Welcome to the Straight Dope, phreakomatic. My advice is to go back to page 1 and read the Opening Post, if you haven’t already done so. Here’s a Readers’ Digest condensed version:
Whether or not the US now attacks Iraq, the UN has failed to enforce its resolutions. It has been shown to the world as worse than useless. Nobody will ever again expect the Security Council to actually solve threats to international security. (40 words)
However, several posters have hijacked the thread into a different topic: The US is wrong.
Sorry, phreakomatic, we insist on people doing their own thinking here. Glad to have you, though, if you’d like to contribute.
Saen, it’s a diplomatic code term for “we’ll decide what we’re going to do later, depending on circumstances”. It allows enough wiggle room for everyone in a confrontation to back down and save face.
Now, do any of you drumbeaters want to address Bush’s using Iraq’s violation of a UNSC resolution as his casus belli even if the UNSC itself says it isn’t a serious violation and not to invade? Do any of you want to claim that isn’t somewhere between morally bankrupt and simply ridiculous?
“However, several posters have hijacked the thread into a different topic: The US is wrong.”
I think you’re the one who needs to go back to page 1 and re-read december. That is not at all what most people have been saying.
Actually, Elvis, the OP was about the second half of your statement: UNSC itself says it isn’t a serious violation and not to invade. I assert that this stand on the part of the Security Council constitutes the death of the UNSC as a serious organization of international security. Do you agree?
Mandelstam, phrekomatic set the bar so high I almost got a hernia trying to jump it. I considered, “UN split on action, US, UK support.” “UN says this, that, other thing. fnord.” was more of a general obervation.
Elvis Would “grave” consequences mean war? I thought that meant nuclear war. I tried looking up a diplomatic lingo site, came up dry.
Code for wiggle room? You know what Elvis, you just legitimized everyones contempt of your version of the power of the UN with that statement. You are saying that they need code to wiggle out of their resolutions if a country fails to abide by them. We wouldnt want to UN to be blatant about their inadequacies now would we?
Well considering Bush almost begged the UN to make a non-compliance of the resolution by Iraq a automatic casus belli and instead being drowned out by the others who want to take the “two prong approach” insisted on by France about non-compliance automatically triggering a second resolution to use military force. Now that non-compliance is obvious, the US ic calling the nay sayers bluff and demanding that promised second resolution. Seems to me you are right, and they just want to wiggle out of any commitments they may have hinted at. Pathetic.
Mandelstam, December is right, upon loking through the previous posts, the general consensus is: The U.S. is wrong, and allthough that wasn’t the intended topic, I think it is worth debate on this thread.
It would seem a near work of fiction headed to the supermarket discount bin…This Idiot Prince bound to go a conquesting after windmills accompanied by his loyal and triplebypassed elfin toad.
“Our quest is belied within the impotence of mine father the once and never again King George, mine dear little Dickafuss…that we must surely skewer this Hussian and restore honor and riches to the Oily Realm once a gain!”
Fair enough question, but, I must point out, not the one being discussed, either here or in Washington.
No, I don’t agree, since you asked. The judgment about degree of seriousness and the appropriate level of response isn’t best left to those who have already determined to go kick some ass no matter what. Please consider the breadth and depth of the anti-war sentiment not only here but around the world before you dismiss any formalization of it as “death” or “irrelevance”.
We’re all human, and all fallible, and all subject to our own particular backgrounds and viewpoints no matter how hard we try to be objective (and some try harder than others). That makes it absolutely imperative that we gather and consider, in good faith, the views of others. The UN provides a forum for that.
Basic honesty compels one to admit that they might be wrong, and others who think so are compelled to tell us. They are under no compunction to be our yes-men - if they were, then that would constitute irrelevance.
Saen, I’m sure you know better. In a confrontation, there has to be room for compromise and backing down, and, as Machiavelli would tell you, you have to leave your enemy an out as well. If the only options you leave for your opponent are surrender or death, then you’ve declared war and condemned some of your own people to die when you may not have had to. Diplomacy is full of code words, ya know - “frank and open discussion” means a screaming match, for instance.
phreakomatic, maybe Portugal knows better than to piss us off. Or maybe they’re just still in shock after losing to the US in the World Cup - we’ll kick any ass in any way we can, right?
What military threat is anyone but the US and UK really mounting? An attack of the vicious “burial by UNSC Resolution”? Devestating, except we’re not even cutting down Iraqi trees for that paper.
Honestly, who the hell ever really loves war (rhetorical)? But if France (for example) thinks it presents a military threat by suggesting during the last resolution that there will be serious consequences, and the only consequences it cares to enact are more resolutions, you’ve got to admit a little weak-kneed policy making here. What are we going to do, impose more santions to starve his population? At least he won’t be able to amass a large army if his citizens are all dead.
Does going after Iraq for the said reasons present a slippery slope? I don’t know… who else goes against or has gone against the UNSC?
december, I’ll ask you more plainly, since you avoided answering in your last post for reasons best known to yourself: Should or should not the US go invade Iraq in the name of preserving the UN’s credibility, no matter what the UN says?
Nope, the Netherlands comes after Belgium in the new revised edition of the Axis of Evil Atlas. Find out when you are due to be invaded. We’ll load up on good guns and cheese in Belgium, then hit the Netherlands with new equipment and a full belly.
Elvis, A resolution is not diplomacy. Even the UN defines it as a decision. And unless specified in the resolution, negotiations are not automatically part of it. You are confusing international diplomacy to what the mandate of the UNSC’s real purpose.
(A) has been done for the last twelve years.
(B) I can find not one single resolution that proposes a settlement with Iraq to get them to follow the resolution. It was an all or nothing. I could be wrong about the settlement thing because I remember the “Axis of Weasel” once proposing that Saddam can stop Inspectors from checking his Palaces, but I know for sure that the latest of the almost two dozen resolutions about this says they must abide by them or face very severe consequences.
And I guess this is the crux of it. If the UN, and you apparently, consideres to view the enforcement of it’s resolutions as arbitrary and subject to diplomacy, even when it is unanimously agreed that the breech in contrast to the mandate of the UNSC wich is:
If the US just whent in before going through the UN the first time we would not have had the issues we have today. Yes the US would get some flack about a unilateral action. But they are getting that rediculous shit now by abiding by the will of the UN and considering a score of other countries as unilateral is rediculous.
No, not at all. I’m perfectly willing to accept that people of good will can reach opposite conclusions in good faith. Just not in this case. (-:
Nogginhead said:
I know my history just fine, thank you. I’m quite aware that the U.N. was formed just before the start of the cold war. But it was shaped by it, and used as a tool by the cold war powers. Thus, it is a relic of the cold war, pedantry notwithstanding.
Oh, I’m sure we could find lots of powers that deserve to be on the Security Council more than France does. For instance, Japan spends almost twice as much on its military, and has four times the GDP of France. By what standard is Japan excluded from the SC? Germany spends more on its military and has a bigger GDP. India is a nuclear power and has one of the largest populations in the world.
How about a new ‘Democratic Alliance’ with permanent veto-wielding members of the U.S., the U.K., Russia, Japan, and India? Permanent non-veto members would include Canada, Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, South Korea, and The Netherlands. One of the conditions of membership would be a democratic society, and the signing of a free trade agreement and mutual defense agreements that spell out exactly what must be done to prevent terrorists from operating inside the country of a signatory.
Use the new structure as a force for change, rather than as a way to maintain the status quo (the prime directive of the cold war years). Accordingly, create a ‘probationary status’ for countries on the verge of Democracy. If you want to trade with the free world without tariffs, you’ve gotta dump the dictator.
Have a review mechanism by which countries can be kicked out for not upholding the principles of democracy and freedom.
Thank you, but I don’t need a reminder of my chonology (BTW, I posted a chronology of the Cold War a couple of weeks ago, if you’d like to go and see how my knowledge of recent history stacks up). In fact, it looks like you could use an education in the history of the United Nations, and its use as a forum for the superpowers and the states that were used by proxy and for propaganda purposes. It is irrelevant that the U.N. was formed in 1945. What is relevent is the use it was put to during the cold war.
Mandelstam said:
Well, you’d have to show me how, if the U.S. draws down its force now and goes home, the political ability will EVER be there to go through all this again, unless Saddam attacks someone. Just what do you think would cause the world to suddenly come together again a year or two from now and agree that Saddam has got to go?
The US has to protect itself from what exactly? How is Iraq, in any way, a threat to the US?
As long as you’re fantasizing about “unaccounted for” WMD’s (another word for imaginary) Why not make it a bazillion jillion missiles, why not invent some “undiscovered” ICBMs while you’re at it, and hey, why not throw in super cyborg terminators. Nope, show me some stinking WMD’s, don’t just prattle about what they might not have destroyed. If you don’t have an actual WMD, you don’t have dick as far as I’m concerned. And even if we do find something, the US still has no legal right to enforce its own made up regulations on other countries. The US is not in charge here.
Cite, please that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. That’s a fine red herring for dittoheads maybe, but I can read and tie my own shoes.
Well, here’s the rest of what I said right here:
Please specify which part of this statement is “idiotic, viotriolic, partisan, tired anti-Bushism.” (Although I plead guilty to despising GWB)
DtC, if the justification for not following this resolution through to military force is because we haven’t done it in other cases or we aren’t out there bombing everyone, you might begin to guess why some suggest, then, that it is starting to outlive any usefulness it once had.
so just forget about all of them, hey-ho, but really the UNSC is useful. It provides jobs!
Then why pass any resolutions at all? You just playing the “starvation for oil” game for shits and giggles?
Not so. I just came back from today’s march. I’ve never opposed sanctions, and in fact have little in common ideologically with those colorful folks who have been camped out in front of Parliament for months to protest said sanctions. So you’re clearly wrong in at least one case.
Of course, the fact that the number of anti-war marchers outnumbered any previous anti-sanctions protest by an almost exponential factor suggests that, in all likelihood, you may be wrong in a few more cases as well…
