# Bush to UN & Iraq: "We're giving you one more last chance" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2002, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145 "2002-09-12T19:00:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2002, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/41 "2002-09-15T17:56:02Z")
Like I’d said before, I don’t know too much about the U.N. What happens if a state or country defies it? Do they declare war on it? Send U.N. troops in? What if the U.S. totally defied it? Would they ever send troops here? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2002, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/42 "2002-09-15T18:29:09Z")
The U.N. doesn’t HAVE troops. It is totally dependent on other countries to back its resolutions. The fact is, the U.S. could probably beat the entire world’s militaries even if they all ganged up together, as long as Russia’s nukes didn’t come into play. In reality, there isn’t a single major power that would engage the U.S. militarily. And if, say, China said, “Hey we’ll back up the U.N.!” and attacked the U.S., you’d rapidly see Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, France, and probably Russia all turn against China. The U.N. has exactly zero capability of forcing the U.S. do anything other than what is in the U.S.'s best interest. Now, that doesn’t mean the U.N. is totally toothless - it might be able to arrange anything from economic sanctions to trade embargoes if the U.S. got really, really overbearing. But even that will never happen, because all rhetoric aside the U.S. is a powerful force for good in the world, and most civilized countries know that. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2002, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/43 "2002-09-15T18:34:44Z")
Agreed and thank you. So…what would the effect be if the U.N. disbanded? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2002, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/44 "2002-09-15T19:09:24Z")
The U.N. won’t disband. It may reform itself somewhat, IF there is a crisis of confidence. But I don’t see that happening. The biggest problem with the U.N. is that it has allowed some pretty unsavory characters to co-opt parts of it. I mean, Libya as chair of the U.N. Human Rights Commission? The Durban conference of anti-semitism… er, the Durban conference against racism was an embarassment. UNESCO was a joke for a long time. But those are sideshows. The real critical organization in the U.N. is the Security Council, and the permanent veto powers are still held by the U.S., the UK, France, Russia, and China. That is the most important function of the U.N., and it was in danger of fading into irrelevance because it wouldn’t uphold its own resolutions. If that changes now (and I think it willl), the U.N. will function properly and grow in stature. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2002, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/45 "2002-09-15T21:33:43Z")
If the UN caves into bullying from the US, and gives it permission to start a war of agression against Iraq it will loose much of it’s legitimacy, and in the long run, that matters more than it’s ability to uphold it’s resolutions coercively. A lot depends on the wording of the resolution. If it resolves on coercive inspections: (i.e. let us inspect this site, or we destroy it), then that would be a legitimate reaction to Saddam’s lack of cooperation. On the other hand, if it gives Bush what he really wants: _Permission for regime change_, then it will show itself to be no more than an arm of the US. And not deserving of any more respect than one would give Bush himself. (Which, as you know, is very little outside of the US). Under the circumstances, I don’t see how the UN has any choice but to _explictly forbid_ Bush to invade if it want’s to remain a viable institution. Recently, Bush has challenged them to “Show some spine”, aparently not understanding that if the only way they can show some spine in this situation is to stand up to HIM. It’ll be interesting to see what they do. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2002, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/46 "2002-09-15T21:57:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Monster, there is a glimmer of reason and rationality in your post. When I isolate it, I will respond accordingly. Please be patient, as this is an exacting and tiresome procedure. :rolleyes: Concession accepted, then. > [@](#): > > when is somebody going to put any shread of proof to this claim forward. there has been nothing from either king george the second or phoney blair on this issue, but at the same time halliday and even former inspectors insist that there is absolutely nothing left to bomb in iraq. So what makes Halliday and former inspectors (who were misled and tricked and deceived at every opportunity) all-knowledgeable about this? Inspectors haven’t been in Iraq for years. What makes you think that Iraq no longer retains any of his massive stores of chemical weapons? Or his biological weapons? Or his proven research into nuclear weaponry? It’s utterly foolish to think Iraq _doesn’t_ have WOMD just because we’re not sure if he does anymore, even though the same ruler was determined to obtain as many WOMD as he could previously. ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2002, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/47 "2002-09-15T23:34:10Z")
Once regime change in Iraq has been accomplished, is the US going to start putting pressure on the other countries who are in breach of UN Security Council resolutions (eg Israel)? If we go into Iraq and find no trace of any nuclear weapons program, will the US accept that regime change was unwarranted (evil though Saddam may be)? Will the US ever pay the dues it owes to the UN? In response to my remark that satellite photos proved that the US inflated the number of Iraqi troops stationed on the Saudi border in order to justify Operation Desert Storm, **brutus** said: > [@](#): > > ‘Independent satellite photos’?!?!?! > > Did ‘The Guardian’ launch its own recon bird? Over a decade ago, that is? What the heck are ‘independant satellite photos’, and when were said mysterious photos taken? 2002? The photos were taken by a Soviet commercial satellite. Search google for phrases like “Saudi…satellite…soviet” or gulf war…soviet satellite photos" etc, you’ll find lots of hits. The photos were sent to all the major news outlets including ABC, CBS but none of them went with the story because it seemed to contradict the official government line so strongly. In the end, the St Petersburg Times in Florida was the first newspaper to publish the story. It took me a while but I’ve managed to find [the original archived story](http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/50586247.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&desc=Photos+don%27t+show+buildup). The Iraqi build-up was nowhere near the numbers claimed at the time by the US government. So the US tricked King Fahd of Saudi into allowing US soldiers into his country. Saddam had assured Fahd that he was only going to invade Kuwait not Saudi and Fahd believed him - he didn’t particularly mind Iraq taking Kuwait. It was only because the US convinced Fahd that Saddam was massing troops in order to invade Saudi that Fahd got jumpy. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2002, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/48 "2002-09-15T23:40:32Z")
Sam Stone: _The real critical organization in the U.N. is the Security Council, and the permanent veto powers are still held by the U.S., the UK, France, Russia, and China. That is the most important function of the U.N., and it was in danger of fading into irrelevance because it wouldn’t uphold its own resolutions. If that changes now (and I think it will), the U.N. will function properly and grow in stature._ Agreed (except that the “fading into irrelevance” point was a tad over-stated -institutions can often be resurrected when the need arises- but never mind.) In addition: Attacks on the UN usually center on the General Assembly, which is basically a talk-shop. Personally, I think talk shops are a good thing, as long as nobody overstates their relevance, representativeness, etc. ## Furthermore, the World Health Organization and, yes, The UN High Commissioner for Refugees have been reasonably effective, IMHO. The threat of Saddam: 1. The International Institute for Strategic Studies issued a report indicating that Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon within months if fissile material from foreign sources (read: Russia?) were obtained. Otherwise, the process could take several years. 2. Q: But, hey, we contained Stalin, why can’t we contain Saddam? A: Saddam appears to have territorial ambitions while the Soviet Union was content to shore up its existing satellites on the one hand, and act through proxies on the other. Meanwhile, it’s thought that Saddam could use a nuke-threat to pave the way towards biological and chemical weapons usage. Specifically, it could launch bio/chem-Scuds at Israel immediately after announcing to the US that it has installed x number of nuclear bombs in various basements across the US. (And, to show they’re serious, it could release the location of one of them.) So it’s better to create an international consensus for collective preemptive action before the nightmare scenario becomes possible. I just wish GWB had adopted a Kissinger-style shuttle diplomacy approach to build such a consensus. 1. Ok, so we topple Saddam H. Optimistically, celebrations erupt in Baghdad. What then? Iraq appears to have less of a sense of nationhood than Afghanistan, and building a stable government in the latter region has been no picnic. I’d like to see some more thinking about the endgame that GWB has in “mind”. Gulf War 1 had a mediocre endgame as Schwartzkoff initially allowed Iraq to use its helicopter gunships to crush the Shiite rebellion in the south. Hey, we all make mistakes. I’m just saying we shouldn’t repeat them. ---
**Author:** ![jacksen9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce73a5/32.png) [@jacksen9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jacksen9)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2002, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/49 "2002-09-16T01:11:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Tejota - "A lot depends on the wording of the resolution. If it resolves on coercive inspections: (i.e. let us inspect this site, or we destroy it), then that would be a legitimate reaction to Saddam’s lack of cooperation. " These coercive inspections are problematic. [Here](http://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/current.asp#28913) the issues are discussed. _Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said he is opposed to the idea because it inevitably would be vulnerable to a pre-emptive Iraqi attack, which then could severely complicate a U.S. invasion._ It seems to me that we have shown enough patience on this issue. Saddam has demonstrated clearly that he is incredible. Removing him from power would be best for all. The fact that getting a team of inspectors in there is so difficult only emphasizes the danger he poses to the region and to U.S. interests. ---
**Author:** ![jacksen9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce73a5/32.png) [@jacksen9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jacksen9)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2002, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/50 "2002-09-16T01:24:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Tejota - "A lot depends on the wording of the resolution. If it resolves on coercive inspections: (i.e. let us inspect this site, or we destroy it), then that would be a legitimate reaction to Saddam’s lack of cooperation. " These coercive inspections are problematic. [Here](http://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/current.asp#28913) the issues are discussed. _Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said he is opposed to the idea because it inevitably would be vulnerable to a pre-emptive Iraqi attack, which then could severely complicate a U.S. invasion._ It seems to me that we have shown enough patience on this issue. Saddam has demonstrated clearly that he is incredible. Removing him from power would be best for all. The fact that getting a team of inspectors in there is so difficult only emphasizes the danger he poses to the region and to U.S. interests. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/51 "2002-09-20T01:33:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flowbark \* > 2) Q: But, hey, we contained Stalin, why can’t we contain Saddam? > A: Saddam appears to have territorial ambitions while the Soviet Union was content to shore up its existing satellites on the one hand, and act through proxies on the other. OK, the board is coming back from the dead, so perhaps this was addressed already and got lost: Flowbark, are you seriously saying that the Soviets had little or no territorial ambitions? You even mention Afghanistan, a country that was **‘liberated’** through invasion by the Soviets in the same message! Respectfully, this seems off the deep end – the Soviets had enormous territorial ambitions. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/52 "2002-09-20T02:58:06Z")
Yep. Why do you think the U.S. had an official policy of ‘containment’? That sort of implies that something needs to be contained. The only thing that kept the Soviet Union from encroaching on all of Europe and Asia was the threat of instant death from America’s atomic weapons, backed up by the U.S.'s showing of its willingness to engage in conflict starting with the Korean War at the beginning of the Cold War. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/53 "2002-09-20T03:37:36Z")
Sam - Well, exactly. The Soviets had huge territorial ambitions, and we contained them through the methods you note above. **flowbark’s** post seems to state that Saddam has huge ambitions, where the Soviets did not (and backs this up with what seems to me a tinfoil-hat scenario). I was basically trying to address what I saw as revisionist: that the Soviets were somehow less ambitious than Iraq, which I strongly disagree with. In thier heyday (1950’s-1980’s or so) the S.U. was strongly expansionist. Agreed? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/54 "2002-09-20T03:50:15Z")
My point was that the USSR’s goal was to spread international communism. This is ideological imperialism, in contrast to territorial imperialism. Its modus operandi was to create satellites on its borders (Poland, Afghanistan) and allies in other parts of the world (Vietnam, Cuba). However, this may be a, “distinction without a difference”; I’m frankly a little worried about this particular (sub)point. ## Oh, and the Baltic States were taken over territorially, which flatly contradicts my claim. Ok, fine. I’ll leave it as a class exercise: why can’t we contain Saddam just as we contained Joe “20 million dead” Stalin? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/55 "2002-09-20T04:14:14Z")
Well, there’s containment, and then there’s containment. As practiced before, “containment” was a territorial restraint, rather like a wall. Our current definition is more like the containment practiced by the anaconda. Our leaders are often accused lately of not giving enough consideration to the post-Saddam era, of having not thought it out. This is manifestly, and provably, untrue. They have a vision of peace, prosperity and warm personal ties to Iraq. They will be at hand to advise the fledgling nation, to stay its immature hand from unwholesome alliances. Most importantly, America has the business expertise to build a productive structure to properly husband Iraq’s resources in jute, sand, and, lest we forget, oil. I would not be at all surprised if some forward looking American companies, in the vigoruous spirit of entrepreneurship, are not already making such plans. They stand ready to give selflessly of thier skills so that Iraq might form the trade relationship that most befits its “newbie” status amongst nations, and reflects Iraq’s deep and abiding gratitude to its liberators. Admittedly, there will be some rough moments, there will be some collatteral damage. On a bright note, however, very little of the oil infrastructure is located in dense population areas, so that losses of indigenous personnel can easily be regained by a modest rise in the birthrate. And those who remain can sigh and relax, and fall into the quiet routine of a bucolic Roman province, ordered and guided by the benign hand of a Pax America. One step completed, one step in Ronald Reagans prophetic dream of America, the Shining Citadel on the Hill. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/56 "2002-09-20T05:06:15Z")
OK, point taken. But I do see it as a ‘difference without a difference’ in at least some of those cases. > [@](#): > > Oh, and the Baltic States were taken over territorially, which flatly contradicts my claim. Well, yes. Exactly what I was thinking of. And, of course, Afghanistan (yes, they failed and were driven out, but the topic was territorial _ambitions_). Which brings us back to the topic (or the sub-point of same): was the Soviet Union more expansionist than Iraq, and would containment work again? I’d strongly argue for yes to both. The current containment efforts for Iraq are not ideal, but they could lurch towards that ideal. I see on preview that **Elucidator** has taken up this flag (with the usual rhetorical flourish). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/57 "2002-09-20T05:23:24Z")
Well, I’m going to indulge in some rampant bi-partisanship here, and post a quote and links to Texas Republican Ron Paul. Neve thought I’d live to see the day such good sense out of one of them, but here it is: [http://tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6404](http://tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6404) > [@](#): > > 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? > > 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate – which just confirms that there is no real threat? and > [@](#): > > 1. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army one-fifth the size of 12 years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country? > [@](#): > > 1. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe? > > 2. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically elected president? Just the highlights, go check it out. I should also like to take a moment to point out that this post is almost utterly devoid of rhetorical flourishes. So there. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/58 "2002-09-20T05:34:56Z")
Direct comparisons to Hitler are pointless. In an era of dumb bombs and symmetrical warfare, You had to be a huge industrial power to play. Iraq is not as helpless as you would think, because it potentially has the smartest of all ‘smart weapons’ - terrorists. Kamikaze pilots were horribly effective in WWII - terrorists that can infiltrate right into your home country, with the resources of a state behind them, is a damned effective weapon. But no, Saddam can not win a full out conflict. The question is, can he become strong enough to form a credible deterrant to the U.S.? And the answer to that is yes. And that’s exactly what Saddam wants. He wants WMD not because it wants to lash out at the west in a blaze of glory, but because he can use it to keep the U.S. at bay. Once he has that capability, he can go back into Kuwait, Or Saudi Arabia, and re-establish Baghdad as the natural head of the Arab world. That’s Saddam’s twisted vision, and why he desperately wants weapons of mass destruction. And the U.S. can’t allow that to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/59 "2002-09-20T05:50:22Z")
Dubya’s speech is an utter joke. Given that the US still owns UN membership dues - the richest country in the world isn’t doing its own part, imagine that - how can it think it is possible to shame anybody? He ought to be ashamed himself. The “unilateralism vs multilateralism” is more of a joke. Which country threatened to act alone if the UN doesn’t give it the go ahead? ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145/60 "2002-09-20T05:58:52Z")
Dubya’s speech is an utter joke. Given that the US still owns UN membership dues - the richest country in the world isn’t doing its own part, imagine that - how can it think it is possible to shame anybody? He ought to be ashamed himself. The “unilateralism vs multilateralism” is more of a joke. Which country threatened to act alone if the UN doesn’t give it the go ahead? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-un-iraq-were-giving-you-one-more-last-chance/128145.md?page=4)