*moved* What's up with the weak U.N.?

[Chuck56]

I have a simple, or maybe not so simple question. Why is the United States still a part of such an ineffective organization as the United Nations? The old League of Nations didn't work, other than to provide political weaklings with a place to vent their ineffectiveness. What exactly does the UN do in a wartime situation, or peacetime situation other than take up valuable parking space in New York City.

Since casting our lot with the UN and going into combat under that disgusting blue banner, we have won no wars and have lost every peace. I think it's time to withdraw and let the thing fly or fall on its own merits, of which there are few.

[Shrekkie]

I don't understand the fuzz of all this stupid UN - thingie. USA is strong enough to take out most countries in the world. What's the use of a UN when they just gonna do what they want to do.

Is everyone so naieve that if Iraq shoots anything at anyone of the UN, whole of the UN won't answer. They would , and yes , even the little Belgium which was involved in lots of the airraids last GW and which participated at any UN-threath ever. I'd even think they would be one of the first to support.

What's the anger all about ? Allmost everyone here doesn't like a war coming. Some just want to use everything but war to bring down Saddam. Unless everything is tried they to will come in action.

The ones here who want war, are those who don't even have a clue what this is all about.

[Negative]

Eurotrash present! Will you take me instead, KorpDeath?

Seems to me a resolution to disarm Iraq was already unanimously passed some 12 years ago. SO why is it that France, Germany, and Belgium (who?) don't think it necessary to back their words?

I'll sharpen my pencil, KorpDeath (you asked so nicely, couldn't resist).
Back up our words? Do you know WHAT exactly we stood up against? It's NOT the disarmament of Iraq, KorpDeath, it's about the WAY to do it, and, more important, about the timing. Oh, BTW, those resolutions are UN resolutions. What you are talking about (our 'inexcusable' behaviour) is on the NATO-platform, not the UN platforum (kinda different, don't you agree), but I'll let that one slip...
Now, to the point: yes we signed the UN resolutions, and YES, we will keep our word (namely the disarmament of Iraq). But what France, Germany and Belgium stood up against is, as mentioned before, NATO, not UN. Now lemme explain how we DO keep our NATO-word. NATO-rules are clear: unilateral military intervention is forbidden (a single NATO-member CAN NOT decide to wage war on any other country. Guess who's about to break that rule... right). Furthermore: in the case of an unilateral military intervention where the attacking country is the 'victim' of a counter-strike by the 'defending' country, all intervention by any other NATO-member is forbidden.
In this case: if Iraq gets attacked because the US use Turkish bases, then IRAQ is the state that can call in legitimate self-defense (according to international law). By not agreeing with help to Turkey (THAT'S what this 'crisis' is about, KD), France, Germany and Belgium are acting according international law, and according NATO-law. Period.

When I have to resort to threatening my kids with a grounding, or worse, a spanking, I try to get them to understand that as much as I don't like it I will have to FOLLOW THROUGH WITH WHAT I'VE SAID. A simple philosophy, it shows my kids that when I say something I mean it. Such a simple lesson should be taken to the U.N. and shoved down the throats of those pu55y security council members.

As much as you don't like it, we ARE following through with what we've said. Both UN-resolutions (contrary to the US who always seem to forget the UN-resolutions against Israel), and NATO- and international law.

Originally posted by isimbor]
I agree with you completely. Not only did we have authorization years ago, but we also just recently got it again!

Authorization for the disarmament of Iraq, yes.
Authorization for a war? Don't think so. Far from it.

Originally posted by KorpDeath
There's no proof that they destroyed any of the chemical or biological agents they had at their disposal. You know the ones they used on their own people don't you. It's no the U.S.'s job to prove they have ****....It's their job to show the world they have gotten rid of it. Why do you think the U.S has airfields all over the country with nuclear capable planes and missiles drilled with holes out in the open?

Turkey for example also still has the same weapons they used on their own people (hey look, a coincidence, 'their own people' are in both cases the Kurdish). I don't see anyone telling the Turkish to stop using WMD on their own people.
It's harder to proof you don't have something than proving you do have something, btw.

May I also remind you that France and German came up with an alternative plan? (You probably won't believe it since you seem to believe that we are even against the disarmament of Iraq, but still..).
Their plan is to tripple weapons-inspections, bring UN-soldiers to Iraq to supervise the disarmament of Iraq (which would turn Iraq into UN-controlled territory), prohibit air-flight above Iraq, and have Mirage IV planes patrol the area. An Iraqi violation would be sanctioned, and there would be a strict control of Iraqi import, also preventing it from smuggling oil.

BTW: Germany already sent Patriot-rockets to Turkey, manned by Dutch soldiers...

I ask you again, KorpDeath: where/how are we not backing up our words?
We'd all be goose-stepping if it weren't for the US... yeah yeah.
You'd be still riding horses without a saddle if it weren't for Europe... pfeww, nice logic.

And I think you're the one who needs to do some reading, KorpDeath.

Palladin > Umm, never mind... don't even feel like discussing your 'let's nuke them'-wisdom...

[xmaddness]

Okay okay, agreed... Enough about "nuking those bastards!" and "Make love not war!"

Its time to reopen a fruitful debate and discussion. So if your thinking of Posting something like, "I agree, lets go to war!" and that its, don't bother.


The UN in my opinion does tend to step back from what it is saying, and is prooving to make itself obsolete. Now you may ask, "How is the UN becoming obsolete?" Well, lets take a closer look at the UN security Cousil's resolution 1441 - "The Situation between Iraq and Kuwait".

Firstly, Lets take a look at what happens if Iraq fails to do any of the following demands outlined in this resolution.

[The UN Security Council]Recalls that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;

Now, lets take a look at WHY another resolution was needed. The following are excerpts directly taken from the resolution signed by ALL members of the UN Security Council.

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,



Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Your all wondering why the USA is putting so much pressure on IRAQ? Well, the above paragraph kinda sums it up, doesn't it. We have absolutly no clue what Iraq has, or has not, done so far with their weapons and programs. So that debate is over. Lets continue to the next.


Has Iraq been cooperating with inspectors?

Deploring further that [b]Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional,
and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all
cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998[b]

Well, they didn't cooperate in the past, and even kicked inspectors out. That to me shows that if they didn't cooperate in the past, we have no reason to expect them to cooperate in the future. The above excerpts from the UN security council's resolution are reasons why the new resolution is being brought about. Now lets get to the real meat of the new resolution. These are the requirements for Iraq that were outlined in the new resolution, that was UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY ALL UN SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, including France, Germany, and Belgium.

Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular
through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA.

Well, thats obvious. Continuing...

Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under
relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced
inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the
disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent
resolutions of the Council;

Okay, they have one more chance to comply with UN security councils demands. Gee, how nice of the UN to give them "YET ANOTHER CHANCE". Continuing...


Okay, here is the first "real" requirement of Iraq. Iraq needs to, in writing, fully disclose all aspects of weapon programs, all weapons, all nerve/chemical agents, all payload carriers, and all scientists etc..., to the UN security Council within 30 days of the passing of this resolution. You can read the exacts below.

Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament
obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the
Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not
later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and
complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such
as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft,
including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents,
stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and
work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other
chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for
purposes not related to weapon production or material

They failed this task miserably, and the UN Security Council has already agreed on that. Strike 1...

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the
names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical,
biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated
research, development, and production facilities;

It was an incomplete list, with many top scirntists not listed. Strike 2...

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing
of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned
reconnaissance vehicles;

They still arn't allowing reconnaissance aircraft to be used (although talks have started just this past monday). Strike 3...


Well, there are three examples right there of non-compliance with UN Security Councils demands. Remember that this was passed by all UN security Council member nations. It looks like Iraq is taking the same turns it did with the first resolution back in 1991. This doctrine was written with the words "Severe Consequences" if Iraq did not comply. So now that Iraq hasn't, on several occasions, is Germany, Belgium, and France backing out? These member nations are single handedly destroying the credibility of the UN. And in my opinion, its time for NATO to kick them out.

"But they are our Allies!" Yeah right, Maybe france was there for us during our revolutionary war, but times and hearts and polotics change. Its time to give them the boot. Lets see them defend themselves on their own. Same goes for Belgium and Germany. Germany has a disgusting past, and frankly I could care less of their efforts since. And belgium , whos belgium? No offense to any of my belgium buddies, but your country doesn't exactly have alot of "power" in the international community when it comes down to doing "dirty business".


Well those are my opinions and I'm sticking to it. As a closing statement I would like to remind you all, that if Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait in the beginning, none of this would be happening today. Iraq invaded, they got their ass handed to them, and they need to learn to bow to their masters (UN) and start listening, or get another ass kicking.


I bid you all adu...



:P

[KorpDeath]

NIce one Negative. Yeah you'll do.... It's always nice to get another person's perspective however far out left it is.
I hope for your sake that Saddam is too stupid to use the **** he's got. Cause the chances are greater for you than us.

P.S. I can't believe I didn't include you in my original rant. hahahaha

And DAMN xmad...beat me to it.


P.S.S What is your problem with Israel, I wasn't speaking about anything other than the disarmament of Iraq and you gotta go off on tangent. No wonder you all laid down.

[sirrahj]

It appears that all of our solutions take more resources to implement, which could be garnered to better our own countries. Ok - so if we took out Saddam, what would we truly accomplish? Would someone who replaced him be better or worse? What are the actually goals of the US led force? I think there are details of all of this we are still not privvy to, but yet affect many of our lives.

I do believe we need to get into alignment with NATO on the Turkey issue. It appears we (all countries including the US) have many double-standards that we enforce based upon how best that country or groups of countries can best benefit. If we really wished to address the situation, we should have done so during Desert Storm and forcibly remove the Husayn governemnt and replaced it with one that would have worked (heh).

I still believe we should allow the loudest objectors to the current planned action that is currently led by the US/UK/AUS and we focus on NKorea and that basket of fun. Maybe we need a 'fresh' perspective and see what another set of minds can come up with in dealing with Mr. Husayn. I mean that's why we have the UN right? It looks like xmaddness made a few good points, and I also think this should not be led by the US. Let some other country's flagged be burned for awhile.

[moby_duck]

in my mind, the UN is basically a petty organization of primarily 3rd world nations trying to impose their values on the US. they are totally obsessed with Israel--of 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 of them were directed against Israel. of 690 General Assembly resolutions before 1990, 429 condemned Israel.

Syria is occupying Lebanon politically and militarily and yet she served as chairman of the UN security council last year in June. while there is still slavery going on to this day in the Sudan, the UN does nothing. tribal warfare and religious conflict are killing millions in the nations of Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Sudan and other African nations and the UN flies private jets to South Africa to hold a conference on racism where it primarily condemns the United States and Israel. When the US walked out, they were taken off the council on civil rights and replaced by, guess who? that's right, the Sudan!

this is madness perpetrated by a handful of pipsqueak dictators trying to impose their pipsqueak values on us. i say we leave the UN.

[KorpDeath]

Even if we don't head it up, they'll burn our flag. There's no stopping their hate for us, it's inbred.

no offense to my euro brethren; at least not anymore than usual..

I just don't think anybody wants to take responsibility for hard decisions. By default we have been chosen... by your inaction we have been chosen.

[xmaddness]

I guess our points have been made, due to the fact that no one else has an argument. I agree that all war is inherently bad for all humans, but as has been the case in history, its inevitable. I strongly stand with my opinion that Saddam's regime is not progressing towards a world of peace. Their practices have been less then appealing towards the UN's main goals of keeping peace thruout the world.

Taken directly from UN.org.
The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the Charter,for the maintenance of international peace and security.

It is this purpose that the UN was formed, and is still around today. You may ask though, how is starting a war "the maintenance of international peace and security,"? Well, its a double sided coin. If one "rouge" nation decides they are going to invade other countries, with the use of weapons of mass destruction, and with no type of provocation, then how is that international security? Whether we like it or not, Iraq is a problem. We have tried in the past to allow them to deflate the problem by diplomatic means, which was undeniably a failure. Well, here we are again, and again it seems that thusfar, it has been a failure. Should we continue to play cat and mouse until they are done preparing enough weapons to mount a credible attack on a neighboring country?

Recently I saw a very amusing political cartoon in which frances Eifel tower was bombed by iraq, while staring at the plume you could see a speech baloon of Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Prime Minister of France, saying "Now we are going to TRIPLE inspections!". Is that what its going to take? An attack on one of the UN countries before anything "real" will come into play? I seriously hope not. Its time to take care of this threat once and for all.

[shtychkn]

The UN is a relatively good idea if you you believe in some sort of neodemocratic planet wide unification. It's ineffective, but a step in the right direction.
If you don't it's a bunch of bitchy poor countries asking the overbearing rich countries to fight their battles.
As far as Saddam goes, that evil bastard has been asking for it since the Gulf War. He orders his pilots to CONSTANTLY test their "no fly zone" boundaries. He shoots SAMs at any allied plane patrolling those zones. And has offered a $50,000 reward for any American pilot patrolling the no fly zone.
If there was a line not to be crossed, Saddam is dancing on it.