Is The UN Relevant?

[Supercharts]

Is the UN relevant?

Yes – it supports the idea that a deliberate discussion of differences will promote peace.
Yet – No – It’s a useful forum for mediocre countries to have a feeling that they are important to the destiny of the world.

What can the UN really, really do?

Is the future of the world dependant on what the Cameroons think? How about the Ivory Coast? Is their opinion important?
The League of Nations... Why did they fail with Hitler? Or Italy and Japan?

 

[bangdazap]

The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq have destroyed a lot of WMDs. A certain western superpower thought it was a bright idea to withhold intelligence information from these very same weapon inspectors until it was time for some proganda stunts to sell an anti-Iraqi war.

 

[crackmonkey]

Of course, those same inspectors had been hopelessly compromised by Iraqi intelligence. Former inspectors have come forward and admitted as much.

 

[Doctor X]

Not to mention neglect of the tid-bit that it is the responsibility of Iraq to turn over their WMD and not the responsibility of inspectors to find them. . . . . . nevertheless, the UN does provide a means for small countries to raise issues.

--J.D.

 

[demon]

"Not to mention neglect of the tid-bit that it is the responsibility of Iraq to turn over their WMD and not the responsibility of inspectors to find them. . . ."

True, not to mention either the confiscated pages of the Iraq dossier that listed the US and UK firms that sold them the weapons in the first place.

 

[Douglas]

"True, not to mention either the confiscated pages of the Iraq dossier that listed the US and UK firms that sold them the weapons in the first place."

Perhaps, but I'm pleased that at least those countries clean up after themselves, not like a couple I could name.

"The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq have destroyed a lot of WMDs. A certain western superpower thought it was a bright idea to withhold intelligence information from these very same weapon inspectors until it was time for some proganda stunts to sell an anti-Iraqi war."

Unless you're a stand-up comic don't speak those thoughts aloud.

 

[rikzilla]

Is the UN relevant?

Yes – it supports the idea that a deliberate discussion of differences will promote peace.
Yet – No – It’s a useful forum for mediocre countries to have a feeling that they are important to the destiny of the world.

What can the UN really, really do?

Is the future of the world dependant on what the Cameroons think? How about the Ivory Coast? Is their opinion important?
The League of Nations... Why did they fail with Hitler? Or Italy and Japan?

A demonstration of the UN's irrelevance is included in the first paragraph of UNSC res 1441:

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,....etc.......

Quite a list of ignored resolutions. This is the best demonstration I've found of Saddam Hussein's contempt for "world opinion". I've finally found something upon which Saddam and I agree. World opinion is indeed contemptable in it's weakness. World opinion and $3 will get you a Latte @ Starbucks.

Saddam is right, the UN has no authority to usurp the sovereignty of any nation. Not only no authority,...but no ability. The only thing that the UN has been actually capable of is stringing out the reign of Saddam Hussein much to the detriment of Iraq.

The LoN was destroyed by it's inability and blatent unwillingness to save Ethiopia from Italian aggression. Now the UN is facing the same type of challenge. If the US and Britain form a coalition and remove Saddam by force of arms, the UN might as well disband, as they will be more than irrelevant in theory. They will be irrelevant in fact.

-zilla

 

[rikzilla]

"Not to mention neglect of the tid-bit that it is the responsibility of Iraq to turn over their WMD and not the responsibility of inspectors to find them. . . ."

True, not to mention either the confiscated pages of the Iraq dossier that listed the US and UK firms that sold them the weapons in the first place.

But what about the German engineers and technicians who helped Iraq build their Tulwaitha reactor??? Then there were the French shipping dual use chemicals....the mobile labs that Colin Powell spoke of are from Russia.

But enough about that...seeing as how everyone sold stuff to Iraq when they obviously shouldn't have...does this mean that we have no moral right to now insist Saddam disarm?? If a Secret Service agent used his service revolver to kill his wife and kids....the US Government is somehow to blame???

Your position is not logical. (as usual)

-z

 

[subgenius]

Britain Admits That Much of Its Report on Iraq Came From Magazines
By SARAH LYALL


LONDON, Feb. 7 — The British government admitted today that large sections of its most recent report on Iraq, praised by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as "a fine paper" in his speech to the United Nations on Wednesday, had been lifted from magazines and academic journals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/international/europe/08BRIT.html?th

 

[Doctor X]

World opinion and $3 will get you a Latte @ Starbucks.

. . . just not a very good latte. . . .

Indeed, playing the game, "well you sent them stuff too," does not address the issue. Since that tangent was raised, I would be happy to see evidence that the US government sold weapons knowingly to Iraq after Gulf War I.

--J.D.

 

[demon]

"Your position is not logical. (as usual) "

Your position is that of the hell bent warmonger and that`s not logical or moral.

It`s also your position to start history yesterday because it`s convenient for you do so.

As I said before, in an attempt to justify a manufactured threat from Iraq, warmongers go from the sublime to the ridiculous. Couldn`t ask for a better example to illustrate that than you.

 

[rikzilla]

"Your position is not logical. (as usual) "

Your position is that of the hell bent warmonger and that`s not logical or moral.

It`s also your position to start history yesterday because it`s convenient for you do so.

As I said before, in an attempt to justify a manufactured threat from Iraq, warmongers go from the sublime to the ridiculous. Couldn`t ask for a better example to illustrate that than you.

Sticks and stones....

-zilla

 

[demon]

"sticks and stones"

point taken

 

[FalsePerception]

When I think of the UN I think of that episode of the simpsons where they get stuck on a deserted island; sort of a satire of the lord of the flies.

Scene: Starts with the kids participating in a model UN, the kids start fighting and arguing.

Principal skinner: DO you children want to argue and bicker or do you want to be like the real UN?

I love that show, the simpsons may be mostly nonsense but everyonce in a while you can find a gem inside it.

 

[Jim Lennox]

Hobbes thought the only solution was the creation of Leviathan, a ruler with absolute power. Such a ruler could impose a peace otherwise unobtainable. The dangers of tyranny and injustice are outweighed by the dangers of a world where no one has power to impose peace. Our present international world seems alarmingly like the Hobbesian state of nature. Nations (and perhaps at least as frighteningly, small groups such as al-Qaida) have many motives for attack and our protection is flimsy. The pure Hobbesian solution to this would be a social contract between all such states and groups, giving all power to one to act as absolute ruler. This is unlikely to happen.

For all its inadequacies, the UN is the embryonic form of the rule of law in the world. This is another reason why the proposed war could be so disastrous. Every time Bush or Blair say they will not be bound by a security council veto, without knowing it they are Hobbesians. Never mind moral authority: we, the powerful, will decide what happens. If we want to make a pre-emptive strike, we will do so. And we will listen to the UN provided it says what we tell it to say.

From here.


If Bush won't listen to the UN who will he listen to?

 

[Supercharts]

Not to mention neglect of the tid-bit that it is the responsibility of Iraq to turn over their WMD and not the responsibility of inspectors to find them. . . . . . nevertheless, the UN does provide a means for small countries to raise issues.

--J.D.

A tid-bit that's very important. Somehow France & Germany have co-opted the instructions of the Security Council.

 

[a_unique_person]

The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq have destroyed a lot of WMDs. A certain western superpower thought it was a bright idea to withhold intelligence information from these very same weapon inspectors until it was time for some proganda stunts to sell an anti-Iraqi war.

publicity stunts is exactly right. if the issue was so serious, let them treat it seriously, not like some promo for a new TV series.

 

[RandFan]

If Bush won't listen to the UN who will he listen to?

Which raises the question, should the United States follow the instructions of the UN even if it means the loss of security for its citizens?

The government of the United States exists explicitly to provide for the security and protect the civil rights of its citizens.

The US must not and can not relinquish that responsibility in the vain hopes that an eclectic body comprised of many member states whose interests are in direct opposition to America and its citizens will act in the best interests of those citizens.

The answer to your question Jim is that Bush must listen to its citizens and the constitution first. If the UN is in direct opposition to the security of the citizens of the United States it is incumbent on Bush to act contrary to the will of UN. When Bush was sworn in he took an oath to protect America and its citizens. He did not take an oath to follow the dictates of the United Nations.

 

[a_unique_person]

Which raises the question, should the United States follow the instructions of the UN even if it means the loss of security for its citizens?

The government of the United States exists explicitly to provide for the security and protect the civil rights of its citizens.

does saddam threaten the united states? The US has not stated that this is the case at all. All the attention has been centered on WMD issue.