End of the U.N.

[Hoeboy]

Although I don't feel that the UN is effective in this Iraq situation, I wouldn't go as far as to say the UN should be trashed. Then again the US/Britain is probably doing most of the sh!t anyways so maybe we should just pull out and form our own united nations. I give the UN a few years before it falls apart without us and France/Russia/Germany/China will be the first in line to try to get into our new coalition


BTW moonbeam, I hope you don't talk like you type because you sure do sound like you are trying too hard to sound intelligent. Too bad you spew too much gibberish regardless of how many big words you can use. (Waits for moonbeam to insult me).

 

[SnapIT]

Another great thread where blabbering morons shout about the irrelevance of the UN...

How many of you pimple faced idiots actually know anything about the UN's work? Why it was created? The purpose? (and as you idiots keep shouting you you helped stabilize kosovo, there were actually people who were there for a long time, working as UN peacekeepers, keeping the peace)...

Nah, it's the US (i'll include GBR as an extra state, just to please Blair, i bet if i read that, he would clap his hands and jump around laughing with joy) Whacko George tour, coming soon to a country near you (that is percieved as a threat, eventually, maybe)...

Go to www.un.org, read up on it before you make such extremely stupid arguments...

And let me see if i understand this correctly, if the UN does not agree with the US, they are irrelevant? so why have a UN at all, why not just have a US and the followers against the opposition... (eventually, as the US get's rid of all of their allies, there will only be US against world)...

What i see coming is something that will (in later events) trigger WWIII, the US will attack, even without UN approval, against a soverign country, not because there is a direct threat, not because there is a threat to ANY nation atm, but because there MIGHT be a threat in the future... This means that if any nation wants to, they can attack any nation without any form of UN conscent because there MIGHT be a threat in the future...

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Another great thread where blabbering morons shout about the irrelevance of the UN...

How many of you pimple faced idiots actually know anything about the UN's work? Why it was created? The purpose? (and as you idiots keep shouting you you helped stabilize kosovo, there were actually people who were there for a long time, working as UN peacekeepers, keeping the peace)...

Nah, it's the US (i'll include GBR as an extra state, just to please Blair, i bet if i read that, he would clap his hands and jump around laughing with joy) Whacko George tour, coming soon to a country near you (that is percieved as a threat, eventually, maybe)...

Go to www.un.org, read up on it before you make such extremely stupid arguments...

And let me see if i understand this correctly, if the UN does not agree with the US, they are irrelevant? so why have a UN at all, why not just have a US and the followers against the opposition... (eventually, as the US get's rid of all of their allies, there will only be US against world)...

What i see coming is something that will (in later events) trigger WWIII, the US will attack, even without UN approval, against a soverign country, not because there is a direct threat, not because there is a threat to ANY nation atm, but because there MIGHT be a threat in the future... This means that if any nation wants to, they can attack any nation without any form of UN conscent because there MIGHT be a threat in the future...

If you have a look at the preious posts you'll see that the relevance of the UN has already been declared (at least by me and not satisfactorily refuted in my opinion). I'm guessing if you call people "pimple faced idiots" then you won't gain a debate - only a big flaming.

Andy

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: 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

OMG someone that refered to france as a power. Thats nuts.

It was good for a laugh wasn't it?

 

[SuperTool]

If UN cannot survive other countries disagreeing with the US, or if US is willing to ignore the UN to start a war, than UN is already irrelevant.
If the only choices the UN has is being a US puppet or being ignored by the US, than who needs the UN?

 

[etech]

moonie

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

I did not propose that God is or is not punishing us therefore I have no obligation to try to prove or disprove your contention.

You have often repeated the lie that the USSC put Pres. Bush into office. It is up to you to prove it or stop repeating it unless you wish everyone on this board to know you as a liar. Your choice.



If the UN continues to make resolutions without backing them up than the organization will become irrelevant.

 

[Moonbeam]

oops

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If UN cannot survive other countries disagreeing with the US, or if US is willing to ignore the UN to start a war, than UN is already irrelevant.
If the only choices the UN has is being a US puppet or being ignored by the US, than who needs the UN?

By your arguement, the problem is that the US is choosing to make the UN irrelevant. It could function within the UN structure if it respects the UN's authority (I feel a Cartman quote coming on ). Maybe even the crisis it faces now is entirely because the council believes that the US doesn't respect its authority?...

By your arguement, the UN - on a security council level - could be declared irrelevant. However, IMHO - it is dangerous to right off the entire UN - as so many around here would like - as it does MUCH more than just sanction war (I'm thinking humanitarian mission).

Andy

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If UN cannot survive other countries disagreeing with the US, or if US is willing to ignore the UN to start a war, than UN is already irrelevant.
If the only choices the UN has is being a US puppet or being ignored by the US, than who needs the UN?

By your arguement, the problem is that the US is choosing to make the UN irrelevant. It could function within the UN structure if it respects the UN's authority (I feel a Cartman quote coming on ). Maybe even the crisis it faces now is entirely because the council believes that the US doesn't respect its authority?...

By your arguement, the UN - on a security council level - could be declared irrelevant. However, IMHO - it is dangerous to right off the entire UN - as so many around here would like - as it does MUCH more than just sanction war (I'm thinking humanitarian mission).

Andy

Not just my argument. Bush is saying that if UN doesn't sanction this war, it is irrelevant.
Bush is saying that we need to attack Iraq for ignoring the UNSC. And BTW, if UNSC doesn't agree, we are going to ignore UNSC to attack Iraq for ignoring UNSC. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[etech]

SuperTool

Not just my argument. Bush is saying that if UN doesn't sanction this war, it is irrelevant.

Do you have a link to when Pres. Bush said that?

What I remember him saying is that if the UN was going to ignore the resolutions it has passed against Iraq then it woud become irrelevant.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sure they did. It was 5 conservatives against 4 moderates voting contrary to their stated judicial theories of states rights and right down party lines. Horrible. Then you have their public statements of wanting to be supreme court justice and wanting to retire but afraid to if a liberal won the election. They voted for themselves, to protect the sacred right winged bias of the court and save via judicial activism from judicial activism. They overthrew the legitimate will of the people in favor of their own opinions. They cast votes that gave GW the right to officialze a phoney miscounted vote in Florida allowing the electoral college to pretend that Bush won in Florida. Thus they elected him. But then you knew that. You just like to pretend it wasn't the electoral college because such irrelevant abstractions appeal to you. Everybody knows you win elections by counting votes, not by preventing them from being counted. People who stop votes from being counted have no character. Winning by any means becomes more important than winning fairly.

 

[Fencer128]

Not just my argument. Bush is saying that if UN doesn't sanction this war, it is irrelevant.

It would not be completely irrelevant - even from a US position - read my posts to see what I mean by this.

Bush is saying that we need to attack Iraq for ignoring the UNSC. And BTW, if UNSC doesn't agree, we are going to ignore UNSC to attack Iraq for ignoring UNSC. Makes a lot of sense.

Makes sense to some maybe. Not to me. Here's why:

1. "Serious consequences" is ambiguous - for a reason - the signatories to 1441 do not want a definite military option - it requires reasoned debate. Unfortunately the US is powerful enough to go it alone. Because of this they think they have the "right" to and therefore suggest that the UN could be irrelevant by not agreeing with them. In fact - the US will make the UNSC irrelevant by not taking other viewpoints seriously enough and working within their framework.

2. UN inspectors in Iraq are the only people qualified to tell whether Iraq is cooperating. The US should be listening to their views - not second guessing them.

3. I'm sure I can dig up plenty of UN infringements if I try (Isreal anyone?) - but that does not necessarily mean they should be bombed for it.

4. I cannot seriously believe that any of the US *allies* are in for a war because they believe it will make their/the world safer. They are their to curry favour with the US. This is my personal opinion of course - but I have yet to be convinced, given the amount of international bribery taking place at the moment.

5. Not really a point - but I'm off to bed (its 1:42am here in the UK). I'll pick this up tomorrow. Goodnight!

Andy

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sure they did. It was 5 conservatives against 4 moderates voting contrary to their stated judicial theories of states rights and right down party lines. Horrible. Then you have their public statements of wanting to be supreme court justice and wanting to retire but afraid to if a liberal won the election. They voted for themselves, to protect the sacred right winged bias of the court and save via judicial activism from judicial activism. They overthrew the legitimate will of the people in favor of their own opinions. They cast votes that gave GW the right to officialze a phoney miscounted vote in Florida allowing the electoral college to pretend that Bush won in Florida. Thus they elected him. But then you knew that. You just like to pretend it wasn't the electoral college because such irrelevant abstractions appeal to you. Everybody knows you win elections by counting votes, not by preventing them from being counted. People who stop votes from being counted have no character. Winning by any means becomes more important than winning fairly.

My challenge to you Moonie,

Take it to another thread and prove that the vote of the USSC decided the election.

That or stop saying that they did.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech
SuperTool

Not just my argument. Bush is saying that if UN doesn't sanction this war, it is irrelevant.

Do you have a link to when Pres. Bush said that?

What I remember him saying is that if the UN was going to ignore the resolutions it has passed against Iraq then it woud become irrelevant.

Distinction without a difference. The way the US wants UN to show that it's not ignoring the resolutions is to sanction military action by declaring Iraq in defiance in this upcoming resolution.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech
SuperTool

Not just my argument. Bush is saying that if UN doesn't sanction this war, it is irrelevant.

Do you have a link to when Pres. Bush said that?

What I remember him saying is that if the UN was going to ignore the resolutions it has passed against Iraq then it woud become irrelevant.

Distinction without a difference. The way the US wants UN to show that it's not ignoring the resolutions is to sanction military action by declaring Iraq in defiance in this upcoming resolution.

Do you have anothe definition of serious consequences for a dictator? What do you want to do, pass another resolution he will ignore?

A final chance is exactly that. Saddam did not comply. If you have another way of removing him from power than I am positive that if workable the UN would like to hear it. So would I.

 

[exp]

blabbering morons

you pimple faced idiots

you idiots

Nice.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Not just my argument. Bush is saying that if UN doesn't sanction this war, it is irrelevant.

It would not be completely irrelevant - even from a US position - read my posts to see what I mean by this.

Bush is saying that we need to attack Iraq for ignoring the UNSC. And BTW, if UNSC doesn't agree, we are going to ignore UNSC to attack Iraq for ignoring UNSC. Makes a lot of sense.

Makes sense to some maybe. Not to me. Here's why:

1. "Serious consequences" is ambiguous - for a reason - the signatories to 1441 do not want a definite military option - it requires reasoned debate. Unfortunately the US is powerful enough to go it alone. Because of this they think they have the "right" to and therefore suggest that the UN could be irrelevant by not agreeing with them. In fact - the US will make the UNSC irrelevant by not taking other viewpoints seriously enough and working within their framework.

2. UN inspectors in Iraq are the only people qualified to tell whether Iraq is cooperating. The US should be listening to their views - not second guessing them.

3. I'm sure I can dig up plenty of UN infringements if I try (Isreal anyone?) - but that does not necessarily mean they should be bombed for it.

4. I cannot seriously believe that any of the US *allies* are in for a war because they believe it will make their/the world safer. They are their to curry favour with the US. This is my personal opinion of course - but I have yet to be convinced, given the amount of international bribery taking place at the moment.

5. Not really a point - but I'm off to bed (its 1:42am here in the UK). I'll pick this up tomorrow. Goodnight!

Andy

Andy, you never addressed(atleast from what I could tell) what a previous poster posted to you.

1) Iraq is in material breach of U.N. resolutions = the obvious
2) the 2nd resolution states the obvious
3) France, Russia, and Germany oppose the 2nd resolution
4) France, Russia, and Germany oppose the obvious

The second resolution states nothing about war, just confirms that Iraq is in breach of Res 1441.

KK

 

[Moonbeam]

exp, are you refering to anybody in particular there with the idiots pimple thingi, or just reflecting of the stellar quality of some of our indiginous thinkers.

 

[Fencer128]

Andy, you never addressed(atleast from what I could tell) what a previous poster posted to you.

1) Iraq is in material breach of U.N. resolutions = the obvious
2) the 2nd resolution states the obvious
3) France, Russia, and Germany oppose the 2nd resolution
4) France, Russia, and Germany oppose the obvious

The second resolution states nothing about war, just confirms that Iraq is in breach of Res 1441.

KK[/quote]

Hi, as to point 1)

It gives UNMOVIC and IAEA, among other things, unrestricted rights of entry and travel into and throughout Iraq; provides for U.N. security for the inspectors; gives the inspectors the right to freeze sites and declare exclusion zones; and gives them the right to conduct interviews, either inside or outside the country, without the presence of Iraqi officials. Most importantly, it gives the inspectors immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to all sites in Iraq, including so-called presidential sites.

It can be argued that Iraq is now complying with inspectors, and so serious conseuences are not required nor sanctioned. IMHO the determination of the state of co-operation should come from Hans Blix and his team, as they are the experts on the ground. It should not be second guessed or pre-empted by another. Therefore there is some debate as to whether Iraq is in breach.

As to points 2) and 3)

The second resolution reiterates "serious consequences" in regard to non-compliance to 1441. This is already implicit in 1441 and so it begs the question - "what's the point"? The point as far as those opposed to a second resolution is that it merely acts as a political tool to strengthen a case for war - one which IMHO it is not the job of those governments to make in the first place (see point 1).

4) The opposing states would IMHO fully support military action, as a last resort, if it were the case that either - the weapons inspectors come back and declare that the state of cooperation makes it impossible for them to do their jobs, or the UNSC agrees to the opposing states terms (more time -with fixed deadline lets not forget, increased inspectors, etc) and then when those have played out there are still questions the UN inspectors would want resolved.

I know that previously the UN has not tackled Iraqi WMD firmly enough - however, things are different now - a significant portion of the members do want Saddam to disarm (there not just saying it - they are meaning it), which means IMHO the long drawn out failed inspections of 4 or so years ago would not be a situation any of the UNSC members would let this scenario again become.

Andy

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Another great thread where blabbering morons shout about the irrelevance of the UN...

How many of you pimple faced idiots actually know anything about the UN's work? Why it was created? The purpose? (and as you idiots keep shouting you you helped stabilize kosovo, there were actually people who were there for a long time, working as UN peacekeepers, keeping the peace)...

Nah, it's the US (i'll include GBR as an extra state, just to please Blair, i bet if i read that, he would clap his hands and jump around laughing with joy) Whacko George tour, coming soon to a country near you (that is percieved as a threat, eventually, maybe)...

Go to www.un.org, read up on it before you make such extremely stupid arguments...

And let me see if i understand this correctly, if the UN does not agree with the US, they are irrelevant? so why have a UN at all, why not just have a US and the followers against the opposition... (eventually, as the US get's rid of all of their allies, there will only be US against world)...

What i see coming is something that will (in later events) trigger WWIII, the US will attack, even without UN approval, against a soverign country, not because there is a direct threat, not because there is a threat to ANY nation atm, but because there MIGHT be a threat in the future... This means that if any nation wants to, they can attack any nation without any form of UN conscent because there MIGHT be a threat in the future...

Wow if you really believe all that, then you really are a bigger idiot than i originally thought you were.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Another great thread where blabbering morons shout about the irrelevance of the UN...

How many of you pimple faced idiots actually know anything about the UN's work? Why it was created? The purpose? (and as you idiots keep shouting you you helped stabilize kosovo, there were actually people who were there for a long time, working as UN peacekeepers, keeping the peace)...

Nah, it's the US (i'll include GBR as an extra state, just to please Blair, i bet if i read that, he would clap his hands and jump around laughing with joy) Whacko George tour, coming soon to a country near you (that is percieved as a threat, eventually, maybe)...

Go to www.un.org, read up on it before you make such extremely stupid arguments...

And let me see if i understand this correctly, if the UN does not agree with the US, they are irrelevant? so why have a UN at all, why not just have a US and the followers against the opposition... (eventually, as the US get's rid of all of their allies, there will only be US against world)...

What i see coming is something that will (in later events) trigger WWIII, the US will attack, even without UN approval, against a soverign country, not because there is a direct threat, not because there is a threat to ANY nation atm, but because there MIGHT be a threat in the future... This means that if any nation wants to, they can attack any nation without any form of UN conscent because there MIGHT be a threat in the future...

Wow if you really believe all that, then you really are a bigger idiot than i originally thought you were.

Ah...He's just trying to protect his job...cut him some slack.

KK

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Another great thread where blabbering morons shout about the irrelevance of the UN...

How many of you pimple faced idiots actually know anything about the UN's work? Why it was created? The purpose? (and as you idiots keep shouting you you helped stabilize kosovo, there were actually people who were there for a long time, working as UN peacekeepers, keeping the peace)...

Nah, it's the US (i'll include GBR as an extra state, just to please Blair, i bet if i read that, he would clap his hands and jump around laughing with joy) Whacko George tour, coming soon to a country near you (that is percieved as a threat, eventually, maybe)...

Go to www.un.org, read up on it before you make such extremely stupid arguments...

And let me see if i understand this correctly, if the UN does not agree with the US, they are irrelevant? so why have a UN at all, why not just have a US and the followers against the opposition... (eventually, as the US get's rid of all of their allies, there will only be US against world)...

What i see coming is something that will (in later events) trigger WWIII, the US will attack, even without UN approval, against a soverign country, not because there is a direct threat, not because there is a threat to ANY nation atm, but because there MIGHT be a threat in the future... This means that if any nation wants to, they can attack any nation without any form of UN conscent because there MIGHT be a threat in the future...

Wow if you really believe all that, then you really are a bigger idiot than i originally thought you were.

Ah...He's just trying to protect his job...cut him some slack.

KK

hehe yeah. Hell, if we're ever in trouble, we can always call on the swedish air force with their 3 hot air baloons.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
It gives UNMOVIC and IAEA, among other things, unrestricted rights of entry and travel into and throughout Iraq; provides for U.N. security for the inspectors; gives the inspectors the right to freeze sites and declare exclusion zones; and gives them the right to conduct interviews, either inside or outside the country, without the presence of Iraqi officials. Most importantly, it gives the inspectors immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to all sites in Iraq, including so-called presidential sites.

It can be argued that Iraq is now complying with inspectors, and so serious conseuences are not required nor sanctioned. IMHO the determination of the state of co-operation should come from Hans Blix and his team, as they are the experts on the ground. It should not be second guessed or pre-empted by another. Therefore there is some debate as to whether Iraq is in breach.

As to points 2) and 3)

The second resolution reiterates "serious consequences" in regard to non-compliance to 1441. This is already implicit in 1441 and so it begs the question - "what's the point"? The point as far as those opposed to a second resolution is that it merely acts as a political tool to strengthen a case for war - one which IMHO it is not the job of those governments to make in the first place (see point 1).

4) The opposing states would IMHO fully support military action, as a last resort, if it were the case that either - the weapons inspectors come back and declare that the state of cooperation makes it impossible for them to do their jobs, or the UNSC agrees to the opposing states terms (more time -with fixed deadline lets not forget, increased inspectors, etc) and then when those have played out there are still questions the UN inspectors would want resolved.

I know that previously the UN has not tackled Iraqi WMD firmly enough - however, things are different now - a significant portion of the members do want Saddam to disarm (there not just saying it - they are meaning it), which means IMHO the long drawn out failed inspections of 4 or so years ago would not be a situation any of the UNSC members would let this scenario again become.

Andy

So if on Friday, has Blix says saddam isn't fully complying, would that put Iraq in breach of resolution 1441? And would that mean that they should face serious consquences as stated in 1441? And what are those consquences? 1441 left out alot of details that would have sealed the deal. But was this because without being so vague france, russia, and germany would never have agreed to it since they will do whatever they can to prevent a war?

KK