Political Crossfire Forums

[shamus11]

The War-weary World and the UN

By

James Bredin

If they have a war near Timbuktu that cannot be solved,
Why should Canada or Canadians want to be involved?
Especially if keeping the peace means joining a bloody fight,
On one side or the other; it doesn’t matter; it’s not all that bright.

Are we slaves to the UN and their great global concern?
To fight their weary battles and wars or their members might spurn,
As Canadians get killed and no one can give the reason why,
When mothers and wives ask and politicians look at the sky.

Why can’t we just being all our weary troops home in peace to stay?
Is that too much to ask and why do politicians delay?
We’re a small country and can’t solve the problems of the globe,
Unless our politicians have had a lobotomy of the frontal lobe.

But in the guise of fighting hunger, poverty and disease,
They pump propaganda of international socialism please,
And the UN will decide and control these terrible events,
In war-weary far-away places where people live in tents.

Unfortunately as Canadians, we’re our worst enemy,
No free votes, referendums, recall in living memory,
Ruled by a lenient Supreme Court all dressed in red gowns,
Where political ethics mean nothing and who are the clowns?

Thursday, February 05, 2004

[Janis]

That was very good!
The UN would have more influence if they all acted for the rights and protection of the free world, war wouldn't be necessary. That is what they're supposed to stand for, right? If the world acted with one voice, it would be hard for Rogue Regimes to ignore. When the UN says disarm, they would have no choice but to cooperate. Saddam had the opportunity to go into exile, but because of the French, Germans, and Russia, he figured he didn't have to comply. He knew the UN wouldn't persue it, give him time and possibly get his sanctions lifted. That's why he didn't go gracefully. When the UN is split (because of certain countries own agendas) it's a signal to the Rogue Regimes to buy time, sit back and let us fight between ourselves. This was a disgrace! I blame the UN for the situation we are in now. We were all on the same page when the entire UN signed 1441, which laid out the reasons and had serious consequences (the or else factor) written into it. They liked the "containment factor" this way they could ignore him and pretend that all was well. Poor Iraqies!
When they had Lybia as the head of human rights, it showed just how stupid the whole thing is.
There don't act in the worlds best interest. They are a joke. If anyone is still banking on the UN, they are living in a bubble.

[The High Command]

Listen, Canada better learn to be a good US Satellite or that means you hate freedom.

[maxtsu]

janis wrote: Saddam had the opportunity to go into exile, but because of the French, Germans, and Russia, he figured he didn't have to comply. He knew the UN wouldn't persue it, give him time and possibly get his sanctions lifted.
Everyone seems to forget what happened a year ago.
The French, Germans, Russians, and the majority of the world did not say "Do Not go to War".
They wanted more time.
Time to find out more about WMD's.
Something like 6 months that Dr. Kaye had, and never came up with anything.

Again it was the Administration saying that there was an immediate threat that they wanted to go to war.
The rest of the UN wanted more time to find out more info first.

In retrosepct is seemed the more prudent option.

[Janis]

maxtsu wrote: janis wrote: Saddam had the opportunity to go into exile, but because of the French, Germans, and Russia, he figured he didn't have to comply. He knew the UN wouldn't persue it, give him time and possibly get his sanctions lifted.
Everyone seems to forget what happened a year ago.
The French, Germans, Russians, and the majority of the world did not say "Do Not go to War".
They wanted more time.
Time to find out more about WMD's.
Something like 6 months that Dr. Kaye had, and never came up with anything.

Again it was the Administration saying that there was an immediate threat that they wanted to go to war.
The rest of the UN wanted more time to find out more info first.

In retrosepct is seemed the more prudent option.

The UN's Hans Blix, everytime he spoke he would say, "First, we are not receiving full cooperation in interviewing scientists in private and away from Saddams influence", then turn around and say, "However, we are making progress". To me there was nothing good coming out of those inspections. We have more and more proof these countries who wanted more time, were dealing with Saddam. The oil for food program seems like a big cash cow for "certain countries".

Why would we wait 1 more hour. He did not cooperated like they did in Africa. That would have been cooperation. There was no reason to believe Saddam would all of a sudden change!

We gave him too much time. It gave them time to hid or rid his country just before the war of WMD's. Either way the entire world said the same thing. Consequences was a part of it. Regime change was first brought up by Clinton. All the time in the world, under the tight net Saddam had over his people would not be enough for a real search. He did affiliate himself with terrorist groups. Ones that had ties to Palestinian Homicide Bombers and some to Al-Queda. This doesn't mean he ordered or had anything to do with 9-11, but who would take that chance? The freeing of Iraq will go a long way on the war on terror. His wish to deceive, was his downfall. Noone is to blame except himself.

The UN is not the greatest organization. How could you have Libya, the head of human rights. Didn't that mean anything to anyone?

Don't think they don't have their own agenda. Meaning what they say when they give an ultimatum is one way of making them stronger. I wish the UN acted in the best interest for everyone in the world. There is still some hope, if they reorganize somewhat. But, not as it is now.

One thing that is happening, the information sharing and communication between the same countries that disagreed with us hasn't broken down regarding terrorists organizations. We all do recognize the importance of exchanging of information. We have alot of cooperation in this respect. It seems everyone cannot get passed the timing, or reason (which were many) and the now. We all would be alot better off. The world with one voice, one strong voice, is what the terrorists fear the most.

[Yukon]

The United Nations is all we have. Take away the UN and war will erupt, global war, and that war in not winable (despite what that wack job Reagan thought).

[maxtsu]

And to answer the question why wait 1 more hour?
About 8,000 lives is a good enough answer to me. probably more, but no one is counting Iraqis correctly

And why do Americans still link Saddam with 9-11? The argument doesn't slice anything. Won't even credit that with an answer.

Well I just like to remind people of what happened a year ago.
Words like "The UN is irrelevant" are probably the biggest that spring to mind.
Oddly enough the Bush admin is really courting the UN to get them to help out elections in Iraq. Hypocrisy?
The Iraqi cleric Ayatollah Ali Sistani has listened to the UN about elections instead of the US.
Ask yourself the question why he listened to the UN. Creditability? Unbiased opinion? Not influenced by domestic politics in the America.

So. Yes the UN has a very large part to play on the world stage. Maybe the US would just prefer to influence members votes via getting the UK eavesdrop on them. But the rest of the world hold the UN in very high regard.
So even if the US doesn't. It will still have to deal with the rest of the world who do believe in the UN.

[Night]

Quote: And to answer the question why wait 1 more hour?
About 8,000 lives is a good enough answer to me. probably more, but no one is counting Iraqis correctly

Where have you got your information from? I'll try and dig up my sources, but I believe they showed that more people would have died if the war had never happened, then were actually killed. Therefore, we have effectively saved lives. Deaths are tragedies, no doubt about it, but there would be more if Saddam had been left in power.

Quote: Oddly enough the Bush admin is really courting the UN to get them to help out elections in Iraq. Hypocrisy?


Heh, I've often thought hypocrisy was another word for diplomacy. But, if you will answer me, what would you be saying if the US wasn't consulting the UN?

Quote: The Iraqi cleric Ayatollah Ali Sistani has listened to the UN about elections instead of the US.
Ask yourself the question why he listened to the UN. Creditability? Unbiased opinion? Not influenced by domestic politics in the America.

Hadn't heard about this, I'll try and do some research on it. Not so sure on credibility, I think both the US and the UN have been equally succesful (ie not very) at rebuilding countries in recent years. Unbiased opinion and not influenced by domestic politics? Surely they're aware of France, Germany and Russia's actions pre-war. Hell, UK was just as influenced and biased too. But I don't think the UN has ever truly lived up to its full potential.

[maxtsu]

Night wrote: Quote: And to answer the question why wait 1 more hour?
About 8,000 lives is a good enough answer to me. probably more, but no one is counting Iraqis correctly

Where have you got your information from? I'll try and dig up my sources, but I believe they showed that more people would have died if the war had never happened, then were actually killed. Therefore, we have effectively saved lives. Deaths are tragedies, no doubt about it, but there would be more if Saddam had been left in power.

Sorry, can't let you claim that...
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952
Human Rights Watch do not usual do reports like. But because there has being a lot of the above claim of a bigger Human Rights tragedy if the war had not taken place.
In summary Human Rights Watch say that there was no immediate treat of human rights to warrant a war. i.e. the human rights deaths had already happened. War was not going to stop any of them. And that the case for Human Rights can not be used to justify the war.
This all brings me back to the UN security council a year ago. Was there an immediate treat that the US want the UN to vote for war immediately.
But the rest of the UN decided there was no immediate threat. War can still wait.
Imagine, if the US had waited they would probably have had the UN with them.

Night wrote:
Hadn't heard about this, I'll try and do some research on it. Not so sure on credibility, I think both the US and the UN have been equally successful (ie not very) at rebuilding countries in recent years. Unbiased opinion and not influenced by domestic politics? Surely they're aware of France, Germany and Russia's actions pre-war. Hell, UK was just as influenced and biased too. But I don't think the UN has ever truly lived up to its full potential.

Want to talk a bit about bias and influence.
If you have a group of people, you usual end up with censual agreement. i.e. everyone has an influence on the decision.
As groups get bigger then the bias and influence is on the various sub-groups within that single group. In other words democracy.
Now plant that idea on the UN. The UNs decision making in the Security Council is made up of different countries. The US is part of that, and it has influence on the decision making. The Security is not just made up of the permanent member but also the temporary members, all give their bias and influence to the groups decision.

Now imagine a group with only one member. That group (or single entity) will make decisions based on what that entity wants. i.e. the decisions are biased to that one entity.
Now imagine that one entity is the US working alone outside the UN.
Therefore when you say the UN is biased towards France, Germany and Russia. That is true, but being biased towards a large group, taking into account more members makes that decision less biased then the decision arrived at be the body with only one member. Unless of course you are part of the one member, therefore you are biased.
Hmmm hope this is clear :)

Now if I was from Mars, who would I listen to?
The group with the most voices, or the group with one or two voices?
Or the group that pays me the most money? (but I believe thats called bribery)

[Ron Conley]

Not only did we not save lives we also destabilized the lives of the Iraqi people. In a recent TV special an Iraqi journalist said that Saddam was a madman, but there was security when he was in power that isn't there now. Some conservatives would like to lead you to believe that Saddam killed thousands daily, however if you weren't a dissenter (or at least a suspecte dissenter) you probably wouldn't get captured and/or killed (this was not always the case however, I will admit). Iraqis now live in constant fear that the insurgents might make another attack. And for what? The world is not a safer place and hundreds of American won't be coming home alive. There was and is little justification for this war.