End of the U.N.

[Wino]

BREAKING NEWS (cnn.com)

France, Russia and Germany say they will not allow U.N. resolution that clears path for war with Iraq.

We are finally witnessing the end of the U.N. in it's current state. Wether you are pro-war or anti-war, you have to admit this effectively emoves the teeth from U.N. resolutions.

Last year under pressure from the US and UK, the U.N. *unanimously* passed a very strongly worded resolution demanding specific actions from Iraq or face immenent *war*. Iraq has systematically not complied with that resolution (and many others passed before it), yet U.N. sanctioned war is now being taken off the table by France Russia and Germany - DIRECTLY contradicting it's earlier resolution (which many believe was only agreed to at the time to prevent the US from going to war sooner).

France, Russia, and Germany should never have agreed to the first resolution if they did not intend on following through. In doing so, they have destroyed the credibility of the United Nations. If they didn't want war with Iraq under any circumstances (and don't give me that "we need more time for inspections" crap, they simply dont want the US to attack Iraq under ANY circumstances) they should never have voted for the first resolution and subsequently undermined the authority of the only institution that gave them any real political power in the world.

 

[Chadder007]

War here we come....
Tis sad that France, Germany and Russia won't back up the previous resolution that they signed. What fools for money they are with all of their contracts for oil and construction in Iraq.

 

[Aves]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/05/sprj.irq.main/index.html

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Wino

BREAKING NEWS (cnn.com)

France, Russia and Germany say they will not allow U.N. resolution that clears path for war with Iraq.

We are finally witnessing the end of the U.N. in it's current state. Wether you are pro-war or anti-war, you have to admit this effectively emoves the teeth from U.N. resolutions.

Last year under pressure from the US and UK, the U.N. *unanimously* passed a very strongly worded resolution demanding specific actions from Iraq or face immenent *war*. Iraq has systematically not complied with that resolution (and many others passed before it), yet U.N. sanctioned war is now being taken off the table by France Russia and Germany - DIRECTLY contradicting it's earlier resolution (which many believe was only agreed to at the time to prevent the US from going to war sooner).

Please can you link me to the new resolution. Thanks.

France, Russia, and Germany should never have agreed to the first resolution if they did not intend on following through. In doing so, they have destroyed the credibility of the United Nations. If they didn't want war with Iraq under any circumstances (and don't give me that "we need more time for inspections" crap, they simply dont want the US to attack Iraq under ANY circumstances) they should never have voted for the first resolution and subsequently undermined the authority of the only institution that gave them any real political power in the world.

As for the "crap" - that's your point of view - speculation, not fact. They have not said they do not want war in any circumstances - again, speculation. I don't know what you mean about the "political power" bit? Does that not apply to everyone?

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
War here we come....
Tis sad that France, Germany and Russia won't back up the previous resolution that they signed. What fools for money they are with all of their contracts for oil and construction in Iraq.

Right. whatever - as much a conspiracy theory as the war in Iraq being for oil - speculation.

Andy

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Wino

France, Russia, and Germany should never have agreed to the first resolution if they did not intend on following through.

You are missing one major piece of the U.N. first resolution. In order to pass that there would be "serious consequences" all countries agreed that a second resolution would be voted on before doing anything. The first resolution never definded what a "serious consequence" is. The UN just now needs to come to an agreement on a proper "serious consequence", and thus your whole arguement is meaningless.

IF the first resolution defined a "serious consequence" or IF there wasn't an agreement for a second resolution, then I'd agree with your post.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Wino

France, Russia, and Germany should never have agreed to the first resolution if they did not intend on following through.

You are missing one major piece of the U.N. first resolution. In order to pass that there would be "serious consequences" all countries agreed that a second resolution would be voted on before doing anything. The first resolution never definded what a "serious consequence" is. The UN just now needs to come to an agreement on a proper "serious consequence", and thus your whole arguement is meaningless.

IF the first resolution defined a "serious consequence" or IF there wasn't an agreement for a second resolution, then I'd agree with your post.

Can you post a link to this - as it would be a very good point.

Andy

 

[Hoober]

How does France get to be a permament member of the security council?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Hoober
How does France get to be a permament member of the security council?

When the UN was set up after the second world war - they were one of the main powers.

Andy

 

[wyvrn]

Would you please stop asking for people to post links, and go research it for yourself? It is not everyone's responsibility to educate you, it's yours. These are merely opinions being thrown around, we are not in class.

Thanks

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Wino

France, Russia, and Germany should never have agreed to the first resolution if they did not intend on following through.

You are missing one major piece of the U.N. first resolution. In order to pass that there would be "serious consequences" all countries agreed that a second resolution would be voted on before doing anything. The first resolution never definded what a "serious consequence" is. The UN just now needs to come to an agreement on a proper "serious consequence", and thus your whole arguement is meaningless.

IF the first resolution defined a "serious consequence" or IF there wasn't an agreement for a second resolution, then I'd agree with your post.

Can you post a link to this - as it would be a very good point.

Andy

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Hoober
How does France get to be a permament member of the security council?

Cause when the UN was started they were considered a fairly major world power who had been invaded twice in the last fifty years.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Hoober
How does France get to be a permament member of the security council?

Cause when the UN was started they were considered a fairly major world power who had been invaded twice in the last fifty years.

Ah, right. Except that they weren't a major power. We had bailed them out of World War II. I just love how things come to bite us in the ass, over and over.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Wino

BREAKING NEWS (cnn.com)

France, Russia and Germany say they will not allow U.N. resolution that clears path for war with Iraq.

We are finally witnessing the end of the U.N. in it's current state. Wether you are pro-war or anti-war, you have to admit this effectively emoves the teeth from U.N. resolutions.

Last year under pressure from the US and UK, the U.N. *unanimously* passed a very strongly worded resolution demanding specific actions from Iraq or face immenent *war*. Iraq has systematically not complied with that resolution (and many others passed before it), yet U.N. sanctioned war is now being taken off the table by France Russia and Germany - DIRECTLY contradicting it's earlier resolution (which many believe was only agreed to at the time to prevent the US from going to war sooner).

France, Russia, and Germany should never have agreed to the first resolution if they did not intend on following through. In doing so, they have destroyed the credibility of the United Nations. If they didn't want war with Iraq under any circumstances (and don't give me that "we need more time for inspections" crap, they simply dont want the US to attack Iraq under ANY circumstances) they should never have voted for the first resolution and subsequently undermined the authority of the only institution that gave them any real political power in the world.

I would like you to show me where any of the resolutions say what I have bolded in your quote.

 

[StageLeft]

I agree with your first post. They DID know what the first resolution meant and their saying that the resolutions still may work, when in fact they are absolutely not working, is just a sad effort at trying to not live up to their earlier agreement.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Gaard


I would like you to show me where any of the resolutions say what I have bolded in your quote.

The resolution actually warns of serious consequences which is generally read to mean military action to force disarmament.

 

[IGBT]

Leage of Nations??

 

[StageLeft]

No, the resolution does not say what severe consquences are but based on what was being said at the time everybody knew what severe consequences are. Considering everything else had been tried it meant military.

 

[wyvrn]

In France's view, serious consequences means making another useless resolution that says "we really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really mean it this time!"

18 reallies for 18 resolutions

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Gaard


I would like you to show me where any of the resolutions say what I have bolded in your quote.

The resolution actually warns of serious consequences which is generally read to mean military action to force disarmament.

 

[Czar]

The "serious consequences" resolution is the WORST written resolution ever, if anyone followed the news regarding the wording of the resolution you would have noticed what France, Germany and the rest meant by it and what the US meant by it, two different things but somehow both agreed to it.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Czar
The "serious consequences" resolution is the WORST written resolution ever, if anyone followed the news regarding the wording of the resolution you would have noticed what France, Germany and the rest meant by it and what the US meant by it, two different things but somehow both agreed to it.

It was agreed on because it was ambiguous. If it said "military action" it would never have passed. This is why (thankfully) its still being debated.

Andy

 

[dullard]

Can you post a link to this - as it would be a very good point.

Andy

Here is the UN resolution 1441.
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

Notice that nowhere was the "serious consequence" defined. It could be war, it could be stricter embargoes, it could be banned from the UN, etc. Until the UN decides on a "serious consequence" we cannot do anything.

As for the agreement for the 2nd resolution, it was reported on every major news station I watched. I'll do a quick search for that.

 

[compudog]

I agree with the initial statement of this thread. That the "teeth" has been removed from the UN. All of this just dilutes the effectiveness of the organization. I, for one, am not for a war with Iraq, nor am I particularly against it. I am tired of this country being the baby sitter/policeman/aid-giver for the world.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: dullard

Can you post a link to this - as it would be a very good point.

Andy

Here is the UN resolution 1441.
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

Notice that nowhere was the "serious consequence" defined. It could be war, it could be stricter embargoes, it could be banned from the UN, etc. Until the UN decides on a "serious consequence" we cannot do anything.

As for the agreement for the 2nd resolution, it was reported on every major news station I watched. I'll do a quick search for that.

Thanks, but it is this part I'm most interested in:

In order to pass that there would be "serious consequences" all countries agreed that a second resolution would be voted on before doing anything.

I didn't realise (to its detriment) that such a condition existed in 1441.

Andy

 

[Gaard]

Assuming 'serious consequences' means war and there is absolutely no possibility that it could be interpreted as anything else...
does anyone have any ideas why 'serious consequences'' was put in the resolution and the words 'war' or 'force' weren't? And please, that's the way diplomats talk is quite hard to swallow, seeing as we're talking about a possible war here.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Czar
The "serious consequences" resolution is the WORST written resolution ever, if anyone followed the news regarding the wording of the resolution you would have noticed what France, Germany and the rest meant by it and what the US meant by it, two different things but somehow both agreed to it.

"and the rest"? you do realize we aren't without supporters