault of the laws, but the people enforcing them should be replaced after the tenth time they fail satisfy the requirements of their positions. I honestly have NO idea how you could come to that conclusion after 12 years of messing around with this guy. I believe this bolsters my hypothesis that you're intelligent but only dangerously so. Nice to meet you Mr. Psychic. Thanks for telling me the future. You are the epidomy of the claims you make against the country that allows you to speak them. Hate yourself all you want, but I refuse to follow suit. Colonialism? What? Another in the long list of simply retarded conclusions. That is a misguided and ridiculous conclusion that IMO can only be reached through a generous amount of fear. I pity you. I can't believe you can manage to be a pilot. I hope I never find myself as your passenger. I don't know what that has to do with anything. We're not dong anything illegal to my knowledge, but I'm sure you have rant #A233213 prepared to spew for paragraphs about how your own government should be despised as the murderous criminals that they are. I can dig dissent, but IMHO, your perspective is pure paranoia coupled with fear and shoddy thinking. Too bad your modicum of intellect is squandered as such, it must be impossible for you to be happy. And then you go making sense for a minute. That is why you are so dangerous in my opinion.. your ability to actually make sense for a minute can easily confuse those who are easily swayed. No, they are not just like us. They are humans and have emotions yes.. I know there are a lot of good, kind people.... but their culture basically despises America fundamentally, even if we were one of the most benevolent countries on the planet. There exists a cultural schism. I see, that's interesting and gives me some insight into why you think the way you do. You have no comfort zone eh? Maybe your comfort zone has become fear. While you may be quite good at what you do (it sounds as if you're somewhat insightful), that doesn't make you the expert on geopolitical politics... nor particularly good at debate. You bring your skills from work to the board as if you have some insight on problem solving that's applicable cart blanche to all problems of international politics. Interesting. Uh huh. Yeah. I've been around brother, I promise I'm not too sheltered. I'm what you call a "free thinker" (though I'm you'd likely claim otherwise). Again you have a bit of a point, but you take it too far IMO. You are right, we are on a collision course with the Arab world. In my opinion, it's about time we made them our bitches if they can't take care of business themselves. You think you're thinking of the big picture. I think you're selfish and small minded (but somewhat intelligent). Why? Well, I've made a pretty strong case IMO, but further... well, how to say it? How do you propose to stop it? We are on a collision course right? Why? Your shallow retarded bullshit seems to indicate W as the root of the problem. That is uh... well, just partisan or vindictive. We have a fundamental ideology problem with the middle east. IMO, and if you can.. try to think this through.. eventually one of us has to go. I say, THEY go. It's survival of the fittest man and eventually one of us has got a bit of a problem with the other. I love the US and I love capitalism. I think both are harsh, but beautiful if you have the stones for it. If you don't, then you'll either follow, get out of the way or die. Simple as that. Trust me, this is no shallow argument, I've been to both extremes and it comes down to fundamental and contradictory assertions on both sides that well... it's like matter and anti-matter. One of them will eventually destroy the other. I believe in our way of life, they believe in theirs. We are both right... but their opinion says (per the fundamentalist perspective) I shouldn't exist. I say, to ensure that their perspective regarding the issue of my existence has little or no bearing on my life... I'm willing to defend myself. In the international case, I think it's best to kick the asses of dipshits like Sadam before their tech makes it possible for them to fuck with me. We are two trains on the same track heading towards one another and a great velocity. I am obligated by my beliefs to ride the freedom train. They are obligated to ride theirs. There's no stopping. I say, it's better to collide sooner, since our train is significantly stronger. Wait and we may not survive the crash. That is just arrogant. It makes me want to call you nams. You should attempt to take your own advice. If you would step back for a second, you might notice that I generally make a whle lot of sense. Sadly to me however, I doubt you're capable. I think you're in a sink-hole of fear. Moderator edit - profanity
