End of the U.N.

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Wino

Originally posted by: Fencer128

What our government takes from it citizens, forces them to do, and prevents them from doing should ALWAYS be debatable subjects. =)

True - I should have used the word "objectionable". Sorry.

Andy

Which is why forums for long winded people such as oursleves are such great things!

Agreed

 

[Dari]

The UN is fulled of sissies and pansies that are all talk and no action.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Dari
The UN is fulled of sissies and pansies that are all talk and no action.

That really enhanced the debate. Was that a point? Looked like a worthless insult to me.

Andy

 

[Bluga]

The world doesn't revlove around USA.

I feel sorry for those who can only stay in their state and watch "news" for the rest of their lives. LOL.

 

[3L33T32003]

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.

That means, of course, that Saddam does not have to abide by any of their resolutions.

And the main reason for Bush attacking (Re. 1441) is now gone.

How is he gonna spin this to the American public now? And don't give me that "WMD" crap, lots of other nations have more weapons and the means to spread them farther than Saddam ever could (like North Korea), treat their people worse (pick any middle eastern muslim country... or North Korea), and are much bigger sponsors of terrorism--like Saudi Arabia.

When you take that all away, the only reason we have for going after Saddam is that he is weak, and his nation sits on top of the second largest oil reserves on the planet...

Hey Wait! No wonder we cannot get a war resolution passed, and most of the countries in the UN are against us on this.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

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.

That means, of course, that Saddam does not have to abide by any of their resolutions.

And the main reason for Bush attacking (Re. 1441) is now gone.

How is he gonna spin this to the American public now? And don't give me that "WMD" crap, lots of other nations have more weapons and the means to spread them farther than Saddam ever could (like North Korea), treat their people worse (pick any middle eastern muslim country... or North Korea), and are much bigger sponsors of terrorism--like Saudi Arabia.

When you take that all away, the only reason we have for going after Saddam is that he is weak, and his nation sits on top of the second largest oil reserves on the planet...

Hey Wait! No wonder we cannot get a war resolution passed, and most of the countries in the UN are against us on this.

Not sure I follow your logic there. Care to elaborate?

Andy

 

[FoBoT]

i am writing my congressman/senator urging them to get the US out of the UN ASAP

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i am writing my congressman/senator urging them to get the US out of the UN ASAP

Why is that exactly?

Andy

 

[3L33T32003]

Not sure I follow your logic there. Care to elaborate?

Where exactly do you lose me?

Try it again:

US works with the UN to tell Iraq NO WMD.
Iraq ignores UN.
In other words, Iraq basically says that the UN is not a valid ruler over their politics.
US cites this situation as the need to go to war.
Other members of the SC disagree.
Now, we have people saying that the UN is not a valid ruler over politics because SC members will not allow the US to go to war.
In other words, you are agreeing with Saddam when you take this position.

You cannot have it both ways!

Either you agree that the UN has a say in the international political scene, and you MUST ABIDE BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL RULINGS,
OR
You agree that the UN does NOT have a say in the international political scene, AND YOU CANNOT CITE THE SECURITY COUNCIL RULINGS AS REASON TO GO TO WAR.

Now, since many conservatives are saying that the "End of the UN is nigh" they must find another reason to invade Iraq.
Those other reasons, when taken alone or together, point out the fact that we have much bigger fish to fry than a little tinhorn dictator. The only difference between him, and what is happening in Korea for instance, is that Iraq sits on a huge oil reserve. The other members of the UN Security Council (and the general body) know this. It is a clear fact to anyone who does not have their eyes covered by the American flag they are waving.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

Not sure I follow your logic there. Care to elaborate?

Where exactly do you lose me?

Try it again:

US works with the UN to tell Iraq NO WMD.
Iraq ignores UN.
In other words, Iraq basically says that the UN is not a valid ruler over their politics.
US cites this situation as the need to go to war.
Other members of the SC disagree.
Now, we have people saying that the UN is not a valid ruler over politics because SC members will not allow the US to go to war.
In other words, you are agreeing with Saddam when you take this position.

You cannot have it both ways!

Either you agree that the UN has a say in the international political scene, and you MUST ABIDE BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL RULINGS,
OR
You agree that the UN does NOT have a say in the international political scene, AND YOU CANNOT CITE THE SECURITY COUNCIL RULINGS AS REASON TO GO TO WAR.

Now, since many conservatives are saying that the "End of the UN is nigh" they must find another reason to invade Iraq.
Those other reasons, when taken alone or together, point out the fact that we have much bigger fish to fry than a little tinhorn dictator. The only difference between him, and what is happening in Korea for instance, is that Iraq sits on a huge oil reserve. The other members of the UN Security Council (and the general body) know this. It is a clear fact to anyone who does not have their eyes covered by the American flag they are waving.

I see your point now. However (and this isn't my viewpoint), there is another scenario - if the US decides to ingnore the UN and cites reasons of national security to go to war with Iraq. They don't need to use 1441 as a reason in this case. The bigger fish to fry point is well made but won't be applied - after all everything's set to go over there right now and this will be the reasoning to go with Iraq.

Andy

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

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.

That means, of course, that Saddam does not have to abide by any of their resolutions.

And the main reason for Bush attacking (Re. 1441) is now gone.

How is he gonna spin this to the American public now? And don't give me that "WMD" crap, lots of other nations have more weapons and the means to spread them farther than Saddam ever could (like North Korea), treat their people worse (pick any middle eastern muslim country... or North Korea), and are much bigger sponsors of terrorism--like Saudi Arabia.

When you take that all away, the only reason we have for going after Saddam is that he is weak, and his nation sits on top of the second largest oil reserves on the planet...

Hey Wait! No wonder we cannot get a war resolution passed, and most of the countries in the UN are against us on this.

Not sure I follow your logic there. Care to elaborate?

Andy

In short: He said that the UN is useless because it won't do Bush's homework.

AKA, Bush needs an excuse that will work past a week for going to war with Iraq. So far all His own ideas have failed that test. So, if the UN(geeky kid) won't do his homework, Bush(slow but big kid) will beat the UN up after class.

Sounds about right to me!

 

[3L33T32003]

The bigger fish to fry point is well made but won't be applied - after all everything's set to go over there right now and this will be the reasoning to go with Iraq.

Which is the dumbest reason for killing a bunch of people, EVAR.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

The bigger fish to fry point is well made but won't be applied - after all everything's set to go over there right now and this will be the reasoning to go with Iraq.

Which is the dumbest reason for killing a bunch of people, EVAR.

In conjunction with the "national security" reasoning of course. I don't agree that this should be the way forward either.

Andy

 

[Tiger]

Until the UN decides on a "serious consequence" we cannot do anything.

The U.S. doesn't need the U.N.'s permission to do what we feel is in our best interests. Namely the disarmament of Iraq.

 

[dexvx]

Some of you people on ATOT are so darned funny, its just... well interesting.

The bulk of your arguement goes to the fact that Iraq has violated UN security council mandates/resolutions. Just take a freaking look at Isreal. They've defied more security council resolutions than Iraq ever will in its history. And who goes around and stops the UN from taking action with a veto? The United States. Go look at the UN veto charts, the United States has had more Security Council Vetos than all the other countries COMBINED, with most of those over Isreal. Hippocrasy at its best.

That being said, the UN has been a failure since the 1960s, moreso accelerated in the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The United States has no "opponent" to counteract it being the sole superpower. What happens is that, despite good intentions, there is a major power vacuum in which the rest of the world can do squat, and has to bend to the will of the United States or get trashed... either politically, economically, or militarily.

Another reason why the UN cannot work is because its structured like a representative democracy (another example of a failed democracy). Every little country has their saying, and veto'ing an action is quite easy. You just cant get things done with every little country trying to look out for their best interests. Without an independant military to back the UN (but then again who the freak would pledge and DIE for the "UN"?), the UN is toothless, and has been toothless since its inception.

And for those people saying France, Germany, and Russia is motivated by oil. You can look at it in reverse mode too. The United States is shut out from the 2nd largest oil producer, naturally, they would want to take a piece of the pie for their own interests. But then again, this is all a conspiracy theory, which is totally bogus in the first place.

 

[Mallow]

Funny that Germany won't allow it, they aren't even one of the 5 main members of the security council that can have that strong Veto power. Or at least that is my impression of how it works.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup, we had a Supreme Coup select a tantrum throwing cowboy who doesn't like playing by international treaty limitations and has been abandoning them right and left. Somebody got him to go to the UN against his worst judgment, I'm sure, and wham, they paddled his ass. Now here we are, thirsting to try all our new military toys, best advertiziments you can get, and that useless UN that we were always successful in manipulating before when we had intelligent Presidents ups and obstructs our path. What a bunch of bastards. What are the opinions of 6 billion people against 300 million Americans. Don't those arrogant assholes know we are Americans and thousands, no, millions of times better than them. We shouldn't stop with Iraq. If fact I'm sure we won't.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yup, we had a Supreme Coup select a tantrum throwing cowboy who doesn't like playing by international treaty limitations and has been abandoning them right and left. Somebody got him to go to the UN against his worst judgment, I'm sure, and wham, they paddled his ass. Now here we are, thirsting to try all our new military toys, best advertiziments you can get, and that useless UN that we were always successful in manipulating before when we had intelligent Presidents ups and obstructs our path. What a bunch of bastards. What are the opinions of 6 billion people against 300 million Americans. Don't those arrogant assholes know we are Americans and thousands, no, millions of times better than them. We shouldn't stop with Iraq. If fact I'm sure we won't.

Moonbeam,

"Yup, we had a Supreme Coup select ..."

I am very tired of that particular lie that you keep repeating. You posted a link in a thread that was mysteriously deleted that proves that is a false statement, yet you persist in repeating it.

Prove that the Supreme Court vote made a difference in the election or just drop it from your little rhetoric playbook.

 

[Moonbeam]

etech: I am very tired of that particular lie that you keep repeating.
--------------------------------

Oh, I'm sorry, etech. I hadn't realized we were all here to please you, or that you had special requirements as to what kinds of things you can tollerate seeing. Perhaps if you stopped stalking me you wouldn't notice it.

There is a difference between figurative and factual proof, by the way; each has it's own reality.

I just wish you'd prove to me that God isn't getting even because we put the looser in charge of His Nation.

 

[Farmall]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yup, we had a Supreme Coup select a tantrum throwing cowboy who doesn't like playing by international treaty limitations and has been abandoning them right and left. Somebody got him to go to the UN against his worst judgment, I'm sure, and wham, they paddled his ass. Now here we are, thirsting to try all our new military toys, best advertiziments you can get, and that useless UN that we were always successful in manipulating before when we had intelligent Presidents ups and obstructs our path. What a bunch of bastards. What are the opinions of 6 billion people against 300 million Americans. Don't those arrogant assholes know we are Americans and thousands, no, millions of times better than them. We shouldn't stop with Iraq. If fact I'm sure we won't.

Your anti-Bush crap is just as tiring as the anti-(insert Dem name) gang. Reading your post honestly makes me laugh, the amount of crap you have just thrown into the arena is amazing.

You hold the UN and the liberal side of politics to such high esteem, yet in your post you mention about the previous administrations manipulation of said UN. In the grand scope of things you should be happy that you find Bush to be not intelligent enough to manipulate the UN. Wouldn't the UN be that much more powerful without that manipulation?
Does the US go around just waiting to bomb the piss out of some poor impoverished country that might not agree with what we want, is that what we believe in?
Is it the opinion of 6 billion people, or the opinion of their governments? You believe that nobody else in the entire world agrees with the position of the administration on iraq?

Please show us just how intelligent you can be and solidify your position with some factual information.

I unfortunately need to go to work so I will have to check back later to be amazed again.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
etech: I am very tired of that particular lie that you keep repeating.
--------------------------------

Oh, I'm sorry, etech. I hadn't realized we were all here to please you, or that you had special requirements as to what kinds of things you can tollerate seeing. Perhaps if you stopped stalking me you wouldn't notice it.

There is a difference between figurative and factual proof, by the way; each has it's own reality.

I just wish you'd prove to me that God isn't getting even because we put the looser in charge of His Nation.

Moonie, when you keep spreading lies, I will point them out. That is not stalking you like you were folowing me around just to throw insults.
Now either prove that the USSC in their decision decided the election or stop repeating that lie. Well that is unless you wish to be known as liar. It's your choice.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

The bigger fish to fry point is well made but won't be applied - after all everything's set to go over there right now and this will be the reasoning to go with Iraq.

Which is the dumbest reason for killing a bunch of people, EVAR.

In conjunction with the "national security" reasoning of course. I don't agree that this should be the way forward either.

Andy

Please elaborate on the "national security" reasons. If you can take down a country, not because they are presently threatening you, but because of the potential for what they might do in the future, wouldn't the US be justified in attacking any country in the world? It would definitely make us more secure to replace any ruler and country that wasn't in our pocket with someone who'd be friendlier. At what point do you believe "national security" becomes a valid reason to wage war on a country?

 

[exp]

The argument is not that the UN does absolutely nothing, only that what little it does accomplish could be attained more easily by different methods. It's a question of opportunity cost. I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is *NO* UN function that could not be performed cheaper and/or more effectively through other means. Those means could include the actions of individual nations, alliances, and non-state institutions like charitable organizations. Taking the $267+ million per year the U.S. blows on the UN and putting into channels not crippled with red tape would pay instant dividends.

Let's take a look at just a tiny sampling of the wonders of the United Nations at work, shall we? It...

...counts France and the UK as two of the top five world powers, and grants them (along with the Russia, China, and the U.S.) the power to *single-handedly* cripple the Security Council via the veto.

...allows Iraq, a nation that has mocked UN disarmament efforts for over a decade, to chair a conference on disarmament, with member nations actually going so far as to intentionally vote it to that position.

...allows Libya to chair the Human Rights Commission, while fellow offenders like China, Syria and Saudi Arabia (just to name a few) flesh out the body of that commission. UN members also vote the U.S., one of the world's most vocal critics of human rights abuses, off the commission because they were upset with American opposition to the Kyoto treaty. That's right, they tossed the UNHRC's credibility down the toilet just to spite America on a completely unrelated issue.

...recently passed a resolution on child rights that includes among its signers one Sudan, a nation that still harbors the institution of child slavery. (BTW, Sudan has also been on the UNHRC.)


Can anyone look me in the eyes and honestly say with a straight face that this is an organization that should be taken seriously? Please. Look, I wish the UN worked, I really do...but there comes a time when we have to stop burying our heads in the sand and face up to reality. Wishful thinking is *not* going to solve the UN's many problems. It's high time we acknowledge that the UN is a monumental failure, a laughingstock really. By continuing to support such a corrupt and irrevocably flawed institution we are doing ourselves a great disservice, and are actually *hurting* humanitarian causes worldwide.

I urge those of you who are serious about humanitarian causes to oppose this farce that the UN has become. Destroying the UN in its entirety and either disseminating its support funds to more deserved recipients, or replacing it with an improved successor, built from the ground up to correct the UN's flaws, is the best possible way to improve human rights. Otherwise, by continuing to mindlessly support the UN's empty resolutions we are sending the message that we don't really care about actual *results*, only the process. We are basically saying that repeated failure is just fine and dandy, as long as we arrive at that failure through the proper channels. We have become hypocrites of the worst kind...all talk and no action. That's certainly not a position I want to take.

 

[JellyBaby]

Getting back to basics before this thread turns into a flamefest between the same old grannies in heat, if there was a compelling reason to invade Iraq there would be consensus on action. Combine a lack of a compelling reason to invade with the fact Iraq surrendered to the U.N. back in '91 not the U.S. and you end up with a situation where politics is the order of the day.

My question is, without the U.N.--toothless or not--will the 21st Century be bloodier than the 20th?

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh no, here we go again:

etech, please first prove that God isn't punishing us, or face Being known as a liar.

Oh and I'm getting really really really really really really tired of your paranoid delusion that I'm interested in insulting you. In the first place you do it much better yourself and secondly you have many admirers without me. I don't mind lobbing them back at you when you throw them at me. Probably, though, in your favor, you may not see just how insulting you are. But any way, I read your stuff with great interest and am not always unmoved by your reasoning.

I just think you see yourself in a particular role that is entirely different than one that interests me. You want to deal in hard facts and I am interested in how the mind comes to interpret what it sees. You take as fact things that I find are based on unexamined assumptions. You have taken a side. I want to question everything because the truth isn't on a 'side'. It's in a way of seeing. But that's just my opinion. Think of me as sand in an oyster. Your turn to excrete.