MonteZuma Posted May 10, 2004 Report Posted May 10, 2004 People who support military intervention in Iraq often point to the failure of the UN as justification. Some people actually still think that the UN failed. But the absence of any WMDs and any organised military defense shows that the UN, largely through the influence of the US, but also other nations including and excluding coalition States, and through weapons inspectors, diplomacy, etc, actually did neutralise the threat. The UN worked. The US (ie the coalition) has gotten rid of Saddam - a worthy achievement - but they are now left with the power vacuum that earlier US governments were always afraid of. The precise reason Bush Snr and Clinton didn't want to get bogged down in this crap. I find it astounding that Bush and his supporters have the gall to spin this into a great victory for peace in Iraq and rest of the world. So far it looks like a stunning failure to me.
talion Posted May 10, 2004 Report Posted May 10, 2004 "Mission accomplished," isn't that what that banner said on the carrier? I think the mission was to avenge good ol' Pops. That's my conspiracy theory. Not much of one I know... Saddam was put in by the USA, wasn't he? It was before my time so I don't really know either way. But it does seem ironic. In any event, you are correct. The UN did succeed. And in the Sunday Toronto Star they say Bush's cabinet is breaking at the seams, especially Powell, which is a shame because he's the only sane one on there. And you can't beat Bush's ringing endorsements: Rumsfeld is a "really good" defense secretary. Did you know?
50% Packetloss Posted May 10, 2004 Report Posted May 10, 2004 There have been over 200 world conflicts since the UN was established in 1945, Guess how many the UN has corrected? Thats right, 0 aka ZERO. There are genocides that happen all the time, people being killed in africa over diamonds, genocide in the Sudan, Tibetans being killed by the chinese, the list goes on and on until you realize that diplomacy does not stop crazy people. The UN charter's preamble states "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind." War is the only way to battle someone who is killing innocent people. Appeasement fails and diplomacy fails when you are dealing with murders.The UN is bureaucracy at its finest. Research into the numerous slaughterings around the world and then look at the UN's reaction, they ignore the situation completely. As the strongest nation in the world, the United States has a responsibility to protect the weak, just like a parent has the responsibility to protect their kid. Rebuilding a nation such as Iraq doesn't take a year or two, it can take up to 10-20 years. It took more than 10 years to rebuild Europe after world war II, and Europe still cant pay us back for all the aid we gave them. Iraq will be rebuilt, so your entire argument is worthless. The entire point being; the UN is a failure and Saddam is a murder that killed his own people. Saddam is clearly insane and his interrogations reveal that he is bonkers. You could talk about WMDs all day until your blue in the face, but the fact still remains that the United States has liberated Iraqis from a nutty son of a -*BAD WORD*-. This is the UN Genocide convention resolution. It has failed just like all of the other UN's policies. Read through it and then go on google and look up a genocide and see the UN's reaction. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
MonteZuma Posted May 10, 2004 Author Report Posted May 10, 2004 The US and the coalition didn't exactly "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" when they invaded Iraq. They did the opposite. Sometimes war is unavoidable. In the case of Iraq, it was not. If the UN has failed in its charter, I think it has more to do with lack of will to 2on the part of member nations than it does on the part of the concept and ins!@#$%^&*ution of the UN itself. You can't compare Iraq to post-war Europe. If the Iraqis were as submissive as the people in the Axis powers after WW2 then Iraq would be functioning better than ever in just a few years time. Iraqis may well be free of a cruel dictator, but they are hardly 'liberated'.
Tascar Posted May 12, 2004 Report Posted May 12, 2004 FACT: The USA sided with Iraq during the Iran conflict which meant the trading of arms and weapons. FACT: The USA generated the concept of and produced the UN. FACT: The USA sided with Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet/Afgan war. So...what has this led to? 1. Saddam's head was too big for his shoulders. He wanted Kuwait, he failed because he didn't realize that the USA would avenge Kuwait. 2. The UN actions seem mostly inspired by USA interests. This can be good from a peaceful mission statement....but it just doesn't work so well. 3. Osama turned against the USA for what reason? Hate it when you help someone then they just screw you.
Dav Posted May 12, 2004 Report Posted May 12, 2004 accually the UN didnt fail, the US simply ignored them. the US does control alot in the un but so do UK, France, Germany and China being on the security counel perminatly, as the US sisnt get full support from the secuity councel they didnt get the go ahaead from the UN
Dr Brain Posted May 13, 2004 Report Posted May 13, 2004 The UN did fail. You are drawing the entirly wrong conclusion from the lack of weapons in Iraq. The question is where the -*BAD WORD*- are they now?
Bacchus Posted May 13, 2004 Report Posted May 13, 2004 it's all in your head, Brain...all in your head.
Tascar Posted May 13, 2004 Report Posted May 13, 2004 Brain, the president needs you to conjour up an ASSS version of wmds.
Paine Posted May 13, 2004 Report Posted May 13, 2004 This is why the world sucks. France > Sit there, do nothing, get on council.U.S.A. > Think they can ignore what UN says, and can, [laughs at America's national debt]U.K. > Sits there hoping that the U.s. wont turn on them after they helped in iraq.China> Sits there throwing its babies on the streets and launching rockets.Germany > Developing more secret plans for a 3rd world war. (probably) BTW : I know most of that is -*BAD WORD*-, I just want to start a flame fest
Tascar Posted May 13, 2004 Report Posted May 13, 2004 Paine > Sits there whining about life! Get a gf dude!
MonteZuma Posted May 13, 2004 Author Report Posted May 13, 2004 Yeah. The security council needs a revamp. I don't know what kind of system should replace it though?
Dav Posted May 14, 2004 Report Posted May 14, 2004 Yeah. The security council needs a revamp. I don't know what kind of system should replace it though?one that prevents the US vitoing anything that prevents thier world domination. Security council is an ok idea but a democorcy where all deligates vote and a majority vote is probably the fairest way but could still be problematic. Advantage of this is that less powerfull countries like kenya or iraq get more say in what happens. If things are done over a few rounds of vothinf, comprmises can be made and the resolution ammended e.g some nations offer help to others so the clause is passed.
Dav Posted May 14, 2004 Report Posted May 14, 2004 BTW i ammend my preivious view, the UN doest work but its batter the the US acting alone.
Recommended Posts