Joshua Korosi said:
There's where your stubborn misunderstanding is. That is not his job. His job is to say "we won't go to war" when the Security Council says "we won't go to war". It is the Security Council's job to confront a country who refuses to obey. The SG cannot threaten war if the Security Council votes for peace, because the Security Council commands him, not the other way around.
Annan has done no such thing. He has specifically stated that the UN will provide humanitarian aid, but only after the war is over - and that until then, the US is responsible for providing aid in territory it controls.
Again, ever heard of the Food for Oil program?
I am not being stubborn. For you to claim that I am being stubborn would require me in some way to ignore facts--and you have presented no facts to support your individual claim about the purpose of the UN.
To you, the Secretary General of the UN is but a statue that cannot comment on crisis which will leads to war. Joshua, that is a ridiculous position. So far, and the fact that we have had generally tolerant discussions in the past, I have not disposed of your argument like I would someone else. But please do not patronize me.
Here is the purpose of the UN, an agreement made by men who were part of the Greatest Generation:
PREAMBLE
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
--to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,
*and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,
*and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
*to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours,
*and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security,
*and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,
*and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
Now, taking from the very foundation of the purpose of the United Nations, it is clear that the United Nations is currently functioning in disregard of its own charter.
*to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours
Iraq invaded its peaceful neighbor Kuwait in August, 1991, creating a security condition that required the United States to deploy combat forces to Saudi Arabia and other locations to repel the hostile invader.
*and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security
This is where Annan allowed a purposeful breakdown in the positive global order. 56 UN resolutions were passed against Iraq since the Persian Gulf War, over a period of twelve years.
Annan's weakness was allowing the status quo, an untenable position when involving the national security interests of the west.
56 UN resolutions had the opposite effect of maintaining peace and security when dealing with Iraq, because it showed that even though Saddam Hussein was negligent as a leader of a nation-state, it allowed him to operate against the UN purpose and allowed him to build weapons which were in violation of the initial surrender agreements and UN agreements that ended the first Persian Gulf War.
If you capture a car thief and release them and tell them not to do it again, and the thief steals again and each time they steal you give them a "resolution" to protest their theft, shouldn't they have been stopped before 56 cars were stolen?
*and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest
The United States has been sucked into two world wars last century plus many other armed conflicts. In every one of those conflicts the United States has never held the real-estate that it captured in war, minus the Phillippines. The United States is the largest contributor of humanitarian aid and other aid to the United Nations. The peoples of the United States are free peoples, the freest in the world, the ultimate purpose of the United Nations for the global community.
...and yet, Annan rejected every effort by the United States to resolve the Iraqi question peacefully. Annan made no effort to unify the UN against the dangerous nation-state of Iraq, the primary purpose of the Secretary General position. Annan is not a statue when it suits leftist causes. Annan has a responsibility to keep the UN participants aware of crisis that can propel the world into war, and certainly nations into war. That is where Annan has failed.
Then, after the US was forced to form its own coalition since the UN Security Council was working in opposite of those things the UN charter demands, Annan whined and said he would take direct action to prevent the US form receiving UN assistance in Iraq and that it would be thrown upon the United States to deal with.
It is true that the Oil For Food Program has been restarted, but that is not true UN assistance and is merely a striving attempt to enforce one of the many failed 56 resolutions that caused the new war. Annan doesn't really understand the purpose of the UN. Iraq is the classic example of the nation-state that the UN collective wants to see the charter of the UN mandate fulfilled--freedom of people, walking forward together in purpose to disarm dangerous threats to global peace, and ending an ongoing humanitarian crisis in that country.
Under Annan's leadership, the UN has failed in every respect of the UN charter. It is not asking Annan to declare war or ask for war, but merely asking him to stand up in from of the UN body and state the purpose of the UN. The UN charter speaks for itself. If Annan would simply speak the charter, it becomes clear that the United States is not only operating within the spirit of the founders of the UN, but the United States should be receiving unaminous support from UN countries who are signatories to the charter.
*and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples
What "machinery" has Annan implemented for Iraq? What has the UN done for "peace" in Iraq? You continue to ignore that question because the very question totally undermines your position.
The United States is now operating with a coalition of 48 countries against Iraq, more than what the US accrued during the first Persian Gulf War. The US has done this without the assistance of Annan and the UN, but the US, as a responsible global partner, still attempts to approach the UN, hoping that the UN recognizes its shortcomings and the UN wandering away from the very charter that is the cornerstone to its purpose.
This is, of course, a leadership problem at the UN that could be fixed if Anann resigns and someone who understands the purpose of the UN takes the helm.
JK
For the record...I'm not "pro-UN" or "pro-anything" in regards to this argument. I'm simply correcting your serious misunderstanding of how the UN works.