Obviously the UN isn't irrelevant because they still do wonderful things. Have they been relevant in Iraq over the past six months? No. Once Bush is gone will they become more relevant? Yes.
What I quoted above addresses the fact that the purpose of the UN is to maintain international peace and security. The successful rebuilding of Iraq is necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. Therefore, it is the UN that should be administering the process through which Iraq is rebuilt.
That is a frightening leap in logic. You are assigning the UN a lot of power there.
And aside from that, Iraq is not a threat to international security or peace. They have internal struggles, that's the problem.
There is a reason no one in any position of power is trying to make this argument you are attempting to make; the argument makes no sense.
Quote:
The US ceded primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security to the UN. The current rebuilding of Iraq is not - of course - addressed specifically. You will often find that charters and constitutions do not address specific events.
What does the internal political struggle of Iraq have to do with international peace and security?
Ok... so what do we have for success? Hmmm. East Timor?
Quote:
But the UN represents a lot of countries and a lot more people than the Bush administration. This is what gives the UN far greater legitimacy than the US where matters of international peace and security are concerned.
So we should forget that the UN's method of handling Iraq was to (a)bomb the hell out of civilian infrastructure, (b)strangle the population with sanctions, (c)support Saddam's regime by helping crush rebellions and trust that they will find a way to fix a problem they have proven time-and-time-again to be unable to fix?
And why? Because they represent more nations?
Tell me... how well represented are true international opinions in the UN?
Quote:
I believe that they do. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my language, however. Substitute 'Articles of the UN Charter' for 'rules and procedures' and then re-read my earlier posts.
I am still not seeing where the UN has authority to manage a country's internal political structure when it has zero threat status to other countries.
I read your link and I am not seeing this installation as ruler. Seems like the US supported the Ba'athists, yeah, that's not in question. But this Saddam "installation" is oft-repeated, never-backed.
Ok... so what do we have for success? Hmmm. East Timor?
So we should forget that the UN's method of handling Iraq was to (a)bomb the hell out of civilian infrastructure, (b)strangle the population with sanctions, (c)support Saddam's regime by helping crush rebellions and trust that they will find a way to fix a problem they have proven time-and-time-again to be unable to fix?
And why? Because they represent more nations?
Tell me... how well represented are true international opinions in the UN?
I am still not seeing where the UN has authority to manage a country's internal political structure when it has zero threat status to other countries.
Man if ever I've heard a totally subjective argument this it! What we did in Iraq was wrong. Once we start throwing our weight around like that we become just like Iraq. Just like the terrorists. We become the bad guys.
I know, you think intervention is ok no matter what. You also think the president lying is ok also.
The UN isn't perfect. But neither are we. A group of countries has more of the moral right in this situation than one.
I've said it before Groverat. There are many places in the world that are suffering just like iraq. Why did we pick this one? The truth is for other reasons than freeing it's people. That's becoming more obvious all the time.
Haven't we done enough? Some of the Iraqi people don't even want us there.
We've already spent a ton of money there.
We have problems of our own that Bush should be looking at.
Also please if you want me to believe that our dishonest president is a great humanitarian I'm going to puke!
That is a frightening leap in logic. You are assigning the UN a lot of power there.
Not me. The member states of the UN assigned this power.
Quote:
And aside from that, Iraq is not a threat to international security or peace. They have internal struggles, that's the problem.
Internal struggles that - left unchecked - could bring instability to the entire region. Worst case scenario would be a Kurdish uprising that led to civil war spilling over into Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. An unstable Iraq is most definitely a threat to international peace and security.
Quote:
There is a reason no one in any position of power is trying to make this argument you are attempting to make; the argument makes no sense.
Actually, diplomacy is the reason this argument is not being publicly made by people in a position of power.
Quote:
What does the internal political struggle of Iraq have to do with international peace and security?
What did the internal political struggle in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914 have to do with international peace and security? These things have a way of spreading if left unchecked. That's why the UN exists in the first place.
Interesting bit from your link on the Iraq sanctions here...
Quote:
The US and UK governments always made it clear that they would block any lifting or serious reforming of sanctions as long as Hussein remained in power.
If the sanctions were (and I agree that they were) an example of where UN policy has failed, and a prime reason why the UN should not be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq (which I do not agree with), then how does it make sense for the strongest advocates of this policy to be running things on their own now?
Quote:
Ok... so what do we have for success? Hmmm. East Timor?
Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador, Macedonia, Tajikistan...the list is longer than you seem to realize. The UNs handling of the situations in Cambodia and Namibia in particular may be regarded as the ideal blueprints for the situation Iraq today. Of course, not all of these were unqualified successes. Human rights violations occurred in both Mozambique and El Salvador while there was a UN presence.
Of course, successful conflict prevention / resolution receives much less attention than unsuccessful conflict prevention / resolution...no matter who is attempting to carry it out.
Quote:
So we should forget that the UN's method of handling Iraq was to (a)bomb the hell out of civilian infrastructure, (b)strangle the population with sanctions, (c)support Saddam's regime by helping crush rebellions and trust that they will find a way to fix a problem they have proven time-and-time-again to be unable to fix?
No, we should not forget that the UN badly mishandled the Iraq situation in the past. That is one of the indicators of how badly the UN is in need of reform. But I somehow doubt that the Security Council is going to advocate rebuilding Iraq through bombing and sanctions now that Saddam is no longer in power.
Quote:
And why? Because they represent more nations?
Yes.
Quote:
how well represented are true international opinions in the UN?
Better than they are in the Bush administration.
Quote:
I am still not seeing where the UN has authority to manage a country's internal political structure when it has zero threat status to other countries.
Without assistance in rebuilding, Iraq presents a significant threat to international peace and security. Which is why the UN has both the authority and the obligation to manage the rebuilding process.
I know, you think intervention is ok no matter what.
I do?
Quote:
The UN isn't perfect. But neither are we. A group of countries has more of the moral right in this situation than one.
So the argument is that the UN has a moral right to govern an Iraq that hasn't asked for it to come in and govern because it is an international organization?
I've never said that the US has the moral right to govern Iraq, just that the UN has no more moral a case for governing a country that hasn't asked for such help. Especially since it's the UN Security Council that annihilated Iraq's infrastructure in the first place.
Quote:
Haven't we done enough? Some of the Iraqi people don't even want us there.
And some of them sure as hell don't want the UN there. *BOOM* *BOOM*
---
kneelbeforezod:
Quote:
Internal struggles that - left unchecked - could bring instability to the entire region. Worst case scenario would be a Kurdish uprising that led to civil war spilling over into Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. An unstable Iraq is most definitely a threat to international peace and security.
So the UN should be allowed to move in and take governing control of a nation if it *could* bring instability to their region?
Wow.
You realize, of course, that Bush based his bullshit campaign on "Saddam *could* have nukeuler bombs and he *could* give chemical weapons to... the terrarists."
Quote:
What did the internal political struggle in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914 have to do with international peace and security? These things have a way of spreading if left unchecked. That's why the UN exists in the first place.
Different nations made war on each other, pretty clear cut. Should the leaders of the US/UK/France/Russia have waltzed into the AH-Empire and said "All right, we're running things now."?
Quote:
If the sanctions were (and I agree that they were) an example of where UN policy has failed, and a prime reason why the UN should not be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq (which I do not agree with), then how does it make sense for the strongest advocates of this policy to be running things on their own now?
Because the US is already there and doing work. I haven't claimed that it's "moral" or "right" for the US to be there, but that there's nothing "moral" or "right" about the UN being there.
The very concept that ANY outside force can come in and control Iraq with any legitimacy is laughable. Others are just more wowed by the powder-blue UN uniform than others, I guess.
I don't see how the UN will help anything. They don't seem to be wanted there.
Quote:
The UNs handling of the situations in Cambodia and Namibia in particular may be regarded as the ideal blueprints for the situation Iraq today. Of course, not all of these were unqualified successes. Human rights violations occurred in both Mozambique and El Salvador while there was a UN presence.
I certainly wouldn't list those two in the successes. Cambodia, sure, their king is making noise but whatever, and I'll give you Namibia because I don't even know what freaking continent that's on.
But how the hell can those be relateable to the situation in Iraq. It's like taking little brother from little league and putting him up against a 1989 Nolan Ryan. "But he's hitting .320 in the pony leagues!"
Quote:
That is one of the indicators of how badly the UN is in need of reform. But I somehow doubt that the Security Council is going to advocate rebuilding Iraq through bombing and sanctions now that Saddam is no longer in power.
But a group of self-interested powerful nations will certainly view it with the same "divvy up the spoils" attitude they had over the sanctions. What makes you think it's all about benevolence now?
Quote:
Better than they are in the Bush administration.
Why are they more valid... or valid at all on a level the Bush Admin's isn't? Iraq isn't a freaking science experiment for the mythical "international community".
Quote:
Without assistance in rebuilding, Iraq presents a significant threat to international peace and security.
They're gettinga assistance in rebuilding and Iraq is a threat to no one, so what's the problem?
I read your link and I am not seeing this installation as ruler. Seems like the US supported the Ba'athists, yeah, that's not in question. But this Saddam "installation" is oft-repeated, never-backed.
So the argument is that the UN has a moral right to govern an Iraq that hasn't asked for it to come in and govern because it is an international organization?
I've never said that the US has the moral right to govern Iraq, just that the UN has no more moral a case for governing a country that hasn't asked for such help. Especially since it's the UN Security Council that annihilated Iraq's infrastructure in the first place.
This assertion is incorrect. The U.N. has an obligation to remove an occupying power from a sovereign nation. In this case it means the U.N. has an obligation to remove the U.S. from Iraq.
So the UN should be allowed to move in and take governing control of a nation if it *could* bring instability to their region?
Wow.
That's what it's for...the fact that it is a forum where many nation states debate the necessity for such intervention and collectively decide on the process is what gives it greater legitimacy than a single nation state.
Quote:
Different nations made war on each other, pretty clear cut. Should the leaders of the US/UK/France/Russia have waltzed into the AH-Empire and said "All right, we're running things now."?
Perhaps if the other global powers of the time had intervened the 15 million war deaths that occurred in the years 1914-1918 could have been minimized. Of course, there was no equivalent to the UN at that time to coordinate an approach.
Quote:
I haven't claimed that it's "moral" or "right" for the US to be there, but that there's nothing "moral" or "right" about the UN being there.
The very concept that ANY outside force can come in and control Iraq with any legitimacy is laughable.
So Iraq should be left to its own devices?
Quote:
But a group of self-interested powerful nations will certainly view it with the same "divvy up the spoils" attitude they had over the sanctions. What makes you think it's all about benevolence now?
UN involvement will subject the process to greater transparency. This will be beneficial to the Iraqi people, particularly seeing as the countries currently involved in the rebuilding of Iraq were the ones doing the majority of the divvying
Quote:
Why are they more valid... or valid at all on a level the Bush Admin's isn't?
Why is a decision made by democratic vote more valid than a decision made by a self-appointed dictator?
This assertion is incorrect. The U.N. has an obligation to remove an occupying power from a sovereign nation. In this case it means the U.N. has an obligation to remove the U.S. from Iraq.
And when a resolution persuant to that is brought up the US will veto it in the Security Council. HOORAY UN!
--
kneelbeforezod:
Quote:
That's what it's for...
Except that it's never done it?
Give me a case of one of the charter members of the UN-SC going in and reorganizing a foreign nation, but in the process the UN-SC decides to take over. Just give me an example of how this is "what it's for."
I know you're hoping the statement "this is what it is for" will just stand on its own, but I just can't let that go unchallenged.
Quote:
the fact that it is a forum where many nation states debate the necessity for such intervention and collectively decide on the process is what gives it greater legitimacy than a single nation state.
That's part of the problem, the veil and illusion of "legitimacy" allowed many powerful nations to slaughter the Iraqis via sanctions when any one nation doing so on its own would have been untenable.
Quote:
Perhaps if the other global powers of the time had intervened the 15 million war deaths that occurred in the years 1914-1918 could have been minimized. Of course, there was no equivalent to the UN at that time to coordinate an approach.
And this is comparable to Iraq:2003... how?
Quote:
So Iraq should be left to its own devices?
Depends on what you mean by "should". Unfortunately the process is more complicated than "UN or nothing".
Since there is no international peace problem there is no need for the UN to get involved in governing Iraq. If the US loses control and it all goes apeshit then yeah, it's time for the UN.
You seem to be completely missing my point or else you wouldn't ask morally relative things like "should".
Quote:
UN involvement will subject the process to greater transparency.
And those are just the oil-for-food program, a supposedly compassionate mission to reduce the effects of their horrible sanctions.
There is nothing transparent about the way the UN handles large sums of money. Again, your faith in the UN-SC is disturbingly naive. How many millions will die as they stand ineptly by before you realize it's a collosal cluster****?
Quote:
This will be beneficial to the Iraqi people, particularly seeing as the countries currently involved in the rebuilding of Iraq were the ones doing the majority of the divvying.
And those exact same nations will be the ones continuing the divvying, but wearing UN patches on their arms.
Quote:
Why is a decision made by democratic vote more valid than a decision made by a self-appointed dictator?
I was providing an example of how regional instability can spread. I'm pretty sure that this was within your ability to comprehend so I'm going to have to assume you are just being obtuse
Quote:
Depends on what you mean by "should". Unfortunately the process is more complicated than "UN or nothing".
Since there is no international peace problem there is no need for the UN to get involved in governing Iraq. If the US loses control and it all goes apeshit then yeah, it's time for the UN.
You seem to be completely missing my point or else you wouldn't ask morally relative things like "should".
Yeah the process is complicated, and there is a possibility that the US will carry it off without a hitch...but the Bush administration is not doing very promisingly so far. I think it's better that the UN go in now.
Quote:
There is nothing transparent about the way the UN handles large sums of money.
Did you even look at those links? This wasn't the UN skimming, it was Saddam's regime. They're gone now, remember?
Quote:
From the IHT article:
The Iraqi employees - charged with monitoring Saddam Hussein's imports and distribution of relief goods - of course all had to be approved by the Ba'ath Party.
Quote:
Again, your faith in the UN-SC is disturbingly naive. How many millions will die as they stand ineptly by before you realize it's a collosal cluster****?
Hyperbole.
Quote:
And those exact same nations will be the ones continuing the divvying, but wearing UN patches on their arms.
What makes you think this will happen? Can you provide a prior instance where this occured?
But we won. I doubt the UN would do any better and mostly likely worse.
We won? Just what did we win, Scott? We won a huge debt ($160 Billion so far), we won a lot of hate from the Arab community and we won a bunch of disrespect from the rest of the world. Who's "we" anyway? Defense and oil service contractors?
We haven't won the war, yet. It's changed in character to a guerilla style conflict and its getting nastier daily for the coalition troops. Ever since "we won", according to Bush, more troops have been killed and injured than during the invasion phase. Just try telling that "we won" BS to the troops currently stationed out there, and the widows of (350 so far) troops who have been killed for the bottom lines of Halliburton and others.
Oh, don't forget these "winners"...Islamic fundie groups now setting up shop in Iraq, including al qaeda.
I was providing an example of how regional instability can spread. I'm pretty sure that this was within your ability to comprehend so I'm going to have to assume you are just being obtuse.
And Rwanda is an example of how the UN is a useless cluster****... I was merely asking for how they were comparable.
Quote:
Yeah the process is complicated, and there is a possibility that the US will carry it off without a hitch...but the Bush administration is not doing very promisingly so far. I think it's better that the UN go in now.
Could you outline what, exactly, would be improving? Anything specific would be nice.
Quote:
Did you even look at those links? This wasn't the UN skimming, it was Saddam's regime. They're gone now, remember?
The first one was Saddam skimming. And past that, the system obviously wasn't transparent if it took this long to find Saddam Freaking Hussein skimming billions of dollars from it.
The UN collected $12 billion in "administrative costs".
How about UK MP Galloway extorting hundreds of thousands?
As far as being "gone now", so is the oil-for-food program.
Quote:
Hyperbole.
I suppose if you want to ignore the direct effects of the UN's war-making and sanctions in Iraq...
Quote:
What makes you think this will happen? Can you provide a prior instance where this occured?
The US was one of the main players in sanctions; the US turned around and became the main player in removing sanctions.
If the UN were to come in and the US were to leave, the vast majority of the work would still be done by the US, just like the first Gulf War.
Could you outline what, exactly, would be improving? Anything specific would be nice.
Keeping criminal scumbag cronies of the Bush administration - people like, say, Ahmad Chalabi - from having any involvement would be a nice start.
Quote:
The UN collected $12 billion in "administrative costs".
I think you may have misread that article. The accounts in which the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil were held had balances of $12 billion. The UN administrative costs at the time that article was written were $1 billion.
Quote:
How about UK MP Galloway extorting hundreds of thousands?
How about some more information for some balance? You know both sides of story? Or are you ready to admit you are ignorant and don't have full information?
Comments
What I quoted above addresses the fact that the purpose of the UN is to maintain international peace and security. The successful rebuilding of Iraq is necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. Therefore, it is the UN that should be administering the process through which Iraq is rebuilt.
That is a frightening leap in logic. You are assigning the UN a lot of power there.
And aside from that, Iraq is not a threat to international security or peace. They have internal struggles, that's the problem.
There is a reason no one in any position of power is trying to make this argument you are attempting to make; the argument makes no sense.
The US ceded primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security to the UN. The current rebuilding of Iraq is not - of course - addressed specifically. You will often find that charters and constitutions do not address specific events.
What does the internal political struggle of Iraq have to do with international peace and security?
Sure. It's written here.
Copy/paste please.
Source?
Rwanda, Iraq sanctions, Yugoslavia...
Ok... so what do we have for success? Hmmm. East Timor?
But the UN represents a lot of countries and a lot more people than the Bush administration. This is what gives the UN far greater legitimacy than the US where matters of international peace and security are concerned.
So we should forget that the UN's method of handling Iraq was to (a)bomb the hell out of civilian infrastructure, (b)strangle the population with sanctions, (c)support Saddam's regime by helping crush rebellions and trust that they will find a way to fix a problem they have proven time-and-time-again to be unable to fix?
And why? Because they represent more nations?
Tell me... how well represented are true international opinions in the UN?
I believe that they do. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my language, however. Substitute 'Articles of the UN Charter' for 'rules and procedures' and then re-read my earlier posts.
I am still not seeing where the UN has authority to manage a country's internal political structure when it has zero threat status to other countries.
I read your link and I am not seeing this installation as ruler. Seems like the US supported the Ba'athists, yeah, that's not in question. But this Saddam "installation" is oft-repeated, never-backed.
Originally posted by groverat
kneelbeforezod:
That is a frightening leap in logic. You are assigning the UN a lot of power there.
And aside from that, Iraq is not a threat to international security or peace. They have internal struggles, that's the problem.
There is a reason no one in any position of power is trying to make this argument you are attempting to make; the argument makes no sense.
What does the internal political struggle of Iraq have to do with international peace and security?
Copy/paste please.
Rwanda, Iraq sanctions, Yugoslavia...
Ok... so what do we have for success? Hmmm. East Timor?
So we should forget that the UN's method of handling Iraq was to (a)bomb the hell out of civilian infrastructure, (b)strangle the population with sanctions, (c)support Saddam's regime by helping crush rebellions and trust that they will find a way to fix a problem they have proven time-and-time-again to be unable to fix?
And why? Because they represent more nations?
Tell me... how well represented are true international opinions in the UN?
I am still not seeing where the UN has authority to manage a country's internal political structure when it has zero threat status to other countries.
Man if ever I've heard a totally subjective argument this it! What we did in Iraq was wrong. Once we start throwing our weight around like that we become just like Iraq. Just like the terrorists. We become the bad guys.
I know, you think intervention is ok no matter what. You also think the president lying is ok also.
The UN isn't perfect. But neither are we. A group of countries has more of the moral right in this situation than one.
I've said it before Groverat. There are many places in the world that are suffering just like iraq. Why did we pick this one? The truth is for other reasons than freeing it's people. That's becoming more obvious all the time.
Haven't we done enough? Some of the Iraqi people don't even want us there.
We've already spent a ton of money there.
We have problems of our own that Bush should be looking at.
Also please if you want me to believe that our dishonest president is a great humanitarian I'm going to puke!
Originally posted by groverat
That is a frightening leap in logic. You are assigning the UN a lot of power there.
Not me. The member states of the UN assigned this power.
And aside from that, Iraq is not a threat to international security or peace. They have internal struggles, that's the problem.
Internal struggles that - left unchecked - could bring instability to the entire region. Worst case scenario would be a Kurdish uprising that led to civil war spilling over into Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. An unstable Iraq is most definitely a threat to international peace and security.
There is a reason no one in any position of power is trying to make this argument you are attempting to make; the argument makes no sense.
Actually, diplomacy is the reason this argument is not being publicly made by people in a position of power.
What does the internal political struggle of Iraq have to do with international peace and security?
What did the internal political struggle in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914 have to do with international peace and security? These things have a way of spreading if left unchecked. That's why the UN exists in the first place.
Copy/paste please.
Don't be so lazy.
Rwanda, Iraq sanctions, Yugoslavia...
Interesting bit from your link on the Iraq sanctions here...
The US and UK governments always made it clear that they would block any lifting or serious reforming of sanctions as long as Hussein remained in power.
If the sanctions were (and I agree that they were) an example of where UN policy has failed, and a prime reason why the UN should not be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq (which I do not agree with), then how does it make sense for the strongest advocates of this policy to be running things on their own now?
Ok... so what do we have for success? Hmmm. East Timor?
Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador, Macedonia, Tajikistan...the list is longer than you seem to realize. The UNs handling of the situations in Cambodia and Namibia in particular may be regarded as the ideal blueprints for the situation Iraq today. Of course, not all of these were unqualified successes. Human rights violations occurred in both Mozambique and El Salvador while there was a UN presence.
Of course, successful conflict prevention / resolution receives much less attention than unsuccessful conflict prevention / resolution...no matter who is attempting to carry it out.
So we should forget that the UN's method of handling Iraq was to (a)bomb the hell out of civilian infrastructure, (b)strangle the population with sanctions, (c)support Saddam's regime by helping crush rebellions and trust that they will find a way to fix a problem they have proven time-and-time-again to be unable to fix?
No, we should not forget that the UN badly mishandled the Iraq situation in the past. That is one of the indicators of how badly the UN is in need of reform. But I somehow doubt that the Security Council is going to advocate rebuilding Iraq through bombing and sanctions now that Saddam is no longer in power.
And why? Because they represent more nations?
Yes.
how well represented are true international opinions in the UN?
Better than they are in the Bush administration.
I am still not seeing where the UN has authority to manage a country's internal political structure when it has zero threat status to other countries.
Without assistance in rebuilding, Iraq presents a significant threat to international peace and security. Which is why the UN has both the authority and the obligation to manage the rebuilding process.
I know, you think intervention is ok no matter what.
I do?
The UN isn't perfect. But neither are we. A group of countries has more of the moral right in this situation than one.
So the argument is that the UN has a moral right to govern an Iraq that hasn't asked for it to come in and govern because it is an international organization?
I've never said that the US has the moral right to govern Iraq, just that the UN has no more moral a case for governing a country that hasn't asked for such help. Especially since it's the UN Security Council that annihilated Iraq's infrastructure in the first place.
Haven't we done enough? Some of the Iraqi people don't even want us there.
And some of them sure as hell don't want the UN there. *BOOM* *BOOM*
---
kneelbeforezod:
Internal struggles that - left unchecked - could bring instability to the entire region. Worst case scenario would be a Kurdish uprising that led to civil war spilling over into Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. An unstable Iraq is most definitely a threat to international peace and security.
So the UN should be allowed to move in and take governing control of a nation if it *could* bring instability to their region?
Wow.
You realize, of course, that Bush based his bullshit campaign on "Saddam *could* have nukeuler bombs and he *could* give chemical weapons to... the terrarists."
What did the internal political struggle in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914 have to do with international peace and security? These things have a way of spreading if left unchecked. That's why the UN exists in the first place.
Different nations made war on each other, pretty clear cut. Should the leaders of the US/UK/France/Russia have waltzed into the AH-Empire and said "All right, we're running things now."?
If the sanctions were (and I agree that they were) an example of where UN policy has failed, and a prime reason why the UN should not be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq (which I do not agree with), then how does it make sense for the strongest advocates of this policy to be running things on their own now?
Because the US is already there and doing work. I haven't claimed that it's "moral" or "right" for the US to be there, but that there's nothing "moral" or "right" about the UN being there.
The very concept that ANY outside force can come in and control Iraq with any legitimacy is laughable. Others are just more wowed by the powder-blue UN uniform than others, I guess.
I don't see how the UN will help anything. They don't seem to be wanted there.
The UNs handling of the situations in Cambodia and Namibia in particular may be regarded as the ideal blueprints for the situation Iraq today. Of course, not all of these were unqualified successes. Human rights violations occurred in both Mozambique and El Salvador while there was a UN presence.
I certainly wouldn't list those two in the successes. Cambodia, sure, their king is making noise but whatever, and I'll give you Namibia because I don't even know what freaking continent that's on.
But how the hell can those be relateable to the situation in Iraq. It's like taking little brother from little league and putting him up against a 1989 Nolan Ryan. "But he's hitting .320 in the pony leagues!"
That is one of the indicators of how badly the UN is in need of reform. But I somehow doubt that the Security Council is going to advocate rebuilding Iraq through bombing and sanctions now that Saddam is no longer in power.
But a group of self-interested powerful nations will certainly view it with the same "divvy up the spoils" attitude they had over the sanctions. What makes you think it's all about benevolence now?
Better than they are in the Bush administration.
Why are they more valid... or valid at all on a level the Bush Admin's isn't? Iraq isn't a freaking science experiment for the mythical "international community".
Without assistance in rebuilding, Iraq presents a significant threat to international peace and security.
They're gettinga assistance in rebuilding and Iraq is a threat to no one, so what's the problem?
Originally posted by groverat
New:
I read your link and I am not seeing this installation as ruler. Seems like the US supported the Ba'athists, yeah, that's not in question. But this Saddam "installation" is oft-repeated, never-backed.
The quote was "helped install", ingnorastradmus.
Please tell me how we helped "install" him? We helped him with Iran and ... what else?
Originally posted by groverat
So the argument is that the UN has a moral right to govern an Iraq that hasn't asked for it to come in and govern because it is an international organization?
I've never said that the US has the moral right to govern Iraq, just that the UN has no more moral a case for governing a country that hasn't asked for such help. Especially since it's the UN Security Council that annihilated Iraq's infrastructure in the first place.
This assertion is incorrect. The U.N. has an obligation to remove an occupying power from a sovereign nation. In this case it means the U.N. has an obligation to remove the U.S. from Iraq.
Originally posted by groverat
So the UN should be allowed to move in and take governing control of a nation if it *could* bring instability to their region?
Wow.
That's what it's for...the fact that it is a forum where many nation states debate the necessity for such intervention and collectively decide on the process is what gives it greater legitimacy than a single nation state.
Different nations made war on each other, pretty clear cut. Should the leaders of the US/UK/France/Russia have waltzed into the AH-Empire and said "All right, we're running things now."?
Perhaps if the other global powers of the time had intervened the 15 million war deaths that occurred in the years 1914-1918 could have been minimized. Of course, there was no equivalent to the UN at that time to coordinate an approach.
I haven't claimed that it's "moral" or "right" for the US to be there, but that there's nothing "moral" or "right" about the UN being there.
The very concept that ANY outside force can come in and control Iraq with any legitimacy is laughable.
So Iraq should be left to its own devices?
But a group of self-interested powerful nations will certainly view it with the same "divvy up the spoils" attitude they had over the sanctions. What makes you think it's all about benevolence now?
UN involvement will subject the process to greater transparency. This will be beneficial to the Iraqi people, particularly seeing as the countries currently involved in the rebuilding of Iraq were the ones doing the majority of the divvying
Why are they more valid... or valid at all on a level the Bush Admin's isn't?
Why is a decision made by democratic vote more valid than a decision made by a self-appointed dictator?
This assertion is incorrect. The U.N. has an obligation to remove an occupying power from a sovereign nation. In this case it means the U.N. has an obligation to remove the U.S. from Iraq.
And when a resolution persuant to that is brought up the US will veto it in the Security Council. HOORAY UN!
--
kneelbeforezod:
That's what it's for...
Except that it's never done it?
Give me a case of one of the charter members of the UN-SC going in and reorganizing a foreign nation, but in the process the UN-SC decides to take over. Just give me an example of how this is "what it's for."
I know you're hoping the statement "this is what it is for" will just stand on its own, but I just can't let that go unchallenged.
the fact that it is a forum where many nation states debate the necessity for such intervention and collectively decide on the process is what gives it greater legitimacy than a single nation state.
That's part of the problem, the veil and illusion of "legitimacy" allowed many powerful nations to slaughter the Iraqis via sanctions when any one nation doing so on its own would have been untenable.
Perhaps if the other global powers of the time had intervened the 15 million war deaths that occurred in the years 1914-1918 could have been minimized. Of course, there was no equivalent to the UN at that time to coordinate an approach.
And this is comparable to Iraq:2003... how?
So Iraq should be left to its own devices?
Depends on what you mean by "should". Unfortunately the process is more complicated than "UN or nothing".
Since there is no international peace problem there is no need for the UN to get involved in governing Iraq. If the US loses control and it all goes apeshit then yeah, it's time for the UN.
You seem to be completely missing my point or else you wouldn't ask morally relative things like "should".
UN involvement will subject the process to greater transparency.
Bullshit.
False.
Amazingly inaccurate.
And those are just the oil-for-food program, a supposedly compassionate mission to reduce the effects of their horrible sanctions.
There is nothing transparent about the way the UN handles large sums of money. Again, your faith in the UN-SC is disturbingly naive. How many millions will die as they stand ineptly by before you realize it's a collosal cluster****?
This will be beneficial to the Iraqi people, particularly seeing as the countries currently involved in the rebuilding of Iraq were the ones doing the majority of the divvying.
And those exact same nations will be the ones continuing the divvying, but wearing UN patches on their arms.
Why is a decision made by democratic vote more valid than a decision made by a self-appointed dictator?
The Iraqi people have a vote in the UN-SC?
Originally posted by groverat
And when a resolution persuant to that is brought up the US will veto it in the Security Council.
At least you'll admit you were wrong.
At least you'll admit you were wrong.
About what?
Originally posted by groverat
And this is comparable to Iraq:2003... how?
I was providing an example of how regional instability can spread. I'm pretty sure that this was within your ability to comprehend so I'm going to have to assume you are just being obtuse
Depends on what you mean by "should". Unfortunately the process is more complicated than "UN or nothing".
Since there is no international peace problem there is no need for the UN to get involved in governing Iraq. If the US loses control and it all goes apeshit then yeah, it's time for the UN.
You seem to be completely missing my point or else you wouldn't ask morally relative things like "should".
Yeah the process is complicated, and there is a possibility that the US will carry it off without a hitch...but the Bush administration is not doing very promisingly so far. I think it's better that the UN go in now.
There is nothing transparent about the way the UN handles large sums of money.
Did you even look at those links? This wasn't the UN skimming, it was Saddam's regime. They're gone now, remember?
From the IHT article:
The Iraqi employees - charged with monitoring Saddam Hussein's imports and distribution of relief goods - of course all had to be approved by the Ba'ath Party.
Again, your faith in the UN-SC is disturbingly naive. How many millions will die as they stand ineptly by before you realize it's a collosal cluster****?
Hyperbole.
And those exact same nations will be the ones continuing the divvying, but wearing UN patches on their arms.
What makes you think this will happen? Can you provide a prior instance where this occured?
Originally posted by Scott
But we won. I doubt the UN would do any better and mostly likely worse.
We won? Just what did we win, Scott? We won a huge debt ($160 Billion so far), we won a lot of hate from the Arab community and we won a bunch of disrespect from the rest of the world. Who's "we" anyway? Defense and oil service contractors?
We haven't won the war, yet. It's changed in character to a guerilla style conflict and its getting nastier daily for the coalition troops. Ever since "we won", according to Bush, more troops have been killed and injured than during the invasion phase. Just try telling that "we won" BS to the troops currently stationed out there, and the widows of (350 so far) troops who have been killed for the bottom lines of Halliburton and others.
Oh, don't forget these "winners"...Islamic fundie groups now setting up shop in Iraq, including al qaeda.
I was providing an example of how regional instability can spread. I'm pretty sure that this was within your ability to comprehend so I'm going to have to assume you are just being obtuse.
And Rwanda is an example of how the UN is a useless cluster****... I was merely asking for how they were comparable.
Yeah the process is complicated, and there is a possibility that the US will carry it off without a hitch...but the Bush administration is not doing very promisingly so far. I think it's better that the UN go in now.
Could you outline what, exactly, would be improving? Anything specific would be nice.
Did you even look at those links? This wasn't the UN skimming, it was Saddam's regime. They're gone now, remember?
The first one was Saddam skimming. And past that, the system obviously wasn't transparent if it took this long to find Saddam Freaking Hussein skimming billions of dollars from it.
The UN collected $12 billion in "administrative costs".
How about UK MP Galloway extorting hundreds of thousands?
As far as being "gone now", so is the oil-for-food program.
Hyperbole.
I suppose if you want to ignore the direct effects of the UN's war-making and sanctions in Iraq...
What makes you think this will happen? Can you provide a prior instance where this occured?
The US was one of the main players in sanctions; the US turned around and became the main player in removing sanctions.
If the UN were to come in and the US were to leave, the vast majority of the work would still be done by the US, just like the first Gulf War.
Could you outline what, exactly, would be improving? Anything specific would be nice.
Keeping criminal scumbag cronies of the Bush administration - people like, say, Ahmad Chalabi - from having any involvement would be a nice start.
The UN collected $12 billion in "administrative costs".
I think you may have misread that article. The accounts in which the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil were held had balances of $12 billion. The UN administrative costs at the time that article was written were $1 billion.
How about UK MP Galloway extorting hundreds of thousands?
The Galloway papers were forgeries.
I suppose if you want to ignore the direct effects of the UN's war-making and sanctions in Iraq...
I don't know why you think anyone is trying to ignore the effect of the sanctions...nor why you imagine that the UN is going to impose them again.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Keeping criminal scumbag cronies of the Bush administration - people like, say, Ahmad Chalabi - from having any involvement would be a nice start.
...
"criminal scumbag"? Hummmm? What do you base that on? Please give full details. Both sides of the story. Try not to be bias and ignorant.
Originally posted by Scott
"criminal scumbag"? Hummmm? What do you base that on? Please give full details. Both sides of the story. Try not to be bias and ignorant.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...936304,00.html
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...936304,00.html
How about some more information for some balance? You know both sides of story? Or are you ready to admit you are ignorant and don't have full information?