An Iraqi said it well

[Ed]

NYT, today

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iraq's foreign minister accused the United Nations on Tuesday of failing his country by leaving Saddam Hussein in power for decades and appealed to the world body to assume a leading role in Baghdad immediately.
...

The Iraqi minister said the United Nations had failed to help rescue his country from ``a murderous tyranny'' that lasted more than 35 years and ``today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure.''
``The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again,'' Zebari said. Until Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United States also was a supporter of Saddam's government.

Well, at least they are good for talking.

 

[American]

So you don't think a group of career diplomats and retired ex-state and provincial governors from every scattered ass-backward nation on earth who live on permanent vacation in New York City, headed by a man from Ghana (a nation best known for its spear-weilding pygmies) should be trusted with the mission of world peace and security, let alone the welfare of one sad nation like Iraq?

 

[Zep]

No, American, we all think that a dimwit lying religious-nut fascist with his finger on the biggest nuclear and conventional military power on earth should impose his own will on the people of another country on the other side of the Earth, on his own prejudices and whim, and not give that country any option to decide their future for themselves. That would be MUCH better...

 

[Hypocolius]

headed by a man from Ghana (a nation best known for its spear-weilding pygmies)

If you mean the Efe, they inhabit southern Cameroon, Gabon and the Congo. Ghana is well known as the home af the Ashanti, a most excellent people. The history of Ghana is not without its violent episodes, but it stands as a beacon of stability in the region, with a long association with the west. If the UN secretary general has to be from Africa (and I think it's their turn at the moment), then a Ghanaian is an excellent choice. Who would you suggest?

 

[American]

Who would you suggest?

You had to ask.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Here thar be troll, me thinks.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Iraq's foreign minister accused the United Nations on Tuesday of failing his country by leaving Saddam Hussein in power for decades

What I find most interesting is that here we have an Iraqi miffed at having to put up with Saddam for so long. Yet we still have protestors out there that say "it was all about oil".

Yeah, Saddam used the oil to become a dictator ya morons...it wasn't the US being after oil that finally got them to kick Saddam's butt

It was Kuwait, it was defiance of UN sanctions, etc etc. Yet I still hear in every bit of news how it was wrong to go to war, that Bush is a tyrant, that the US is evil.

There are self righteous Canadians that are darn proud that Chretien didn't back up Bush. Personally, I think it has to do more with his distracions at home and the lack of resources at his disposal.

AND there are still people saying Saddam is there leader. There are still people killing for him.

WTF?

 

[Zep]

Eos, I learned first-hand long ago that (a) the media are basically stupid, (b) they write what gets the most coverage for their organisation, regardless of true or false, and (c) politicians have only a tangential impingement on reality at the best of times.

So the reality in Iraq is probably a lot different to what anyone in the media or politics says, and you won't get to hear the half of it anyway.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos, I learned first-hand long ago that (a) the media are basically stupid, (b) they write what gets the most coverage for their organisation, regardless of true or false, and (c) politicians have only a tangential impingement on reality at the best of times.

So the reality in Iraq is probably a lot different to what anyone in the media or politics says, and you won't get to hear the half of it anyway.

Sad thing is that people eat it up instead of actually looking into it.

Hence...media AND people are basically stupid...heh...

 

[a_unique_person]

Once again, why Iraq in particular, and why now? There are plenty of countries around the world run by despots. Take Angola, for instance. The US set up an anti-communist force that is now just a bunch of bandits. I see now inclination for Dubya to take matters into his own hands with this country or any other countries in a similar predicament.

What distinguished Iraq was it's strategic location and strategic resources. Any pretence at concern for people around the world suffering under oppresive regimes is just empty rhetoric.

 

[Hypocolius]

What distinguished Iraq was it's strategic location and strategic resources..

Agreed, but it is the presence of those strategic resources, and the cash they bring that allows despots to export their lunacies. Of course Mugabe in Zim (or whichever nutcase particularly annoys you) is bad news, however he's too poor to effectively threaten his neighbours, however much he would like to. Iraq, however,was in the (fortunately rare) position of being able to afford to indulge the furthest extremes of Saddam's lunatic imagination. That is what was so dangerous about him, and why, IMO the US acted.

 

[Hypocolius]

delete double post

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Once again, why Iraq in particular, and why now? There are plenty of countries around the world run by despots. Take Angola, for instance. The US set up an anti-communist force that is now just a bunch of bandits. I see now inclination for Dubya to take matters into his own hands with this country or any other countries in a similar predicament.

What distinguished Iraq was it's strategic location and strategic resources. Any pretence at concern for people around the world suffering under oppresive regimes is just empty rhetoric.

Okay. Angola? What bandits?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

NYT, today

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iraq's foreign minister accused the United Nations on Tuesday of failing his country by leaving Saddam Hussein in power for decades and appealed to the world body to assume a leading role in Baghdad immediately.

Did he mention what he wanted the UN to do? I seem to understand that the UN was negotiating to help out the US, but the US wanted everything their way and acted surprised when they were told to go jump.

But never mind that. What does the Iraqi foreign minister want from the UN?

 

[Graham]

The Iraqi minister said the United Nations had failed to help rescue his country from ``a murderous tyranny'' that lasted more than 35 years and ``today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure.''
``The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again,'' Zebari said.

Here is a link to The Charter of the United Nations

Now presumably Ed or someone else equally keen to repeatedly point out how the United Nations has failed in its mission, can point to the passage in the UN Charter that makes it the business of the UN to rescue countries from murderous tyrannies.

Anybody?

Anybody?

I didn't think so.

Graham

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: An Iraqi said it well

Here is a link to The Charter of the United Nations

Now presumably Ed or someone else equally keen to repeatedly point out how the United Nations has failed in its mission, can point to the passage in the UN Charter that makes it the business of the UN to rescue countries from murderous tyrannies.

Anybody?

Anybody?

I didn't think so.

Graham

I see nothing there that suggests that it should be an impediment.

And if it is not the UN's job, what exactly is it good for?

 

[Crossbow]

It sounds like the new Iraqi foreign minister is doing a good job of reading the statements provided by the White House.

That statement neatly absolves the other countries that supported Iraq during its war with Iran, those that continued to buy Iraqi oil, and sell Iraq vast amounts of weapons during the rule of Saddam.

 

[Giz]

Once again, why Iraq in particular, and why now? There are plenty of countries around the world run by despots. Take Angola, for instance. The US set up an anti-communist force that is now just a bunch of bandits. I see now inclination for Dubya to take matters into his own hands with this country or any other countries in a similar predicament.

What distinguished Iraq was it's strategic location and strategic resources. Any pretence at concern for people around the world suffering under oppresive regimes is just empty rhetoric.

Surely getting rid of one dictator is getting rid of none? Must they all be taken down simultaneously? Did you think the USA's "Germany first" strategy in WW2 was morally wrong for prioritising?

 

[Graham]

Re: Re: Re: An Iraqi said it well

I see nothing there that suggests that it should be an impediment.

And if it is not the UN's job, what exactly is it good for?

- sigh -

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

In the case of a murderous tyranny, the role of the UN is not to rescue the country from it's own ruler.

The sovereign nature of member states is referred to repeatedly in the Charter. Such action would be in direct violation of that sovereignty.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Who would want a world body with that sort of power anyway?

If, however, a country with such a dictatorship should become a threat to another country or countries; or if another country or countries decides that the internal situation in that country is unacceptable to them, it is then the role of the UN to provide a mechanism for resolution of the problem.

It is intended that, if at all possible, that mechanism should be a peaceful one but the charter also provides for the possibility of more agressive action - sanctions or, ultimately, military intervention.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

The function of the UN is not to act it is to regulate and moderate the actions of its members with a view to promoting and maintaining world peace.

Graham

 

[Leroy]

Sad thing is that people eat it up instead of actually looking into it.

Hence...media AND people are basically stupid...heh...

Ain't that the truth