 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Hasn't this thread gone way OT?
Isn't the current situation that the US and UK are aiming for a "moral victory" in the SC if the French veto it?
All I can see here is the US and UK changing their position yet again because events have come out against them. First they wanted this kind of resolution, then that one, then they wanted it passed, now they don't. Blah blah blah.
And as for the "Chinese and Russians are coming around", haven't we heard this sort of story numerous times over the past few weeks? First the press claim that the anti-war crowd are "coming around" or that taking an anti-war stance in this situation is "politically unthinkable". Then it comes to the crunch and the anti-war crowd are as resolute as ever. This is quickly becoming boring - the sooner Bush leaves the UN the better for him.
What's changed now? - Nothing.
The new "compromise" resolution is no such thing. If adopted it will be an effective ticket to war since it will be vague enough that Saddam can always be found guilty.
Now the US and UK are attempting to blame the French for all this and are claiming that they are "isolated". This is so funny I cant laugh hard enough. It is Bush, Blair and their coalition of the bribed that are isolated both from world opinion and from in most cases the opinion of their own people. |
Agathon, but what kind of victory is this? Does the UN SC have any credibility left? If it is unwilling to enforce the Security Council resolution 1441, what is Saddam to think? Does he have to begin to serious disarmment, or can he continue to evade and deceive?
And what should the leaders of North Korea and Iran think? Do they have anything to fear from the UN Security Council?
Surely, the hard left and France have taught Blair and Bush a lesson. But in doing so, they have also crippled the UN Security Council. Because they've crippled the Security Council, they have made war much more likely, not only with Iraq, but also with North Korea and Iran.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
The UN is an international debating society with no teeth. Even a liberal should be able to see that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Agathon, but what kind of victory is this? Does the UN SC have any credibility left? If it is unwilling to enforce the Security Council resolution 1441, what is Saddam to think? Does he have to begin to serious disarmment, or can he continue to evade and deceive? |
It would have no credibility at all if it became a mere tool of the US as it would if it rubber stamped this war. This way it at least keeps the appearance of democracy and multilateralism which is what it is supposed to be about. If the US wants to ride roughshod over the opinions of the rest of the globe then it can attempt to, but I think it is a victory for believers in international law that the SC has refused to be cowed.
And as far as I am concerned these were UN resolutions and their enforcement is the business of the UN and no other organisation. If the UN doesn't enforce its own resolutions there is nothing wrong - it doesn't have to and may have good reason not to.
quote:
And what should the leaders of North Korea and Iran think? Do they have anything to fear from the UN Security Council? |
These are separate issues. The reason that these countries are building up weapons (although the case against Iran is weak and it isn't clear when NK got its nukes) is that Bush has publicly threatened them. In other words they have good reason to believe that the United States plans to engage in unilateral military action against them, so it is not a surprise that they are agressively building weapons for defence.
quote:
Surely, the hard left and France have taught Blair and Bush a lesson. But in doing so, they have also crippled the UN Security Council. Because they've crippled the Security Council, they have made war much more likely, not only with Iraq, but also with North Korea and Iran. |
If there is war then I think that outside of the US it will not be perceived as a just war. This is the case for the British people who are opposed to war and to the Spanish who are even more passionately opposed to it. Since these countries are democracies such widespread dissatisfaction with government policy increases the likelihood of radical democratic change.
The strategy of people on the hard left has been to wait for an issue which would force a crisis of democracy - a situation in which the undemocratic nature of contemporary politics is exposed for even the dullest person to see - and from that to use public opinion to build more democratic institutions. I think that this is too optimistic, but I think that it can be used to force a mild democratic shift.
This may be such an occasion - it has already had a long desired effect in making ordinary people around the world think of the US as the problem of world politics rather than the solution. That is already far beyond my wildest expectations and now I am placing at the extreme periphery of my hopes the deposing of Blair and the movement of the UK away from the US towards a more integrated stance within Europe. Any more than that would be absolutely outstanding and I'd consider quitting my job to become a full time political agitator, but I'm not too hopeful.
As for making war more likely. War with whom I might ask? Who is Iran going to attack? Who is North Korea going to attack? Will these countries risk American reprisal to wage aggressive wars against their neighbours? I think not. Is war waged against these countries more likely given the current SC stance. I don't think so, but it would be if the UN rubber stamped American wars of aggression.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
the problem w/ ne idea that the UN is an international governing body. is it simply never enforces anything.
u can't govern w/o enoforcement. the list of countries currently breaking UN resolutions is rather long and includes countries from almost every alignment.
lets face it, the UN is a joke. sure its a nice idea and we should work at maybe in the future making it not a joke. but the thing is when u say "u have to do this or else" when or else comes, u gotta drop the bombs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
ok osweld, why not just ignore me now. save urself the trouble. I dont have any particular interest in stopping ppl from putting their hands over their ears and going nananananana.
if thats how u live life then all I can do is hope u never posess any real power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
obviously when I said "never enforce anything" it was exageration.
yes if you piss them off they will try to drop sanctions on u. they will probably draft 2-3 more resolutions. maybe yell a lil, call u a bad person.
the UN is just a big place to talk. for the UN to be truely effective it'd need a military that didn't pull out of areas BECAUSE IT WAS SHOT AT. and a military large enuff to enforce, by force. when necessary. u'd need ur resoultions to hold weight and not simply be political tools.
if the US was for non-action I'm sure we would go against very few UN resolutions. unfortunately the UN takes so lil action that if you ever think being involved is a good idea chances are you need to go in faster than the UN can, or w/ more authority than the UN can.
cuz the UN is just inept.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Unfortunately , it's also an internation debating society that the democracy loving citizens of most countries care about very deeply because they see it as providing the beginnings of a real system of international law.
The problem facing the pro-war leaders is that they didn't realise that their own constituents care about the UN much more than they do. This won't bother Bush much since the UN has least influence in the US, but the Europeans really care about it and so do the Canadians, which shows why there is such a difference of opinion on this side of the Niagara Falls.
I can't believe that they didn't account for this. After all almost everyone I know thinks that an international criminal court is a fantastic idea since the current system allows the Suhartos, Pinochets and Kissingers to get away with mass murder. Opposing such a court can't but help make you look like a bad guy. |
Good points except I must refer you to the first sentence of your second paragraph. I could just as easily say that the "anti UN resolution enforcement leaders" do not care about the legitimacy of the UN. Look at the following article from the Bangkok Post for example for a different view:
Power grab could end UN sham
France has promised to veto the US-British-Spanish resolution to end Saddam Hussein's manipulation of the United Nations. Two other veto-bearing members of the Security Council, Russia and China, are expected to join in protecting Iraq from being forced to disarm.
President Bush has made it clear he will call for the vote that will expose the council as unwilling to protect the world from blackmail by terrorist states with ultimate weapons.
This means that the United Nations, as now constituted, may continue humanitarian activity but need no longer function as the umbrella under which strong nations restrain aggression.
It has failed dismally before. Because Russia had the veto to protect Serbia's dictator, the United States had to turn to NATO to act in the United Nations's stead against aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, interceding after tens of thousands of lives had been lost. A half-century before, only the temporary absence of the Soviet delegate enabled the United States to fly the UN flag in stopping North Korea's invasion of the South.
As the Security Council exhibits its irrelevance again, the United States and its many allies will step in to fill the void. These Allied Nations will assume the burden of replacing Saddam and removing his arsenal of terror.
But what of the threat of terror opening a second front in Asia? True to form, the United Nations is frozen. Russia and China will do nothing to contain the nuclear threat from their neighbour, North Korea. France and Germany look away, urging the United States to buy off the extortionists unilaterally.
This is a further abdication of collective security. It may be that the United States, even during the attention-consuming eviction of Saddam, will have to create another regional coalition of free nations to deal with the nuclear danger posed by North Korea.
The communist regime in Pyongyang is revving up its reactors to produce plutonium and is ominously testing its medium-range missiles. With malice aforethought, it tried to force down our unarmed reconnaissance aircraft so as to take its crew hostage.
How to respond? With the United Nations paralysed as usual, we see a complacent China, a mischievous Russia, an appeasing South Korea _ as well as accommodationists in the United States _ demanding that the United States submit to another round of blackmail.
A month ago, I characterised our 37,000 troops stationed near the border of North Korea as a ``reverse deterrent.'' If we were forced to bomb the facilities producing nuclear weapons for sale to terrorists, one-third of these US troops within range of 11,000 communist artillery pieces would be the first casualties of a North Korean attack. With so many Americans as the North's human shields, Pyongyang's blackmailers are emboldened _ the opposite of deterred. South Korea's leaders have gained popularity by vilifying Americans stationed along the demilitarised zone and demanding that the United States accede to the North's demands. Recently, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed an interest in redeploying endangered Americans southward, or to other bases. At the same time, he ordered 20 long-range bombers to our base in Guam. South Korea's new prime minister got the message. ``The role of US troops as a tripwire,'' the worried official told our ambassador, ``must be maintained.'' Previously anti-American politicians are suddenly encouraging pro-American demonstrations.
Too late. America's strategic interest in this post-Security Council era is to let the strong South defend its territory while we make clear to weapons traders in the North that their illicit nuclear production is vulnerable to air attack. That readiness will bring about what diplomatists call ``a fruitful, regional, multilateral negotiation.'' No war needed. No Security Council obfuscation necessary. We can thank the Franco-German power grab for precipitating the diplomatic crisis that could usher in a post-Security Council era.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/15Mar2003_news35.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Yeah! If we'd just left those Iraqi bastards alone in 1990-91, those 100,000 — fascinating number that is, since reputable sources I've followed over the years have *never* been able to pin down an exact number of deaths |
Well, the Pentagon won't be so kind to publish a record of its crimes, so I took the average of the numbers I heard (between ~50,000 and ~150,000). Even the lower margin would be enough.
quote:
Right now, I think the United States should pull *all* its troops out of Kuwait and elsewhere in the Middle East. |
Yes.
quote:
I'd love to do nothing more than sit back and snack on popcorn while watching the world beg Iraq to let Hans Blix, et al., do their job w/o the threat of U.S. military power. I bet the world would find an Iraq even more arrogant and gloating than it is now (thanks to France and Germany)! |
The most arrogant and gloating country is not in the Middle East...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote from Gatekeeper:
"I'd love to do nothing more than sit back and snack on popcorn while watching the world beg Iraq to let Hans Blix, et al., do their job w/o the threat of U.S. military power. I bet the world would find an Iraq even more arrogant and gloating than it is now (thanks to France and Germany)!"
Hey buddy, don't count on a peacenik to understand that logic. They want inspections without the threat of force. Or -- the threat of force without actually using the force. In other words they want the help of the US while telling the US to go to hell. Or -- they want diplomacy that is rooted in a lie. I guess they forgot that there was no inspectors allowed in Iraq until Bush threatened war. Oh well, let's not argue over petty details here...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Announcing "no matter what, we're going to veto any use of force, ever" may be popular for domestic consumption, but it's not very good foreign policy. |
And announcing, "no matter what we are going to use force" may be popular for domestic consumption but it's not very good foreign policy.
And announcing "We are enforcing the resolutions of the UN" but actively disobeying that institution, may be popular for domestic consumption but it's not very good foreign policy.
And announcing, "there is a connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda" but not providing any real evidence of it, may be popular for domestic consumption but it's not very good foreign policy.
And announcing "Iraq is a threat to our security" but not providing any real evidence of it, may be popular for domestic consumption but it's not very good foreign policy.
And announcing "Iraq is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons" but not providing any real evidence of it, may be popular for domestic consumption but it's not very good foreign policy.
And announcing "We will seek a vote for sure by the end of the week" but but dilly dallying, is probably not popular for domestic consumption and it's not very good foreign policy.
And announcing "We can go it alone without the UK" thus alienating an ally in a difficult position that he has maintained for our benefit, will not be popular for domestic consumption and it's not very good foreign policy.
I could go on, but I'm bored.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-03-2003 04:03
|