Home Politics and Debate
Exciting news! Join our watch club and get free access to NOW for 1 month

Cash for support: If votes can be bought what are UN resolutions worth?

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well he doesn't pose a threat to anyone at the moment and the previous weapons inspectors destroyed most of his weapons so it looks pretty good really........

    Why do we need to get into war quickly?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    Well he doesn't pose a threat to anyone at the moment and the previous weapons inspectors destroyed most of his weapons so it looks pretty good really........

    Why do we need to get into war quickly?

    What makes you think he doesn't pose a threat?

    And weapons inspectors don't destroy weapons.
    The only successful methods that work in dealing with terrorists are to isolate them, decapitate their organizations, and eliminate those who cannot be rehabilitated or reeducated. The population base from which they draw must be educated and made aware of the consequences of assisting/supporting terrorism. Terrorists are criminals that hate. Nothing more. Giving them a status other than that is empowering them.

    We are engaged in a war on terrorism, with the majority of terrorists today being fundamentalists of the Muslim faith. Given those facts, and the above method, how do you see Iraq fitting in to a strategy in the war on terrorism?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you think he could successfully wage a war of aggression on another state today, if he wanted to?

    OK the inspections led to the destruction of Iraqi weapons...

    I don't see the link you are trying to draw between Iraq and TWAT....:confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The US is telling security council memebers that the decision to make war has already been made. Now the only decision is whether there will be a viable UN security council.

    Is this true regarding the future of the UN?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bush is an arrogant self important twit frankly. His opinion on the legitimacy of an institution which has prevented rampant global conflicts since he was in diapers holds little water in the grander scheme of things. It may make him look significant to the uneducated amongst the US electorate, but his ranting and claims will pass into oblivion sooner or later and the mechanisms for peace will remain so long as the majority of the international community wills it so.

    The UN's relevance is not decided upon by Bush or any other single world leader now or at any other time in its history. What will be true however is that so long as Bush continues to do as he pleases in world affairs without thought to the consequences, our own nation will become more and more isolated both politically and economically.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    my post got lost. I was also thinking about the speech President Truman made about hopes for the UN where people could work together instead of going to war. The Iraq sanction thing was a mess since I was a toddler I guess. That's a long time. I put that one link to a story about Bush Clandestine to give you insight into him. I think he's surrounded himself with people who have scared him into going after people before they come after us...whether it's valid or not. It's as if he doesn't want to take the chance that Al Qaeda could hit again and he'd appear not to be doing everything to fight them.

    I beginning to wonder how much power Bin Laden has? He called for murders of Americans worldwide and it hasn't happened.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, et. al. frighten me for all their control of our foreign policy far more than Bin Laden and the hype surrounding him does.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, they have succeeded in frightening the people in the US. It's a nightly thing with new releases of terrror threats. The latest one was that Saddam might have shipped drones that could drop chemical or biological weapons into the US that would be put together within the US.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nothing new from professional liars of that calibre.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine

    The UN's relevance is not decided upon by Bush or any other single world leader now or at any other time in its history. .

    You mean like the League of Nations relevance wasn't decided by the US Congress?

    :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Firstly, Given that I said any "Single" world leader, no.

    Secondly since the US never joined it it also is a poor comparison.

    Try reading what is written not what you choose to read. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    Do you think he could successfully wage a war of aggression on another state today, if he wanted to?

    Yes. Remove the US/UK monitoring, and Saddam is very capable of reinvading Kuwait or going to war with others of his neighbors. In addition, Saddam is very capable of conducting unconventional warfare against his neighbors or other nations, regardless of the monitoring.
    OK the inspections led to the destruction of Iraqi weapons...

    We don't know that. The whole point to the inspectors being there now.
    I don't see the link you are trying to draw between Iraq and TWAT....:confused:

    The war on terrorism requires extensive assets. It also requires the opportunity to provide education to those who are recruited into such terrorist organizations. Currently, there is little or no access to educating the bulk of the people in the Middle-East.

    Lots of people have claimed that a war against Iraq will destabilize the region. Why? One of the reasons most often put forward is that whether Iraq ends up being a Democracy/Republic of some sort, or ends up being a number of smaller nations, it will be a place where the people have more input into their lives than previously (not saying that it will be an ideal democracy, etc...just more input), possibly causing unrest in their neighbors. Simply by ensuring that education systems include teachings about alternate ways of life will significantly reduce the recruit base for terrorism and will also affect the neighboring nations. It may help by focusing the attention of the peoples in the region on their own governments and those governments' roles and responsibilities instead of focusing on the "Great Satan".

    In addition, changing the regime in Iraq will reduce the number of safe havens that are available to terrorists. Given the nature of the Middle-East, it is unlikely that we can ever completely eliminate safe havens (isolated spots are always available), but it is possible to reduce the number.

    Back to those assets required for the war on terror. Has anyone considered what assets are involved in "containing" Iraq? Troops, weapons, aircraft, satellites, intelligence assets.... all being used constantly for the last 12 years to contain Saddam Hussein. Couldn't those assets be better used in the war on terror? Well, if so, we must first take away the reason for where they currently are. That means a regime change in Iraq. Short-term commitment of a large number of assets is cheaper than long-term commitment of all the assets we have commited to Iraq.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Firstly, Given that I said any "Single" world leader, no.

    Secondly since the US never joined it it also is a poor comparison.

    Try reading what is written not what you choose to read. :rolleyes:

    Not such a poor comparison actually. Without the United States, the LoN was irrelevant to the world stage. The same will be true of the UN should the US withdraw. And yes, one single world leader can make that decision. Diplomatic personel, including the US representative to the UN, work for the Executive Branch.

    Try thinking about what you write. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Let Bush take us out then, Greenie. The status we would be left in would be no better than that of a rogue nation in the long run. Id just as soon see the UN relocate to a neutral country anyways. Not like we have even been arsed to pay our backlog of dues, so Bush's criticisms ring hollow like everything else he utters.

    Actually the LoN was irrelevant regardless of the US. What members it did have didnt trust the treaty it was based upon and were as yet steeped in nationalism, making multilaterism virtually impossible to achieve. I suggest you go back and study the historic details more carefully.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think it'd be such a bad thing if the US withdrew... if the right of veto were scrapped as well for the other 4 'big ones' the organisation would be made more democratic and effective overnight.

    Then the UN would be then free from interference to pursue the compliance of other outstanding resolutions with the same ardour as those Iraq is in breach of.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Greeny:

    I agree with you on the importance of education in reducing the terrorist threat.

    If this is to be a proper method though, would it not be better to try and educate the people of Saudi Arabia or Egypt?

    No terrorists have come from Iraq. Surely easier to initiate such a policy in surrounding nations and let ideas leach into iraq rather than the other way round?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru






    This supports your claim Aladdin. It was in USA Today.



    Countries have learned to fear Washington's wrath over key U.N. votes. When Yemen, along with Cuba, cast the lone negative votes against a U.N. resolution in 1990 authorizing the Gulf War, Washington almost immediately withdrew a $70 million aid package to Yemen. Immediately after the vote in the Security Council chamber, a U.S. official was overheard telling Yemen's ambassador, "That will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is one of the most depressing threads ever........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "moving the UN to a neutral country."
    Ah the morally superior "neutral" countries. Switzerland was neutral regarding fighting the Nazis but not when it came to making a buck off their stolen loot. Sweden wouldn't fight either. But much smaller Norway did and played a key role in delaying Germany's nuclear weapons program...at the expense of many of their countrymen's lives. Doesn't matter where you move it. If you don't have he US...you don't have game.

    I think when countries see the US is going in...they will offer some involvement...in rebuilding Iraq and making new oil deals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A question of neutrality does not have to be one of participation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    Greeny:

    I agree with you on the importance of education in reducing the terrorist threat.

    If this is to be a proper method though, would it not be better to try and educate the people of Saudi Arabia or Egypt?

    No terrorists have come from Iraq. Surely easier to initiate such a policy in surrounding nations and let ideas leach into iraq rather than the other way round?

    How?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'll give that some thought.........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "They actually told us: 'any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a heavy price,'" one Mexican diplomat said recently.


    Mexico is apparently now pro-war.
    :naughty:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why are you pleased about that given your constant ranting about French and Greman 'corruption'?

    (Like my new AV? :lol: )
Sign In or Register to comment.