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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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...

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.