In this spirit I call on Israel to follow UN resolutions and return to its 1967 borders, allowing a Palestinian state to come in to being. What a great step that would be for peace. Good to see that Bush believes in honoring UN mandates, and the "purpose of the founding" of the United Nations.
Throughout his Presidency, Bush has continuously called for the formation of a Palestinian state. He has said it in every forum possible. Did you just miss it? If you saw it then exactly what is your point? If you're saying that the UN isn't consistent then I say that it's a corrupt political body. If you're saying that Bush should request that the Palestinian resolution of the UN be complied with...Bush already did that...on several occasions.
I liked the "or will it be irrelevent" comment. here's the full speech: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1572058
Come on Refman. Bush has caved in completely to Sharon ,even calling him a man of peace. Fool yourself if you must, but everyone knows Bush's words are empty. By the way don't you think Bush looked like a wimp when Sharon backed him down after the reoccupation of the Paestinian Authority? Maybe you can recall some of Bush's words such as "I meant what I said." prior to bowing to Sharon. I will give you credit, however, for being consistent in your dismissal and dislike of the UN. Bush, however, wants to discredit the UN when he doesn't like a position it takes and call for it to fulfill its founding purpose or some such when he is trying to get it to sanction his war on Iraq.
As long as the West Bank isn't used as a staging area to invade Israel, as it was in 1948 and 1967, I agree with you. Once a Palestinian state is formed, if it is used as a launching pad for an invasion if Israel, I would hope that you would understand why Israel would be turning the West Bank into a sheet of glass. The "spirit of peace" cuts two ways. It is hardly a one-way street.
Ignoring the specific issue of a Palestinian state... the US doesn't really care what the UN thinks. It uses UN Resolutions it likes as justifications, and ignores the ones it doesn't. Regardless of how you feel about the UN's potential infringement upon national sovereignty (and I admit there are some valid points there, don't agree... but they're valid)... it's hypocritical to use the UN in the manner that we normally do. How dare you violate international law! What? Us? How dare the UN infringe upon our national sovereignty!
I watched it on MSNBC...did anyone else see the looks on the faces of the Iraq reps when he talked about when Iraq invaded Kuwait (they were seated right in front of them)...priceless. I also noticed that the only ones who were not clapping at the end up the speech were the Iraqis. We should give them a week to comply with everything( i think thats what the actual time frame is if im not mistaken)...then start blowing Iraq off the map. I just hope Bush has the balls to do it even if we dont get everyones blessing.
You never bash your friends publicly. Privately you call your friends on any poor behavior they're exhibiting. Allies are friends. I don't know if that is what happened, but that is my opinion. You don't get your allies to do what you want them to do by going on global TV and calling them warmongers. It's called diplomacy. Bush has PUBLICLY called for the formation of a Palestinian state...I'm pretty sure that Sharon didn't want him to say that...so I don't think your claim that Bush cowtows to Sharon is accurate. First...my distrust of the UN predates the Bush Administration by quite a while. Second, and most importantly...the UN is inconsistent in the enforcement of its resolutions. It is totally fair game for Bush to call the UN on enforcement of its resolution. When the UN does decide to enforce a resolution they expect the US to do most of the dirty work. But they want us to sit quietly when they do not choose to enforce a resolution. The US is not some global watchdog that can be told which intruders are ok and which are not.
I agree with this exactly. We're in no position to demand anything of the rest of the world when we back out of the Kyoto Protocol and barely comply with the UN's human rights' agenda.
Refman: I'm with you to a degree here. What about the non-military or non-peace keeping missions? The UN isn't simply a military body. The environment, the living wage, poverty, human rights, humanitarian support, de-armament - these are all concepts that we have largely ignored. I think it is fair to ask for some degree of equity on the part of the US in terms of compliance with other UN initiatives, not just the one's we favor or the one's where we need help.
We're in no position to demand anything since we backed out of Kyoto and 'barely comply' with UN human rights agenda? Sure you don't want to amend of clarify that, Jeff?
<blockQUOTE>Originally posted by Jeff I agree with this exactly. We're in no position to demand anything of the rest of the world when we back out of the Kyoto Protocol and barely comply with the UN's human rights' agenda. </blockQUOTE>I certainly do not follow the UN resolutions enough to speak here, but what UN resolutions directed specifically at the US have we violated. Democratically voting "No" on the Kyoto Protocol, or rightfully pulling out of other organizations, pales in comparison to breaking treaties of surrender. One is a right of all nations to determine what they will back and what they won't; the other is breaking ratified UN resolutions while remaining a member. The UN is all about voting. If the resolutions that it passes are broken and it does nothing, it becomes "irrelevant" just like Bush said. If we have broken resolutions, we should immediately come into compliance if we truly want to make the resolutions "relevant." But you must admit, the must important duty of the UN is preventing war and, if it happens, ending war with terms of surrender. The UN backed the Gulf War and voted on terms of surrender. It must uphold those terms if it intends to remain a useful body in regards to World Peace.
The president also announced the United States would rejoin the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) "as a symbol of our commitment to human dignity." The United States quit UNESCO in 1984.
Originally posted by Refman You never bash your friends publicly. Privately you call your friends on any poor behavior they're exhibiting. Allies are friends. I don't know if that is what happened, but that is my opinion. Maybe Sharon shouldn't be considered a 'friend'. Maybe it's time for the US to give Israel the same message it gave to the Palestinians. ...It is totally fair game for Bush to call the UN on enforcement of its resolution. ... Exactly. Without enforcement, the UN's efforts to maintain world peace will fail. It will lose credibility; even Annan and France agree with that.
Guys, Im not the most politically-informed person but here's my take. I don't really think you can look back on things like Kyoto, the Human Rights agenda or anything else like that and say that we aren't in the position to demand this or that. We are dealing with a force of which the US has never really dealt with before. We aren't talking about a hand to hand battle or country vs country. We are dealing with cowardly psychos that are not afraid to die for their beliefs. The American way, to some extent, is to try and earn a good living, have fun, enjoy friends and family and hopefully settle into a nice comfy retirement. These extremists look ahead to the day where they will die while killing innocent people. I know that Bush's speech pointed out all the things Iraq has done (or hasnt done) in accordance with the UN policies in an effort to get the other countries on board (which sort of contradicts my point) but this is a formality IMO. He is merely stating why we WILL attack Iraq...not why we thinking you should back us up IF we attack them. These people f-ed with the wrong guy this time...and regardless of what anyone says, Iraq will comply or they will suffer the consequences.
Libya (!?!) has been nominated to be the next head of the U.N. Commission for Human Rights. This is the same organization that gave Syria a seat on its Security Council. Exactly how much credibility and authority are we to give such a group? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2237457.stm Here's the U.S. State Dept. human rights report on Libya: "Libya maintains an extensive security apparatus, consisting of several elite military units, including Qadhafi's personal bodyguards, local Revolutionary Committees, and People's Committees, as well as "Purification" Committees. The result is a multilayered, pervasive surveillance system that monitors and controls the activities of individuals. The various security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses."
Just to further point out that the Iraqis just dont get it....I just saw the response by the Iraqi official on MSNBC and he basically said that Bush's motivation for attacking Iraq is based on self serving political reasons and oil. Quote of the speech righ there folks!
Bush at the UN: The Charade Before the Crusade A good article about Bush's UN appearance. Written before the speech, but still informative. David Corn in the Nation
