To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace
[...]
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
[...]
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The UN Charter was signed and ratified by the US as a treaty in 1945 and, as per Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution, treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate that comply with the constitution are part of the "supreme law of the land."
Nothing you've posted here says that this matter is solely the UN's. Nothing you've posted here bars the US from being in "administrative control of Iraq".
Nothing you've posted here says that this matter is solely the UN's. Nothing you've posted here bars the US from being in "administrative control of Iraq".
It says that these matters are primarily the UN's responsibility. I was responding directly to your request for a source for my assertion that "the US has signed and ratified conventions and treaties placing such responsibilities squarely in the mandate of the UN."
The simple fact is that the UN charter, having been signed and ratified by the US and being in compliance with the US Constitution, is US law.
The UN Charter - and therefore US law - states that:
Quote:
Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
So why has the Bush administration not complied with US law and requested that the UN fulfil its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security by taking over the rebuilding of Iraq?
That doesn't mean they defer to the UN. Nor does it mean that the UN has sole responsibility. Come dude. Get grip.
One of the greatest misconceptions about being a member of the UN is that the US gave up it's sovereignty to the UN. It did not.
Nowhere did I imply that, and nowhere in the UN charter is a forfeiture of sovereignty demanded (quite the opposite)...but when the US signed up to the UN it agreed to follow certain rules and procedures, enshrining them in US law.
A number of those rules indicate that the UN has primary responsibility for situations like the current one in Iraq. The Bush administration disregarded - and continues to disregard - this set of rules in direct contravention of the UN charter, US law and common sense. I don't want to be paying for a multi-billion dollar war (money which could be better spent on a myriad of better things at home) for the rest of my life just so the Bushies can guarantee fat contracts for their cronies and corporate purse-holders. The rest of the world benefits from stability in Iraq. The UN is willing to take a role - which would include part of the financial burden - in rebuilding.
Because in today's global situation ( not national ) it's more than just one country controling. As it should be. You're having trouble grasping this concept? Wake up and welcome to the 21rst century. Smell the coffee.
Are you asserting that the UN represents the world?
--
bunge:
Quote:
I believe Iraq has asked for more U.N. intervention and less U.S.
Who did?
--
Gilsch:
Quote:
So in your estimation that's a factor for the UN to not get involved? LOL. Maybe you have heard the Iraqis say they don't want to have representation at the UN?
I never said anything about them not getting involved, I just addressed the assertion that the UN has some inherent right to govern Iraq.
Quote:
Yeah, cause them killing and wounding US soldiers almost at a rate of one dead and 10 wounded per day and them holding anti-US marches daily means they love us of course.
Since I never said "they love us" or that the US had an inherent right to govern Iraq, I don't know what you're arguing against.
A UN occupation of Iraq would be just as "unjust" as a US occupation.
--
kneelbeforezod:
Quote:
The US has no right to take administrative control of Iraq because - as a founding member of the UN - the US has signed and ratified conventions and treaties placing such responsibilities squarely in the mandate of the UN.
So the UN has a right to govern Iraq because the US said it does? Hmm.
Quote:
How is it illogical to say that the UN (which, once again, deals with situations like the current one in Iraq by design) should take over...particularly since the restoration of order is not progressing as promised?
What promise? What about the UN would tell you that they would do anything better than the US does alone?
Quote:
A number of those rules indicate that the UN has primary responsibility for situations like the current one in Iraq.
Which rules? Where?
You have access to everything you need and you say they are there, show me.
So the UN has a right to govern Iraq because the US said it does? Hmm.
Not quite. The US - along with the other member states of the UN - ceeded primary responsibility for such matters to the UN. So I suppose you could say that the UN has a right to administer the rebuilding of Iraq because all of its 191 member states have said it does.
Quote:
What promise? What about the UN would tell you that they would do anything better than the US does alone?
The UN has had its failures over the years, but it has also had successes (over 170 conflicts resolved successfully). It has the resources of the US and the other 190 member states and it has the legitimacy that, thanks to the unilateral actions and hubris of the Bush administration, the US does not.
Quote:
Which rules? Where?
You have access to everything you need and you say they are there, show me.
This concept that legitimacy can only be granted by the UN is one of the most dangerous things to come out of all of this. Kofi Annan is way off base and out of line when he suggests this.
It seems to me that an organization represented by 191 different soverign nations(including the U.S.,/Britain "coalition") is more qualified to grant legitimacy than any other single institution or country in the world. The fact that there is debate among all of these countries can only strengthen the final decision of the U.N. to either enter Iraq or leave it up to the U.S. I feel that the U.N. should go into Iraq and help secure Iraq's future as a safe and stable nation(sadly, many years off, I think), simply because of the moral justification to do so...Lives will be saved if there is more cooperation and man power(the US forces are stretched pretty thin at the moment) on the ground.
It seems to me that an organization represented by 191 different soverign nations(including the U.S.,/Britain "coalition") is more qualified to grant legitimacy than any other single institution or country in the world. The fact that there is debate among all of these countries can only strengthen the final decision of the U.N. to either enter Iraq or leave it up to the U.S. I feel that the U.N. should go into Iraq and help secure Iraq's future as a safe and stable nation(sadly, many years off, I think), simply because of the moral justification to do so...Lives will be saved if there is more cooperation and man power(the US forces are stretched pretty thin at the moment) on the ground.
-Dual867
(Sorry for the abundance of brackets!!)
Ask Taiwan how they feel about that.
The UN recognized Iraq but you could never call that government legitimate.
The UN recognized Iraq but you could never call that government legitimate.
Spin, spin, spin.
Of course, no senior ranking official of the US gov't ever dealt with the Iraqi gov't, thereby actually recognizing it, right?
As usually, your facts are lopsided as well: the UN imposed sanctions agains Iraq since '90 (UN link. Hardly the message you send to a regime you embrace...
What you quoted above says nothing about taking administrative control of a nation that hasn't asked you to do so.
You still haven't shown where they have the authority to go in and govern Iraq.
Quote:
The US - along with the other member states of the UN - ceeded primary responsibility for such matters to the UN.
Again with "such matters"... where are these outlined?
And, to cede something one must first have possession. So the US *had* the right to govern Iraq but gave it to the UN?
Quote:
So I suppose you could say that the UN has a right to administer the rebuilding of Iraq because all of its 191 member states have said it does.
Can you show me where that is written?
Quote:
The UN has had its failures over the years, but it has also had successes (over 170 conflicts resolved successfully).
Failures >>>>>> successes
Quote:
It has the resources of the US and the other 190 member states and it has the legitimacy that, thanks to the unilateral actions and hubris of the Bush administration, the US does not.
Ah, "legitimacy".
I wonder what the people of Rwanda have to say about the UN's legitimacy. Or even the people of Iraq, who suffered under the UN's murderous sanctions for 12 years. Well, we already know if the bombings of the UN HQ in Iraq are worth paying attention to.
What you quoted above says nothing about taking administrative control of a nation that hasn't asked you to do so.
You still haven't shown where they have the authority to go in and govern Iraq.
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.
Quote:
Again with "such matters"... where are these outlined?
Again, in the UN charter.
Quote:
And, to cede something one must first have possession. So the US *had* the right to govern Iraq but gave it to the UN?
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.
I wonder what the people of Rwanda have to say about the UN's legitimacy. Or even the people of Iraq, who suffered under the UN's murderous sanctions for 12 years. Well, we already know if the bombings of the UN HQ in Iraq are worth paying attention to.
I'm sure many Rwandans and Iraqis are highly dubious about the UN and hold it in a very low regard. The sanctions on Iraq and the impact they had on the Iraqi people were disgusting. 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. if you don't like it, take it up with FDR for thinking the whole thing up.
Quote:
They [quotes] don't address the topic.
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.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Source?
Open a history book.
Originally posted by Scott
Source?
Start here
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
Originally posted by Scott
Source?
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace
[...]
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
[...]
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The UN Charter was signed and ratified by the US as a treaty in 1945 and, as per Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution, treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate that comply with the constitution are part of the "supreme law of the land."
Originally posted by Scott
Nothing you've posted here says that this matter is solely the UN's. Nothing you've posted here bars the US from being in "administrative control of Iraq".
It says that these matters are primarily the UN's responsibility. I was responding directly to your request for a source for my assertion that "the US has signed and ratified conventions and treaties placing such responsibilities squarely in the mandate of the UN."
The simple fact is that the UN charter, having been signed and ratified by the US and being in compliance with the US Constitution, is US law.
The UN Charter - and therefore US law - states that:
Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
So why has the Bush administration not complied with US law and requested that the UN fulfil its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security by taking over the rebuilding of Iraq?
One of the greatest misconceptions about being a member of the UN is that the US gave up it's sovereignty to the UN. It did not.
Originally posted by Scott
That doesn't mean they defer to the UN. Nor does it mean that the UN has sole responsibility. Come dude. Get grip.
One of the greatest misconceptions about being a member of the UN is that the US gave up it's sovereignty to the UN. It did not.
Nowhere did I imply that, and nowhere in the UN charter is a forfeiture of sovereignty demanded (quite the opposite)...but when the US signed up to the UN it agreed to follow certain rules and procedures, enshrining them in US law.
A number of those rules indicate that the UN has primary responsibility for situations like the current one in Iraq. The Bush administration disregarded - and continues to disregard - this set of rules in direct contravention of the UN charter, US law and common sense. I don't want to be paying for a multi-billion dollar war (money which could be better spent on a myriad of better things at home) for the rest of my life just so the Bushies can guarantee fat contracts for their cronies and corporate purse-holders. The rest of the world benefits from stability in Iraq. The UN is willing to take a role - which would include part of the financial burden - in rebuilding.
Because in today's global situation ( not national ) it's more than just one country controling. As it should be. You're having trouble grasping this concept? Wake up and welcome to the 21rst century. Smell the coffee.
Are you asserting that the UN represents the world?
--
bunge:
I believe Iraq has asked for more U.N. intervention and less U.S.
Who did?
--
Gilsch:
So in your estimation that's a factor for the UN to not get involved? LOL. Maybe you have heard the Iraqis say they don't want to have representation at the UN?
I never said anything about them not getting involved, I just addressed the assertion that the UN has some inherent right to govern Iraq.
Yeah, cause them killing and wounding US soldiers almost at a rate of one dead and 10 wounded per day and them holding anti-US marches daily means they love us of course.
Since I never said "they love us" or that the US had an inherent right to govern Iraq, I don't know what you're arguing against.
A UN occupation of Iraq would be just as "unjust" as a US occupation.
--
kneelbeforezod:
The US has no right to take administrative control of Iraq because - as a founding member of the UN - the US has signed and ratified conventions and treaties placing such responsibilities squarely in the mandate of the UN.
So the UN has a right to govern Iraq because the US said it does? Hmm.
How is it illogical to say that the UN (which, once again, deals with situations like the current one in Iraq by design) should take over...particularly since the restoration of order is not progressing as promised?
What promise? What about the UN would tell you that they would do anything better than the US does alone?
A number of those rules indicate that the UN has primary responsibility for situations like the current one in Iraq.
Which rules? Where?
You have access to everything you need and you say they are there, show me.
Originally posted by groverat
So the UN has a right to govern Iraq because the US said it does? Hmm.
Not quite. The US - along with the other member states of the UN - ceeded primary responsibility for such matters to the UN. So I suppose you could say that the UN has a right to administer the rebuilding of Iraq because all of its 191 member states have said it does.
What promise? What about the UN would tell you that they would do anything better than the US does alone?
The UN has had its failures over the years, but it has also had successes (over 170 conflicts resolved successfully). It has the resources of the US and the other 190 member states and it has the legitimacy that, thanks to the unilateral actions and hubris of the Bush administration, the US does not.
Which rules? Where?
You have access to everything you need and you say they are there, show me.
See relevent quotes posted previously.
-Dual867
(Sorry for the abundance of brackets!!)
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:
Are you asserting that the UN represents the world?
--
bunge:
Who did?
--
Gilsch:
I never said anything about them not getting involved, I just addressed the assertion that the UN has some inherent right to govern Iraq.
Since I never said "they love us" or that the US had an inherent right to govern Iraq, I don't know what you're arguing against.
A UN occupation of Iraq would be just as "unjust" as a US occupation.
--
kneelbeforezod:
So the UN has a right to govern Iraq because the US said it does? Hmm.
What promise? What about the UN would tell you that they would do anything better than the US does alone?
Which rules? Where?
You have access to everything you need and you say they are there, show me.
As to your first point yes more than the U S could. Nothing's perfect you know.
Originally posted by Dual867
It seems to me that an organization represented by 191 different soverign nations(including the U.S.,/Britain "coalition") is more qualified to grant legitimacy than any other single institution or country in the world. The fact that there is debate among all of these countries can only strengthen the final decision of the U.N. to either enter Iraq or leave it up to the U.S. I feel that the U.N. should go into Iraq and help secure Iraq's future as a safe and stable nation(sadly, many years off, I think), simply because of the moral justification to do so...Lives will be saved if there is more cooperation and man power(the US forces are stretched pretty thin at the moment) on the ground.
-Dual867
(Sorry for the abundance of brackets!!)
Ask Taiwan how they feel about that.
The UN recognized Iraq but you could never call that government legitimate.
Originally posted by Scott
The UN recognized Iraq but you could never call that government legitimate.
Spin, spin, spin.
Of course, no senior ranking official of the US gov't ever dealt with the Iraqi gov't, thereby actually recognizing it, right?
As usually, your facts are lopsided as well: the UN imposed sanctions agains Iraq since '90 (UN link. Hardly the message you send to a regime you embrace...
Originally posted by Scott
The UN recognized Iraq but you could never call that government legitimate.
To bad the US helped installing Saddam in the first place...
What you quoted above says nothing about taking administrative control of a nation that hasn't asked you to do so.
You still haven't shown where they have the authority to go in and govern Iraq.
The US - along with the other member states of the UN - ceeded primary responsibility for such matters to the UN.
Again with "such matters"... where are these outlined?
And, to cede something one must first have possession. So the US *had* the right to govern Iraq but gave it to the UN?
So I suppose you could say that the UN has a right to administer the rebuilding of Iraq because all of its 191 member states have said it does.
Can you show me where that is written?
The UN has had its failures over the years, but it has also had successes (over 170 conflicts resolved successfully).
Failures >>>>>> successes
It has the resources of the US and the other 190 member states and it has the legitimacy that, thanks to the unilateral actions and hubris of the Bush administration, the US does not.
Ah, "legitimacy".
I wonder what the people of Rwanda have to say about the UN's legitimacy. Or even the people of Iraq, who suffered under the UN's murderous sanctions for 12 years. Well, we already know if the bombings of the UN HQ in Iraq are worth paying attention to.
See relevent quotes posted previously.
They don't address the topic.
Originally posted by New
To bad the US helped installing Saddam in the first place...
Please tell me how we helped "install" him? We helped him with Iran and ... what else?
Originally posted by groverat
What you quoted above says nothing about taking administrative control of a nation that hasn't asked you to do so.
You still haven't shown where they have the authority to go in and govern Iraq.
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.
Again with "such matters"... where are these outlined?
Again, in the UN charter.
And, to cede something one must first have possession. So the US *had* the right to govern Iraq but gave it to the UN?
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.
Can you show me where that is written?
Sure. It's written here.
Failures >>>>>> successes
Source?
Ah, "legitimacy".
I wonder what the people of Rwanda have to say about the UN's legitimacy. Or even the people of Iraq, who suffered under the UN's murderous sanctions for 12 years. Well, we already know if the bombings of the UN HQ in Iraq are worth paying attention to.
I'm sure many Rwandans and Iraqis are highly dubious about the UN and hold it in a very low regard. The sanctions on Iraq and the impact they had on the Iraqi people were disgusting. 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. if you don't like it, take it up with FDR for thinking the whole thing up.
They [quotes] don't address the topic.
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.
Originally posted by groverat
Don't ask questions, Scott, he read it on Counterpunch one time.
Did I ever write you a rude comment during the last couple of months?
The CIA have been funding Saddam since the 60s when he staged the murder of the Baathist in charge at the time.
Something that turned up on google...