Annan: US war in Iraq is Illeigal
 

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...B6370C75CC.htm
So the secretary general says the US violated the UN charter in attacking Iraq. This isn't going to help the world opinion of the US at all. We really should have tried much harder to get the UN's (and world's) support before attacking Iraq.

When will you realize that it doesn't matter what the reality was, we would've never gotten the required votes. Saddam could be straping babies to scuds while sodomizing a penguin with an AK and the likes of the French, Russian, and Chinese would've still been against it.

Fuck the Kofi Annan, I think he's mostly upset because of all the documents showing up involving the oil-for-food scandal, probably trying to divert attention from that. The UN and Kofi Annan are a joke, spineless and corrupt.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=red%20herring

Pay no attention to the UN Security Council members behind the curtain with Saddam!

another report, this from teh guardian, on the same story...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...305709,00.html

huh...maybe points of view like mojo's are one reason the right attacked the un as soon as the bushcase for quick and unnecessary war failed to persuade anyone.

if you cant face the reality, it is always possible to create a diversion.

the problem then, as teh right reprocessed it in advance, is not that bush had no case for going to war--which is obvious by now to anyone who looks--but the un itself---because members of the unsc were not persuaded by the noncase the adminstration presented.

seems to work, that strategy, insofar as it prevents undue cognitive dissonance for conservatives who otherwise would have to face the fact that their boy bush sent the country to war on false pretenses.

but by now, batting away unpleasant facts about iraq in order to avoid cognitive dissonance must be nearly a fulltime job for those who support the war. i dont know how they find the time to do it.

I really have to bushquestion the bushreasoning behind prepending "bush" to every bushword. Is it funny? Does it help you make your case? To me it seems as immature and, frankly, moronic, as the kiddies that spell Microsoft with a $.

The United Nations is a disgrace. One day soon, it'll all come home to roost on thier doorstep, and they'll be looking around wondering what they did wrong.
A second resolution....

A second resolution.

This man has the integrity of a cbs news anchor. A sellout. A hypocrite. An impotent, feeble little bureaucratic eunuch who stands to lose billions for himself, his crooked cronies, and his organization because he didn't have the spine to take a stand. Absolutely reprehensible. What gall to say such nonsense after Hussein broke 18 different UN Security Council Resolutions. 18!! One can only shake their head and laugh.

i think there are many people who have a more legitimate right to make this case than kofi annon does. i'd like to hear a whole lot less from mr. annon until full disclosure on the food-for-oil program is achieved.

Funny that red herring was mentioned in the context of iraq. That's something i would have never expected, at least not in reference to the the u.n..

I bet if annan was pro-invasion we'd be bending over backwards to justify everything he does or says on the matter. How many resolutions has israel broken again?

How many of them are security council resolutions?

Hahahaha thats funny.

What does he miss his oil for 'food' bribes?

One more reason I believe we should simply pull out of the UN.

1400 UN soldiers couldnt do what 59 mercenaries did in the Ivory Coast... put an end to the massacres over there.

No country has listened to the UN in a dozen years. So why are we still pumping money into something so corrupt?

man, you really nailed it there guy. not with us, you´re with the terrorists. Kofi Annan with 40 years of service dedicated to your well being, nobel peace prize winner and spokesman for the worlds community is irrelevent. Ditto United Nations.
Idiots questioned king George. heretics, fools, "spineless, corrupt jokes"
Damn right, pull out of the UN now. Who needs em? Kick all their asses the fuck back to wherever they came from. then rob everything they got. because we, of course, are more deserving. god bless america, west virginia and your mother/sister/aunt wife. you folk truly make me ashamed of my passport.

None of them are, the last was 37 years ago.
If the UN had its way with Israel, there'd be no Israel by now.

Sounds to me like the UN just wants more money from us. You know impose the fine and then as we always have done pay it.

I dislike the war, think we are seeing a very long disasterous affair ahead of us, but I hate the UN almost as much. I truly believe we need to stop all funds going into it.

Arafat won a peace prize, seems like anyone is eligable these days.

So hows that situation in Sudan going? Be a shame if another Rwanda happened....

Good think the UN regularly takes pro-active steps in the face of injustice. Why don't you ask the Iraqi's how well those sanctions helped their plight.

How'd that Somalia incident ever end up?

Yugoslavia? I seem to remember something about some genocide there, I'm sure the admirable Kofi stepped up to bat there.

Outside of Somalia, Rwanda, and Sudan, I seem to remember hearing something about some "conflict diamonds", I'm sure the UN stepped in though.

How many Security Council resolutions have been unanimous only to have the US veto them?



SLM3

The UN is what we make it; It's merely a tool. Where was the the US led resolution to call the situation in Sudan genocide months ago so that the UN would be required to do something (by mandate)? Where was it when Rwanda dealt with it?

SLM3

Speaking before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr Powell said the conclusion was based on interviews with refugees who had fled Darfur.

He spoke as the UN Security Council prepared to debate a second resolution threatening Sudan with sanctions.

Up to 50,000 people in Darfur may have died and a million have been made homeless during the conflict.

Mr Powell blamed the government of Sudan and pro-government Arab Janjaweed militias for the killings.
"We concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility and genocide may still be occurring," Mr Powell said.

Mr Powell's conclusion is based on evidence collected by state department investigators, who interviewed more than 1,800 refugees.

Their testimonies, Mr Powell said, showed a pattern of violence which was co-ordinated, not random.

Three quarters of them said the Sudanese military had been involved in the violence, working with the Janjaweed.

The Sudanese foreign affairs minister, Najib Abdul Wahab, rejected the accusation of genocide.

He said that neither the European Union nor the African Union had used such strong language to describe events in Darfur.

The BBC's state department correspondent Jill McGivering says the use of the word genocide does not legally oblige the US to act, but it does increase the moral and political pressure.

Ten years ago the UN was accused of failing to stop genocide in Rwanda.

The Sudanese government says it does not believe its allies within the UN will agree to any sanctions.

Oil threat

A previous UN resolution was passed in July, calling for the pro-government Arab Janjaweed militias to be disarmed. The new draft resolution - put forward by Washington - says Sudan has failed to fully comply.

If Khartoum has still not complied by the proposed new deadline, sanctions may be introduced "including with regard to the petroleum sector". Sudan currently produces about 320,000 barrels of oil per day.

The resolution also calls for:


the expansion of the number and mandate of the current 300 African Union troops in the country

international over flights in Darfur to monitor what is happening, and an end to Sudanese military flights there

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to assess whether acts of genocide have been carried out and identify the perpetrators.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3641820.stm

So, uh, where's the resolution calling it genocide?


SLM3

Like anyone cares what the UN thinks.

See my post above.
That's why they're called "Allies".

Remember when one of the never-ending shifting excuses for the Iraq war was that Saddam had ignored the U.N. resolutions?

:lol:

We had to invade Iraq because they ignored the U.N. resolutions!
Don't listen to the U.N., they're a bunch of spineless/idiots/fools!
-- More of that impressive conservative hypocrisy

yeah, arafat got the peace prize and sharon is a "man of peace" and bush is a defender of the american people and OJ didn´t do it.
you´re right. basically the UN is totally crippled by US and israeli non compliance when and where it suits them. theys good boys when they´re behind us but obsolete when they don´t fall in line.
ever thought that maybe many of your cited failures and lack of action on UNs part may stink of direct US complicity? The US are unquestionably the strongest of the so called superpowers. More than able to organize and facilitate any UN humanitarian mission or resolution.
we do what we want when we want in our self appointed world cop role. when the fuck are these cops gonna have to face a judge?

Opie, yeah that is funny.

The UN put resolutions in place and Saddam blatantly ignored them for over a decade :lol: :lol: :lol: Man because of his actions millions of people suffered needlessly, more then half a million children died, you'd think a jewish writer wrote that!

What was the count 17 or 18? What's hilarious is how Saddam didn't even really try and hide his non-compliance.

Bush said it best, the rest of the world shares our assesment, but not our resolve.

Mojo - Sarcasm. Neat. Lacking context and facts, but hey, I don't expect miracles.

But it assuredly is quite funny that you don't see the irony in complaining about/ignoring the U.N. out of one side of your mouth and championing your war out of the other side of your mought due to someone else complaining about/ignoring the U.N.

damn, you funny too!
non compliance? the WMD inspectors were completely ignored by the bush crew. when nothing came up we got the historic powell moving vans of death presentation and absolute media fantasy blitz. face it, there were not, are not, and hopefully will never be any WMDs in iraq. they posed less of a threat to the US than canada. they had no ties to 9 11 and basically, if left alone for a coupla more years, would have probably imploded without our foot in their ass.
yeah we brought down that evil villians regime. saved the iraquis from the dangers of safe drinking water and electricity. and it only sets us back a few million a day.
meanwhile the other bad guys take advantage of the unsupervised recess to work on some new toys.
bush shoulda said: the rest of the world doesn´t swallow our trumped up, obviously falsified assesment but we resolve to do it anyway.
clinton shoulda admitted the blowjob as well.

mentiras. eres una mentiroso. - freddy fender

he did it to one word. i double-checked. lighten the fuck up.

how about challenging a viewpoint you disagree with, rather than make snide commentary about it? I guess it's just easier and requires less maturity to take a pot-shot and move along.

Old news. This was known long before the war had even started. The Iraq war was a war of aggression, which is against all international law.

Is War Against Iraq Legal Or Not? a Debate Between Roger Normand and Ruth Wedgewood

Army Chiefs Feared Iraq War Illegal Just Days Before Start

'Illegal War' Could Mean Soldiers Face Prosecution

US War Without UN Approval Would Be Seen as Illegal (they never got it)

Armey: 'Unprovoked' Iraq War Would Be Illegal

Even Richard Perle, one of the neo-con architects of the war has admitted it!

War Critics Astonished as US Hawk Admits Invasion was Illegal

Neocon whining

BS, see Gulf War I
You got the vote for that even though all the "baby stories" back then were a blatant lie.

A note to some people here regarding the so-called oil-for-food "scandal." The U.S. shares just as much, if not more, blame for their role in not stopping it in the first place!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0412-09.htm

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/st...imes040704.asp

For some reason the conservative columnists who keep peddling this story tend to leave out that fact...

A funny thing about Saddam's non-compliance--as the following article illustrates, the U.S. had no intention of holding up their end of the bargain either. Never mind the supposed weapons; they weren't going to lift sanctions as long as Saddam was in power no matter what he did. Moreover, as Saddam had pointed out, the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were being used for U.S. espionage at the same time they were supposed to be just inspecting--hardly a tactic that encourages compliance.

Follow the Policy: Why So Long for Iraq to Comply?

if you believe that [insert wildly estimated figure here] iraqis suffered under the sanctions (which i'm not sure that i do)... how many palaces were you going to let saddam build for himself before the blame shifted to him?

Actually, if you look back I'm fairly certain one of our "major" "allies" was not there. Stormin' Norman made some reference about hunting and an accordian...

wow, what an explosion of bile....

let's summarize the situation one more time:
the administration claimed hussein had wmds.
the un inspection team did not concur.
the un inspectors appear to have been right.
the unsc believed the teams on the ground over the administration.

the administration claimed that iraq was a security threat to the us. partly on the basis of the wmds (not true), partly on the basis of some vague link to "international terror" (also not true).

the administration failed to persuade the unsc that its case was compelling,
it turns out that it was not compelling because it was false.

clearly, the problem is the united nations.

the human rights argument that was floated later is a joke. the entire history of american foreign policy since world war 2 (and before, but less consistently) demonstrates that it is a joke.the problem is not that saddam hussein was not a bad guy, but that the american have no problem with bad guys who murder their population to stay in power so long as that bad guy is politically convenient. thats the way "we" work.

clearly the problem is the united nations.

the war in iraq was about opposing a neocon vision of american national interests to that of the un, how national interest is defined in the charter.
the neocons thought the war would be short and simple--totally wrong, but hey, when it comes to members of the right, no error, no matter how huge, should carry any political consequences.

clearly the problem is the united nations.

the idea was to insert the american state, in its military capacity, as above international law, the idea of which the neocons hate because their entire politics assumes the nation-state as primary. the un does too, in fact, but that seems secondary to them.

for the gambit to have worked, the war would have had to be as they fantasized it would be--a short heroic war of liberation.

well it did not turn out that way.
they had no plan for that.

over a thousand american troops, and uncounted iraqis, combattants and civilians alike, have died because the neocons fucked up. there is no sense of liberation. there is nothing but chaos with no obvious way out. there is a consistent undermining of the american position internationally, both in terms of "moral" arguments and in terms of military power.

that the americans deployed their military in iraq and then found themselves caught where they are is about the worst thing that could have happened from a long-term security viewpoint for the u.s.

clearly the problem has to be the united nations.

why iraq in the first place? because of the neocon understanding of the first gulf war. they saw the un working against their john wayne understanding of american national interests, which for them would have required that the americans roll into baghdad in 1991.

the war is theater.

obviously, the problem is the united nations.

Desert Fox anyone?

This is what you are looking for Mojo.

Other great France quotes.

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes." ---Mark Twain

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
---General George S. Patton

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
---- Marge Simpson

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
---Jacques Chirac, President of France

"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
---Rush Limbaugh

You know the more I think about it the more I am confused. WHY is France thought of as a Major ally? The last time they did anything of value was blocking the British retreat at York Town, and that French government was later executed by the French.

I see France as a neutral power.

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people." --Conan O'Brien

You were bitching about that "French, Russian, and Chinese would've still been against it." which was BS.
If they sended troops or not is an other topic.

how creative, nation bashing .... what about some surrender jokes? it may have been a week since i heard the last

looks to me like the right folk have nothing to say about the central problem raised by annan's statements and prefer to spin about in networks of displacements...

now the problem is france.

it was the united nations.

it is everyone and everything other than the bush administration.

this appears more the acting-out of a psychological structure than an attempt to grapple with a political problem.

it does indeed appear that swatting away cognitive dissonance is a full time job.
i wonder at what point the question of diminishing returns will arise.

Its disgraceful how Annan is pulling the 'illegal war' card. Pure hypocrisy and bitterness. Of course he's going to be pissed off when he is shown for the impotent little weasels that he and his organization are. Of course he's going to whine like a baby when his puny little money-kingdom is overruled by countries who actually have the spine to stand up to insane dictatorships. "Illegal." This from the organization who puts China and Libya in charge of their Human Rights commission. Pure farce.

Russia knew Hussein had WMD. Germany knew Hussein had WMD. France knew Hussein had WMD. China knew Hussein had WMD. The US knew he had WMD. Saudi Arabia knew he had WMD. Israel knew he had WMD. Iran knew he had WMD. The giveaway here was when Hussein actually used them in the Iran-Iraq War. He also used them to kill rebellious Kurds in northern Iraq. It makes the claim that he did not have WMD nonsense, when he dispelled anyone's notion of the matter by USING THEM. He buried missles in the sand. He buried ammunition at the bottom of the Tigris river. Underground bunkers & tunnels. There was an infrastructure in place designed to keep Bad Things out of site of satellites.

The fact that the UN knew all this - but decided to do nothing - besides a policy of appeasing the beast with (broken) resolution after (broken) resolution, is a mark of shame on them. Never mind the fact that many of the above countries also stood to lose $billions$ if their business partner/dictator in Iraq was put out of business, which to me, is the main reason why they refused to support the US & Britain. Now, like spoiled children, they refuse to cooperate in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Theatre, yes. Theatre of the Absurd.

I might want to say something about Annan's statement, but I think the inaction of the UN speaks for itself. It brings back memories of the League of Nations, and we (should) all know how that ended...

what would you have had the un do exactly?

authorize war on the basis of a specious case presented to the security council?

why is the rejection of a weak case for extraordinary action so difficult to process without attacking the body that rejected that case?

the analogy to the league of nations in this case is so thoroughly wrong that it is hard to know where to start a response to it.....


powerclown: your post glides over the fact that the un weapons inspections teams were actually in iraq, searching for weapons and not finding them--with iraq finally co-operating under the threat of military action. i actually had no problem with the bush people ratcheting up that pressure--the place where things fell apart was in the rush to war, going outside the framework without adequate justification.

by this point, given the domestic political situation facing the bush administration, and the impact finding wmds would have in fracturing the widespread opposition to the war, even you would have to concede that if there were any wmds to be found, they would have been found. and EVERYONE would know that they had been.

the administration was wrong. why is this so difficult to accept?

UN is a kingdom? You just made my day.
And where exactly is the WMD every evil nation had known to exist?

Perhaps we should push for UN inspectors to inspect our case for war. That should buy us another decade or so.

fool:
of course, that is based on a wholly ludicrous version of the situation that obtained in iraq at the start of the war, and also presupposes something legitimate about the neocon version of the first gulf war.

I sincerly hope the laws we broke while we was "invading" Iraq is enough for the United Nations to be so angry that they toss us out of the U.N. on our asses. I never seen the U.N. step up and do shit after 9/11. Why do we even bother with the U.N.? In fact, I can't remember a time the U.N. has ever done anything on their own without the U.S. bearing most of the burden. I say fuck the U.N., get us out now while there's still hope.

Regardless of what Americans would like or think should be, the UN represents the interests of ALL of its members. The reality is that the vast majority of the world's population is opposed to the US invasion of Iraq. Annan has every right to his opinion, and in fact, his opinion is in the majority. In a truly global society, there must be some forum for international communication and agreement. While it is certainly not perfect, the U.N. is what we have and to make statements like "Let's get the hell out!" shows a rather simplistic or isolationist view to international politics, economics and security.

If we all take a deep breath and look at the facts, the US did act without final approval of the UNSC. Does that really matter to the US? Not particularly, except that one of the reasons the Bush Administration used to justify the war is that Saddam was in violation of UN RESOLUTIONS, ergo it would, according to international law, require authorization of the UNSC for this to be a "legal" action.

Now, the Bush Administration believes that the last UNSC Resolution (sorry, I can't remember the number right now) gave them the right to take action, most of the UNSC and the UN members disagree. So, in an attempt to keep with the topic, I think that Mr. Annan was right and just in his interpretation of this matter (regardless of what I think of the UN and his stewardship of the organization). I my opinion, the US under the leadership of President Bush and under the sway of the idealistic and simplistic guidance of the Neo-Conservative movement, rushed in to a war that was unjustified and poorly timed, planned and executed. Did Saddam need to go? Of course, but the US should have completed it's mission in Afganistan (which had UNSC support) while continuing to build their case against Saddam. If a more agressive diplomacy was used (much like what George H. W. Bush used to build a coalition) we most likely could have accomplished the same thing (albeit in a delayed time frame) while maintaining or even improving US stature and relations in the world. (But perhaps this is me being idealistic and simplistic - but I guess we will never know)

The key word here is "UN INSPECTION TEAMS". U-N. As in United Nations. As in, the same weasels in bed with Hussein all along. What incentive would they have for finding WMD that the whole world already knew were there?! Why would passengers on a billion dollar gravy train want to cut short their vacation??

The UN Inspections were bureaucratic, political hide & seek bullshit. What the reality was, was that Iraq had WMD because they already used them, and everybody knew it. And the UN was in a bind because they didn't know what to do about it. They didn't want to authorize a war because they stood to lose too much, both monetarily and politically, because they knew that America would have to be the one in command of the war operation, which, to some certain, irrational countries would be an embarrasment to them. I say the UN should have been United (as in, true to their namesake) in their goal of ridding this strategically important area of the world of a crazed, aggressive and unpredictable dictator. But, there you have it, nobody said that chaos isn't the norm in this world, and always has been and always will be.

Now, the UN is only making the situation worse by not helping out in Iraq in this critically important time - when positive change is possible - and if/when the shit hits the fan and the country breaks down and explodes into violence and civil war and the region and the world are once again under the threat of a possibly even more aggressive, fundamentalist theocracy, the united nations of the "United Nations" will only have themselves to blame for their petty inaction.

powerclown:

you sound like some john birch society type railing at the un, with the added tweak that now the un is bureaucratic but somehow the american state is not---the un inspections team, which was there on the ground in iraq, seems to have been much more informed about what was happening there in the run up to war than any of the "intelligence" assembled by the bush team.

and with the farce that is the war in iraq, you get a glimpse of what the unilateralist world imagined by the neocons might look like--contempt for international law, such as it is; fantasies of being liberators substituting for planning; a brutal occupation that appears to be widening into a civil war with somewhere between 12 and 15000 iraqis killed (civilians and combattants). the show run by an administration more than willing to lie to the public and to itself to justify the fiasco.


i think that in many ways the un is less than optimal, but relative to a world dominated by a self-blinding single power, i prefer the un not only exist, but become more activist.

i wonder if what is being run into here is a psychological boundary that is shaped by the discourse of the right.
faced with choosing between a conservative worldview and facts that do not fit, you seem more than willing to twist the latter to preserve the former.
often talking with conservatives is like talking with old trotskyites, except that the conservatives are more frightening, both because they are closer to actual power and because they rationalize their ideology as pragmatic. but the behaviours that i see are typically doctrinaire responses to dissonance.

not sure how much further to push this, given the parameters of debate in a politics board. so here i will stop.

The U.N. is the logical next step in world-wide democracy. It is akin to the federal government over the state governments. Assuredly it has flaws, as any large organization will (though this incessant outrage for oil-for-food corruption is absurd coming from anyone supporting the U.S. gov't seeing as how the U.S. was also involved in that alleged corruption). But to denounce it as a whole and claim it is useless and should be avoided (when it doesn't do exactly what one sub-group within it desires) is nonsense. The U.N. is _exactly_ what the U.S. is striving for around the world.

I see only pure hubris and an utter lack of logic in anyone that believes the U.S. should abandon the U.N. It does nothing more than discredit the claim that democracy is desired over tyranny.

Round and round and round we go. I'm glad i'm tall enough to get on this ride. :rolleyes:

if that is so, then that is the most serious reason to leave the U.N. a world-wide democracy would be a disastrous development. I would love to see every country in the world a democracy, but not have each nation be a "state" under a larger U.N. umbrella.

No clue what the hell that means, but its sounds funny as hell... :lol:

To address the alleged 'contempt for international law". If there was a law that told you to jump off a bridge 35 stories high, would you do it? If you don't want to be considered in contempt of the law, you'd better jump, or risk the wrath of the idealouges who would insist that you are dangerously rebellious and downright subversive. One nees to look between the lines and understand the spirit of the UN's motivations and decisions.

The world came together in the form of a legal, internationally-acknowledged body called the United Nations, and told Hussein (in the form of International Laws) to behave himself and come into compliance. He told them to go fuck themselves. The UN gets flustered, red-faced, starts to wring its hands, looks around nervously at eachother, then decides to give him another chance. Another Internationally Legal Law, another Resolution! The farce continues, and would have continued indefinitely if it weren't for 9/11, when theory met reality.

The scholars in their insulated, idealistic, utopian glass houses will continue to oppose this war on the basis that international law was broken, while simultaneously ignoring the lawless actions of the bandits themselves. Dishonest, imo. But, aren't we all?

*getting off soapbox for now*

Why have a Federal gov't, then? The Fed provides two benefits: 1- It protects the entire country from other countries and 2- It stabilizes the individual States so that they don't start attacking each other.

The U.N. provides the second benefit - promotion of stability within each country so that they limit their attacks against each other.

If there's no value in a world-wide democratic body, there's little value in a Federal-level democratic body. Even the Fed protection from other countries could be addressed by a multi-state collaboration which does not include a Federal body.

Based on how the UN is run, I'd rather live in a monarchy then a UN lead world wide democracy.

logically incongruent. there must not be a single unified authority over all mankind because it will not be accountable to any body other than itself. having nation-states has its weaknesses, but it does ensure that there isn't a single governing body who is immune from external considerations.

there is a clear difference between different sizes of competing states and having only one umbrella state.

I'm confused as to what you mean by theory meeting reality on 9/11 as it pertains to Saddam Hussein and the UN resolutions. It appears the argument is being made that allowing Saddam Hussein to ignore UN resolutions was a direct contributing factor of 9/11.

Could you clarify what you mean?

Nope.
I could say the exact same thing about the Federal Gov't. There is no authority over the U.S. beyond the Federal gov't which holds it accountable in the realm of it's governance over the States which comprise it.

You seem to be concerned with some type of dictatorship aspect of an umbrella state. Is the Federal gov't a dictator over the States? Only as much as the U.N. would be a dictator over the Nations.

If you were really concerned about the dictatorship of a single governing body - how do you explain the U.S. push to police the world? Is that not even more of a dictatorship than an organization comprised of representatives of each nation? The U.S. foreign policy is actively engaged in world-wide governing and it is immune to external consideration and it is not comprised of the people it is governing. Classic dictatorship. This is why I see nothing but pure hubris from the anti-UN, pro-US crowd. They do not want democracy - they want U.S. control and attempt to label it "democracy".

I declare this thread full of preconceived notions and using little or no facts/news to justify viewpoints. Even if facts/stories were found, would they be found to make what you already "feel" is right proved or to objectively find out the truth?

To point out how futile this discussion has become I will use the following examples:
I feel that it is very hard to read this and not feel that you are attempting to insult something rather than review their decision. Secondly, if they did support the Iraq war would the UN not be a "money-kingdom?"
So what made us think we could find them even if our inspectors were sent in? Also, why haven't we found them if this is the case?

According to Hans Blix in his appearance on "The O"Reilly Factor" Hans stated: O'REILLY: But 17 violations doesn't sound like cooperation to me.
BLIX: Those 17 violations were before 1998. The entire transcript can be viewed here (I hate the source on that but it is the accual transcript) I'll let you come to your own conclusion.


Democracy is tyranny of the majority. If you meant U.S.A. style that would be Constitutional Republic. As I've heard before in world government discussions "Think it's hard to have your voice heard in a country of 293,027,571 (July 2004 est. according to
CIA. World Fact Book ) ? How would your voice be heard in government of 6,379,157,361 ?"

i wish you would have read my post with more care.

having the U.N. as a government entity that has juridiction over the entire world is very clearly different from the U.S. federal government over the states in the union. the U.S. government has alliances and the influence of competing governments to check it's power. if the U.N. were to have command over key elements of ALL states, then no such check would exist. a very different dynamic would be in place. the U.N.'s court would be the final authority for all mankind... i don't trust anyone with that kind of power. will you not recognize the difference?

my post had nothing to do with dictatorship/democracy though if a situation like this were in place i would definitely prefer a democratic system.

the U.S. is actively engaged in all parts of the world because it must be. because unless the world's greatest superpower gives it's stamp-of-approval on a deal it often loses legitimacy, because we have the wealth to genuinely help people (and i'd love to see us do more), because the U.S. is a leader in the world and not a follower. if leadership is needed then i'd much prefer that the U.S. take burden.

i've read enough TFP to realize that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't by some people... i'm glad we don't try to appease them.

I did read your post. I believe there is a possibility that you did not read my response.

There is no other country that can or will tell the U.S. Federal gov't how much money to give to the state of Ohio. No country can tell the Federal gov't to illegalize or legalize the death penalty for all 50 states. The Federal gov't is the supreme authority over all 50 states of the U.S., bowing to no one other than the people that it represents.

And that is exactly what the U.N. is designed to be for the States of the world.

There is no difference between the U.N. governing the world vs. the Federal gov't governing the 50 States of the U.S., other than it being the next level of democratic organization.

The U.S. cannot lead because its agenda will never be an agenda composed of the power of the people it proposes to lead. The U.N. is the only organization capable of leading in that capacity. What you are describing is the current U.S. foreign policy - a dictatorship controlled by the U.S.

Again - hubris. "The U.S. will lead because it is good and knows best." You're asking the entire world to accept something you, yourself, would not: a governing organization over which the people have absolutely zero control.

did you honestly think someone was trying to convince you that a foreign government was controlling fed/state affairs? it's insulting that you would assume that is the crux of our discussion. as everyone loves to point out, we (our country) does not exist in a vacuum. although no outside authority tell us how to run our domestic agenda, it does not mean that international forces do not shape our government policy. In the current nation-nation model... we all approach problems from a peer to peer perspective. one nation barters and bargains with another nation. granted, some are more powerful than others... but the power balance is in constant flux. the important thing is that all nations compete along the same body-politic stratification.

if you introduce a body with legitimate powers that presides over nations and not among them, you have changed the fundamental power structure. instead of a nation-nation paradigm, you have shifted to a nation-world gov-nation structure (much like the current state-fed gov-state model we in the US use).

the difference between the two lies in the fact that although our current internal model would resemble a nation/UN model... there would be nothing outside of that political sphere to effect change on the internal machinations. do you see? we have our model... but that system is tempered by undeniable outside influences. a similar model on a world scale would have no such check on its power.

to say that American foreign policy is a dictatorship is quite ludicrous. there are times when our foreign policy moves are squarely oriented at benefiting ourselves... but there are many many other examples of where U.S. involved is demanded and thanked. there are also many instances when lack of U.S. involvement is lamented.

Yes. That is precisely my point.

I'm open to being convinced of this supposed difference - but you are not connecting the dots.

If the Fed decided to prohibit Florida from trading with California, who has the outside-the-political-sphere power to challenge the Fed's decision? Canada? Spain? The U.N.? No. No one other than all 50 of the States themselves have that power. Remove all other nations from the equation and the U.S. still exists with 50 states and the Fed is the final authority. Decisions made by the Supreme Court are not in any way affected by other nations. The Supreme Court is the final authority.

Taken to the next level, the United Nations is the final authority for the world and as long as it is atleast a representative democracy, it is controlled by the people of the world. That the current iteration of the U.N. is mostly a two-degrees removed representation is a problem that would need to be remedied - but assuredly the solution is not to denounce the U.N. alltogether.

When a state in the U.S. disapproves of an act of the Federal Gov't, the answer is not to secede.

I think you may be confusing the term 'dictator' with 'oppressive dictator'. The U.S. is assuredly a dictatorship when it comes to dealing with other nations - that it offers help simply means it is, in comparison to a dictator who did not offer help, relatively more benevolent. That does not make it any less of a dictator. If the U.S. wants another nation to do something, the U.S. will exert as much of it's power as it deems necessary to force the nation to accomodate. And if it is important enough, there is nothing the rest of the world can do to stop it (see: Iraq war). This is not a democratic process - it is a dictatorial process.

A King could give everyone a day off from slavery once a year. That is an act of kindness in comparison to a King who does not provide that day. In both cases, the King is a dictator. The former is oppressive and the latter is benevolent.

of course i'm not saying that all decisions at all levels are influenced in some way by the international dynamic. but, i do think it is unrealistic (hypothetically, not naming you specifically) for someone to claim that the international community doesn't fundamentally effect important aspects of policy.

perhaps i am confusing terms... but i'd like to discard the word altogether in this discussion as i dont' think it fits the relationships countries have with eachother very well. the discrepancy occurs when you liken it to a king and similar authorities: king's have legitimate legal authority of their domain. they decide when the slaves get a break because the slaves, in a sense, are theirs.

nation to nation relationships are different. if i were having a dispute with a friend and i call a more powerful third party to broker a bargain with said friend... would you call the third party a dictator? if i were short cash and only one person had the resources to lend me money... would that person be a dictator? if i and a host of my friends were milling around unsure of how to tackle a problem... would i be a dictator if i gave our group coherance and leadership? i don't think dictatorial actions necessarily follow in these circumstances.

If I wanted to, I could sit here and argue against the U.N. and against the Fed and against my State and against my City Council and against anyone who would claim to tell me how I should live my life. But I do not see this supposed line you have drawn between the ability for a City, State or Fed to have checks in power that are unavailable over the U.N. Worse case scenario - if a State decides to imprison all blacks, the Fed will step in to prevent the States from doing so _because_ the other States would want that action. If the Fed failed to step in, it would be replaced by the actions of the other States. If a Nation started to kill all of their Christians, the U.N. would step in to prevent it from doing so _because_ the other Nations would want that action. If the U.N. failed to step in, it would be replaced. If the Fed gave the order to imprison all blacks, the Fed would be replaced by the States before the action could be carried out. If the U.N. gave the order to bomb the Vatican, the U.N. would be replaced replaced by the Nations before the action could be carried out.

The outside-the-sphere-of-influence only exists within the people. If I want a change in my state, I do not sit back and wait for the Federal gov't to read my mind and institute a change. If two cities within a state clash, the state gov't steps in to handle the situation (note: this is the more powerful third party you describe below - but both cities have theoretically equal influence on this third party). If two states clash, the Feds step in. If two nations clash ... the U.S. steps in? This is not appropriate because the U.S. is not only not an equal representative of each of the clashing nations, but it is not even a representative of any of them. This is the job of the U.N.

In order to exist, the U.N. must please the nations that it is comprised of as best as possible. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the U.N. to negotiate fairly between any two conflicting nations. Put the U.S. in that role and fairness is not on the table. The U.S. exists regardless of the two nations it it attempting to mediate. The U.S. will push for a resolution that is most favorable to it, not a resolution that is most favorable to the two nations in dispute.

Your concern for an unchecked U.N. is unfounded as long as your concern for an unchecked Fed exists. If you want to argue that the U.N. shouldn't exist (or be extremely limited) and the Fed shouldn't exist ... you could argue that all the way down to the city level. But there is zero logic in arguing that any one of them should not exist due to lack of power check - the power check is in the democracy.

King's have legitimate authority over slaves? According to who? The King? I don't think the slaves would agree.

In your friend-as-broker analogy, I would indeed call that more powerful friend a dictator if there was any question in my mind that he did not have equal friendship with me as he did with you - in which case, he would not be a dictator, he would be an equal representation of both of us - i.e. the U.N. For the cash analogy: as I said, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator. For your aimless group of friends analogy: You would be a dictator if they decided you should not decide what the group should do.

The U.S. is a dictatorship. That is the position one holds when one makes decisions for others without their consent by means of representation. I'm sorry you don't want to believe that. I know it doesn't sound like what the U.S. is supposed to be - which is precisely why this anti-UN nonsense needs to stop.

I don't think it's a matter of whether the war was justified, it's a matter of legalities and process.

There's a process you must go through before you attack another country, and if the US didn't follow that process, then it's illegal.

It's like if you KNOW someone is a murderer, you can't just waltz up into their house and take evidence... you need to follow the process, get a warrant, and do your bidness.

THAT is what he means by "illegal", not "Attacking Iraq was wrong because Saddam is a sweet lady who eats candy."

Of course, it all boils down to how the charter is interpreted. There IS that portion that says something to the lines of "or face dire consequences/actions" if something isn't followed.

That's because the UN can't do anything unless the US agrees to it. It's a great card to play, this "Power to Veto" lark.

If violating a UN resolution is a valid reason to invade a country, how many Americans would then object if the UN organised a coalition to invade the US?

By the way, anyone who tries to justify the war by telling us that Saddam was a nasty dictator is deluding no-one but themselves. And if they sincerely expect us to believe it, then they might as well call themselves hypocrites and be done with it.

Ever see Red Dawn? ;)

The war in Iraq is justified only because we, the US, gave Saddam the means to have biological and chemical weapons. We essentially gave him WMD and he could not and would not account for them, so we were compelled to remove him. It is a matter of personal responsibility that we came to Kuwait's aid in 92, and that we finished the job ten years later. The rest of the excuses/justification is window-dressing.

:eek:

And to think ... I would have been fine with an apology and a promise to never give away any more.

If memory serves me correctly, it wasn't just one UN resolution, but over a dozen. How many more resolutions would have needed to be passed before something was done?

Don't know. Exactly how many would you like Israel or the US to violate before they're also invaded? Israel has the worst history of all UN nations of violating resolutions (yes, even worse than Iraq). Should we invade them next?

Just one that authorized doing something would have sufficed.

Or do you mean, how many before the US got its demands? That I don't know, but seeing as it's the United Nations, I would venture a guess that's something the global community was capable of deciding in a democratic fashion.

An interesting little article about the hypocrisy of the US and its decision that "those who violate UN resolutions must be punished."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20021028&s=zunes

An excerpt from the above link:

"A survey of the nearly 1,500 resolutions passed by the Security Council, the fifteen-member enforcement arm of the UN in which the United States and the four other permanent members wield veto power, reveals more than ninety resolutions currently violated by countries other than Iraq. The vast majority of these violations are by governments closely allied to the United States. Not only have the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies not suggested invading these countries; the United States has blocked sanctions and other means of enforcing them, and even provides the military and economic aid that helps make ongoing violations possible. "

Another interesting little article pertaining to the UN:

Sun Sep 19, 8:32 AM: Iran Rejects UN Call for Uranium Enrichment Freeze

More gentle musings from A.O.E. Member #2:
I wonder who's going to blink first.

You know, I was going to point out the irony of $eretogis (:icare: kisses dahlink) diverting attention from roachboy's post about the diversionary tactics of the administration, but that would be bushleague.

Lots of sarcasm and kneejerk reactions here. Let's see If we can cut through the crap a minute:
1) There were UN resolutions and sanctions against Iraq.
2) There were inspectors on the ground who apparently seem to have been doing their jobs.
3) While I admit we had allies in going into Iraq, it seems to me that the only body that has any jurisdiction over enforcing UN resolutions is the UN itself.
4) By taking it upon ourselves (or, rather, by Bush taking it upon ourselves) to use force to implement UN resolutions in defiance of the UN, we crossed the into vigilanteism.
5) The absence of any WMDs in a year and a half of looking pretty clearly illustrates to me that we also fell into the trap of vigilanteism - punishing the wrong people.

Now one could say that we didn't actually go in after WMDs. One who did that and called Kerry a flip flopper would have no credibilty. One could also pick nits and use exotic definitions of common words to cast doubt on what I have just said. That might work for people without much critical thought capability, but I was under the impression that we were better than that here.

One could also, without becoming hypocritical, go on to other reasons why it was a good thing that we removed Saddam Hussein from power. One might even be correct in that assessment, but without a plan to win the peace, it is increasingly apparent that the likely alternatives to the Baath party are as bad or worse. In the case that someone held forth that we were in the right to go to war to remove Hussein for any number of humanitarian reasons, I might even be forced to agree with them, but the way we went about it has made a dogs dinner of the effort, and it still does not obviate the fact that we did it in contravention of international law, such as it is. (Were the chances of a happy outcome not receding daily, that might not be such a big deal, but, as it is....)

Last thing, both sides, could we please raise the debate just a hair. We all know we are unlikely to convince our opposite numbers, and we are all familiar with the talking points. This is a good place full of smart people; could we at least try to be original?