Oh really? Care to tell us which ones left us no alternative but to invade, regardless of whether the UN was with us?
Evidence that this mattered to us, please.
“Numerous”? Give numbers, please. Since 1441 seems to be part of the process you’re insulting, I assume you’re not including 1441.
This may surprise you, but absent provocations far greater than any that Saddam had mustered since the end of Gulf War I, approaches that don’t involve use of direct force against another country are in fact the norm in the world, even for the USA.
“Prospers”? Every indication is that Iraq was hardly ‘prospering’ under sanctions. The sanctions seem to have weakened everything from its military to its educational system.
Not that this is a biggie. There are more than a few ‘brutal dictatorial regimes’ in the world that we’re not even looking cross-eyed at, let alone threatening in any way, even with a UN resolution.
And we’ve never undermined our allies when they work against brutal regimes, right?
By what standard? Seems to me it acted responsibly, and when it wouldn’t give the Bush Administration what it wanted, when it wanted it, the Bushies did what they’d clearly wanted to do from the beginning.
There’s that word ‘numerous’ again. But in your view, why should UNSC resolutions matter, if the UN is such a worthless body?
And if they matter, isn’t it kind of up to the UN to say how much? I mean, it’s their resolution; seems that they’re the ones who get to say what the penalty is for violating it.
It seems here that you’re saying we should make a big deal out of what the UN says when we like it, but we should crap all over the UN, then disregard it, when we don’t like what it says.
Pardon me if that makes zero sense to me.
I think the “groupthink” analogy is most apt. That kind of mutural reinforcement tends to block intelligent consideration of alternative or contradictory information.
While I have chosen a specific quote, this comment is shared by a few in this thread, so I will leave it unattributed:
While I had previously quoted:
Is there something about the english language that makes this so difficult to grasp?
What the hell? Evidence that what mattered to us? I wasn’t making any assertations at all about what mattered to us.
I’m not going to count exactly how many resolutions Saddam did not comply with. Instead, I’ll give you this link to the relevant UNSC resolutions. You count for yourself. Suffice to say, he did not comply with numerous resolutions.
Since 1441 seems to be part of the process you’re insulting, I assume you’re not including 1441.
[/quote]
What? Why does Iraq’s noncompliance with 1441 a non-issue simply because I’m criticizing the UNs effectiveness? The UN passed these resolutions, and they failed to achieve their objectives, therefore, the UNs method, referred to as THE appropriate and legit process that the US should have followed, failed.
No shit, but what do you do once all viably effective approaches have been tried, what do you do then? Nothing? More sanctions? More resolutions?
Diplomatic solutions were tried, and they failed. Tell me, what solutions do YOU have outside of war, hmmmmm?
Do you even pay attention to what they’re finding in Iraq? Sure, IRAQ may have been suffering from the sanctions, but Saddam and co. PROSPERED. Why you think Saddam’s regime = Iraq is beyond me.
Unless, of course, you consider being able to hoard food, medicines, millions of dollars in cash, and having every luxury anyone could want isn’t prospering.
Oh, this line again. :rolleyes:
So, do you want the US being prudent in the use of its armed forces, or do you want the US to go to war against every brutal dictator in the world? Or would you want the US to be isolationist and not care about what happens in the world? Or are you simply going to be against everything Bush decides to do because you are a closed-minded anti-everything-Bush liberal?
Or, do you simply want the US to go the way of the UN and fail?
I don’t know about never, but nothing like what France/Russia did against the US. Perhaps you will post an incident that is comparable?
By the standard that the UNs diplomatic efforts FAILED to get Saddam’s regime to comply with the UNSC resolutions, and then being unwilling to enforce those resolutions. That is NOT acting responsibly.
Acting responsibly involves actual action, not mere lip service to resolutions that weren’t being enforced and were actively being ignored and broken by other big members of the UNSC.
Why do you seem to be hostile to my use of the word ‘numerous’?
Why would they NOT matter? The UNSC resolutions are not the problem, the problem is the UNs inability/ineffectiveness in resolving the Iraq problem, and I lay the blame for that ineffectiveness and unwillingness to do anything significant on the front doors of France, Germany, Russia, and Iraq.
What the hell is so hard about understanding what I wrote? How can you so badly misread what I’m typing?
Here, try this: we should make a big deal about what the UN DOES, not what it says. When the UN’s lack of doing something successfully has finally gone on for too long, THEN we disregard what they say they are trying to do, and DO what they said they were trying to do.
In this case, the odds were stacked against it, as it COULD NOT do anything to enforce its resolutions because France, Germany, and Russia all had financial interests in keeping Saddam in power.
The irony is stunning.
No, no psychosis. What we have, as other people have no doubt pointed out (posting before reading, yes I’m a horrible human being), is an administration that believes very strongly in a unipolar world - that is, a world where there is only one superpower (the USA) and a bunch of lesser powers. Anything that threatens the unipolar world is a bad thing. Likewise, they believe that American values are universal, and that they should be spread. If you want some interesting reading, the National Security Strategy of the United States (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html) is a pretty darned good primer on the thinking of the Bush administration.
clairobscur, I have been amazed at your patience during the many threads about France. I’m glad you finally spoke up.
Vive la France! As soon as I save up the money, my next trip will be to Paris. (I may try to fake being a Canadian instead of an American though.)
Regardless of who is right and who is wrong about Chirac’s intentions, please consider this:
If Bush is such a good leader then why are so many well-read and intelligent people confused about France’s position? The Bush Administration is threatening to “punish” France. Before we offer support, shouldn’t we get the facts straightened out for certain? Why are we even having to debate what Chirac said and what France’s position was???
Psychotic? No.
Mean-spirited? Short-sighted? Fumbling? Corrupted? Arrogant? Shallow? Yes.
I left out “Secretive.” That is the one that bothers me as much as any other.
Below is a link to the official French (and Russian and German) position on Iraq as presented in a memorandum to the United Nations. (February 24, 2003)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/24/sprj.irq.memo/
According to CNN, this memorandum was meant to counter a proposed resolution backed by the United States, Britain and Spain that would declare that Iraq has missed its last chance to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction.
I call your attention to the first and last paragraphs as printed here:
First paragraph:
Last paragraph:
(Bold type added)
Pax
From Zoe’s link:
I would be more impressed if France and Russia weren’t actively flouting the trade sanctions. Gee, let’s make the sanctions stronger, so we can continue to ignore them! Riiiight.
Whoops, I mutilated that last post. I’ll try again, with a little more detail.
I would be more impressed about France, Germany, and Russia’s official line on the matter if they did not have large financial interests and deals ongoing in Iraq recently before the war.
Inspections did not work, and they COULDN’T work as long as France and Russia were actively flouting the trade sanctions and selling them weapons. If they wanted to strengthen the peaceful means to disarm Saddam Hussein, they shouldn’t have been subverting the process.
Oh yeah, can’t forget China in that group.
Israel? Over 30 resolutions violated (more than twice what Iraq had on its plate), last time I checked.
Though I’m sure the conservatives will insist Israel is not a “brutal, repressive regime,” and insist it’s all really the Palestinians’ fault instead…
chuckles Directed at the OP, my soon-to-be hubby and I were just discussing this and laughing about it tonight after watching the Daily Show. We’ve come to the conclusion that the Republicans have completely and utterly lost their minds, lol.
Sorry, but you gotta get your facts straight. The inspections worked quite well originally. They destroyed the entire nuclear weapons program, and large parts of the bioweapons program. They were so effective that the US had to resort to evidence gathered BEFORE the inspections to support claims Iraq had WMDs.
I have yet to see any evidence that the current governments were selling actual weapons. What I am aware of is the german government persecuting a german company a foreign subsidiary of which sold telephone switiching technology to Iraq which might be used in missile guidance technology. Hardly a weapons sale, and hardly supported by the government.
As for subverting the process, no other country has subverted the peaceful disarmament process more than the US. The US were chief among abusing inspections to introduce spies in Iraq, and the US inundated the recent inspection team with bogus intelligence data to the point that numerous inspectors got quite irate at being led on wild goose chases.
Ah, the classic lie, the repeated but unsupported (and unsupportable) assertion that the diplomatic process failed and let everyone down. The diplomatic process was under way Monster, but it was undermined intentionally by the US as it pursued its war agenda. Do we need to cover all the basics of this situation yet again, or is it possible we could move away from the propaganda? Have you been reading the boards the past few months?
Of course, who wouldn’t?
Of course not. Going back a post or two, you justified Bush’s actions against Iraq because it was a brutal regime, etc. etc. RTFIrefly simply pointed out why your justification was not a justification at all. Building your house on crooked foundations and all that.
Bush tried a version of the above and failed miserably at it, turning around on this matter fairly early in his presidency. As many people argued on this board over the last years, isolation is not a solution, it’s simply an invitation to more problems (and a loss of influence).
RTF’s comments indicated nothing of the sort. Your comments, on the other hand, indicate ignorance and a willingness to accept neocon propaganda, which unfortunately seems to be holding sway in the US right now.
The UN failed? Really?
The UN is a forum for nations to come together and discuss matters of importance in the spectrum of politics, everything from the economy to human rights and even war. The UN didn’t fail – Bush et al themselves failed – to convince most of the world of the need or legitimacy of an attack on Iraq. No persuasion and no exchange of interest equals no result, it’s as simple as that.
The ignorant, misinformed, or dishonest then resort to unreasonable assertions such as “well, France would have vetoed a resolution allowing war anyway”. Objections to such a silly claim have already been posted aplenty, throughout these boards but also in this thread. besides, it’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
UN sanctions have been in place against Iraq for a decade, and indications as to their effectiveness are mixed – there have been positive, encouraging results as well as those less inspiring. Do you consider that a failure, end of story? Remember we’re talking about a sovereign country in a very volatile part of the world here, it’s not simply a question of calling the police because your neighbour is burning rubber tires in his back yard and abusing his dog. One has to work with the tools one has.
There have been many UNSC resolutions and yes, they sometimes don’t weather well or get shot down. Just like UNSC resolution 1441, which was effectively hijacked and parcelled away by the USA when it became convenient for Bush to do so. That, I agree, was a serious failure on the UN’s side, but how could it be prevented?
Or look at the various UN resolutions (sponsored by US allies) that sought to restrain Israel over the years, had the US allowed them to pass (they categorically did not). I would say those are failures too. Also a failure (one probably more to your liking) was Russia’s veto in the Kosovo problem a few years back – but things still worked out and the US led a carpet-bombing of Serbia with signigficant international support because at the time the administration actually had diplomatic capabilities. The attack did not dislodge Milosevic, and it didn’t put an end to ethnic cleansing (rather it made Serbians the target of such), but it did take place and, even though peace protests were plentiful, a more or less international consensus was acted upon in spite of Russia’s block at the UN, and the noise from Russia was not as bad as it could have been. Sometimes what is needed is just a competent leader to lead an initiative and convince the opposition that there is a case to be made, even when the case is tenous (such as it was with the Kosovo affair).
The UN, I admit, isn’t perfect. What you are referring to in particular is, of course, the UN Security Council, which itself does not comprise or represent the entirety of the UN. Even in the security council, there is no rule that states the others ought to suffer bullying from a member state, and submit to that state’s will against 1) the evidence, 2) the processes already in place and not yet complete (weapon inspections, etc.), and 3) international safeguards and regional stability.
I can point you to any number of other UN resolutions that have produced results. Will that make the UN a “success” as opposed to your “failure”?
And, most importantly, do you have any suggestions on how this “failing” system may be fixed or replaced, or do you think that the USA should dictate as it wishes around the world? It’s a nice wet dream for quite a few (ignorant) people but all that is likely to yield in the mid to long term is more problems and another 9/11 minus the global sympathy.
So, while the UN may not be perfect, and while it is undeniable that there are frequent problems in the UNSC, such is the nature of international diplomacy. It’s a difficult job, and being incompetent at it is not an excuse to whine and shift all the blame elsewhere, as the US (and the UK) did with France and the UN in the last half year. That isn’t to say the UN could not stand a bit of an overhaul (say, changing the power of veto to a system of two votes against, just as an example), but your assertions here just don’t make sense and are more in line with knee-jerk America uber alles neo-con foolishness.
[note on preview: some responses have appeared since I started writing but I am out of time and can’t read them right now, apologies]
Here we go again, it just never stops…
One hundred percent BS. Let me illustrate:
The criminal: “I gave the court it’s chance. It failed. Why should I respect failure.”
Hitler: “I gave the world it’s chance. It failed. Why should I respect failure?”
Saddam: “We gave the UN it’s chance. It failed. Why should we respect failure?”
See now why you should rise above this kind of empty rethorics, monster? It leads to absurdities.
Given the extra qualifier added by you: “in violation of numerous UNSC resolutions” only Israel comes to mind. Brutal and repressive towards the Palestinians. And that is quite sufficient to make the point, I believe. Otherwise you could add Egypt, the Gulf states and so on…
Now, monster it amounts to either ignorance or hipocracy when you first write the UN off as a “failure” that can safely be ignored, and in the next sentence make calls to UNSC resolutions. Double standards. When is the UN relevant? When they agree with you, huh? Figures.
clairobscur,
You have my deepest sympathies. I too have been appalled by the undertow of groupthink that has swept across America since the 9/11 attack.
After living Stateside for over ten years, I think it justified to say that Americans, in general, know or care very little about what goes on outside their borders. I can’t recall how many times I had to explain that I was “Spanish from Spain,” thus not any more familiar with “tacos” than any other European. Be that as it may – and no doubt I found it bothersome – I tried focusing on the many other positive aspects of both life in the States and Americans themselves. Thankfully, there were/are many, more than enough, IMO, to offset their collective limitations when it came to discussing matters outside their borders.
However, it appears that the biggest blow delivered in 9/11 was to the collective psyche of the US of A – a fact no doubt exploited by certain factions of the current Administration to advance their unilateralist agenda. Before, a country such as yours, France, may have had a reputation of being ‘anti-American’ it was not something anyone took seriously, in the sense that the most you’d hear was something to the tune of “those damn French” accompanied by some rolling of the eyes. Never mind that even then, hardly anyone knew why they were saying to begin with…it was just the thing to do, akin to condemning the perfidious Yankees (the baseball team) or the IRS.
All that’s changed of course, supplanted as you can see, even in such a supposedly cultured environment as this very board, by a surging nationalistic feeling of “with us or against us, reason be dammed, man the torpedoes.” And it’s sad and scary to watch. Sad, because it runs counter to the very tolerance that attracted me to the ‘American Way’ to begin with, scary, because it has slowly but surely taken the form of a runaway train, culminating in the openly Imperialistic attack we’ve just witnesses and leading to god knows where. Mind you, I am under no illusion that as much as I’d like the world to run differently, the big fish is not (almost always) going to feed on the little one. But by the same token, I was hoping that as we ventured into the 21st Century, we’d continue to foster a spirit of unity between the nations that are supposed to be leading us into the future and not regress into the law of the jungle.
In that sense, I salute France for trying, for standing up to the bully, for representing the great majority of humanity in attempting to stop the carnage that war always is. Because regardless of all the reasons that have been attributed to the French stance, I firmly believe that their driving impulse was the right one: that International Law means something, and because of that, war should only be waged as a last resort. And least anyone forget, here we are weeks after the end of the invasion, and it is as clear as day that there was no compelling reason to start this war on the US’s timeline. None. Zilch. Zip. Thus making the French position all the more justified. Unless of course, you’ve bought into the amazingly successful, politically driven propaganda campaign levelled against reason itself. Successful in the American market that is; because outside of it, very few of us are buying. And despite despite how many of you may think or act, Americans are not the only ones that count in the world.
Lastly, and to end my contribution to the hijack, I’d also add that I have a strong sense of admiration for the many other Americans that are swimming against the rising tide of groupthink sweeping their great nation. To them I say, I am clearly with you…and if that makes me yet another “anti-American,” I couldn’t be prouder. Because I want no part of the alternative.
Vive la France! Wake up America!
PS-For some truly informative and enlightened reading, allow me to suggest some of you avail yourselves of Carl Sagan’s speech, “Gettysburg and Now” from his last book, “Billions and Billions” which I had the distinct pleasure of (re)reading this weekend. If that doesn’t send a shiver down your spine under present circumstances, I have no idea what could.
The UN is a process for peacefully resolving differences. To say the outcome must be what you like or it is wrong is just negating the UN entirely.
I am amazed by the amount of people who just see the US position as “right” by definition and so the rest of the world is right in the measure with which it agrees with the US. That is the worst stereotype about Americans and, sadly, we can see it is plenty true. The world hates that kind of arrogance.
Well, lest victims of groupthink on these boards think there is too much anti-American pro-France gushing in this thread, let me state that I rather dislike most of France, other than the south and the ski resorts of course. I don’t like Paris, and think it is a pretentious city with crappy weather. Above all, I hate the way the French take their damp, smelly dogs with them into restaurants and cafes, forcing me to inhale essence of malodorous pet as I am eating good food. Like it’s not enough that one is forced to walk staring at the pavement for fear of stepping into the copious output of pooch…
I also dislike many French politicians, and I never thought I would see the day that Chirac did something as worthy as his stance against the case for immediate war. I have found myself defending Chirac’s position in recent times, something I would have thought rather unlikely a year ago.
And let’s remember France was not the only one standing up to the US and the UK.
So, while I can only approve of the French (and others) position on this matter, hold the vive la France please. It won’t help the debate any, just like religiously saying “God bless America” does not really help defend the current Bush Administration’s position.
However the point originally made by clairobscur and followed up by others is an important one. Quite a few of us seem to spend most of our time on these boards not engaging in lively debate, but cleaning up propaganda-generated assertions, many of them of manifest silliness but uttered in such volume and with such confidence that they masquerade as fact.
An hour after one such problem assertion is cleaned up, another one springs up with exactly the same nonsense in it. Then another one. We are not janitors; please stop strewing the same falsehoods and propaganda around these boards.