# UN unanimously adopts resolution on Iraq **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2004, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408 "2004-06-09T04:10:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/41 "2004-06-11T20:52:25Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Ob-fus-ca-tion. > > May I ask, who is the _rebuilder_ here? The same person as an _arsonist_, no? OK, so arson is hunky-dory as long as the arsonist also proposes the rebuilding plan? That makes arson _not_ a crime? That makes arson a good technique for urban renewal?! Really? > [@](#): > > The proper comparison is a virtuous citizen taking law into his own hands, arresting a crook, scattering crook’s henchmen and presenting corrupt and impotent city fathers (UN) with a new reality, in the face of which they have no choice but to approve. First you say that the U.N. is effectively endorsing Bush’s invasion of Iraq, but now you’re saying that they’ve been presented with a _fait accompli_ which they have no choice but to go along with. Which is it? Are you sure you want to keep resorting to this silly “logic?” Your arguments get goofier with each passing post. By the way, a “virtuous citizen taking the law into his own hands,” by any other name, is a “vigilante.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/42 "2004-06-11T21:38:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546 > 24. Notes that, upon dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the > funds in the Development Fund for Iraq shall be disbursed solely at the direction of > the Government of Iraq, and decides that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be > utilized in a transparent and equitable manner and through the Iraqi budget including > to satisfy outstanding obligations against the Development Fund for Iraq, that the > arrangements for the depositing of proceeds from export sales of petroleum, > petroleum products, and natural gas established in paragraph 20 of resolution 1483 > (2003) shall continue to apply, that the International Advisory and Monitoring Board > shall continue its activities in monitoring the Development Fund for Iraq and shall > include as an additional full voting member a duly qualified individual designated > by the Government of Iraq and that appropriate arrangements shall be made for the > continuation of deposits of the proceeds referred to in paragraph 21 of resolution > 1483 (2003); > 25. Decides further that the provisions in the above paragraph for the deposit > of proceeds into the Development Fund for Iraq and for the role of the IAMB shall > be reviewed at the request of the Transitional Government of Iraq or twelve months > from the date of this resolution, and shall expire upon the completion of the political > process set out in paragraph four above; > 26. Decides that, in connection with the dissolution of the Coalition > Provisional Authority, the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors shall > assume the rights, responsibilities and obligations relating to the Oil-for-Food > Programme that were transferred to the Authority, including all operational > responsibility for the Programme and any obligations undertaken by the Authority in > connection with such responsibility, and responsibility for ensuring independently > authenticated confirmation that goods have been delivered, and further decides that, > following a 120-day transition period from the date of adoption of this resolution, > the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors shall assume responsibility for > certifying delivery of goods under previously prioritized contracts, and that such > certification shall be deemed to constitute the independent authentication required > for the release of funds associated with such contracts, consulting as appropriate to > ensure the smooth implementation of these arrangements; This is all rather thick . . . but it seems to say that the existing contracts (e.g., Halliburton’s), and existing Coalition policies regarding the oil, will remain in place and the Interim Government will merely take over some of the donkey work of collecting and disbursing the money, without having any authority to make any fundamental changes in the arrangements. Have I got that right? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/43 "2004-06-11T23:26:35Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > OK, so arson is hunky-dory as long as the arsonist also proposes the rebuilding plan? That makes arson _not_ a crime? That makes arson a good technique for urban renewal?! Really? I said no such thing. You want to call Bush actions a crime? Fine. But if your neighbour has committed what you believe is a crime and then you say, “Oh well, let’s make the best of it”, you acqiesce in that crime. UN doesn’t have to go along with Bush. They could move court to Timbuktu or Jalalabad and expel “criminal” US. > [@Early Out](#): > > First you say that the U.N. is effectively endorsing Bush’s invasion of Iraq, but now you’re saying that they’ve been presented with a _fait accompli_ which they have no choice but to go along with. Which is it? Basically, I see no difference between “endorsing” and “going along”. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/44 "2004-06-11T23:53:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > … Have I got that right? Dunno. You sure it doesn’t outline the procedures for turning over our first-born to our Insect Overlords? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/45 "2004-06-11T23:57:24Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Basically, I see no difference between “endorsing” and “going along”. Look at my face. No, look at it. Closer. Yea, that’s it. Know what that is? Complete and utter lack of surprise. ---
**Author:** ![Cronos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Cronos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cronos1)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/46 "2004-06-12T00:04:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by New Iskander > Basically, I see no difference between “endorsing” and “going along”. At this point, New Iskander, UN has agreed that the US needs to turnover sovereignty to Iraq. And US should maintain responsibility for the security of Iraq. Not a change in their position at all. “Going along,” “endorsing,” or any other verb you want to use doesn’t mean that UN members have somehow come to believe in the legitimacy of the US action and have come to support US’ involvement. As far as making no difference between “endorsing” and “going along,” hypothetically, if someone held a gun to your head and then demanded your money. Would you consider acquiescence to be an “endorsement” of the thug’s actions, or would you consider it “going along?” Or is the nuance still lost on you? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/47 "2004-06-12T00:32:38Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Look at my face. > … > > Complete and utter lack of surprise. I’ll drink to that! ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/48 "2004-06-12T01:16:13Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Basically, I see no difference between “endorsing” and “going along”. Like having sex is the same as submitting to an armed rapist. This debate is over. You’ve lost. Your arguments make no sense. Face it. I’m outta this thread - it’s become too tedious to bother with. ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/49 "2004-06-12T02:05:43Z")
[Dear New Iskander, You are a babe in the woods. Did you in your most wistful of moments think that you could engage these sad robots into a serious discussion about the implications of the 15-0 UN vote? Ha! They care not for the good of the persecuted peoples of this world, they care only for their incompentency compensating egos and their biological hatred of George W Bush. Your time would be better spent if you chopped down a pine tree and talked to its stump. Milum] ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/50 "2004-06-12T02:58:58Z")
> [@Milum](#): > > [Dear New Iskander, > > You are a babe in the woods. Did you in your most wistful of moments think that you could engage these sad robots into a serious discussion about the implications of the 15-0 UN vote? > Ha! > They care not for the good of the persecuted peoples of this world, they care only for their incompentency compensating egos and their biological hatred of George W Bush. > > Your time would be better spent if you chopped down a pine tree and talked to its stump. > > Milum] xxx ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/51 "2004-06-12T03:29:22Z")
> [@Milum](#): > > They care not for the good of the persecuted peoples of this world hehe, that’s just funny. > [@](#): > > they care only for their incompentency compensating egos Shouldn’t you be suggesting that Reagan’s face be engraved onto the moon or something? > [@](#): > > and their biological hatred of George W Bush. That’s not true. I didn’t hate George W. Bush until I knew him. > [@](#): > > Your time would be better spent if you chopped down a pine tree and talked to its stump. Millum has practice, it is the only thing that will agree with him ☹ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/52 "2004-06-12T04:06:38Z")
Well, it presents some knotty problems. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/53 "2004-06-12T05:53:31Z")
[Moderator Hat ON] Milum, don’t post stuff in invisible text unless it’s spoilers in Cafe Society. If you have something to say, I am sure you can say it where we all can see it, hm? Invisible text will certainly not save you from a warning if it is mertited, so watch your step, invisible or no. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/54 "2004-06-12T18:37:38Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > This debate is over. You’ve lost. Your arguments make no sense. Face it. > > I’m outta this thread - it’s become too tedious to bother with. You must be the kind of person who always slams the door on the way out. Oh well, someone has to clean up after you, and I’m sure the other lazy lefties won’t volunteer, so it’s up to me again. > [@Early Out](#): > > …a “virtuous citizen taking the law into his own hands,” by any other name, is a “vigilante.” Old bugaboo “vigilante” word. Lethal to anything good. We can’t have “vigilantism”. Well, no, actually we can have leftist “popular vigilantism”, but that’s all. We can’t have gov’t vigilantism. Too dangerous for the World. We can have gov’t by welfare burocrats sponging off the population in the developed countries. We can have murderous dictators terrorizing the population in underdeveloped coutries. We sometimes can have genocides even. But we can’t have gov’t vigilantism. We can’t challenge the World status quo. Too dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/55 "2004-06-12T19:51:48Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > But we can’t have gov’t vigilantism. We can’t challenge the World status quo. Too dangerous. Well, it is turning out to be too dangerous, isn’t it? Toppling Hussein has done nothing to abate the terrorist threat – if anything, it’s gotten worse – and we have add more instability to an unstable region. Instability that, whether or not the U.S. pulls its troops out of Iraq this year, might lead in the near future, by any of a dozen different paths, to more wars within and/or between Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. This is not dangerous? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/56 "2004-06-12T19:57:30Z")
Well, golly gee, **New Isk** , I had no idea that my political persuasion fostered all those dreadful things! Perhaps if we of the left stopped spending so much time gathering daffodils and hating freedom, we would have more time to sit at the feet of hard-headed realists, such as yourself. Taking notes, of course, and gasping in admiration. But, a quibble. A small matter, really, trivial, but that’s the trouble with quibbles. Can you actually prove any of these otherwise extravagant claims? As you know, faith is in short supply these days, so if you’re not too busy? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/57 "2004-06-12T23:36:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Can you actually prove any of these otherwise extravagant claims? Nice try. I answer and you kick me. No way. Go kick a puppy. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/58 "2004-06-12T23:40:45Z")
So, that would be “No”, then? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/59 "2004-06-13T16:18:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, it is turning out to be too dangerous, isn’t it? I don’t think so. Nations were known to take much greater risks. Think of France declaring war on Hitler and starting WWII. Think of Chechnya challenging Russia. Besides doing too little is also very dangerous, as we learned on 9-11. I remember that you advocated complete withdrawal from ME. I would support that too, as long as we are doing something decisive. However, I’m afraid it wouldn’t solve anything. There is much bigger aspect to our presence in ME than simply securing a portion of our domestic oil intake. For good or bad, we are the world policeman. If we withdraw, will it be better for the world or worse? We couldn’t stay away from previous world wars. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/60 "2004-06-13T23:53:20Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Besides doing too little is also very dangerous, as we learned on 9-11. 9-11 might have happened because the CIA and the FBI did too little, **Iskander.** It certainly did not happen because the State Department and the Defense Department did too little. There is no conceivable pre-emptive military action that the U.S. could have taken to eliminate Bin Laden’s power base of angry Muslims. If the U.S. had scrupulously kept its nose out of Middle Eastern affairs after Carter negotiated peace between Egypt and Israel, **that** might have prevented 9-11. > [@New Iskander](#): > > There is much bigger aspect to our presence in ME than simply securing a portion of our domestic oil intake. Then why are there no U.S. troops in Sudan? > [@New Iskander](#): > > For good or bad, we are the world policeman. Who appointed us? The world doesn’t want to be policed by the U.S. The Europeans don’t want it, the Japanese don’t want it, and the Middle Easterners (except for the Israelis) sure as hell don’t want it. What can justify this kind of unilateral imperialist thinking in this day and age? Besides, we’re not really suited to the role. As a society we’re too insular, too inward-looking and narrow-minded, to dominate the world beneficially. If the European Union were the global military hegemonic power, instead of the U.S. (and **over** the U.S.), that would be a vast improvement. But why does the world need any hegemonic power at all? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408.md?page=4)