the UN is not a honest broker.
Those resolutions, BTW, by the UN is by an Arab-leaning and anti-Israel UN. The above is not a biased source, and this has been well know anyway.
Altho this is an interview published in the same Israeli source, it is by a non-Jewish German.
Although this is from another Jewish site, it contains statements by the director of the Geneva-based UNWatch, reiterating the difference between Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
In UN every country has just one wote. It’s unfair!!!
Some of us are more democratic, they are more equal than the others, they should have more votes! 
barbitu8 wrote:
Not a biased source? It stinks all the way up to heaven! And it is certainly news for me that the “Arabs” are running US! (and btw. also UN).
The next site given by barbitu8 has a lot of sense until when:
Or is it me that is biased??? Well, living in this “former Marxist country” is my excuse. :smack:
barbitu8 wrote:
We, You and I, have gone through this before in other sites.
Why are You lying?
Please give a map what means “Arafat was offered practically everything, including the occupied areas.”
And please do not come with the old story “that there is no map…” You know there is. Even Fox-news has one.
Show me evidence that Arafat has gone back to terrorism after Camp David (which I think You are referring to).
So has Pakistan and India, the great friends.
They both tested yesterday, Friday, new missiles that can carry nukes. Do You trust them? Should US also attack e.g. Pakistan?
Or is it democratic? No pop-heads there?
I trust in Israel, but I am not trusting in Sharon. He is just another crazy warmongerer.
barbitu8 wrote further:
Not Iran? No?
(Iraq backed by USA? No?)
If you live in glass houses, you shouldn’t throw stones. In the only other thread that we both participated in, you made two statements that were false, and which you knew had to be false: the percentages of the land to be shared by Israel and Palestine and the number of Jews and Arabs in the land. You woefully misstated the correct numbers.
Arafat was offered about 90% of what he wanted and he rejected the offer without any counteroffer or anything on which to base a meaningful negotiation. Instead, he left in a huff and began a new round of terrorism.
But those are other topics, and not the topic of this thread.
Hank, your prose style is utterly unique. My admiration would be more complete if it were not so much based on intuition.
But I am intrigued. I simply must know: what are these “maps” that Fox News has?
And what, precisely, in terms of international relations, is a “pop-head”? Pakistan? India? Kofi Annan?
I remain a loyal, if somewhat befuddled, fan.
barb:
I just want to start this post by once again expressing my amazement over your previous warning against believing everything one reads in the newspapers (because it might be biased), followed by your feverish attempt to support your position with articles taken from newspapers that even you admit are biased. Surely you realize this is a self-defeating debate strategy.
Regarding your last 3 cites: the first one is incoherent. It’s virulently anti-UN, but in a primitive and polemic sense, without reference to the context in which Security Council decisions are taken; all I can make out of it is the poorly supported claim that the US, and not the UN, should ”control the middle east.” It’s an opinion piece and makes no mention of Chapter VI or VII of the UN Charter, or the connection between those chapters and current Security Council resolutions vis-a-vis Iraq and Israel.
The third cite is an interesting interview that also makes no mention whatsoever of the UN, or the topic we are discussing; it is perhaps worth noting that the journalist being interviewed, Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, classifies US policy towards Iraq as a ”series of huge mistakes,” and claims that he is ”not in favor of war” – unless, that is, such a war can guarantee a democratic outcome for Iraq, which, of course, it cannot.
Since neither of these cites are particularly relevant to our discussion, I’ll just ignore them for now. That leaves your second cite, a well-argued piece from the JTA. It raises a lot of important points, some of which I agree with, at least partially. (Others, on the other hand, strike me as callous and irrelevant, such as Gold’s claim that there is ”no comparison,” in terms of magnitude, between Iraq and Israel.)
But my original argument remains the same, and Srulevitch’s interpretation of the resolutions is, in my opinion, the red-herring here. None of the resolutions he refers to make any specific mention whatsoever of Chapters VI and VII. They are simply Security Council resolutions. In fact, as mentioned earlier, 338 is a cease-fire demand that subsequently calls upon Israel to implement 242. Thus, 687 (against Iraq) and 338 (against Israel) are both cease fire resolutions, and therefore must be considered as falling under Chapter VII. But it doesn’t really matter; SC resolutions must be respected, regardless. Srulevitch’s argument is just a simple lawyer’s trick.
The Israeli refusal to relinquish occupied territories beyond the Green Line, is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of Iraq’s refusal to relinquish Kuwait. Both are territories that have been seized in war and thus both must be returned. Luckily for Israel, they’ve got big friends on the one hand and have seized essentially worthless territory on the other. Unfortunately for Iraq, they’ve got no friends and seized very valuable territory. The difference in outcome is obvious to anyone with eyes in their head.
The topic of debate here is whether or not the US should attack Iraq without UN approval. Many people justify a unilateral US attack by pointing to the fact that Iraq refuses to comply with Security Council resolutions, and further arguing that the UN is too weak to enforce them. I argue that such a claim is bogus unless it is applied universally; otherwise, it is the argument of a hypocrite. The US supports Israel, which has broken/ignored significantly more SC resolutions than Iraq. Therefore whatever arguments may exist in favor of a unilateral strike, the fact that Iraq is in violation of Security Council resolutions cannot be among them, unless one is also prepared to support hypocrisy as an acceptable element in US foreign policy. Your arguments thus far have not convinced me otherwise. This last claim:
Only serves to convince me further that you have no real interest in achieving a balanced view of the issues involved, but are more concerned with pushing you particular favorite little agenda.
Come with real arguments, sir, or stop wasting my time.
barb:
I just want to start this post by once again expressing my amazement over your previous warning against believing everything one reads in the newspapers (because it might be biased), followed by your feverish attempt to support your position with articles taken from newspapers that even you admit are biased. Surely you realize this is a self-defeating debate strategy.
Regarding your last 3 cites: the first one is incoherent. It’s virulently anti-UN, but in a primitive and polemic sense, without reference to the context in which Security Council decisions are taken; all I can make out of it is the poorly supported claim that the US, and not the UN, should ”control the middle east.” It’s an opinion piece and makes no mention of Chapter VI or VII of the UN Charter, or the connection between those chapters and current Security Council resolutions vis-a-vis Iraq and Israel.
The third cite is an interesting interview that also makes no mention whatsoever of the UN, or the topic we are discussing; it is perhaps worth noting that the journalist being interviewed, Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, classifies US policy towards Iraq as a ”series of huge mistakes,” and claims that he is ”not in favor of war” – unless, that is, such a war can guarantee a democratic outcome for Iraq, which, of course, it cannot.
Since neither of these cites are particularly relevant to our discussion, I’ll just ignore them for now. That leaves your second cite, a well-argued piece from the JTA. It raises a lot of important points, some of which I agree with, at least partially. (Others, on the other hand, strike me as callous and irrelevant, such as Gold’s claim that there is ”no comparison,” in terms of magnitude, between Iraq and Israel.)
But my original argument remains the same, and Srulevitch’s interpretation of the resolutions is, in my opinion, the red-herring here. None of the resolutions he refers to make any specific mention whatsoever of Chapters VI and VII. They are simply Security Council resolutions. In fact, as mentioned earlier, 338 is a cease-fire demand that subsequently calls upon Israel to implement 242. Thus, 687 (against Iraq) and 338 (against Israel) are both cease fire resolutions, and therefore must be considered as falling under Chapter VII. But it doesn’t really matter; SC resolutions must be respected, regardless. Srulevitch’s argument is just a simple lawyer’s trick.
The Israeli refusal to relinquish occupied territories beyond the Green Line, is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of Iraq’s refusal to relinquish Kuwait. Both are territories that have been seized in war and thus both must be returned. Luckily for Israel, they’ve got big friends on the one hand and have seized essentially worthless territory on the other. Unfortunately for Iraq, they’ve got no friends and seized very valuable territory. The difference in outcome is obvious to anyone with eyes in their head.
The topic of debate here is whether or not the US should attack Iraq without UN approval. Many people justify a unilateral US attack by pointing to the fact that Iraq refuses to comply with Security Council resolutions, and further arguing that the UN is too weak to enforce them. I argue that such a claim is bogus unless it is applied universally; otherwise, it is the argument of a hypocrite. The US supports Israel, which has broken/ignored significantly more SC resolutions than Iraq. Therefore whatever arguments may exist in favor of a unilateral strike, the fact that Iraq is in violation of Security Council resolutions cannot be among them, unless one is also prepared to support hypocrisy as an acceptable element in US foreign policy. Your arguments thus far have not convinced me otherwise. This last claim:
Only serves to convince me further that you have no real interest in achieving a balanced view of the issues involved, but are more concerned with pushing you particular favorite little agenda.
Come with real arguments, sir, or stop wasting my time.
I repeat: those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. In the other thread we both participated in, you tried to convince everyone that Israel’s attack in 1967 was not preemptive. To do that, you admitted that you used Arab sources.
See my first sentence above.
There are, of course, two big differences. Israel’s war was defensive and Iraq’s was not. And Israel won its war.
No one can disabuse you of any opinion which you hold. Cutting aside all the niceties and red herrings, the bottom line is that Hussein is a threat to his neighbors and to mankind. Israel is not.
barbitru8 wrote:
It’s a lie. Go to the map: http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
Click at the map, use the “next”-button, and You will see it, picture by picture. Read the text and even a pure propagandist sees what I have been writing about.
How about the Israelian Taba suggestion (seen in the map)? Arafat would have, according to Palestinian sources, accepted that. Where did Sharon put it?
Answer: Into the toilet together with the Oslo-agreement.
You do not have any site for this for the simple reason that it is a lie.
Yeah, it is very easy to begin to slander and distribute lies, and when someone wants to answer, just tell “that it does not belong here.”
Please go back to the original thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122188&perpage=40&highlight=What%20should%20the%20palestinians%20do&pagenumber=2
There You also find the Fox-news-site, where they describe that map.
I’ll answer there.
To answer the OP. “Yes”.
To qualify my answer: If it is a good thing for our nation to attack anyone then we should do it regardless of U.N. opinions. The U.N. is made up of people and is therefore just as right or wrong minded as any governing body, uncluding us when we decide we need to attack someone.
This holds true if it is in our best national interest to attack anyone. It may be wrong, illegal, or any number of things to attack Iraq, that isn’t my argument. My argument is that the U.N. should not prevent us from doing what is good for us.
**
I don’t have the time (nor the intelligence, probably) to address all your points, but I would like to say that the two choices are mutually exclusive. Let me explain.
Problem: While comparisons with Hitler and other people can be useful, this case presents unique and more serious issues, involving the network and financing of global terrorism (a growing menace), nuclear capabilities, states vowing to harm and/or destroy US allies.
Evidence: He publicly supports terrorism as a legitimate means of achieving political ends, even stating the 9/11 attacks were a direct result of “US policy in the Middle East.” While in and of itself not enough to attack, he does have a platform to spout his hatred as long as he is president of Iraq. Take him out of the picture, and a fringe benefit would be that much wind from terrorism’s sails flow with him.
Additionally, the Bush Administration and Blair have presented evidence that:
- Prior to 9/11, Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague;
- Members of al-Qaida have been seen recently in Baghdad;
- At Saddam’s urging, Abu Abbas, the Achille Lauro mastermind, has become active in global terrorism again;
- Saddam is supporting al-Qaida financially, materially, with weapons training;
- Saddam rewards the families of suicide killers in Israel/Palestinian Territories;
- Iraqi defectors’ statements as to Saddam’s weapons programs; and
- Saddam’s closeness to nuclear capability.
Abiding by the Charter would mean effectively giving veto power to a foreign power over these vital security interests. No is simply not an acceptable answer in this one case. It would be irresponsible in the extreme not to act to stop Saddam.
Your suggestion seems really to boil down to either protect American lives and those of our allies but renounce our membership in the UN, or wait for UN approval (how long? Six months? One year? Two years?), and just keep our fingers crossed!
Anyone want to host the UN? Khartoum? Damascus? Castro?
The U.S. shouldn’t attack Iraq without U.N. approval for the very simple reason that to do so will ignite a world war in which the U.S. and those countries who go in with the U.S. will be seen as being at war against not just Iraq but all of Islam.
Yes, Saddam is a secular dictator, but he’s seen as representing our next target in our “war on terror” both by Bush and by the rest of the world. Given that the connection between him and the 9/11 attacks is vague at best (anonplz, American intelligence has since indicated that number 1 on your list never happened: see the following story: .U.S.: Al Qaida Op Recently in Baghdad ), the focus on him looks more like the Bush administration is attempting to come up with an excuse to attack him, rather than any kind of logical extension of the war on terror.
It’s too soon to act, granting for the sake of argument that action is necessary. Yes, he’s in violation of the SC resolutions, resolutions which were imposed on him as the loser in a war. But he has to be backed diplomatically into a corner he can’t get out of first, so that deals aren’t made which turn out to be awful in the long run.
As of now, in order for the U.S. to get approval from the U.N., it would have to give carte blanche to Russia to attack Georgia in pursuit of Chechens, just to take one highly relevant example. Remember that the Chechens are Muslim also. Such a deal would look like two white, Christian countries agreeing to an alliance against Islam. The long-term results could be horrific.
If the U.S. acts without the U.N., it would grant the same carte blanche to Russia, of course, by default. If we can act unilaterally to pre-empt a threat, so too can Russia, obviously. It would at the same time destroy the effectiveness of the U.N., a thing which is in no way in the interests of the U.S.
Give Saddam time to interfere with the inspectors, as he obviously will. Let the tension build, and wait for him to make a crucial error. Then, the rest of the world will get tired of trying to defend him, throw up its hands and get out of the way. No bad deals, and no carte blanche given to Russia or anyone else. The diplomatic damage would be minimal, at least.
The next questions for U.S. citizens to confront are
a) whether the goal of eliminating Saddam, rather than containing him, is worth American blood and treasure, and
b) whether we’re confident we can rebuild the country afterwards without a hideously expensive and possibly bloody occupation that may incite the rest of the Islamic world against us anyway.
Putting this more bluntly, Bin Laden wanted to incite a war between the infidels and Islam with his attacks. Attacking Saddam, if botched, especially if it’s botched diplomatically, will play right into his hands.
No, it won’t be seen as a war against Islam. The whole world knows Saddam is a monster, and furthermore, he’s not even a devout Muslim. In fact, like Arafat, he flirted with Marxism, rejecting his religion, in his younger days, so how could a war against Saddam be seen as a war against Islam? Furthermore, the US has a fair number of Muslims itself, not to mention Jews, Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, whatever.
As to your hyperlink, US intelligence does not rule out the Prague meeting, merely “doubts” it took place. I happen to believe it did happen.
The UN is a useless mockery of what it was supposed to be. Weak, finger-wagging, frowning, issuing mountains of resolutions without teeth, giving Sudan, Libya, Cuba, China and Syria more esteem as to Human Rights than the US??
No, the UN will not be deciding this issue. If anything, this is a perfect face-saving opportunity for them. Let’s hope they don’t blow it.
I hate to interrupt this debate, but statements that Henrymade cannot go unanswered. In the initial thread, he said that the UN partitioned the land 17% for the Arabs and 83% for the Jews, yet the Arabs vastly outnumbered the Jews. He gave no sources, and when I gave sources to refute those statements, he said he was “mistaken.” I let it go at that. Now, when he comes in this thread and screams at me that I’m a liar, I feel justified to call a spade a spade.
He now says that he was right and produces bogus maps purportedly drawn up at Camp David, to show the 17%-83%, and claim that he was not mistaken. That was not what he initially said. He iniitally referred to the UN partition. He also ignored the population figures.
Carry on, now, please.
barbitu8
You are totally out of line here.
Even if the Israel&Palestinian question is very relevant to the question of Middle-East and is a part of the Iraq-question, it has little reference to the OP.
I have been too much out of the OP, I agree to that, but please go to the original OP especially when You (falsely) refer to that OP.
Or maybe there is a reason why You do not want to?
Then why any other country shouldn’t attack without UN approval if they think it is the right thing to do?
Because it would create chaos!
That’s why the US (being a country of this world) should abide by the charter, and not do whatever they want to do.
?
You’re saying that the US can do whatever they want if it’s good for them. That’s wrong. Then you are giving Iraq a reason to attack any other country “because it’s goos for them”.
This consistincy argument bears no relation to the real world. Iraq has already shown their willingness to make unprovoked attacks on other countries, e.g., Iran, Kuwait, Israel.
Well, maybe the mistake was putting Iraq as an example. Just replace Iraq with another country. It’s the same argument.
Countries are as different from each other as anything else, so no, you can’t just fill-in-the-blank with that equation.
Okay, let’s say Germany. “Well, okay,” I can hear you say, “everyone except Iraq and Germany.”
Italy. “Oops, no, I guess they have some history there. Okay, but those are the only countries with histories of unprovoked aggression.”
Japan, Spain, China, Turkey, Morocco - the list could go on and on. Even Venezuela can’t seem to get their own borders right.
So the logic does not follow that the Iraq example applies to anyone else, nor would countries take that as an example.