The people who bombed the UN want to reinstate Baath or to stop reconstruction... if the UN were irrelevant they wouldnt have attacked them. Only Bush thinks the UN is irrelevant. Or do you think they would do a suicide attack just for kicks ?
Ok... lets rephrase that. Democracy in the International Arena. Internal "democracy" or better said consensus/support is something Bush does have ... quite differently from Spain and Blair's UK. Bush might be a populist and warmongerer... but thats still democratic. (Thou I do think Bush "won" the election in very dubious ways.)
In the international arena thou… the UN for all its faults and problems is Democratic. Perfect ? No way… but better than Bush telling the world what to do. Every country/region has a saying… some have more of course… but everyone gets some participation. Whatever the neo-cons might think about the validity of the '91 resolutions and the legitimacy of the War… the fact still remains that the UN should be in charge. That the US is an invader and not a liberator.
Dont give me the UN is corrupt line either... if the US congress were squeaky clean ok... but the pork barrel stinks.
As for the non democratic countries in the UN... its like saying that the Catholic Church is gay due to the high number of gay members. The UN itself is democratic... even if the member countries arent. In fact its a great way of showing how democracy works... except of course when the bigger members go off disregarding the UN.
It needs to come up with a credible solution for the mid east. It will never earn the symapthy of bin Laden, but the way it’s acting now, it just drives the people towards him.
The disturbing fact is not that one guy is crazy, but that he winns popular support fueld by arrogat US politics…
I think this article will make Shodan’s point a little clearer.
It’s not that there was a connection forged between OBL and Saddam during gulf war I. It’s that OBL became enraged at the US basing troops in Saudi Arabia as a result of Saddam’s activities preceding gulf war I.
good point and a good article.
But as I stated a little further above, the Kuwait invasion and the subsequent war was just the occasion for troop deployment. The US whished to be present in the region all along (for reasons outlined by anewthought). And there have been close relations between the Saudis and the US for a long time (based on oil and weapon tarde).
We already came up with a credible solution to the invasion of Kuwait, which was to drive Iraq out. Stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia as part of that effort is what caused ObL to attack us.
If you mean a solution to the Palestinian-Israel conflict, we have a road map for that, although it does not seem to have reduced terrorism significantly. If you have a better solution than what is underway, by all means let’s hear it, but you are going to need to be clear on how it will reduce terrorism.
If you mean that nobody would attack the US if we hadn’t overthrown Saddam Hussein, it has already been pointed out that 9/11 happened long before the invasion was a gleam in Bush’s eye. As well as the previous attacks on the WTC during the Clinton presidency, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, Libyan terror attacks, etc.
If you just mean the US will be subject to terrorist attacks until everyone in the Middle East gets along as well as the US and Canada, I think we have at least six thousand years of terror attacks to look forward to.
Well what do you call most "democratic" systems nowdays ? I dont see many people with no money getting elected or many governments working without bureaucracy.
Take for exampe the USA... 2 parties basically dominate and the special interest groups have it all under their wings. To get elected you need a good amount of cash... to become president you need massive amounts of cash and the backing of one of the 2 parties, plus the support of certain groups. Oligarchic ? You bet.
Did the UN needed some kicking around to get in shape... ? Sure did. They are bloated and inefficient. The US government is just as bad if you compare the costs of military development and governance.
So if the UN isn't democratic I dont know who is... the G7 might dominate of course... but the UN still represents the biggest worldwide consensus possible.
PS: Shodan… you seem to think the reasons for Terrorism started pretty recently. You should know better that things have been building up for much longer. They just entered your reality in 9/11.
Could anyone give me a cite on the theory that Bin Laden wanted to kick Saddam out of Kuwait thru his fighters ? Havent seen anything about that before… I only know about his hating the basing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
Funny enough Saddam gets attacked because he "might" be colaborating with Bin Laden.
Yeah…we should only elect people who are financial failures. Forget leaders who have demonstrated success in business, law economics or some other endeavor. Let’s put some homeless guy or a pizza delivery boy in office.
I hate to tell you this but the UN is not a world government. It is a forum for nations to air their grievences and address various world issues. If the UN was as important as you say they would have done something about Sadaam a long time ago.
The decision to base US troops in SA was partly the result of another lie from another Bush. The Pentagon doctored satellite photos to show a buildup of Iraqi troops on the Iraq-SA border. Analysis of commercial satellite photos showed no such buildup. So if you say that OBL wanted to attack the US because of American troops in SA, then yes, those attacks were the direct result of the Pentagon’s policy of lying to the world about the justifications for their actions.
“The photographs, which are still classified in the US (for security reasons, according to Brent Scowcroft, President Bush senior’s national security advisor), purportedly showed more than a quarter of a million Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border poised to pounce. Except, when a resourceful Florida-based reporter at the St Petersburg Times persuaded her newspaper to buy the same independently commissioned satellite photos from a commercial satellite to verify the Pentagon’s line, she saw no sign of a quarter of a million troops or their tanks.”
It’s not so much a matter as blaming ourselves, but it’s a matter of accepting the unfortunate realities of life. It is an unfortunate reality that if a woman dresses provocatively and walks on a lonely alley in a high crime area at 3 AM, her chances of getting raped are drastically increased.
Likewise, if the U.S uses its power to impose certain policies in other countries, a small number of terrorists will be enraged enough to commit acts of terrorism.
Now, the woman may have been perfectly within her moral rights to walk around in a skimpy outfit in a dangerous area. And the U.S may have been within its rights to station troops in Saudi Arabia.
But being pragmatic, they ought to be aware that something bad might occur as a consequence, and try to figure out whether, to them, the value of what they are doing outweighs the possible risks.
I disagree with 1 word: “irrelevant”. Bush tried to kiss as many bottoms as possible before the war. I don’t think Bush abandoned UN, I think the UN abandon the United States. Or to be blunt, certain people made it clear they would not support a resolution of war no matter what.
I would think it more accurate to say that Bush thinks the UN is impotent.
Wang-ka well put.
Boo Boo Foo - also well put. I agree that it is the fertile soil of hate that needs to be dealt with. I also think people have to have that inner spark of self sufficiency that strives to grow.
First off I would like a cite and a rationale for this statement.
Second, I always thought that we were there at the request of the Saudis, who saw themselves as the next target of opportunity. (Although Roger_Mexicos little bomb was an eye-opener even if it was from * The Guardian*).
If the Saudis want us to leave, all they have to do is say so.
Since were still on that woman analogy. The US is a scantly clad girl walking in shady backstreets at night kicking random pedestrians in the groin and slapping the rest.
OBL made it clear what he dislikes about the US.
The US support for Isreal.
The US deployment in SA.
The US led blockade on Iraq (at the time).
The best the US could do for itself is not to create a climate where nutcases like OBL have an easy time recuiting.
This claim has already been proven false many times in this forum. Please stop repeating it.
The Saudi royal family doesn’t want us to leave. OTOH, I believe a majority of Saudi citizens do, largely because of their dislike towards the Royal family.
The Iraqis attacked Saudi Arabia at Kahfji. They must have massed a few troops to actually invade Saudi Arabia and capture a small city, even if only for one day. The US Marines with some air support made it a short and unpleasant stay. The air support killed seven Marines though.
After the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, how can anyone argue that Iraqi troops were not massed on the border of Saudi Arabia? Is the argument that they were dug into defensive positions, but not preparing to invade Saudi Arabia? There were huge trench systems dug all along the Saudi border which were mostly pulverized by B-52 strikes during the long air campaign leading up to Desert Storm.
Are you, Roger_Mexico, saying that those troops didn’t exist, or something else? Maybe there was some other area the Pentagon claimed the Iraqis were massing troops, other than along the Saudi-Kuwaiti border?
It should come as no surprise that the truth is not quite as cut-and-dried as it would appear. Evidently, analysis of the pictures obtained by the St. Petersburg Times did not show conclusive evidence of the quoted 250,000-man forces said to be massing on the border.
Deja-vu all over again? Perhaps. Perhaps not:
Seeing Iraqi troops on the commercially-purchased photos would be proof they were there. Not seeing them is not necessarily proof that they weren’t.
p.s. This is in no way intended to be a slam against Roger. More a foil to the Guardian article.