Did the UN fail?

[yavoon]

they drafted it up in hopes of it passing, they didnt have it voted on cuz they knew that it would be veto'd. some might say that they didnt put it up to be vetoed cuz they didnt have the 9 votes.

some might also say they didnt put it up cuz they had a resolution that wasn't being complied w/, and if they failed to pass a new one(the vetos) it would hurt the legitimacy of acting on 1441.

the US had no good faith in dealing w/ the UN never has. doesn't make the UN any less inept. and doesn't make france/russia/china's faith ne more noble.

[Velociryx]

Zen....too soon to say 'bout "Operation Iraqui Freedom" I'd say.

As to the rest...not much point in putting the second resolution up for a vote when a veto-holding member says he'll veto ANY second resolution.

Sorta takes the sting out of your interpretation of "Serious Consequences" too, don't it?

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Most of the UN members are actually democracies.

Good, the trend is favorable. But will you agree that there is at least one permanent member that continues with one-party rule?

I think I already explained that the UN does in fact promote democracy officially even if it is not explicity stated in the charter. [

Did the UN ever insist on a democratic Iraq, a democratic Palestine, a democratic Vietnam?

However I will concede that the effort to promote human rights indirectly promotes democracy.

Also, consider that true liberty is allowing countries to choose their destiny. Hitler got to power democratically just in case you forgot.

How can the world ever forget Hitler?

Even though Hitler and his party were democratically "elected" (I believe that Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg), Germany turned into a one-party police state. I do not think that we must accept brutal one-party police states if they get into power through democratic processes. I think rather that we must oppose them and depose them in the name of humanity and a human rights. One such a party is in power, it subverts democracy such that it continues to exist in name only. We know this from too many examples in history.

Castro continues to exist solely because of the deal Kennedy made with Khrushchev to end the Cuban missile crisis. I only hope that Kennedy's deal extended only to Castro personally and that when he is gone we can install democracy in Cuba.

The OAS (kind of an American version of the UN) recently signed the "democratic charter" in which it stated more or less that democracy should be the only accepted form of government in the region (it was donde just to screw Cuba and Venezuela actually). Most countries signed it but there was a huge backlash by most peoples in these countries.

Backlash by the peoples? Hah! We all know the communist party was probably behind those demonstrations.

The contest of ideology continues. Democracy is winning. But, communism on the left, and fascists (Iraq/Syria) and theocracies (Iran) on the right continue to fight.

I believe the tide turned in favor of democracy with the election of Thatcher and Reagan. It has blossomed mightily with the elevation of Blair, Clinton and Bush II.

[SlowwHand]

"Backlash by the peoples? Hah! We all know the communist party was probably behind those demonstrations."

Bingo. Just ask Che.

The U.N. failed as miserably as a condom with a hole in it.

[Ned]

Vel, I really liked your screenplay.

One definition of insanity includes doing the same thing repeatedly with the expectation that the next time you do it to you will succeed.

While this is slightly off-topic here, I note that communism continues to have adherents even though all prior examples of communism are failures and even though virtually all examples of democracies are successes.

[gsmoove23]

Yeah, Reagan a champion of democracy. How many dictatorships around the world did he and the American government before and after him prop up. Sorry, America has historically only been a real champion of democracy within its own borders. Outside its successes are negated by its failures. It has no moral high ground to stand on, certainly not in regard to the UN. (we were supporting Iraq under Reagan)

[Ned]

Gsmoove, you forget the cold war. Reagan helped drive the USSR into the ashcan of history thereby freeing hundreds of millions of people from cruel oppression.

[Sandman]

The UN partially failed, but at least kept it's legitimacy in the eyes of the world by not rubberstamping America's war.

[Velociryx]

Thank ya, Ned...and Amen to that re: your dead-on comment on Communism!

-=Vel=-

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ned
Gsmoove, you forget the cold war. Reagan helped drive the USSR into the ashcan of history thereby freeing hundreds of millions of people from cruel oppression.

I don't remember freeing people from cruel oppression. The struggling new "democracies" are certainly not free of cruel oppression yet. However capitalist could sigh with relief and McDonalds is currently invading Moscow.

The cold war was more about capitalism then anything else and during it we would cheerily prop up the worst dictators just as long as they weren't the least bit red.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned
Gsmoove, you forget the cold war. Reagan helped drive the USSR into the ashcan of history thereby freeing hundreds of millions of people from cruel oppression.

Why do you insist in thinking the US does everything to promote democracy? The US did everything to defeat the USSR as a rival superpower, a challenge to its own supremacy, not to save those people from dictatorship!!!

Just how many dictators did the US support during the Cold War??? That is proof enough of the true intentions of the US. The US might promote democracy in itself, it has been far from willing to do the same abroad.

[Velociryx]

Welcome back Zen....no snappy answer to my question?

And you're right. In the ideological struggle against Communism, we did a number of things not to be proud of. Now that that struggle has ended, perhaps we can come closer to living up to the ideals we were founded on.

Good thing we were founded on ideals then, as opposed to something silly, like say....the divine right of Kings, or the iron will of a dictator, eh?

-=Vel=-

[Master Zen]

Didn't see your post so here goes:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Zen....too soon to say 'bout "Operation Iraqui Freedom" I'd say.

Once again, was the main intent of that operation to free the iraqui people or just a side-effect? Think clearly about it.

As to the rest...not much point in putting the second resolution up for a vote when a veto-holding member says he'll veto ANY second resolution.

Sorta takes the sting out of your interpretation of "Serious Consequences" too, don't it?

-=Vel=-

My interpretation? I did not write that resolution. I'm telling you as it is, it's not an interpretation that I'm making up. The reason for not stating outright that war was going to be used is because France and others could have vetoed it from the start. The use of the phrase "serious consequencies" was the trade-off off getting the resolution passed unanimously, nothing else.

Plus, you need a resolution to say that you have been in breach of another. Nothing the SC says counts unless it is in writing, and the only way to do this is by making another resolution. This is pretty logical and easy to understand. Nothing about having a 2nd resolution then should be such a surprise but as I have said, not many people apparently know how the UN works.

[GePap]

IN 1975 NOrth Vietnam invaded its neighbor South Vietnam and annexed it.
In 1979 Vietnam invaed its neighbor Kampuchea and overthrew its government and installed a proxy government.

The successor of that government is still in power.

By your extremely simplified thinking Vel, Vietnam is a dangerous threat to its neighbors...why? Becuase the communist government of vietnam has invaded it neighbors in the past. But the fact is Vel, that your simplified method of thinking is wrong. The real world is not a fable, nor is it a playground writ large. It is a deeply complex place win which many variable lead to actions.

You constantly ignore any argument about, you know, examining why Saddam invaded Iran in 1980, and then Kuwait in 1990. For you, the reasons why are irrelevant, but for me they are not. Saddam had a reason to invade Iran in 1980, and that person at the fence, be it the US or Europe, allowed him to go on, enocuraged him and helped him then..becuase they feared Iran more. You constantly ignore that, but I won't.

Your argunment is built entirely on shallow and simplistic sound bites, devoid of deeper understanding or reason. They are a smug facade, a Potemkin village of an "intelligent argument".

Now, for those that keep *****ing about the UN:

Grow UP. The name is United nations, not United peolples, not united democracies, no, United NATIONS. It does not have the power to overrule the decsions of the great power, simply because the great powers would never allow it. You guys complain that the UN odes not intervene in this war and that war, well, Master Zen has already made it obvious why..because the great power won't let in interfere when they are involved, and won;t back serious action in some other wars because for the UN to act, somone has to put up troops since the UN has none, and that means incurring costs to end suffering elsewhere.

In short your arguments against the UN are basically hypocritical circles. You think the UN failed cause it is powerless, but you are uttelry unwilling to give it power. Well, choose: do you want a UN with the power to act? or no UN at all? My guess is you guys want and end to any notion of collective security worldwide.

[Master Zen]

Very well put GePap

STEEEERIKE THREE... YER OUT!

If find these arguments to be similar to the ones the war party says about the peaceniks: you blame the US for acting up and also when it does nothing. You people are using the same arguments: UN doesn't do enough, yet we don't want to give it enough power.

[Ned]

GePap, Yes it is the United Nations. All independent governements are welcome, no matter what kind they are. The UN approaches world security issues with only one goal, ending wars, without regard to whether a war is just or not. But, whether a war is just depends on value judgments, such as whether democracy is preferrable to communism. Since the UN cannot make those judgments, the UN cannot, IMHO, judge.

We need and interantional organization committed to democracy and human rights. The UN is incapable of being that organization. We need to end it and replace it with an organization, like NATO, who members are limited to democracies with certain standards of human rights, and whose purpose is to promote the spread of democracies and human rights in the world.

As to your point on the reasons for Iraq's wars in 1980 and 1990, I made the point earlier in a different thread that offensive wars, in order to be just, should ordinarily be conducted by a coalition of nations. In some measure, Iraq had that coalition in its 1980 war against Iran when the Gulf States and the US backed it.

1990, though, was clearly different.

[Velociryx]

I'm not ignoring anything GePap....but since you already have all the answers (obviously), there's not much point in the debate, true? GePap is correct on all counts, and woe to those who dare to disagree.

Sorry pal, but it is your thinking that is off. The actions of Saddam have been the same old tired song and dance as a long list of other little tin-pot dictators who came before him, just dressed up in a slightly different locale.

Nothing new, nothing surprising, and nothing we've not seen a thousand times before.

Where's the complexity in that? Give an a$$hole a gun and some power and he'll use both....yeah, that's pretty complicated all right.

I certainly agree that the world at large is vast, mysterious, and complex. Good thing then, that most rational, right minded people use trends and past actions as gages to help predict future actions.....we'd otherwise waste an awful lot of our time being mystified at why the rabid dog tried to bite us....again....

-=Vel=-

[gsmoove23]

Geez GePap, leave some arguement for the rest of us

Ned, you seem to be supremely disinformed about the UN. It requires the principal of self-determination when choosing governments which presumes democratic elections. There have been countless UN supervised elections throughout the world which in themselves uphold democracy. It has also sanctioned a number of military actions, based I presume on value judgements. This war lost the value judgement.

As to your point on the reasons for Iraq's wars in 1980 and 1990, I made the point earlier in a different thread that offensive wars, in order to be just, should ordinarily be conducted by a coalition of nations. In some measure, Iraq had that coalition in its 1980 war against Iran when the Gulf States and the US backed it.

This arguement would validate countless numbers of unjust wars. Does the US being involved automatically validate any coalitions?

[Velociryx]

I just had an epiphany!

GePap....are you *sure* you're not really Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf?

-=Vel=-

[SlowwHand]

"IN 1975 NOrth Vietnam invaded its neighbor South Vietnam and annexed it.
In 1979 Vietnam invaed its neighbor Kampuchea and overthrew its government and installed a proxy government.

The successor of that government is still in power.

By your extremely simplified thinking Vel, Vietnam is a dangerous threat to its neighbors...why? Becuase the communist government of vietnam has invaded it neighbors in the past. But the fact is Vel, that your simplified method of thinking is wrong"


The Chinese-backed North Vietnam was, and continues to be, a threat.
By your own admission, the North invaded, took over, and kept another soverign nation.
Hardly the same as Coalition troops freeing Iraq from a brutal Dictator.
Thanks for showing your ass, yet again, GePap.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Geez GePap, leave some arguement for the rest of us

Ned, you seem to be supremely disinformed about the UN. It requires the principal of self-determination when choosing governments which presumes democratic elections. There have been countless UN supervised elections throughout the world which in themselves uphold democracy. It has also sanctioned a number of military actions, based I presume on value judgements. This war lost the value judgement.



This arguement would validate countless numbers of unjust wars. Does the US being involved automatically validate any coalitions?

Gsmoove, the day I see UN membership removed or suspended when a nation fails certain minimum standards of democracy or human rights is the day I stand up and cheer for the UN.

[GePap]

If someone argues well with me, i do listen, but when someone bases their argument on:

Nothing new, nothing surprising, and nothing we've not seen a thousand times before.

Where's the complexity in that? Give an a$$hole a gun and some power and he'll use both....yeah, that's pretty complicated all right.

The problem with that "fact" Vel, is that you are left up to argue why not all dictators invade all their neihgbors all the time. Why didn't Saddam invade Turkey? Syria? He had 12 years to invade Syria. He didn't. Why not? He had a gun, as you claim, hell, Syria is a neighbor, and he has some pathological urge to invade people..Why didn't he invade Syria between 1991 and 2003? Would the US have done anyting? You claim the UN would not, so what stopped him? Plaese tell me why Saddam did not invade Syria, or Jordan, or Turkey...they are all next to him, are they not? He had the way, as you claim, did he not? and he is inclined to invade, is he not? So WHY DID HE NOT INVADE THEM?

Most dictators actually never invade anyone, so you have not seen it a "thousand" times. How many states have the dictators of Burma invaded? Hmmmm, oh, no one. They must not be dictators at all, since they haven;t invaded someone.....



Ned:

We need and interantional organization committed to democracy and human rights. The UN is incapable of being that organization. We need to end it and replace it with an organization, like NATO, who members are limited to democracies with certain standards of human rights, and whose purpose is to promote the spread of democracies and human rights in the world.

I would agree with this 100%. That does not change the current argument though.

[gsmoove23]

Now N Vietnam is a threat. GePap gives logical thought out arguements and you throw poo.

[gsmoove23]

Ned, I would only stand up and cheer if I saw it as an effective use of diplomacy.

[GePap]

To put it another way Vel:

You claim that if X, then Y. If Saddam is in power and has some military force (X), then he will invade a neighbor (Y).

The problem with this Oh so simple claim is that if at any time X is true but not Y, then your argument has to be false. Why did Saddam invade Iran in 1980, and not Kuwait? OR Saudi Arabia? Or jordan? Or Syria? Or Turkey?

Did he just pick Iran out of a hat?

Why did he only invade Iran in 1980? Hell, Hitler invaded dozens of states in just 2 years, even when he was till at war with other elsewhere. Why not invade Iran and Kuwait? And after Kuwait fell, SA? And then Jordan? Why not, he is just a mad dictator after all..bent on "world conquest", no?

My line of argument has an answer to "why not Kuwait in 1980, why not SA, why not Syria". It can also answer "why not Kuwait and Iran, or Kuwait and SA, or Iran, Kuwait, and SA". Your line of argument can't. You simply cant give us the reason why not Kuwait, since for you all that matters for Saddam to invade a neighbor is "having the means". Well, he had the means to take over Kuwait in 1980 while still invading Iran. He didn't/ I can give Poly reaons why. You, using the line of argument you are using, can't.

[Velociryx]

Assumptions piling onto assumptions, GePap. I don't have to explain why he didn't invade anybody. I said "give an a$$hole a gun and some power and he'll use both" - I didn't say he'd pathologically invade everybody around him, that's absurd. Not sure why, but you're operating well-below par, my friend...

These guys (little tin-pot dictators desperately trying to become more than they are) are a pretty predictable lot. They operate under a set of.....not rules, really, but historically observable guidelines. It happens that these guidelines closely parallel those of a school yard bully....something else I know that makes you chaffe...

Give an a$$hole a gun and some power, and he'll use it. How? He'll start by suppressing the rights of his people. Yeah, the particulars may vary....he might use gas against some....might just outright murder others with steel and bullets, leaving their bodies in unmarked graves, or giant warehouses filled with coffins. If his country is under sanction, it should come as no great shock when he diverts what resources he's got to his military, leaving his people to starve, and in any case, you can be assured that HE will never go hungry, and wind up in the best accomodations.

If given the opportunity....a measure of international support to bring the region's big dog down a peg, or if faced with a clearly inferior and weak neighbor, he'll strike if he thinks he has a good chance of beginning and ending the war before too much of a stink is raised.

But no....we've not seen any of this stuff before have we? Nope....not once. Never.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Further, in Saddam's case, he has a LONG, public track record of foot-dragging when it comes to UN compliance. We tell him to comply....scold him, and guess what? He thumbs his nose at us.

Only when the threat of violence against his country becomes real (US began imposing no-fly zones), did we see any sort of real cooperation.

The more US pressure increased, the more cooperation we got, but it was always reluctant. Always last minute.

To your mind though, each time Saddam makes a new promise, we must simply take him at his word and assume he is telling the truth.

I'm not buying it.

The man's a liar. He's proved it time and again. If you want to waste your time believing in him, that's your bag.

Don't make it everyone's....

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Oh God Vel.....

Assumptions piling onto assumptions, GePap. I don't have to explain why he didn't invade anybody. I said "give an a$$hole a gun and some power and he'll use both"

Fact is Vel that you do continue to make an immense asumption that you seem unwilling to attempt to prove.

Are the Chinese an immenent threat to world peace? They have far, far more power than Saddam ever would. They carry out internal oppresion of their people. Are they on the verge of invading anyone?
What about the Saudis, Egytptians, Turkmen, Tajiks and all the other tin-pot dictators out there that oppress thier people too?

These guys (little tin-pot dictators desperately trying to become more than they are) are a pretty predictable lot. They operate under a set of.....not rules, really, but historically observable guidelines.

See, that the problem Vel. Marx also had an argument about how behavior could easily be predicted from history. You think Marx is right? You see Vel, what you have failed completely to do is enumerate, classify and categorize all the factors which would go into such an equation derived from hisotry and lead to the conclusion you point to.

You claim X=Y, without havinmg at any time in this htread taken the time to explain X, explain Y, and how you got there. Doing that Vel requires arguments based on hisotry's particualrs, not continuing to issue the same tired lines. Dont expect me to buy X=Y until you give damned good explinations of X and Y and why X=Y. You have never done so in any of the threads you have used this tired line, and there have been many.

[Velociryx]

Ohhhh....the world is so mysterious and complex....I have no idea why that nice Saddam guy invaded tiny Kuwait....musta been something in the water. Or maybe a bad hair day? Got up on the wrong side of his prayer mat? Any of these could have contributed to it. Surely we mere mortals will never figure it out....too complex and mysterious for the likes of us....



Feel free to go on being mystified, GePap. I'm not saying X=Y, and I never have been. I just don't see why you're making such a big to do about a little rodent of a dictator's tired, well-worn routine. You treat it as though it belongs on the next Carl Sagan special, it's just THAT mysterious and complex.

I contend that it's not all that and a bag of chips. Not as linear as X=Y, but not mind-numbingly mystifying.

Is that so hard to understand? The guy's a bully. He pushes people around. Those under him, and other nations if he thinks he can get away with it.

But that's okay....you go on thinking its some big, deep mystery....'k

-=Vel=-

[Menlas]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Good thing we were founded on ideals then, as opposed to something silly, like say....the divine right of Kings, or the iron will of a dictator, eh?

You mean, the ideals that made your nation commit a genocide, exterminating native Americans ?

Wow. Good thing my nation wasn't founded on the same "ideals" indeed