End of the U.N.

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: compudog
I agree with the initial statement of this thread. That the "teeth" has been removed from the UN. All of this just dilutes the effectiveness of the organization. I, for one, am not for a war with Iraq, nor am I particularly against it. I am tired of this country being the baby sitter/policeman/aid-giver for the world.

I think, unfortunately that this comes with the territory. If you are the most powerful nation on the earth - with the best military - then people want you to play the largest part in any form of multinational/world dispute. The american military is often called on IMHO noy just because of its side but because it has the best equipment etc. and so gives the best chance for a successful, speedy, low casulaty outcome.

Andy

 

[Wino]

Originally posted by: dullard

Can you post a link to this - as it would be a very good point.

Andy

Here is the UN resolution 1441.
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

Notice that nowhere was the "serious consequence" defined. It could be war, it could be stricter embargoes, it could be banned from the UN, etc. Until the UN decides on a "serious consequence" we cannot do anything.

As for the agreement for the 2nd resolution, it was reported on every major news station I watched. I'll do a quick search for that.

Course... this is all semantics. The US made it very public what it would do should Iraq not comply before the resolution was ever submitted to the U.N.

France, Russia, and Germany oppose adoption a new resolution that even states Iraq is in material breech (ie not complying) with 1441, specifically because they believe that leads to war with Iraq. Have you ever heard an official from France, Russia, or Germany say the words "material breech" or that the punishment should be increased sanctions? No you have not.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Czar
The "serious consequences" resolution is the WORST written resolution ever, if anyone followed the news regarding the wording of the resolution you would have noticed what France, Germany and the rest meant by it and what the US meant by it, two different things but somehow both agreed to it.

"and the rest"? you do realize we aren't without supporters

the number of countries who are vocaly against war are far greater than those who are vocaly for war, thats why I said the rest

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Assuming 'serious consequences' means war and there is absolutely no possibility that it could be interpreted as anything else...
does anyone have any ideas why 'serious consequences'' was put in the resolution and the words 'war' or 'force' weren't? And please, that's the way diplomats talk is quite hard to swallow, seeing as we're talking about a possible war here.

The original UN resolution didn't have the words "serious consequences" in it. The US said it would vote against the resolution without stronger words included. There was a verbal agreement that they won't use the words "war" or "force" in this first resolution, but that a second resolution could. That was the only way to get the US to vote for the first resolution. Thus the resolution was ammended and the words "serious consequences" were added. No where in 1441 does it say we have to have a second resolution, but that is what was agreed to in words at the UN. I guess that isn't binding, but we might as well do what we all agreed to.

Andy, I cannot find a non-biased site that mentions that part you want (I find articles written in France and Iraq on a Google search that mention it). If you want you can search further, I will stop at this point to go to class.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

In order to pass that there would be "serious consequences" all countries agreed that a second resolution would be voted on before doing anything.

I didn't realise (to its detriment) that such a condition existed in 1441.

Andy

had no idea either, so that basicly means that if the US is going to wage war on Iraq with the pretext that "serious consequences" meant war then it must get UN support otherwise that reason flies out of the window.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Hoober
How does France get to be a permament member of the security council?

When the UN was set up after the second world war - they were one of the main powers.

Andy

OMG someone that refered to france as a power. Thats nuts.

 

[Fencer128]

OMG someone that said France and power in the same sentence. Thats nuts.

Whatever some would believe - they are a major world power.

Andy

 

[althor27]

Well, the United Nations has shown itself to be a completely dysfunctional organization in which countries like France, Russia and Germany acting in their own self interest and thinking they can stop a war which will eventually be fought anyway. Fact of the matter is, there is a time for talk and a time for action. Too bad the UN no longer has enough BA!!S to enforce its own resolutions. The US will take care of this matter with a coalition of the willing and the UN can keep TALKING itself into oblivion as the laughing stock of the world.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: althor27
Well, the United Nations has shown itself to be a completely dysfunctional organization in which countries like France, Russia and Germany acting in their own self interest and thinking they can stop a war which will eventually be fought anyway. Fact of the matter is, there is a time for talk and a time for action. Too bad the UN no longer has enough BA!!S to enforce its own resolutions. The US will take care of this matter with a coalition of the willing and the UN can keep TALKING itself into oblivion as the laughing stock of the world.

Everyone acts in its own self interests. That's what the US is doing also!!! A bit of a null point.

Its all a matter of - if they don't agree with us - they're not relevant. Not a very good point.

Andy

 

[KGB1]

Originally posted by: althor27
Well, the United Nations has shown itself to be a completely dysfunctional organization in which countries like France, Russia and Germany acting in their own self interest and thinking they can stop a war which will eventually be fought anyway. Fact of the matter is, there is a time for talk and a time for action. Too bad the UN no longer has enough BA!!S to enforce its own resolutions. The US will take care of this matter with a coalition of the willing and the UN can keep TALKING itself into oblivion as the laughing stock of the world.

I knew of this back in 98. When the UN did nothing for the people of Kosovo who were being destroyed village by village until USA went in and said enough is enough. UN had no interest there, even Russians were not on US/UN forces side when a airport was seized in Kosovo. Seems the UN building in nyc is not a major target for terrorists anymore, since it seems the UN is on their side. I'm not pro or anti-war, I can care less.

 

[althor27]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: althor27
Well, the United Nations has shown itself to be a completely dysfunctional organization in which countries like France, Russia and Germany acting in their own self interest and thinking they can stop a war which will eventually be fought anyway. Fact of the matter is, there is a time for talk and a time for action. Too bad the UN no longer has enough BA!!S to enforce its own resolutions. The US will take care of this matter with a coalition of the willing and the UN can keep TALKING itself into oblivion as the laughing stock of the world.

Everyone acts in its own self interests. That's what the US is doing also!!! A bit of a null point.

Its all a matter of - if they don't agree with us - they're not relevant. Not a very good point.

Andy

. They aren't relevant because they choose not to be. United Nations could not decide on where to get takeout pizza from at this point.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: althor27
Well, the United Nations has shown itself to be a completely dysfunctional organization in which countries like France, Russia and Germany acting in their own self interest and thinking they can stop a war which will eventually be fought anyway. Fact of the matter is, there is a time for talk and a time for action. Too bad the UN no longer has enough BA!!S to enforce its own resolutions. The US will take care of this matter with a coalition of the willing and the UN can keep TALKING itself into oblivion as the laughing stock of the world.

Everyone acts in its own self interests. That's what the US is doing also!!! A bit of a null point.

Its all a matter of - if they don't agree with us - they're not relevant. Not a very good point.

Andy

Andy, when are you going to wake up and realize that people don't react without a cause. And frances position in this mess is because of the the contracts that they have with Iraq. Why would they want them dissolved, I wouldn't.

KK

 

[Fencer128]

I knew of this back in 98. When the UN did nothing for the people of Kosovo who were being destroyed village by village until USA went in and said enough is enough. UN had no interest there, even Russians were not on US/UN forces when a airport was seized in Kosovo. Seems the UN building in nyc is not a major target for terrorists anymore, since it seems the UN is on their side. I'm not pro or anti-war, I can care less.

Now - that is an example where the UN should has acted quickly and decisvely IMHO. However, I do not see it equating to the current situation. I would argue that no system is perfect - but there's a lot right with the UN other than deciding who drops nombs on who.

Andy

 

[Wino]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: althor27
Well, the United Nations has shown itself to be a completely dysfunctional organization in which countries like France, Russia and Germany acting in their own self interest and thinking they can stop a war which will eventually be fought anyway. Fact of the matter is, there is a time for talk and a time for action. Too bad the UN no longer has enough BA!!S to enforce its own resolutions. The US will take care of this matter with a coalition of the willing and the UN can keep TALKING itself into oblivion as the laughing stock of the world.

Everyone acts in its own self interests. That's what the US is doing also!!! A bit of a null point.

Its all a matter of - if they don't agree with us - they're not relevant. Not a very good point.

Andy

I agree. France, Russia, and Germany are acting in their own self interest by not supporting the US in taking the only action that will disarm Saddam's Iraq. They won't have to suffer retribution from extremist millitant muslim terrorists that will have less targets to concentrate on. They'll just let the US take the brunt, while enjoying the fruits of our labor.

Cowards.

 

[Fritoz]

FYI, the resolution:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-iraq-24feb03-en.pdf

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: KGB

Originally posted by: althor27
Well, the United Nations has shown itself to be a completely dysfunctional organization in which countries like France, Russia and Germany acting in their own self interest and thinking they can stop a war which will eventually be fought anyway. Fact of the matter is, there is a time for talk and a time for action. Too bad the UN no longer has enough BA!!S to enforce its own resolutions. The US will take care of this matter with a coalition of the willing and the UN can keep TALKING itself into oblivion as the laughing stock of the world.

I knew of this back in 98. When the UN did nothing for the people of Kosovo who were being destroyed village by village until USA went in and said enough is enough. UN had no interest there, even Russians were not on US/UN forces side when a airport was seized in Kosovo. Seems the UN building in nyc is not a major target for terrorists anymore, since it seems the UN is on their side. I'm not pro or anti-war, I can care less.

that was because the UN could not intervene in internal matters of other countries, one of the rules they have if I remember correctly

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: althor27
Well, the United Nations has shown itself to be a completely dysfunctional organization in which countries like France, Russia and Germany acting in their own self interest and thinking they can stop a war which will eventually be fought anyway. Fact of the matter is, there is a time for talk and a time for action. Too bad the UN no longer has enough BA!!S to enforce its own resolutions. The US will take care of this matter with a coalition of the willing and the UN can keep TALKING itself into oblivion as the laughing stock of the world.

Everyone acts in its own self interests. That's what the US is doing also!!! A bit of a null point.

Its all a matter of - if they don't agree with us - they're not relevant. Not a very good point.

Andy

Andy, when are you going to wake up and realize that people don't react without a cause. And frances position in this mess is because of the the contracts that they have with Iraq. Why would they want them dissolved, I wouldn't.

KK

Firstly, if the US was willing to bribe Turkey to support the war - what makes you think it wouldn't bribe/support France equally if it would not Veto? (I'm speculating too).

Secondly, having talked to more than a few French people - they don't give a damn about the oil - but most are still anti-war. If the government is following the will of the people then that really makes oil a null issue. If they're not - then they should be in this case (IMHO). Same result.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

I agree. France, Russia, and Germany are acting in their own self interest by not supporting the US in taking the only action that will disarm Saddam's Iraq. They won't have to suffer retribution from extremist millitant muslim terrorists that will have less targets to concentrate on. They'll just let the US take the brunt, while enjoying the fruits of our labor.

If you really want to tackle fundamentalist terrorism - tackle it at the source. Foreign policy, the middle east's view of the US (especially with reagard to Isreal) is the key here. Make work in this area and then you will benefit from a vastly more secure homeland than you will ever have if you take war to country after country (IMHO of course). That's is a real challenge. And its not even *slightly* being confronted in the way its should.

Andy

 

[Wino]

Originally posted by: Fritoz
FYI, the resolution:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-iraq-24feb03-en.pdf

Note that military action is not mentioned in this 2nd resolution that France, Russia, and Germany oppose. It simply states the obvious. That Iraq was and is in material breach of U.N. resolutions. But since this "leads us down the road of war," France, Russia, and Germany refuse to say that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. resolutions.

 

[Nitemare]

good riddance.

It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Wino

Originally posted by: Fritoz
FYI, the resolution:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-iraq-24feb03-en.pdf

Note that military action is not mentioned in this 2nd resolution that France, Russia, and Germany oppose. It simply states the obvious. That Iraq was and is in material breach of U.N. resolutions. But since this "leads us down the road of war," France, Russia, and Germany refuse to say that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. resolutions.

I'm a bit confused here (too much pepsi!) please can you show how you get from "opposing a second resolution" to "it states the obvious that Iraq is in breach of UN resolutions?"

Thanks,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.

It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US

Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.

Andy

 

[CPA]

End of the UN - And this is a bad thing?

 

[Jmman]

Really, we are only doing this second resolution to help out our staunch ally Tony Blair. The first resolution talks about serious consequences if Saddam doesn't comply. What did some of you think that part of the resolution implies? We are going to cut off Saddam's supply of those Krispy Kreme doughnuts that he loves so much? We don't need this resolution to go ahead with military action......

 

[Wino]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Wino

Originally posted by: Fritoz
FYI, the resolution:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-iraq-24feb03-en.pdf

Note that military action is not mentioned in this 2nd resolution that France, Russia, and Germany oppose. It simply states the obvious. That Iraq was and is in material breach of U.N. resolutions. But since this "leads us down the road of war," France, Russia, and Germany refuse to say that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. resolutions.

I'm a bit confused here (too much pepsi!) please can you show how you get from "opposing a second resolution" to "it states the obvious that Iraq is in breach of UN resolutions?"

Thanks,

Andy

1) Iraq is in material breach of U.N. resolutions = the obvious
2) the 2nd resolution states the obvious
3) France, Russia, and Germany oppose the 2nd resolution
4) France, Russia, and Germany oppose the obvious

Put the can down man! =)