We’ve already lost. Why, you ask? Because for some bizarre reason we’ve attached so much credibility to the vote. As far as I’m concerned, a deeply unilateral view of world affairs is precisely the correct course of action for the U.S. As we continue to compromise our national interests in order to appease international sensibilities, those foreign nations who seek to inhibit our national agenda (like France) are merely emboldened and will only increase their inimicable behavior. Far from soothing ruffled feathers, our multi-lateralistic policies have the effect of whetting the appetites of those nations who are jealous of our prosperity and power and seek only to minimize our influence.
So, I say fie on them - they are either with us or against us. If they wish to help us, great - we’ll make it worth their while. If they choose not to help us, fine - just stay out of the way. If they choose to actively work against us, then I say woe unto them.
Very clever, Elvis - so instead of rebutting my argument in a credible way, you seek to portray me as some sort of unthinking warmonger, eh? I guess it makes you feel better to put people down who have views opposed to yours - but it doesn’t make your views any more accurate than mine. You might do well to remember that the next time you wish to throw silly aspersions around.
Perhaps other nations think your sentence above ‘As we continue to compromise our national interests in order to appease international sensibilities’ actually means ‘As we continue to restrain our military might in order to show international co-operation’.
If you think invading an oil-rich country to put your own choice of leader in place (and get a few votes in the next US election) is ‘the correct course of action’ for the US, then you haven’t considered how everyone else feels.
Or:
If they accept our bribes, great. If they stay neutral while we invade, fine. If they choose to protest against our unauthorised action, let’s bomb them next.
I hope you’re being sarcastic. The UN, in particular the SC is most definetly not about “the moral authority of civilization itself”. To illustrate take a look at SC vetoes. Even a cursory glance will show that countries exercise their veto to cover their own national interests. As in Nov 4, 1956 when the USSR vetoed a resolution about the situation in Hungary.
If you need help to see why Elvis and I worry about your views - how about if Saddam had issued this statement just before invading Kuwait:
"… a deeply unilateral view of world affairs is precisely the correct course of action for Iraq. As we continue to compromise our national interests in order to appease international sensibilities, those foreign nations who seek to inhibit our national agenda (like the US) are merely emboldened and will only increase their inimicable behavior. Far from soothing ruffled feathers, our multi-lateralistic policies have the effect of whetting the appetites of those nations who are jealous of our prosperity and power and seek only to minimize our influence.
So, I say fie on them - they are either with us or against us. If they wish to help us, great - we’ll make it worth their while. If they choose not to help us, fine - just stay out of the way. If they choose to actively work against us, then I say woe unto them."
(As you’ll see, I only had to change two country names.)
bayonet1976, not at all - the fact that the ideals have often been stymied does not devalue them as ideals. Perhaps you have another view of what value the UN has in this case?
We can argue semantics all day long. The simple fact is that Iraq has brazenly, and repeatedly violated the 1991 Gulf War accord ceasing hostilities. As such, we need no one’s permission or acquiesence to resume hostilities in order to enforce the accord. And quite frankly, the opinions of those in France, Germany, Norway, wherever, matter not in the least to me - they have no stake in this matter that I can discern, other than trying to raise their national prominence by getting in the way. The fact that Iraq has significant oil resources makes this issue all the more compelling - with wealth from illicit oil sales, the Iraqi regime has rebuilt its military and attempted to resume WMD production and storage all the while shooting on countless occasions at U.S. and British planes monitoring the no-fly zones.
Until your nation sends warriors in harm’s way in this issue, then your nation has little to no relevance as far as I’m concerned. But by all means continue to wag your fingers at us from the sidelines if it raises your national pride.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by glee *
**Or:
If they accept our bribes, great. If they stay neutral while we invade, fine. If they choose to protest against our unauthorised action, let’s bomb them next. **
[/QUOTE]
Again, you seek to make this a debate over semantics - and where did I suggest that we bomb anyone next? You can interpret my words above in different ways, but in no sense did I mean or say such a thing. There are many means available to the U.S. to deal with countries such as France = trade sanctions, expulsion of their diplomatic staff, etc. The fact is that France et al need the U.S. far more than we need them. The fact that you don’t care for that situation doesn’t make it less real.
Elvis, this is the wisest post of yours I have seen. Now, let’s follow where it leads. Since the Iraq vote will be obviously coerced or bought, and since past votes have also been coerced or bought, your understanding of the UN as the moral authority of civilization no longer holds (if it ever did.) Then what? [ol][]Can we remake the UN into a moral authority? []If not, shall we leave it as is, and ignore the problem?[]Should we pretend that it’s a moral authority, even though we know it’s not? []Can it be re-structured to have some value, even acknowleding that it will never be a moral authority? Should we give up on the UN?[/ol]The simplest and most likely course is some combination of #2 and #5. However, that might not be the most useful approach in the long run.
The invasion will happen, our only confort is that this time you won’t be able to throw a blanket of legitimacy over your actions. Remember that next time a terrorist decides to strike.
I forgot the above was for Eddie. I forgot to mention that in order to defeat terrorism you need international cooperation, that’s a war (unlike Irak) that you simply can not win by yourselves. Then remember your words next time a plane crashes into one of your cities.
december, your praise is rejected because you refuse to accept the fundamental question. The UN has the authority that its member nations assign to it. If Bush is going to do what he wants no matter what the UN thinks, as is the case, then he has already declared the UN irrelevant - and you’re enabling him in its destruction. Any shortage of relevance the UN has in this case is Bush’s fault, not the UN’s. This has been explained to you several times before without apparent effect.
In fact the values have been stymied so long and so often that it is impossible to assign any moral authority to the UN, let alone moral authority for civilization itself. No single country is ever going to vote against its own self-interest, and I don’t think they should either.
IMO, during the cold war the UN served the purpose of providing a stage where two very powerful and antagonistic nations, the US and USSR, could rant and rave and posture for the rest of the world. The rest of the world usually allied themselves with either the US or the USSR, and as a result received some benefit from that public support.
The problem since the fall of the USSR is that the UN did not suddenly become a love in fest. The same old national interests are still there, and the same favors are being courted. Only this time the only big dog left is the US. If you look at the link I provided above you can see the nearly every single SC veto until the late 80’s was cast by the USSR, since then the US has led the way.
This could mean a number of things, maybe the US for the past 20 years has been completely out of tune with the rest of the SC. On the other hand, maybe the US is just fighting to keep the rest of the SC from sticking to the US and its allies.
bayonet1976, then you’ve left yourself with the problem of explaining why US national interest should inherently supersede anyone else’s. Can’t they all make the same claim? Are you of the opinion that the UN only means anything if it agrees with the current US administration?
Since when does the Golden Rule have anything to do with geopolitical reality? And since you mentioned it, getting rid of Saddam Hussein’s corrupt regime is in the U.S.'s national interest. It’s also in the interest of just about every other country on the damn planet. It’s just that grandstanding to show up the U.S. is so much darn fun for certain European leaders who should know better.