I watched a good bit of the Security Council session yesterday. How depressing. About half the speakers appeared not be dealing with the real world. Even the New York Times finally noticed that some speakers were taking seriously “yesterday’s laughable decree that the development of weapons of mass destruction is now prohibited in Iraq.” Yet, those speaking from the fantasy world were cheered and applauded. US, UK and Spanish speakers dealing with reality were met with stony silence.
How will this play out? Probably the US and its allies will attack Iraq outside of the UN structure. Conceivably nobody will attack Iraq, and Iraq will obtain more WMDs including perhaps nuclear weapons. Either way, the UN will hav been shown to the world as worse than useless. Nobody will ever again expect the Security Council to actually solve threats to international security.
The only solution, as the Times points out, would be for the Security Council “to pass a new resolution that sets a deadline for unconditional Iraqi compliance and authorizes military action if Baghdad falls short.” Unfortunately, the tone of yesterday’s meeting made it appear that nothing like that resolution is in the cards.
Yeah, why, oh why can’t the rest of the world see how important this invasion is to W’s reelection hopes? :rolleyes: It’s not America’s job to enforce UN security. If the UN is not concerned about a handful of petty violations, then that’s the end of it. The US is not the Sheriff of the world. The rest of the world is not so stupid as to believe that the US has only just decided to care about Iraq’s UNRC violations after more than a decade of not giving a shit. It is painfully obvious to the rest of the world that this proposed invasion has everything to do American domestic politics and nothing else. Junior can’t get bin Laden, so his handlers are trying to set up Hussein as a tomato can to serve as a substitute. I am disappointed that Colin Powell has become so obedient and servile but not really that surprised. I was proud of the UN yesterday. Kudos to them for laughing at Powell’s attempt pull the rest of the world into a self-serving political stunt on behalf of our incompetent president.
The preceding unsubstantiated opinion has been brought to you by Diogenes the Cynic. Any requests for evidence to support the preceding claims will be ignored or dodged. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread…
Let’s be clear about where the Times editorial seems to be coming from december. The Times has more or less consistently been urging the Bush administration to work in concert with European allies and, in doing so, it’s been articulating the dominant opinion of the American people (i.e., that war is supported insofar as it’s also supported by the UN/European allies). The present editorial is urging a more concrete deadline (or deadlines) than the current French proposal currently contains. The Times seems to be saying to the French that since their position is that haven’t ruled out the possibility of war, under what circumstances or, more specifically, when would see that point has having been reached. Note that it’s also not clear whether the Times is urging this deadline b/c they see war as inevitable, or simply b/c they see a more coercive deadline as necessary to compelling Iraqi compliance.
Whatever one thinks of this editorial position, it does not constitute an indictment of the UN. What’s clear from yesterday’s deliberations is the rift between the Bush administration’s position (which is not necessarily the position of the majority of American people) and a position like France’s (which is in much closer alignment to that of the majority of French people).
It’s fair to say that whereas previous editorials have been urging the Bush administration to move closer to all allies, and therefore closer to where the majority of the American people stands, the present editorial seems to urge the French (among others) to acknowlege that a harder line stance on their part would make it easier to reach some kind of workable consensus–inside and out of the UN. In other wise, the Times seems to look on the prospect of war without UN collaboration as very regrettable thing indeed.
It’s your perogative, december, to see these events as the UN commiting suicide: but a more enlightening characterization might be to see an increasing distance between the Bush position and the views of the world at large. Shouldn’t those views have any place in your analysis of the current situation?
The issue is not whether Iraq is “moving” to comply, it is whether or not they HAVE complied. They were given the opportunity to disarm and to prove that they have done so. Giving in an inch at a time doesn’t get the job done.
Really? I’m curious, because this seems to be the crux of the matter— what “job” is it we’re trying to get done, what makes it our job to do rather than the UN’s, and what’s the most cost/life effective way to do it?
the point is that Iraq’s compliance or non-compliance is an issue for the UN to deal with, not Georgie Jr.. The US simply does not have the authority to arbitrarily, hypocritically and unilaterlly impose its own sanctions on non-compliant nations when it serves some particular president’s political purposes.
Say’s who? The United States of America, led by PRESIDENT George W. Bush, has the right to act in it’s self interest. You may recall that we have already been attacked with chemical weapons of a variety that Iraq is known to develop. Just because they have prevented the U.N. from finding them does not change the fact that they are known to have existed. If they had been destroyed, they would have happily provided that evidence. But that has not been the case, has it? We are not acting under any of the adverbs you have supplied.
Exactly. My point in this thread is that the UN has failed in their responsibility to deal with this issue. They have rendered themselves irrelevant. Whether or not the US steps in and does the UN’s job, the fact remains that the UN didn’t do what was needed.
Sorry, I have little to add to december’s comments except agreement. The UN didn’t emasculate itself so much as it demonstrated it’s weakness. I felt for Powell being reduced to utter exasperation with these boobs. It reminds me (in a silly way) of the horror movies when the victims shrink into a corner and scream like a babbling idiot waiting for some beast to tear their head off instead of investing their last remaining moments in scratching away at an impromtu tunnel or SOMETHING. ATTACK THE SOB! TRY FLAPPING YOUR ARMS! DON’T JUST TURN INTO QUIVERING JELLY FOR CHRISSAKES! My reaction is always “What? You mean you’re just going to do nothing??!!! That’s brilliant.” Let’s play Saddam Hussein’s game instead of enforcing a 12 year old directive. Brilliant.
japatlgt, I don’t mean to pick on you, but man am I getting tired of that particular canard! Since when is a rigorous regime of inspection and destruction of prohibited weapons, backed up by military threat and economic sanctions “doing nothing”?!!
Texican I am getting tired of the media just misleading people. Sad thing is that the media did indeed report that the bio terror scare was most likely a local terrorist. But they always had that news bit before news on the Iraq situation, talk about making people do unrelated connections. And the biological evidence pointed to a local lab variety.
I too want to take care of Saddam, but misleading people is not the way to do so.
And if Georgie continues with his war ignoring the UN, he will have to ignore that many supporters of the war do indeed support it with the backing of the UN. If the president continues this path of destroying alliances, then indeed it will be a war for HIS interests, not the interests of the rest of America.
Now ponder this:
More inspections will mean that MORE WMD will be dealt with, pragmatically if a war does come, that means IMO dozens of American soldiers lives being spared if conflict comes. Doing nothing japatlgt? This idea that nations that are asking for peace while taking weapons away from the dictator has to be considered even by someone willing to fight him.
And speaking of nations that are for peace now: Germany is one of the models to follow for the future of Iraq, considering the past, I do think Germany today is the biggest success of nation building for America, having now an American administration who despises what the greatest generations of Americans did doesn’t bode well for the nation building to follow.
Texican: Would you (logically) also be of the opinion that perhaps Iraq also has the right to act in its own self interests and to also defend itself. As for chemical weapons: i wonder which murder hungry country was developing them long before Iraq, i think you’ll find its the same country that sold Iraq its entire war machine in the first place. Even if Iraq does have WOMD, i would’nt expect them to give them up when the threat of oblivion is a foregone conclusion they believe in their right to exist just as much as America. America needs this war and Saddam knows it, just a different perspective that i haven’t seen raised. i’m not a fan of hussien but i also happen to believe that the agenda of the american government, especially king george the seconds regieme, is something that can be just as suspect.
Go back to bed america your government is in control again!
We all know what was needed. What was needed was to get Iraq to disarm all their WMDs and stop seeking WMDs. This was the committment Iraq made to the UN 12 years ago.
Maybe your question means, “How was the UN supposed to achieve this?” We all know the answer. Try all possible non-military means and then resort to force if necessary. This is the UN’s stated approach. Unfortunately, now that all non-military approaches have failed, the UN doesn’t seem to have what it takes to go the next step.
xenophon41, it is true that a rigorous regime of inspection and destruction of prohibited weapons, backed up by military threat and economic sanctions is doing more than nothing, but these steps are not doing the job that needs to be done. Iraq has an enormous stockpile of WMDs, according to Hans Blix, despite a rigorous regime of inspection and destruction of prohibited weapons, backed up by military threat and economic sanctions.