Did the UN fail?

[GePap]

Coming into this war there were a series of argument about why this war was needed. The two posted over the most were : Thr liberation of Iraq, and removing the great Iraqi threat.

Right now those that backed the war feel pretty happy about themselves since they can point and say aim one was met. And it has been met, the poeple of Iraq no longer live under the dictatorship of Saddam.

But what about the second reason?

We had many, many threats about how Saddam was the new Hitler and that the UN not moving to disarm him meant the UN was like the league of Nations, unable to remove a grave danger to the world that would kill millions.

3 weeks later, Iraq used no WMD aganist anyone, and no banned weapons have yet to be found. The Iraqi military put forward what can be most nicely put as "an utterly inept" performance. No terrorist attacks have taken place, nor has the conquest of Ansar Al-Islams territory lead to any news about Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda, nor has anyone yet been able to show anyone from Al_qaeda did anyting in Iraq during this war.

There are plenty of people here expecting those of us who opposed this war to "eat crow" over the sucessful ending. Well, so what about the claims the pro-war side made about the great and imminent threat Iraq posed to the world? Were all these claims of utter doom to the world if Saddam was left in power true? Will those that made them and claimed the UN was appeasing the new Hitler in the run-up to war at any point admit that perhaps they were wrong in this aspect, or does a sucessful ending to the war portion of the Iraq tale exonorate you from these sorts of questions?

[Q Classic]

the first--and last--time the UN worked, it was in korea.

and that was because the soviet union wasn't around to screw things up.

these days, the un is an ineffectual body, thanks to the idiocy of every single nation in the world.

[DarthVeda]

Only its humanitarian parts can claim any real ability.

[GePap]

Two post avoiding the question.

[Q Classic]

you want answers?

There are plenty of people here expecting those of us who opposed this war to "eat crow" over the sucessful ending. Well, so what about the claims the pro-war side made about the great and imminent threat Iraq posed to the world?

naturally, the spin machines will try to phase out that part of the war rationale. it will become a war of liberation more than a war against terrorism; the terrorism bit just happens to be a convenient side effect.

Were all these claims of utter doom to the world if Saddam was left in power true?

were they? probably not. but we'll never know. utter doom for countless iraqis, yes. doom for the world? please. there is no single nation on this planet that can doom the whole world short of using its nuclear weapons. not even the us.

Will those that made them and claimed the UN was appeasing the new Hitler in the run-up to war at any point admit that perhaps they were wrong in this aspect, or does a sucessful ending to the war portion of the Iraq tale exonorate you from these sorts of questions?

of course not. they've won the war, they've won iraq's freedom for now. they're riding high--and they'll bring that up every single time anybody tries to call them on anything else.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
these days, the un is an ineffectual body, thanks to the idiocy of every single nation in the world.

High, the US is the only voice of reason here.......The entire world is wrong

[Q Classic]

the idiocy of every single nation in the world includes the us, mind you.

people are stupid. it was a mistake to leave the trees in the first place.

[rah]

1. The war is not over.
2. The people aren't free yet.
3. We haven't searched that much for WMD
4. We don't know if we've eliminated all threats to the US.

So this whole discussion is a bit premature.

RAH

Do the math. How big was the Iraqi army prior? How many have we accounted for (not even 10%). Granted many have deserted, but how many are left to continue the fight one at a time.

[Kramerman]

3 weeks later, Iraq used no WMD aganist anyone, and no banned weapons have yet to be found. The Iraqi military put forward what can be most nicely put as "an utterly inept" performance. No terrorist attacks have taken place, nor has the conquest of Ansar Al-Islams territory lead to any news about Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda, nor has anyone yet been able to show anyone from Al_qaeda did anyting in Iraq during this war.

Its only been 3 weeks dude... im not rubbing anything in anyone's face... its not over till its over, adn it could be years till any real success or failure can be accurately guaged from this conflict. Many questions may take even longer.

[spiritof1202]

The UN is a big failure.

It doesn't have enough will or power to enforce its own resolutions, and patently fails in national security issues in post conflict areas, like... say Yugoslavia and Afganistan.

Its fast approaching the irrelevency of the league of nations. Ultimately it has to at least make an effort to work with the Coalition, understanding its secondary role... since without the US' consent, it has little or no power.

Recently, it's only useful role has been in humanitarian aid work, or disarming countries that wanted to be disarmed (E.G. South Africa)

[MichaeltheGreat]

The problem with the UN is structural - the UN has no taxing authority, no external resources, and has to rely on loaned forces from member nations for peacekeeping missions.

That means it can be subverted and sabotaged by almost any significant member, so the UN can only deal with security issues with near-unanimous agreement.

[spiritof1202]

Absolutely.

It just so happens that there is only one superpower left, and that means almost any 'heavy lifting' requires their agreement.

The veto system obviously causes a problem too, although it worked when there were two superpowers.

Has the world evolved past the UN (as structured)?

[Sava]

Yes and No... the UN failed in theory because it didn't enforce it's resolutions. And No, it didn't, because the US, part of the UN, didn't work within the system.

[spiritof1202]

and the reason that the US didn't work within UN auspicies is the fact that the UNSC didn't enforce its resolutions.

Quid Pro Quo

[Sava]

Actually that's called circular logic.

[spiritof1202]

it'd only be circular if the US' decision to go it alone somehow created a resolution that wasn't enforced.

What happened here is: The resolution wasn't enforced, so the US/UK went unilaterally.

[gsmoove23]

Well duh, of course the UN has problems. They're equal to the problems of any newly formed government or judicial system. Whats more its true role has never really been defined. How can you have a ruling authority over sovereign nations.

The important point is the hope for the future. No one government will rule the world yet we are faced with a number of challenges now and in the future that will require a global approach. We need to be building on this global approach and not tearing it down.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
it'd only be circular if the US' decision to go it alone somehow created a resolution that wasn't enforced.

What happened here is: The resolution wasn't enforced, so the US/UK went unilaterally.

The problem is that at no time did the US effectively demonstrate that there was sufficient reason to warrant military action. The UN didn't fail in the sense that it was not dragged into a conflict that the world felt was unjust. It did not simply act as a rubberstamp to approve all actions taken by a superpower. If the UN gains anything from this episode it will be that. Its popularity has lowered in the eyes of hawks and raised in the eyes of the vast majority of the world.

[Ned]

I think the UN succeeded when it passed 1441. It failed when France said it would veto any second resolution.

Most of us have come to the conclusion that the UN cannot work so long as any of the permanent members are not fully on board. No amount of persuasion or argument will be effective in the end.

So what I think will happen in the future is that the US will conduct an informal poll of the permanment members before taking national security issues to the UN. This is how we operated during the cold war and when Clinton fixed so many issues when he was president We simply figured out what the right policy was and pursued it, drawing allies as we went.

The failure of the UN this time, caused by France, has dashed any real hopes that the UN could be a force for world peace and security.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


The problem is that at no time did the US effectively demonstrate that there was sufficient reason to warrant military action. The UN didn't fail in the sense that it was not dragged into a conflict that the world felt was unjust. It did not simply act as a rubberstamp to approve all actions taken by a superpower. If the UN gains anything from this episode it will be that. Its popularity has lowered in the eyes of hawks and raised in the eyes of the vast majority of the world.

The US doesn't have to. It believed that it or its allies security was compromised by the non-implementation of the resolution.

The US had forced the intial compliance, regardless, due to stationing 100,000 troops on the border. France, Germany and Russia did NOTHING to get Iraq to comply. The US shouldn't have to play eternal policeman to the renegade regime in Iraq.

[gsmoove23]

Ned, are you a spokesman for the Bush admin or what. You speak sensibly enough but your logic doesn't add up. You blame the failure entirely on France while you mention how Clinton would take into account the opinions of member states and adjust his policy accordingly, yet you don't think Bush was at all intractable while he was ramming his agenda down the UN's throat? "You're either with us of you're with the terrorists."

You don't think France's threat of a veto had anything to do with stopping the UN from coming to a sham decision largely bought by US foreign aid promises? You don't think member states who would have voted for the war weren't doing their own citizens a disservice by doing so largely against their wishes? The majority of the world was not ready to give up on diplomacy and the outcome in the UN mirrored that.

[Velociryx]

Quite true, and the majority of the world didn't have 100,000 troops stationed there indefinitely while the peaceniks wailed and gnashed their teeth over what to do.....it was the US that paid the cost of keeping Saddam "contained".....that nation finally decided that 12 years of minimal progress with maximum effort was enough, and decided to try something else.

So far....it's worked.

-=Vel=-

[gsmoove23]

What!? We had 100,000 troops there for 12 years. News to me. The majority of the world didn't see a reason to have 100,000 troops there in the first place.

[Velociryx]

No? Do you think Saddam, given his track record, would just graciously allow the inspectors to come in and rummage around?

I think not, and in fact, he demonstrated not when he kicked them out.

It has only been continual military presence in the area (no-fly zones, troops in force in the vicinity) that kept what little progress we saw flowing.

Who provided those troops? Who paid to keep the wheels spinning?

If you said "The United States" you win the prize!

Of course no one else wanted to station troops there....that's because the magical EuroDemocracyFairey would have kept mean ol' Saddam at bay, with no troops needed!

Bah.

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
Its fast approaching the irrelevency of the league of nations. Ultimately it has to at least make an effort to work with the Coalition, understanding its secondary role... since without the US' consent, it has little or no power.

That's nice, but we are all seeing how powerful the US has been in Afghanistan. Nice strong central government. Warlords all wiped out. Loads of infrastructures being built. It's almost a modern day miracle. Yes sir, all hail the Saviour George Walker Bush.

[GePap]

Stupid me for this title!

The title has just allowed most people to ignore the real question, so let me post it anew:

The prowar side stated that Iraq was an immenent threat which containment could not handle:Saddam was a new Hitler poised to take over the ME with his formidable arsenal of WMD's and his tract reconrd of invasions, and supposedly by not actively disamrming Saddam, the UN had failed to remove a significant threat to international security, and hence the US and others should act.

Iraq's military folded spectacularly. they fought ineptly and with isolated pockets of passion. No WMD's were used as troops rushed to take down the regime, and as of now no banned weapons have ben found.
If significant WMD stocks are not found, if ties to terrorism are not found, will those that constantly stated that Iraq was a threat retract that? Will they ever admit that the threat from Iraq simply did not exist as it was painted? That the UN had put Saddam in a box he was simply too weak to break out of? Will people ever say that, ever admit that, if significant (if any) stocks of WMD's are not found, or will these individuals simply say"hey, we liberated Iraq" and use that as a way to dodge the question i just made?

That is the real question of this thread.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Of course no one else wanted to station troops there....that's because the magical EuroDemocracyFairey would have kept mean ol' Saddam at bay, with no troops needed!

You are sounding like a broken record.

So how big a threat would Iraq be without the US posting troops there? Without the UN inspectors, how many NBC weapons would it have? You're just keep reinterating the same thing W. said over and over again, without even any arguments or evidence.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
Stupid me for this title!

PM a mod to change it for you.

[GePap]

Nah...I can';t really think of an approprite other title. I mean, there is a reason for that title, but hell, the innitial post was not that long..i would ahve hoped more the a few people would have read it.

[Q Classic]

If significant WMD stocks are not found, if ties to terrorism are not found, will those that constantly stated that Iraq was a threat retract that? Will they ever admit that the threat from Iraq simply did not exist as it was painted? That the UN had put Saddam in a box he was simply too weak to break out of? Will people ever say that, ever admit that, if significant (if any) stocks of WMD's are not found, or will these individuals simply say"hey, we liberated Iraq" and use that as a way to dodge the question i just made?

gepap, i answered those questions.

if none of the justifications for the attack on iraq are ever truly backed up, they will always dodge it by saying that they have brought freedom to an oppressed people.