Like the UN. It needs more power. Puzzled at your hatred.

[glynch]

Treeman mentioned this in another thread. I thought it deserved its own thread.

Treeman likes being in the dominant superpower, dislikes the UN and claims it is very undemocratic. I assume he wants it to wither away and quit being a hassle to US policies such as the war on Iraq.

I think the opposite. The UN needs more power to accomplish goals for everyone on the planet. It seem likes a very worthwile organization. It is a more democratic way to run the world then the US imposing things by itself or with a few ad hoc partners. Taking votes in the UN is much more democratic then simply than having Bush, Blair and the soon to be defeated Aznar declare war on Iraq for instance. I do realize that it can be frustrating to convince people, take votes and compromise instead of just getting your way, but isn't that inherent in democracy.

It seems many on the bbs and many Texans hate the UN and I'm not sure exactly why. Maybe you all can explain it to me. Growing up in Missouri we were taught to like the UN and that it was a very good organization. A friend tells me that in growing up in Midland TX the fundamentalist preachers use to rail against the UN. Is this a religious thing? Is it a xenophobic thing? What is going on?

To me it just seems to be that you believe that because we are the biggest and most powerful country we should always get our way and never be subjected to checks and balances. You resent that small countries should have any influence whatsover on a global issues, but just accept what we decide. This strikes me as so unfair. On what basis do you think that the US should always get its way on such issues as global peace, weapons, global warming etc.?

Note it is problematical when France ,for instance, or the US for that matter, can block things that the whole world wants to do. What should be the alternative? Realistically you just can't have the US change the Security Council to kick of France and try to insure that it never has one of its resoloutions vetoed. Besides things change if you put on India or Japan because you can get their vote on a Middle East war, theymight cross the US later on land mines or global warming or another issue.

I also don't think it is honest to diss the UN for being only a debating society when the US is constantly trying to defund it and weaken it. If that is the principle argument why doesn't the US offer to triple its contribution to the UN to be used for the hiring of more UN troops?

[4chuckie]

The UN can have more power when it can fund itself. Currently we are the UNs army and we are it's bank.
This means when someone comes to the UN and asks for somethign the US is the one who must take care of it (either financially or militarily)

So my solution is let the UN prove it can take care of itself. For now it can not operate without the US, so IMO it has no power.

[glynch]

Chuckie you say: "Currently we are the UNs army and we are it's bank. This means when someone comes to the UN and asks for somethign the US is the one who must take care of it (either financially or militarily"


Do you have any facts for this statement? I know the US provides a larger chunk of the funding than smaller countries. You make it sound like we provide virtually all of it. If your other objection is that we provide most of the troops. would you propose increasing UN funding so it can have more troops? Are you basically saying if the UN was stronger you would support it more?

[MadMax]

glynch -- here's my problem with it...

you say you want to give it more power...power to a government works like debits and credit...credit their power, debit my liberty. that's why you have the founders of this country talking about government as a necessary evil.

the UN is an indiscriminate organization. are you a nation? great! you're in! do you turn nerve gas on your own people? great! we'll put you on the commission on the control of weapons of mass destruction. did your leader fund terrorists who brought down a civilian jetlliiner? great! you're on the human rights commission!

government, in order to have authority, has to have some credibility. it simply doesn't when these jokers have a "say" in how the world is run.

also...ultimately everyone is out for his own best interests. we saw that so vividly displayed in this debate over iraq. every nation had its own interest...and the un was utterly worthless. it was nothing more than a debating society.

also...government should be in lockstep with the will of the people. i've heard others criticize the US for not participating more in world courts. as a lawyer, that baffles me. why would i turn over judicial authority to countries who don't respect the same concepts of liberty, all wrapped up in equal protection, due process and similar concepts? and why would those who don't value those things want to turn over judicial authority to a group that does? ultimately, i don't want leaders making decisions for me who don't respect those viewpoints. and i'm not willing to lay them down.

government is best when it exists with the consent of the governed. but i'm not personally electing these delegates from france, russia, china, etc. they have zero accountability to us as americans. so why do i want them to have any control over the leaders i HAVE elected? if i vote in a candidate and he makes a decision they disagree with i care only in so much as the relationship with that nation is damaged. but, ultimately, if i value something else above that relationship, i've elected my leader to act decisively.

i'm rambling here...sorry for that...and i'm not entirely certain what you mean when you say the UN should have MORE powers. but these are my problems with the UN. i could probably think of some more! :)

[Rockets2K]

Two things I think would help.

have the military arm of the UN be more balanced..not just have 90% Americans/10% everyone else. As was said before, we end up being the strong arm of the UN in almost every instance.

take away unilateral veto power. it isnt right that one country with something to lose can block an action that might have otherwise passed by a majority of the council.
Note that I am being somewhat theoretical here...Im not sayin that the Iraq thing would have passed by a full vote of the UN even with France\Germany\Russia's objections.

I do think that the UN is the right idea, it just has problems that need to be worked out if it truly aspires to be a stabilizing force in the world.

[4chuckie]

Originally posted by glynch
Chuckie you say: "Currently we are the UNs army and we are it's bank. This means when someone comes to the UN and asks for somethign the US is the one who must take care of it (either financially or militarily"


Do you have any facts for this statement? I know the US provides a larger chunk of the funding than smaller countries. You make it sound like we provide virtually all of it. If your other objection is that we provide most of the troops. would you propose increasing UN funding so it can have more troops? Are you basically saying if the UN was stronger you would support it more?

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2002/12955.htm

We fund 22% of the general fund, compared to 20% from Japan, 10% from Germany, and 3% from Spain and Canada.

In addition we put in another $1.9B to fund other groups of the UN (like UNICEF). Granted some of that is agriculture subsidies so we can support our farmers.

Also people point to that the US only has like 1% of the regular US forces, but in time sof emergency it is the US forces which comes in and represents 80% of the forces going in.

So again my point is we fund more than 30% (overall) of the UN. If we pull out it can not support itself.

[pasox2]

Why have permanent members of a security council with veto powers? Why hand a rotating member control (like Syria? like Belgium?) of your foreign policy? Why would you let France, Russia, China, GB and Syria dictate US policy. The idea is absurd. The proof is right before your eyes. UN votes are dictated by interest group coalitions, that seek to gang up and extract resources from soft "Member Nations." There's absolutely no payoff for shoveling money there, and no agreements you may make have any validity or teeth. It's much better to go it alone, than work through that bankrupt vestige of world war.

Just look at the "oil for food" program. You want more of that? Sure Saddam, keep murdering people, so long as we get our two percent commission on oil sales for "Food".

[DaDakota]

When all of the governments represented in the UN are freely elected democratic governments, then we can have a discussion about this topic.

You can't give dictators the same status as a freely elected official.

Also, who would fund it?

:)

DD

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by DaDakota
When all of the governments represented in the UN are freely elected democratic governments, then we can have a discussion about this topic.

You can't give dictators the same status as a freely elected official.

Also, who would fund it?

:)

DD

But isn't the UN a way to hold those dictators to more humane standards? By getting dictators to sign up for the UN they are agreeing to certain standards. Thus there is at least something to hold them accountable to, as well as a means to exert pressure against them should they break their agreement.

Does it always work perfectly? Not at all but it does have a purpose.

The thing I don't like about bashing the UN because of something like Iraq is that people are only focussing on the military enforcement side of things, and ignoring the good humanitarian work, and human rights watching that it does.

[TraJ]

A friend tells me that in growing up in Midland TX the fundamentalist preachers use to rail against the UN.

I live in Odessa, Texas (15-20 minutes from Midland). I'm a preacher. I'm sure you (and most other people) would label me a fundamentalist, although I don't choose to use labels like that. I have never once heard anything like this. It certainly doesn't seem to be fundamentalist preacher phenomenon in Midland, Texas. How many preachers did your friend hear saying things like this? If it's one or two, so what? That does not a pattern make. If it's just one, two, or even a handful, it would be like someone saying, " A friend of mine used to hear preachers saying things like [insert peculiar David Koresh teaching here] in Waco." It doesn't have anything to do with the majority of the preachers or Christians in that city.

To be fare, I can imagine some preachers who are heavy into premillennialism making such claims--in Missouri, Texas, or anywhere else.

I will tell you that I don't really like the UN, but it doesn't have anything to do with religion. It has to do with ineptitude. What good are resolutions when you have no intention of enforcing them? I'm sure there are some things the UN does well, but I must admit that I don't know what they are. It really does seem to me that there is some corruption at the UN. I don't know how widespread it is, but it's there.

Something else I don't like about the UN is that the US pays the majority of the bills. (Explain to me again why we ought to increase funding to pay for more UN troops.) We basically pay for other countries to support their own interests. Germany, France, Russia and China would be crazy not to want everything to go through the UN--little investment, big returns. From the way some people treat things, you're led to belive that the big, bad US just tries to get in the way of those altruistic souls from these other countries.

[111chase111]

One issue to consider is that ANY governing body is run by people - and, unfortunatly people are corruptable. It sounds nice to say "give the U.N. more power" to do good, but you'd really be giving the people in the U.N. more power and there is no guarantee that they would use that power responsibly and then, how does one country boot them out?

This holds true for governments in general and that's why many conservatives favor smaller government - the less power the government has the less power (or oportunity to abuse said power) the people <i>in</i> government have. The U.S. probably has a government who's members are most easily changed by it's citizens but that still doesn't stop crooked people from getting in and abusing power. Some get away with it (i.e. Clinton) and some don't (i.e. Nixon). (Btw, that last sentence was a joke!)

[Hammer755]

I've never understood how people can complain that our personal freedoms are currently at risk yet at the same time favor relinquishing part of our sovereignty to a body that we didn't elect and wouldn't necessarily respect our Constitution as law.

[johnheath]

Originally posted by Hammer755
I've never understood how people can complain that our personal freedoms are currently at risk yet at the same time favor relinquishing part of our sovereignty to a body that we didn't elect and wouldn't necessarily respect our Constitution as law. Excellent point!!

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Hammer755
I've never understood how people can complain that our personal freedoms are currently at risk yet at the same time favor relinquishing part of our sovereignty to a body that we didn't elect and wouldn't necessarily respect our Constitution as law.

Which part of our sovereignty have we given up to the U.N.?

In fact one of the things the U.N., at least in principle, does is to protect nations sovereignty.

[treeman]

Glynch:

Treeman likes being in the dominant superpower, dislikes the UN and claims it is very undemocratic. I assume he wants it to wither away and quit being a hassle to US policies such as the war on Iraq

I do not claim it to be undemocratic, it is undemocratic. How many elections have they held for chairmanships of important committees? How many elections for a SC seat? Which of the Permanent 5 were elected to their seats?

Exactly how many representatives there have been elected? Zero, they are all appointees.

As for withering away - I think the UN needs to realize its limitations. As a body entrusted with maintaining global security, it is a *total* and complete failure. # of wars it has prevented? Zero. # of wars it has successfully fought? One (Gulf War I).

It has many other uses: it is a great place for diplomats to get together and talk things out/share ideas; it is great for humanitarian, health, and human rights missions. Couple other non-security related missions. But for its primary purpose - maintaining global security and peace - it is a dismal failure, and is more often a hindrance than an asset in that pursuit.

I know the US provides a larger chunk of the funding than smaller countries. You make it sound like we provide virtually all of it.

We provide the largest chunk of its funding. Without our pennies it would wither away into insignificance.

If your other objection is that we provide most of the troops. would you propose increasing UN funding so it can have more troops

Glynch, the UN relies on member nations to volunteer troops. The problem is not that there is a lack of funds for the troops; when they are needed and gotten the funds to support them will be found. The problem is that no one wants to contribute their troops to UN missions, at least not beyond the token company or platoon here or there just so they can say that they participated.

FB:

But isn't the UN a way to hold those dictators to more humane standards? By getting dictators to sign up for the UN they are agreeing to certain standards.

You've got to be kidding. Did Saddam live up to those standards? Does Kim Jong-Il live up to them? How about the mullahs in Iran? The former Taliban? The Chinese? Wherever you have a lack of democracy you have a lack of accountability, and the regime there will do whatever it wants. There is no historical basis for the notion that the UN keeps dictators in check. In practice it is completely powerless in that endeavor without the US footing the bill and sending the guns.

The thing I don't like about bashing the UN because of something like Iraq is that people are only focussing on the military enforcement side of things, and ignoring the good humanitarian work, and human rights watching that it does.

Leave the military stuff to NATO, the coming EDF, and the US (and Russia/China where appropriate), and let the UN cover all of the nonmilitary aspects, and we've got a good formula. The UN is just totally incompetent when it comes to security matters.

Personally, I think we've moved into a new era of international security paradigms. From here on out it would seem that it will not be the UN that decides on and acts on security matters, but more likely ad hoc alliances between nations that share interests. Expect the Europeans to create a EDF that will at times counter and other times compliment NATO/the US; expect an Asian axis of South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan to counter China; expect a new understanding between the US and Eastern Europe to counter both Russia and France and the growing Islamic presence in that area; expect a Franco-German-Russian axis to counter the US.

We were wondering what would replace the Cold War paradigm; we knew that we wouldn't be the sole power forever. It will be alliances that replace the superpower fight, with the US being the center of gravity on the democratic side of the line. Expect China to eventually become the center of gravity for the other side.

The UN is a relic of the Cold War. Yes, it still has some utility, and should not be abolished - or completely blown off. But as a security-keeping organization - those days are over.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by treeman

Wherever you have a lack of democracy you have a lack of accountability, and the regime there will do whatever it wants.

Sounds hauntingly familiar!

[treeman]

Had we not invaded Iraq we would have surrendered our right to defend ourselves, our right to eliminate threats to our security. This is what it is about. Does the UN have the authority to tell us what we can and cannot do? Does an unelected body of technocrats have the moral authority to tell an elected body of representatives what to do?

Look, if we're doing something stupid and immoral like invading Sierra Leone to capture its diamond mines, then I'm with the UN when they tell our government to cease such activity. But if they are simply telling us not to eliminate a threat to our (and global) security out of spite (France), then they have absolutely no moral authority to do so IMHO. It depends on the situation to an extent, but largely IMO it has to do with whether or not the authority comes from the people. The people of this country, that is.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by treeman
FB:



You've got to be kidding. Did Saddam live up to those standards? Does Kim Jong-Il live up to them? How about the mullahs in Iran? The former Taliban? The Chinese? Wherever you have a lack of democracy you have a lack of accountability, and the regime there will do whatever it wants. There is no historical basis for the notion that the UN keeps dictators in check. In practice it is completely powerless in that endeavor without the US footing the bill and sending the guns.


The Taliban is an example of the UN going in and taking them out. That was a good job by the UN. That is agreat historical example of the UN keeping oppressive regimes in check. They were working on Saddam when the U.S. pushed things their own way, so what could have happened is unknown. I've already said it doesn't work perfectly but the idea is to hold the dictators and corrupt regimes in check. Israel isn't following through with their end of the bargain either, and they aren't being called on it. The reason why the UN isn't effective there is because of the U.S. So perhaps if the U.S. would start upholding the principles of the UN, and take a real leadership role to see that the UN works as it was intended then perhaps we'd all be a lot better off.

Just looking at the Rockets board on Clutch we see that when things go bad, people tend to lay blame at Steve, and Rudy a lot. They are the teams leaders. So if there is something wrong with the UN let's look at the U.S. and see what we can do about changing and improving it. I like people and nations that take responsibility and take action. Let's do that where the UN is concerned.

As far as the other oppressive regimes you list, part of the reason we have information on just how oppressive they are is because of the UN human rights watch, and data collected by the UN that you claim is ineffective.

[111chase111]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
The Taliban is an example of the UN going in and taking them out. That was a good job by the UN.

I'm confused. How did the U.N. go in and take the Taliban out? How was the U.N. working on taking Saddam out? And where was the U.N. with regards to Kosovo, Samalia, Rwanda, etc...?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by 111chase111
I'm confused. How did the U.N. go in and take the Taliban out? How was the U.N. working on taking Saddam out? And where was the U.N. with regards to Kosovo, Samalia, Rwanda, etc...?

The UN did go in take the Taliban out lead by the U.S. That was a UN sanctioned action. The UN(rightly or wrongly)imposed sanctions on Saddam, had inspectors in Iraq, and were willing to entertain more resolutions even ones that would call on military action to enforce their resolution, but under a different time table. The last figure mentioned was 30 days. However, that wasn't acceptable and it was never played out to fruition. In regards to Somalia, the UN was there with troops. Rwanda? Where was the U.S.?

[111chase111]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Rwanda? Where was the U.S.?

I think the U.S. lead the U.N. in all those cases. And, IMO, only went through the U.N. because it was politically correct to do so. My point with Rwanda was/is that it is not the U.S.'s job to police every injustice in the world; however, you could make a case that it IS the U.N.'s job. The U.N. shouldn't have to have a country like the U.S. lead it into places it's SUPPOSE to go.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by 111chase111
I think the U.S. lead the U.N. in all those cases. And, IMO, only went through the U.N. because it was politically correct to do so. My point with Rwanda was/is that it is not the U.S.'s job to police every injustice in the world; however, you could make a case that it IS the U.N.'s job. The U.N. shouldn't have to have a country like the U.S. lead it into places it's SUPPOSE to go.

I guess we just disagree. I think the U.S. should be a leader. The best way to spread democratic ideals is by example, and leadership.

[Panda]

If UN is unrepresentative, why don't you UN haters propose the USA to back out of it?

Is it because you need the dictators' support on some issues? On what part of the moral high horse are you riding?

You want to have your way, do whatever you want to irregardless of world opinion, and you participate in an international organization that is found to listen to and decide by all its country members?

The problem isn't UN itself, it's some of its hypocritic members.

[treeman]

The Taliban is an example of the UN going in and taking them out.

No, it was not. It was an example of the US going in and taking them out with a little (and I do mean a little) help from our allies. That was was/is about 80% American, 10% British / Australian / Canadian, 5% Turkish, and 5% French / German / Italian / other. Not including our Afghan allies, that is. If anything, it is an example of the type of ad-hoc alliance systems I am saying lies ahead for us.

Point being, it was overwhelmingly a US operation. Certainly US-led, not UN-led. Don't rewrite history here.

That was a good job by the UN. That is agreat historical example of the UN keeping oppressive regimes in check.

No, it was not. Please show me a single UN resolution relating to the Taliban and 9/11? There never was one. Again, stop trying to rewrite history.

They were working on Saddam when the U.S. pushed things their own way, so what could have happened is unknown.

Again, no, they were not. Well, France, China, Russia, and Germany were actively working to get sanctions lifted without letting the inspections finish and without removing Saddam, but... As far as pushing inspections, etc - that effort died in 1998. It was not revived until Bush forced the issue.

I've already said it doesn't work perfectly but the idea is to hold the dictators and corrupt regimes in check.

It does not work at all. Please name one single dictator/regime that the UN has effectively dealt with? Saddam? He made a mockery of the UN. Kim Jong-Il? He ignores them. Milosevic? NATO (US-led) took him out. The Bosnian Serbs? Again, NATO/US. Qhadaffi? Nope. Arafat? Ha-ha. Any African or Latin American dictators the UN's had any success with? Nope. Ceseasceau? Nope. Anyone? Nope. Not a single dictator. Ever.

Israel isn't following through with their end of the bargain either, and they aren't being called on it.

Since the UN has only made recommendations to, not given orders to, both the Arabs and Israel - and neither side has taken the recommendations to heart and acted upon them - you once again inadvertantly point out the UN's ineffectiveness. They both ignore the UN.

The reason why the UN isn't effective there is because of the U.S.

Bullsh*t. The *only* cases where the UN has been even moderately effective have been when the effort in question has been led by the US (only exception I can think of is East Timor, and that is thanks to the Aussies). Without the US the UN is generally less than powerless.

So perhaps if the U.S. would start upholding the principles of the UN, and take a real leadership role to see that the UN works as it was intended then perhaps we'd all be a lot better off.

How are we supposed to take the leadership role in the UN when the French, Chinese, and Russians are actively opposing us? To the extent that we can, we have already taken as much as a leadership role as we can.

Haven't you noticed that no one else wants us to lead the UN? They want us to pay for it, not lead it.

So if there is something wrong with the UN let's look at the U.S. and see what we can do about changing and improving it.

You don't think that it could have anything at all to do with the structure of the Security Council, do you? The fact that two allies face three adversaries with veto power, maybe? Two times in history has the SC agreed on a security issue that led to war - Korea and Gulf War I. Korea was only possible because the USSR walked out before the vote, and the Gulf War was only possible because the USSR was crumbling at the time and needed to get on our good side. The UNSC is *designed* to be ineffective. It is *designed* to not be able to approve war. It is *designed* to fail. It was *designed* to check the USSR and the US in their global conflict - a conflict which no longer exists.

I like people and nations that take responsibility and take action. Let's do that where the UN is concerned.

I do to, but you seem to forget that at least three other Permanent 5 members do not want us to take action. They do not want us to lead the UN. They do however want us to pay for it and take responsibility when it fails...

As far as the other oppressive regimes you list, part of the reason we have information on just how oppressive they are is because of the UN human rights watch, and data collected by the UN that you claim is ineffective.

Amnesty International and the CIA have given us far more to work with. But as I said, I think the UN has many uses, human rights operations being one of them.

The UN did go in take the Taliban out lead by the U.S. That was a UN sanctioned action.

Already said it, but... No it was not. Show me the resolution.

The UN(rightly or wrongly)imposed sanctions on Saddam, had inspectors in Iraq, and were willing to entertain more resolutions even ones that would call on military action to enforce their resolution, but under a different time table.

Before 9/11 the only two proposals floating around the UN were one for smart sanctions (US/UK) and one to lift the sanctions altogether (France/Russia/China). UNMOVIC was just an office in New York; there was no proposal to send them into Iraq. You are mistaken here - no one was doing anything about Saddam. Nothing.

The last figure mentioned was 30 days.

Ah yes, and if we'd just waited those 30 days, Saddam would have fallen to an internal uprising, the WMD would have been turned over and destroyed, and the Cowboys would have won the Superbowl... Right?

However, that wasn't acceptable and it was never played out to fruition.

Because it would have been a total waste of a month, and our troops would have had to fight in 120 degree temperatures instead of 100 degree temps. Besides, I think that 12 years and a month is enough. I don't think 12 years and two months would have brought any breakthroughs.

In regards to Somalia, the UN was there with troops.

Overwhelmingly US again. BTW, do you think it's any coincidence that as soon as the Marines pulled out and took their armor with them, Pakistani, Malaysian, Indian, and American peacekeepers started coming under attack by warlord forces? Curious that those attacks didn't happen when the Marines were there.

Rwanda? Where was the U.S.?

Haiti? Where was the UN?

It is a little known fact that after the slaughter in Rwanda the US sent 4,000 troops there for relief efforts. Where was the UN?

[r35352]

Originally posted by treeman
Had we not invaded Iraq we would have surrendered our right to defend ourselves, our right to eliminate threats to our security. This is what it is about. Does the UN have the authority to tell us what we can and cannot do? Does an unelected body of technocrats have the moral authority to tell an elected body of representatives what to do?

Look, if we're doing something stupid and immoral like invading Sierra Leone to capture its diamond mines, then I'm with the UN when they tell our government to cease such activity. But if they are simply telling us not to eliminate a threat to our (and global) security out of spite (France), then they have absolutely no moral authority to do so IMHO. It depends on the situation to an extent, but largely IMO it has to do with whether or not the authority comes from the people. The people of this country, that is.

There are several justifications for the war on Iraq.

(a) One is that Iraq, according to the US, was in violation of UN resolutions and as a result US had the right to unilaterally attack and invade Iraq as a consequence.

(b) Another is that Iraq is a brutal dictatorship and needed to be overthrown for the good of the Iraqi people and to help democratize and stabilize the Middle East.

(c) Yet a third reason is that Iraq represented such an imminent threat to US security that the US has a right to attack it based on self-defense.

IMHO, many people simply disagree that (a) is sufficient justification. Iraq was in full compliance with inspections and so far we still have not found any WMD. And the resolutions themselves never did explicitly or even implicity give the US the authority to impose consequences of its own choosing.

As for (b), it may be a good outcome of the invasion but hardly something that is agreed upon as a general principle of legitimate action, certainly not unilateral action based on US's sole discretion and judgement of what constitutes sufficient brutality and acceptable "collateral damage" in pursuit of "regime change" policies. Currently based on lack of WMD and that Saddam's downfall is welcomed by Iraqis, this is really the strongest justification so far, although still very illegitimate IMO.

As for (c) which treeman asserts, the US simply has not made the case, both to many Americans and foreigners, that Iraq represent the kind of threat that allows the US to act out of self-defense justifications alone. Put it another way, the US is claiming a right which many, with very good arguments, say the US doesn't have because it is FAR from convincing that Iraq represents such a threat. Since there are many other nations who could make similar arguments to justify aggression based on the pretext of "national security" but that would not be acceptable as these would not be deemed sufficient, imminent threats, nor can I support the US in using this justification either.

[treeman]

You're welcome to your opinion. Over 70% of the US public supported the war, and I'm guessing that at least some of them actually got the case for war and were not supporting it just because it was trendy. So the case was made, and most of the American public got it. Some didn't and never will.

I'd like to see a poll that asks both "Did you support the war?" and "Do you support President Bush?". I am willing to bet that the numbers for the yes/no answers to both questions would be fairly similar.

Anyway, this thread is on the UN, not the Iraq-US/UK war. We've got enough of those around here... This is a welcome change of pace I think.

[treeman]

A good Adelman article that speaks to both the thread topic and Iraq:

United Nonsense
By Ken Adelman

Here they go again, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan's famous quip - bestowing on the United Nations what President Bush called a "vital role."

Someone should tell the State Department: Been there. Done that.

The only "vital role" the U.N. should play is simply to lift the sanctions. They were pushed by the U.S. and U.K. against a tyrannical Iraq. Now they might be used by France, Germany, and Russia against the U.S. and U.K. with a liberated Iraq.

President Bush turning to the U.N. Security Council before the war proved disastrous. It gave Saddam yet more months to augment his Fedayeen and other terrorist squads, who ambushed young Americans and Brits. It pitted France and Germany against us, and against most European states - dividing the West more gravely than anytime since 1945. Turning to the U.N. Security Council after the war would prove as disastrous - in terms both of effectiveness and morality.

Two years as an American ambassador to the United Nations convinced me that most folks there aren't terribly adept at economic development. Don't take my word for it - ask someone in Kosovo, whose reconstruction is largely run by the U.N., which is largely making a hash of it.

Moreover, it's morally wrong to allow key beneficiaries of Saddam's regime back into Iraq as key beneficiaries of post-Saddam Iraq. Big bucks will soon flow for Iraq's reconstruction. France, which built the nuclear facility and oil facilities for Saddam, seeks slices of sizable contracts. The Germans, who built his deep underground bunkers - drawing upon their historical expertise in this field - seek a similar sizable cut.

Their best shot at jumbo contracts lies through the United Nations, which oft spreads dough around major countries to please its key member states.

Now I don't mind an outflow of French and German Euros through the U.N. into Iraq. In fact, I welcome it.

But that's not quite what the French and Germans have in mind. They seek an inflow of Euros from the U.N. for rebuilding Iraq. I sure do mind that.

But why are we even considering returning to the U.N. to rebuild Iraq? For two reasons, both bad.

Tony Blair wishes to re-bond with his fellow-Europeans. But there are gobs of issues, besides Iraqi reconstruction, by which he can re-bond.

I feel no great compulsion to re-bond. The French and Germans acted irresponsibly, even immorally. Let them stew in their actions, as we increasingly see the nature of Saddam's tyranny they backed commercially and politically.

Second, re-engaging the U.N. on Iraq would allegedly restore its reputation. Maybe Blair and French president Chirac seek to do that. I sure don't.

The U.N. has a tarnished reputation because it deserves a tarnished reputation. When it was seriously tested, it failed. Now, when presented with a clear issue - lifting the sanctions imposed against Saddam Hussein - it furnishes a forum for entrapment, extortion, and delay.

The French and Germans want to boost the United Nations as a way, not of building up Iraq, but of fencing in America. Going multilateral can crimp us from going anywhere.

Sitting in the Security Council makes them seem equal with the big boy. How else could France posture as a real global actor? Without that seat on the Security Council, it would be relegated to third-rate status.

Excluding the Security Council, as I advocate, doesn't freeze out the whole United Nations. U.N. specialized agencies, with specialized expertise, should be welcome.

Some fine professionals work for the World Health Organization, U.N. Development Program, Food and Agricultural Organization, and such. They can compete on Iraqi projects with the International Red Cross, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other big organizations with technical capabilities - yes, even with Halliburton and Bechtel (who won the first one).

Let the best bidder win, whether American, British, other national, or U.N. and whether non-profit, government, or private.

Granted, telling the U.N. to butt-out will fuel the rap that Americans have become imperialistic, controlling Iraq to stay in control of Iraq.

This rehash of tired Marxist and radical 60's rhetoric is absurd. It may only be proven absurd when Americans repair enough of Iraq's infrastructure and political culture to turn the place over to freely-elected Iraqis.

We'll be finished with that before the U.N. ambassadors would have finished debating a Security Council resolution on the process of identifying the modalities of conceptualizing the problem of intricacies of analyzing Iraqi development.

The Iraqi people need results quick. U.S. and British teams of experts are poised, ready to begin restoring electricity, repairing roads, supplying water, and rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Let 'em go - without the existing sanctions or more U.N.-ery mucking things up.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-042303D

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by treeman
No, it was not. It was an example of the US going in and taking them out with a little (and I do mean a little) help from our allies. That was was/is about 80% American, 10% British / Australian / Canadian, 5% Turkish, and 5% French / German / Italian / other. Not including our Afghan allies, that is. If anything, it is an example of the type of ad-hoc alliance systems I am saying lies ahead for us.

Point being, it was overwhelmingly a US operation. Certainly US-led, not UN-led. Don't rewrite history here.


I'll try and talk more about this later, but I said the AFghanistan action was lead by the U.S., and supported by the UN. I also said that the U.S. should take a leadership role in the UN.

Taking responsibility and action doesn't always mean military action.

Anyway almost immediately after 9/11 the UN passed resolution 1368 which doesn't invoke military response but makes clear references to a nation's right of self defense and article 51 of the UN.

Here is an exerpt from an article on it.
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/november01/0111036.html
Unlike the Gulf war resolution, 1368 did not invoke Chapter VII of the Charter, which authorizes military action and sanctions. Nevertheless, its references to self-defense will be noted. Some in Washington, in fact, already are taking them as legal cover for anything the U.S. does, since Article 51 of the Charter allows for states’ individual and collective self-defense. In this way—although more by accident than design—1368 also harmonizes with the NATO Council resolution, which reiterated that an attack on any member state was an attack on all, and therefore the attack on the U.S. was the subject of collective self-defense by the alliance.

Resolution 1368 may well be one of a series of blank checks issued to the White House.

Again when I mentioned the 30 day deadline you come back with the weather conditions. I don't care if we had to wait until autumn to make the attack. Time has only shown me correct that it wasn't as urgent as the administration painted. Weather is never a good reason to go to war. The U.S. should lead in the UN not circumvent it because of weather.

I would also like to point out something I said earlier. One of the reasons we know how authoritarian these dictators how, and that they use torture etc. is becuase of groups like the UN human rights watch. So that almost any of the dictators that you mentioned had action taken against them, part of the evidence used to justify the military actions came from the UN.

One more thing about the UN it's exact purpose isn't really to be an army that marches around kicking totalitarians out of office. It does however provide a great setting for all nations to view practices of other countries and act accordingly. Accordingly doesn't always mean militarily.

[RocketBurrito]

So glynch, should countries such as: North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Maynmar, etc. then have more power? More of a say in our actions? More of a say in how the world is shaped?

F that. I don't understand how the UN can allow in countries that do not have democratically elected governments, & yet give them a "democratic" vote in the say of how the world is run.

Let me say once again: F that.