What happens to the U.N?

[Reginald]

Ironically the French sending troops to the Ivory Coast is not sanctioned by the UN.

So as for this respecting the UN moral high ground some countries are taking...........forget it.

The net result of all this WRT the UN will be that no country will believe that the UN will sanction armed force UNTILL the troops are in place, be them from one or a group of nations.

 

[armageddonman]

Ironically the French sending troops to the Ivory Coast is not sanctioned by the UN.

How can this be compared to the situation in Iraq?
Has France invaded and attacked Ivory Coast?

 

[rikzilla]

How can this be compared to the situation in Iraq?
Has France invaded and attacked Ivory Coast?

NATO bombed Serbia without UN approval

 

[rikzilla]

...besides. The US is only acting on prior language in 1441 that promised "severe consequences"....a euphamism for military action if I ever heard one.

The 18th resolution is un-needed.....war is called for under 1441....resumption of hostilities is called for under 687. 687 has been violated every day for 11 years.

Conclusion....war on Iraq is legal under several previous resolutions.

-zilla

 

[Kodiak]

I would consider military action to be a serious consequence.

So would I...

Unfortunately, France, and possibly others, are willing to veto over just such a distinction...

 

[Reginald]

How can this be compared to the situation in Iraq?
Has France invaded and attacked Ivory Coast?

Whats the difference? Do you have a rule or dont you? Is this not a military action? if the french see the need to fight to defend something there do you think they will follow your line of thought and say "Oh this is different to other military actions....forget the guns lets get out the piano and have a sing song with the enemy"

Its not France, its a foreign military action.

Your arguements are consistant with bias, inconsistant in content.

 

[dsm]

Actually, I think the differences are very great. The main differences are that Iraq will NOT have a puppet government, and that there will be no long term increase in terrorism. A democratic Iraq can be a good example to other middle east nations to show that the U.S. can actually act to their betterment.

The proof is in the pudding.

The survey was run by a think tank in Belgium, and published in newspapers in December. I can dig up the link if you'd like. Basically, it said that although people don't want war, they wan't saddam even less, and would support an invasion, as long as the west was willing to reguild.

Who'd they base the survey on? Ex-Iraqis? Given that it seems to be so hard to get interviews with Iraqi scientists, I wonder how in-depth a survey they could do (not that I disbelieve what you say they want).

The "coalition" is the U.S., U.K., Australia, Spain, Italy, etc. (Obvioiusly the U.S. and U.K. are the main members, but Australia will be helpful too)?

Do you think this will remain a coalition both during and after the war?

al Quaida will do what they want to do. They may make a lot of noise, bin Laden may release another tape from the grave. There may even be another terrorist attack (or attempt). But, there would have been one sooner or later anyways. If they decide to move ahead just because of the Iraq war, there is a better chance of them slipping up

The "attack" itself is relatively meaningless. The key is the propaganda effect it could achieve.

Iran may complain, but I doubt they will act. The leaders don't like Saddam, and the people really want democracy.

Wasn't there already reports of Iran military operations in northern Iraq? The question is how will Iran set itself up to be a player in the post-Saddam Iraq? And how much could that "bog down" the US efforts at democatizing Iraq.

Saudi will probably allow the U.S. to use their territory to launch attacks from. Some radical elements in S.A. may complain (and some may even join terrorist groups). But in the long term, having a democratic Iraq on their doorstep will make S.A. a little calmer

But will the Saudi ruling families see it that way? I'm sure they always thought they could just "buy off" Saddam.

Turkey may allow attacks from its territory or it may not. The U.S. can accomplish its mission without using Turkish territory.

I'm thinking post-Saddam. Like Iran, might the Turks have designs on being a player in Iraq. More things to "bog down" operations in Iraq.

Palestinians may support Iraq, but if they get actively involved against the military action, they will loose support in the world. (As long as they attack only Israel, people will let them do whatever they want.) Of course, in the long term, removal of Saddam will remove one source of funding for Palistinian terrorists

They may not take kindly to that. There have been reports that they are massing for a missile attack against Israel with the beginning of the war. That could immediately expand this "short" war into something much broader.

What will the US do? (How long is "temporary"?) How long did it take for Japan? I don't know.

As has happened in the past, the US may go until the "war is won" and then loose the peace.

Not sure how the Kurds will react. They will likely be glad Saddam is gone, but they may push for an actual Kurdish state. It may get messy, but they will be better off

Without an internationally recognized Kurdish state, they may be in trouble from other factions (Iran and Turkey) trying to annex them.

North Korea probably won't be able to "distract" the US because the war will be relatively short. Plus, the way that NK should be handled is different than the way Iraq should be handled

Why should North Korea be different? Also, remember that a "short" war may be followed by a relatively long "peace" before things actually settle down. NK probably already realizes that now is the time to act.

How "snubbed" UN nations act is irrelevant. France made them that way. The damage is already done. Perhaps it will be a lesson that the U.N. can't work the way it is set up.

Or it may be that if (or, maybe I should say, when) the US gets into trouble in the region, these nations, when needed most, will say "I told you so".

How should the UN be set up?

A democratic and allied Iraq will have more impact because it will be an islamic democracy, something missing in the world. It will be harder for the people of other middle east countries to dismiss them because of a different religion

Or will they be viewed as part of the "Imperial US"?

I think people are smart enough to realize that it was Saddam that set off the explosives to destroy the oil wells. People will realize it as a last-gasp of a tyrant. Why SHOULD people blame the U.S.? Did they get blamed when Saddam blew up Kuwaits oil fields?

That's different. There Saddam blew up something that he didn't have a right to. He invaded Iraq and we were throwing him out. In this case, there isn't (yet) a "smoking gun" and now the US are the invaders. The cleanup operation from the damage to the oil wells could take years which is long enough for people in the region to "forget" what Saddam may or may not have done and just focus on the problems that were caused by the "war".

 

[patnray]

Most people seem to asume that a democratic Iraq, and other middle eastern countries, will automatically be pro-American and anti-terrorism. Just as plausible is a democratically chosen anti-American theocracy.

The entire debate is dominated by wishful thinking. There is no sound, well tested, scientific theory that can predict the outcome. We don't know what will happen in the long run. There is little doubt that the US military will prevail in the short term, but it is a huge gamble that military victory will result in long term stability.

Only time will tell...

 

[Advocate]

Most people seem to asume that a democratic Iraq, and other middle eastern countries, will automatically be pro-American and anti-terrorism. Just as plausible is a democratically chosen anti-American theocracy.

The entire debate is dominated by wishful thinking. There is no sound, well tested, scientific theory that can predict the outcome. We don't know what will happen in the long run. There is little doubt that the US military will prevail in the short term, but it is a huge gamble that military victory will result in long term stability.

Only time will tell...

A theocracy has always been my biggest worry in a post war Iraq. But I don't think this will happen via democratic elections since there are both large Sunni and Shiite populations neither of which would accept an opposing theocracy. Of course how they will get any elected government that both groups (plus the Kurds) will accept is anothe story. Also, an actively anti-American government is pretty unlikely also. I would certainly not count on a PRO-American government, but I think we can count on one that is at least not actively against us as Saddam has been and as Iran is also. Probably more like Egypt or Jordan. Not really an ally, not really an enemy. And IMHO this would be a perfectly good result.

 

[Segnosaur]

Who'd they base the survey on? Ex-Iraqis? Given that it seems to be so hard to get interviews with Iraqi scientists, I wonder how in-depth a survey they could do (not that I disbelieve what you say they want).

It was a survey done within Iraq, in 3 of the major cities (including Baghdad), where they sent people in covertly to query people. The survey was done by a think tank in Europe, and published at : http://news.independent.co.uk/ in December last year. Unfortunately, the link to it goes to a totally different article. (Do they take articles off line after a few months?)

Do you think this will remain a coalition both during and after the war?

If anything, there will probably be more countries involved after the war, after the 'hard' work has been done. For example, Canada is sending troops into Afghanistan as peace keepers, long after the bulk of the fighting is done.

They may not take kindly to that. There have been reports that they are massing for a missile attack against Israel with the beginning of the war. That could immediately expand this "short" war into something much broader.

The missle attacks against Israel during gulf war 1 were largely ineffective. Israel didn't respond because they didn't want to upset the Arab members of the coalition.

In the next war, launching Scuds won't lengthen the war at all, since Israel isn't a strategic target. Israel could sit tight again, but even if they responded, the coalition doesn't have a lot of Arabic members that they have wo worry about upsetting.

Why should North Korea be different? Also, remember that a "short" war may be followed by a relatively long "peace" before things actually settle down. NK probably already realizes that now is the time to act.

North Korea already has nukes, and a much larger army than Saddam. So, military action can result in many more casulties. This means that NK has to be handled differently. It sucks, but the U.S. didn't handle the situation earlier, and now they have to suffer.

For better or worse, NK has China and Japan to worry about, and China may be able to influence North Korea.

How should the UN be set up?

I have no idea. Perhaps we don't need a U.N. (since they are unwilling to actually enforce the rules they set out, they are worthless.)

Perhaps we can create an organization where only contries with democratic rights can gain membership.

That's different. There Saddam blew up something that he didn't have a right to.

Saddam doesn't "own" the oil wells. They are a resource owned by the people of Iraq.

 

[patnray]

Wishful thinking and speculation. There is no rational basis for predicting how a new Iraqi government will look or act once the troops leave (probably not until after the next US elections)...

Might as well consult a psychic.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Segnosaur:

I have no idea. Perhaps we don't need a U.N. (since they are unwilling to actually enforce the rules they set out, they are worthless.)

Perhaps not all members of the UN have the same opinion of what "serious consequences" mean. Perhaps you feel that "might makes right" is a good way to secure peace among humans.

Perhaps you don't feel that every politician or political party you have voted for actually came through on their promises. Perhaps you think the democratic system is therefore worthless.

Perhaps we can create an organization where only contries with democratic rights can gain membership.

Of course we can. What would be the purpose of such an organization?

 

[dsm]

Saddam doesn't "own" the oil wells. They are a resource owned by the people of Iraq.

Regardless of how you feel about Saddam and the Iraqi regime, he is the "elected" head of the Iraqi government. As such, he has the authority to make decisions about the resources of Iraq and how to use them in response to an "invasion". Destroying the oil wells may be extreme, but it's not an unprecedented strategy (Napolean's march on Russia).

 

[Segnosaur]

Segnosaurerhaps not all members of the UN have the same opinion of what "serious consequences" mean. Perhaps you feel that "might makes right" is a good way to secure peace among humans.

Perhaps different countries DO have different opinions as to what the phrase "serious consequences" means. However, the countries opposed to military action haven't really given any other ideas. (Well, lets see, they've suggested doubling the number of weapons inspectors. Would you really call that a consequence?) If France signed something that said 'expect serious consequences', but they don't want military action, then for gods sake, tell us what a 'serious consequence' is! Maybe they'll come up with a magic solution that will deter Iraq from its weapons programs. But they haven't suggested anything.

Perhaps you don't feel that every politician or political party you have voted for actually came through on their promises. Perhaps you think the democratic system is therefore worthless.

But if I elect a politician, he will enact laws that I must follow. If the majority of people don't like what he's done, they will elect someone else, who will pass laws that I must follow. If I do not follow the laws, I know I will be punished, so I follow them.

That's what I'm complaining about. They are failing to act on serious affairs, in this case a resolution that they themselves agreed to. (They also failed to act in Kosovo, because they felt Russia would veto any action.) When faced with situations where the U.N. could help avoid major tragedies, they fail to act.

Of course we can. What would be the purpose of such an organization?

A replacement for the U.N. I'm not that serious about that suggestion (you just suggested how the U.N. could be 'fixed'.) But, I do have concerns about an organization where votes are counted from countries which do not allow their own members to vote, and where Libya heads the human rights organization. Where a dictatorship with a population in the thousands has as much weight as a democracy with close to a billion people.

I don't have a good solution to fix the U.N. I just know where some of its major problems are.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Segnosaur:

Perhaps different countries DO have different opinions as to what the phrase "serious consequences" means. However, the countries opposed to military action haven't really given any other ideas. (Well, lets see, they've suggested doubling the number of weapons inspectors. Would you really call that a consequence?) If France signed something that said 'expect serious consequences', but they don't want military action, then for gods sake, tell us what a 'serious consequence' is! Maybe they'll come up with a magic solution that will deter Iraq from its weapons programs. But they haven't suggested anything.

The reason that 1441 was unanomously agreed upon, was of course because the consequences of non-compliance were sufficiently vague. Otherwise France (among others) would never have voted in favor, just as the reason that there are no clear cut paragraph 7 resolutions against Israel is because the US would never have allowed it. Hence, all "clear-cut" resolutions against Israel are paragraph 6 resolutions.

But if I elect a politician, he will enact laws that I must follow. If the majority of people don't like what he's done, they will elect someone else, who will pass laws that I must follow. If I do not follow the laws, I know I will be punished, so I follow them.

Exactly. You follow the laws enacted. Even if they weren't the laws you would like to see enacted. That is democracy.

That's what I'm complaining about. They are failing to act on serious affairs, in this case a resolution that they themselves agreed to. (They also failed to act in Kosovo, because they felt Russia would veto any action.) When faced with situations where the U.N. could help avoid major tragedies, they fail to act.

I understand your frustration. However, the UN is not created as a "peace-making" organization, but as a peace-keeping organization. Demanding that the UN perform above its mandate, when you feel it should, is understandable, but naive. The UN is only what its member nations and it's charter, make it.

A replacement for the U.N. I'm not that serious about that suggestion (you just suggested how the U.N. could be 'fixed'.) But, I do have concerns about an organization where votes are counted from countries which do not allow their own members to vote, and where Libya heads the human rights organization. Where a dictatorship with a population in the thousands has as much weight as a democracy with close to a billion people.

Read the Charter of the UN. The word "Democracy" isn't mentioned once. The word "peace", however, is mentioned often.

I don't have a big problem with Libya chairing the Human Rights Commision, because the post of chairman doesn't provide much influence.

I don't have a good solution to fix the U.N. I just know where some of its major problems are.

Halleluyah! I don't want to be condescending, but really: Criticism is easy. Constructive criticism is hard.

 

[Segnosaur]

Segnosaur: The reason that 1441 was unanomously agreed upon, was of course because the consequences of non-compliance were sufficiently vague. Otherwise France (among others) would never have voted in favor, just as the reason that there are no clear cut paragraph 7 resolutions against Israel is because the US would never have allowed it.

Which brings me back to the original point... what DID france assume would constitute 'serious consequences'. I know the resolution was vague. But, I think that everyone knew what the U.S. had in mind for serious consequences.

I understand your frustration. However, the UN is not created as a "peace-making" organization, but as a peace-keeping organization. Demanding that the UN perform above its mandate, when you feel it should, is understandable, but naive. The UN is only what its member nations and it's charter, make it.
Read the Charter of the UN. The word "Democracy" isn't mentioned once. The word "peace", however, is mentioned often.

I know that the U.N. is a "peace-keeping" organization. And while I didn't know "democracy" wasn't mentioned, it doesn't suppise me. But its failure to be a "peace maker" is part of its failure. So, we have a poor implementation of an organizaiton with poor goals.

(Note: I know the dynamics of the U.N. and the world have changed since the cold war ended... It may have been understandable that the U.N. was paralized when there were 2 superpowers against each other. However, now that the cold war is ended, it would be an ideal time for the U.N. to step up, if it could be trusted.)

Halleluyah! I don't want to be condescending, but really: Criticism is easy. Constructive criticism is hard.

And that's my chief complaint of the anti-war protesters. They like to chant "No war for oil", but when asked what exactly they should do about Iraq, they say, "er, I don't know... but No War for Oil".

 

[DanishDynamite]

Segnosaur:

Which brings me back to the original point... what DID france assume would constitute 'serious consequences'. I know the resolution was vague. But, I think that everyone knew what the U.S. had in mind for serious consequences.

And?

I know that the U.N. is a "peace-keeping" organization. And while I didn't know "democracy" wasn't mentioned, it doesn't suppise me. But its failure to be a "peace maker" is part of its failure. So, we have a poor implementation of an organizaiton with poor goals.

No. We have an Earth-spanding organization with limited goals, goals which could be agreed upon, doing its best to fulfill those goals.

In some ways I find your (and others) derision of the UN similar to woo-woos derision of science because science doesn't provide all the answers.

(Note: I know the dynamics of the U.N. and the world have changed since the cold war ended... It may have been understandable that the U.N. was paralized when there were 2 superpowers against each other. However, now that the cold war is ended, it would be an ideal time for the U.N. to step up, if it could be trusted.)

I agree that the UN Charter should not be written in stone. It should be ameniable to change. And while I'm no expert on the UN, I expect it is.

And that's my chief complaint of the anti-war protesters. They like to chant "No war for oil", but when asked what exactly they should do about Iraq, they say, "er, I don't know... but No War for Oil".

What does this have to do with the UN?

 

[Kodiak]

The missle attacks against Israel during gulf war 1 were largely ineffective. Israel didn't respond because they didn't want to upset the Arab members of the coalition.

In the next war, launching Scuds won't lengthen the war at all, since Israel isn't a strategic target. Israel could sit tight again, but even if they responded, the coalition doesn't have a lot of Arabic members that they have wo worry about upsetting.

My sources inform me that the State Department has recently informed Israel that they should use any and all means at their disposal to defend themselves as they see fit...

 

[Kodiak]

Saddam doesn't "own" the oil wells. They are a resource owned by the people of Iraq.

Satellite photos shown on FOXNEWS last night show well fires strategically placed upwind so that the rest of the oil field is obscured by smoke.

Also, according to FOXNEWS, intelligence gathered from inside Iraq has shown that Saddam already has plans in place to mine the oil fields in both northern and southern Iraq in the event of invasion.

 

[Segnosaur]

Segnosaur: And?
No. We have an Earth-spanding organization with limited goals, goals which could be agreed upon, doing its best to fulfill those goals.

In some ways I find your (and others) derision of the UN similar to woo-woos derision of science because science doesn't provide all the answers.

I wouldn't expect the UN to provide ALL the answers.

The problem is, it seems to be ineffective in providing solutions to the BIG problems (such as genocide).

As for the 'smaller' things that the U.N. does right, is it really the best solution? There are other channels that may be able to accomplish many of the same goals as the U.N.

For example, instead of giving money to the U.N. for charity work, donor countries can suppy the aid themselves. More reliance can be placed on other orgaizations, and parts of the U.N. that focus on specific areas can be made independent bodies. (For example, the World Trade Organisation.) The overhead of the U.N. would be eliminated, thus freeing up money to spend for the countries that really need it. (This is sort of a 'libertarian' idea.)

These are only ideas. I have never sat down and thought about what the U.N. could or should do before. (I knew how it was set up, and the purpose of it, but never bothered to learn the finer details.) Admittedly, the Iraq has caused a lot of people to focus on the U.N shortcomings (either rightly or wrongly.)