jcookc6

John Kerry has said that if he is elected he will go to the UN to settle the Iraq situation.
I say this is not the answer, the only thing the UN does is allow us to take the easy way out.
When has the UN ever solved a conflict? All it does is to partition 2 sides with what they call the Green Line. Usually with guard posts manned by Canadian, Scandinavian and some other third world countries. If either side wanted to attack, the UN would be helpless to stop anything.
The only conflict that the UN had any sort of success was in Korea, but the United States had the majority of the troop and were in command. Now 50 years later, the country is still partitioned.
In Cyprus, the country is still partitioned some 40 years later.
Did the UN save any lives in the Balkans? They couldnt even save thier own.
If the UN does go into Iraq, you will probably have a country partitioned into 3 sections. The south will be divided with Shieties and Sunni's and the North will be Kurdish. We all know the Turks, Irannians and Syrians do not want a Kurdish state. It will a bigger mess than it is now.

Mojo_PeiPei

Going to the UN would be one of the of the stupidest things we could do. They have piss poor security resources, their hands are tied in what they can and can't do accordingly, also their resources in general are weaker then our own. If militia men start attacking the UN troops and inflict casulities I wonder how long it would take before they get run out.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Peetster

They gave the chairman of the Human Rights Commision to Libya.

That's like putting France in charge of "Not Surrendering".

OFKU0

No kidding. Giving any authority concerning human rights to any country in the mideast is a bad joke.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

Charlatan

What the UN provides is compromise. The other choice is "damn the torpedos were goin' in!"

Compromise isn't the fastest way to a solution but it is often the most peacable method.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Silvy

It's too late to let the UN handle this.
Iraq is a mess now, with the population having no real authority to support.
A new Iraqi government must be elected and installed.

Until this is the case, armed forces will need to keep order. Wether or not those are US forces or some international force doesn't really matter in the end. But handing over control to the UN will cause significant problems (as such things inevitable do), it will create confusion as to the authority and "who is running my country today". This will cause significant delays and those problems/delays could cause the country to fall apart.

As I see it, the US needs to solve the military side of things by themselves. They caused the mess, they need to clean it up. However a strong advisory role for the UN is recommended on the political front. This will help get a constitution, elections, humanitary support and the approval of the mideast region in those things.

__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. "
- Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)

Peetster

Libya is in Africa.

ARTelevision

There isn't anything like an "answer".
It's a series of unfolding historic events.
The UN has a role in the process.

__________________
create evolution

Sparhawk

5 posts criticizing going to the UN for help, yet that is exactly what Bush is doing, by enlisting the help of Lakdar Brahimi(sp), letting him come up with the transition plan. Which is, by the way, just one more example of the flip-flopping this Administration has been doing since "Mission Accomplished."

I don't criticize the idea of going to the UN for help, however. I think the Administration needs all the help it can get over there - I just don't like the hypocracy.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Pacifier

Or the US in charge of "finding a peaceful solution"

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/unsucess.html
and the US sure had more success...

However I don't think the UN should or can help, the USA didn't cared for UN approval, they told BS about WMDs. Why should the UN help the USA? Why should the UN pay for the US?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Macheath

Casually dismissing Canada, Scandinavia and (I suppose Australia too ) as "third world countries", whatever that means nowdays, probably won't gain any productive or useful responses from non-US posters who lurk tilted politics.

To the extent that we can speculate about these things; it seems like within the administration itself, a fella like Colin Powell and a fella like Paul Wolfowitz each had vastly different ideas about the relative merits of the UN.

Superbelt

It was an attempt at using the position to cajole Libya to improve it's own human rights. Not because they are seen as someone who has good policies towards that.

I'll agree though that it was a stupid, misguided attempt.

OFKU0

And is routinely discussed in the context of the Middle East much as Egypt is.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

mml

That made me laugh - thanks!

But seriously, Kerry's proposed policy is not to just throw everything at the U.N. and hightail it out of Iraq. He recognizes that for better or worse, the U.S. is there and must finish the job. What he would like is to get assistance from the U.N. in order to make the transition from U.S. occupation to Iraqi sovreignty safer and more expidient. He has also been pushing for a greater NATO involvement and hopes the Bush Administration can obtain this NATO commitment at the June NATO conference. Kerry is simply recognizing that the US is not to only party that has an interest in seeing a stable Iraq, and he would like to get those nations to participate in the process. In fact, you are seeing the Bush Administration's policy morphing into something that is nearly identical to what Senator Kerry has been proposing for quite some time. Perhaps the Senator will be able to do a better job conveying this to the public and the Bush administration will be held accountable for the fact that it has an unclear, everchanging Iraq policy.

irateplatypus

only if you consider the 5 posts to be part of the Bush administrative policy.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Zeld2.0

which is why all of a sudden after all the talk of not needing the UN they suddenly want it?

i am perplexed

Sparhawk

No, but they were reflective of 12 months or so of Administration talking points.

Thanks for the input, mml, you put it better than I could have.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Mojo_PeiPei

What world do you live in, I mean seriously? We didn't care for UN approval, I mean Bush and Powell were only there for 8 months making a case. A case that was doomed to failure from the start because certain countries had more to gain by keeping Saddam in power (read: France, Germany, Russia, China). We told BS about WMD's??? Again what planet are you from? Every major intelligence group in the world had the same intelligence as us, and guess what??? Those WMD's that were unaccounted for before the war are still unaccounted for. Also we have been keeping a UN which struggles hardcore financially afloat for years, not to mention that we have a been a major contributor to all of its ongoing missions whether by sending troops or supplies/food/and money. Could you at least attempt to be objective when you post?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

SLM3

Let's assume your realist stance and look at what you've said. We'll simplify and state that those countries which you never miss an opportunity to villify were opposing the US war merely because they were protecting their interests. One group protecting their interests by opposing another trying to pursue theirs. Isn't that the reality of real politik? Why the doublestandard?

WMD. Yes, many agencies were curious about Iraq's WMD. Difference is, Powell presented a bunch of pretty pictures and Rummy backed him up telling us they knew exactly where they were (the WMD, that is). Also, while many states were suspicious, only one spearheaded a war. That's the difference.

Look at the US's history of defaulting on payments to the UN. I think you might surprise yourself.


SLM3

Lebell

It is a mistake to think that there are not agendas at the UN or that member countries do not make alliances and try to make it do things that are advantageous to them and disadvantageous to others.

That being said, the US will do the same and use the UN when it is to our advantage and not otherwise.

There is no "big bad wolf" here, just countries using the current system, which is what they have been doing for several millenia.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

gondath

Here's the way I see it. the UN could potentially be the biggest asset to solvng world problems. If approached without bias and all the member countries put in equal shares, it could be the closest form to a sort of world democracy. The UN gets a lot of grief for supposedly stalemating on issues and acting slowly, but the alternative is letting countries make deals on the side and handle problems in any way they see fit to.

Democracy is supposed to be our motivation for going to Iraq, and yet the UN is slammed for being corrupt and weak. I seem to remember the USA helping start the UN. Why bail now? If it's corrupt and powerless, then we need to work to strengthen it. After all, how does it reflect on democracy in general if people claim countries can't work together without corruption and complacency. It would cast a shadow on our own government.

Billy Ocean

So the Oil for Food programs corruption that put billions of dollars into Saddams pockets and gave oil kick backs to the anti-war crowd isn't the biggest scandal in UN history? If that's not a big bad wolf about to be totally exposed I don't know what is.

If there are no WMD and terrorist connections in Iraq, where are all the Al Queda terrorist in Iraq and Syria getting the WMD to attack 80,000 people in Jordan?

__________________
"To live outside the law you must be honest." - Bob Dylan

Lebell

Nothing you said contradicts what I've said.

Of course the UN is subject to corruption, just as any human run institution is, especially when there are large sums of money involved.

If anything, the "Food for Oil" program highlights what I've said; that the member countries will continue to make deals that are advantageous for themselves and not necessarily good for the "world".

As to WMD's and Syria, I don't see what that has to do with this thread.

Perhaps you should start another one if you want to talk about that.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Billy Ocean

My comment about WMD is directed at the comment earlier in the thread "they told BS about WMDs."


The Food for Oil scandal is not simply member countries continuing to make deals that are advantageous for themselves and not necessarily good for the world. First of all it was made bu individuals and Iraq not member states... secondly it will be found to be against the law, and it makes a mockery of the entire process. Are you fimiliar with the details?

__________________
"To live outside the law you must be honest." - Bob Dylan

Lebell

No, I'm not.

But corruption is corruption, be it in the UN or Enron or Fina-Total, etc.

So it seems to me that this is a separate issue, i.e. corruption in the UN, as opposed to what good the UN serves, if any.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Billy Ocean

Connect the dots. UN corruption is the reason it doesn't serve any good. The Oil for Food scandal is turning out to be corruption on an unprecedented level in the UN. This is much larger then Enron or Fina-Total, this effected a war and people's life, not somebodies job or trust fund.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/I..._040420-1.html

__________________
"To live outside the law you must be honest." - Bob Dylan

analog

Billy Ocean: Please stay on-topic. You've been told what you're talking about is OFF-topic, and you're still on about it.

Further off-topic posts from anyone threaten to get this thread closed.

Pacifier: Quit trolling.

Mojo_PeiPei: Please avoid responding to obvious trolling with rudeness.

Pacifier

yes you tried you convince the UN, but when they said "no", or as Fischer said "Excuse me. I am not convinced." about your resons to go to war the US said "we dont care for what you say".
The US practically said they dont need the UN. Fine, why do you need the UN now?


Where are they? Where are the mobile labs? and those hunderes of tons of biological weapons? in syria? well it shouln't be a problem for the US intelligence to find those? The iraq was under monitoring, how the hell could the move all their WMDs to Syria without anyone noticing?
Nothing powell was talking about was found. I dont care for "Every major intelligence group in the world", the US claimed there are WMDs and mobile labs and various other stuff so it is their job to find those things and to proove they were right. And guess what? They failed


the US is in debt with the UN

sure, like a lot of other nations...

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Billy Ocean

I'm explaining how UN corruption is relevant to the topic, if you can't see that then maybe you should re-read what I wrote. The question was when has the UN ever solved a conflict... I'm using the Oil for Food scandal as an example of how the UN recently botched up a conflict and made the situation more complicated and thus failed to solve the conflict. The UN Oil for Food program was clearly not "the answer" to the problem in Iraq... follow me now?

If this isn't speaking directlly to the topic then maybe you can more clealry define what the topic is for me because I see a clear connection between what I'm saying and the first post in this thread.

__________________
"To live outside the law you must be honest." - Bob Dylan

onetime2

The UN is ineffective in handling conflicts. Their security capabilities are non existent. The political bickering and self interest exhibited by them in their decision making is sometimes surrealistic.

That said, there is no reason to think that they shouldn't be involved in some ways. The limited roles the US has allowed and they have taken up in the Iraq situation are acceptable to me at this point. The Kerry plan which seemingly would give them primary control over the process is not acceptable in my eyes. I hope the UN presence and influence can grow over time but for them to take on more responsibility now or in the near future is almost laughable.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

tecoyah

The "corruption" is real. The good the U.N. does in the world is real. Welcome to the real world, Neo. If we are to disregard an organization because of corruption, then all government must be set aside.
The United States, is probably the most guilty of corruption in this scenario, between the false proclimations of WMD levels, the "show" at the U.N. before the war, and the excessive corruption just below the surface of Haliburtons handling of Iraq.
It seems to me we have little room to be critical of outside corruption, thanks in large part to the complete degradation of the image of th U.S. in the eyes of the rest of the world.
That said, lying and cheating is prevelant in all major government entities, and that will not change anytime in the near future. Perhaps a focus on the positive could benefit us all.


EDIT- By the way....losing your job , or trust fund DOES effect peoples' lives, and often leads to disasterous results. Most people in Iraq have little to lose from corruption in the oil for food program. Also, who would you place in charge of this. Please dont say the United States gov't, as this would totally relegate your corruption charge to oblivion.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Billy Ocean

Disregarding a government in the US is not an option, disregarding US membership in the UN is an option. Your opinion that the US is probably the most guilty of corruption, is just that, opinion. I won't argue that b/c you're entitled, I'll just say my opinion differs. IMO we have lot's of room to be critical of UN corruption because we are the worlds leading financer of the organization and they are trying to cover up this curroption and holding information back from our investigation. The UN is meant to be transparent. I feel a focus on the positive neglects the very real and dangerous negative.

Sure losing your job and trustfund effects your life but not nearly as much as losing your life. The Enron scandal cost people material wealth, the UN Oil for Food scandal cost people their lives. Personally I would have never approved the Oil for Food Program... I would have finished Saddam off years ago.

__________________
"To live outside the law you must be honest." - Bob Dylan

Zeld2.0

Geez if only life were so simple as to be rid of corruption?

Please if it were that simple everything would be nice and done. But its pretty clear things are not so nice and fit and when the UN is brought into this by the very government you are talking about, why question their choice?

Oh wait... and who was telling who not to question the gov't?

tecoyah

First, we have the right to be critical of the U.N, you are absolutely correct. In fact I have many issues with the way this organization functions. That was not the point. The essence of my post was the corruption of the United States in this affair(which you chose to disreguard), and the death and destruction likely brought about in Iraq by the greed and corporate mentality of Haliburton and assoc.
If you really want to play the transparancy card, I would suggest you focus the looking glass on what we have been doing for four years. I have been amazed at the mentality of blind tolerence our own citizenry has shown to what is obviously a corrupt administration. I say obvious, because to anyone with eyes open, and mind clear enough to see the pattern before them, we are living through the most tarnished administration in history.
As far as lives taken by corporate greed, again, look to Haliburton and security (mercinary) forces contracted out to them. You may not realize this but, there have been well over 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the invasion began. Compared with an estimate of just over 9,000 military Iraqi dead. At least a small measure of these people have likely fallen to the "security" forces of our corporate military wing.

It is good to know, by the way, that you would have finished Sadam off years ago. And I am sure you had a better plan to maintain some form of stability in what is arguably the most important state in the region as far as our interests go. Blatant Macho tactics have proven to be disasterous already, as is obvious from the results achieved thus far.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Billy Ocean

I'm not suggesting we could be simply ridded of corruption, it will never go away. What I'm saying is the UN is involved in corruption on a massive international multi-billion dollar level (Oil for Food), under the flag of international humanitarian relief. How much more immoral and unethical can you get? That's why they are not the answer in Iraq on a large scale. Why question the choice? Why question anything? I question it because I disagree with it and that's my right as an American.

__________________
"To live outside the law you must be honest." - Bob Dylan

Billy Ocean

I'm very fimiliar with this liberal view of things, and I simply don't agree. There's no way to quantify most of your statements because they're opinion, that's why I "disregarded" much of it. It's usually a waiste of time to speak to people who are so stuck on their own way of thought that they argue others don't have "eyes open" or "clear minds".

The essence of your first post was "The United States is probably the most guilty of corruption in this scenario." There's no way to meassure a statement like that, it's opinion. The essence of your second post is "we are living through the most tarnished administration in history." again... it's opinion. It's also an opinion that I disagree with when I consider we've had Presidents impeached and others resign. We've also had administrations that supported human slave trade and slaughtered native Americans. You're scope of history seems limited to me. What's next comparing Bush to Hitler?


My opinion on taking Saddam out years ago has nothing to do with "macho tactics". It's 20/20 hidsight now, but the ceasefire turned out to be totally botched up IMO. Iraqi opposition groups and especially the Kurds were stronger and more united in 1991 and could have supported us more. We had more international support militarily, economically, and politically. We went all the way to Baghdad and then backed off and left an open wound for years. As a result our troops stayed in Saudi Arabia for longer then they should have and our Foriegn policy became a game of waiting Saddam out "Containment". IMO "Containment" considerably fueled the fires of terrorism against the US (along with other influences). You asked what I'd do? I'd finish him off years ago.

__________________
"To live outside the law you must be honest." - Bob Dylan

tecoyah

I will agree to disagree

*shakes head and leaves*

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Zeld2.0

Look Billy you've stated that you won't agree with the liberal view and thats fine, but the point is being pressed right now an its pretty clear no one is going to agree with either side.

And put it this way.. one man's view no corruption is another man's view on nothing is going wrong.

A guy can say the Bush administration is corrupt while another sees nothing wrong. Same thing to the UN.

Not to mention that people's perceptions different - some say the government being corrupt is more serious than an international organization.

It doesn't matter anyways because in the end if the UN is to be effective, the US has to be willing to support it was the UN was most effective early in its life when the US was willing to

Its when the attitude shifts to the "i don't care about no organization" when it self defeats itself

Whatever anyways, this is beat to death, and nothing will change

silent_jay

Canada a third world country, would you like to explain this, I noticed no one has called you out on it yet and I would like to know your reasoning. If Canada is a third world country what is the US?

That was totally uncalled for, if something like that had been said about the US the mods would have edited it, please stop the double standard, maybe we should put America in charge of world peace that would be quite the clusterfuck

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

analog

Referenced by...

Actually, no- America, Americans, and pretty much any facet of Americana (including our apparent, generalized "attitudes" about certain things) gets slammed regularly in pretty much EVERY SINGLE THREAD in Tilted Politics- by people from both around the world AND right here in the United States.

I suggest a bit more education on your part next time before making such a gross generalization- and accusation- towards anything, including the mods here. This "double standard" clearly does not exist.

So you're French, fine, make your point to Peetster over the grave injustice he's done you by saying the French are surrender-happy. You shouldn't have to make shit up like, "the mods would have deleted blah blah blah" to prove your point or present a grievance.

/Super Mod Rant