cyrusabdollahi said:
To Vanesch
I think it is on the same level. With corruption in the UN via Sadam's bribery and payoffs, how can the UN be unbiased or impartial (not perfectly unbiased, but not allowed to erode to the levels it had)?
I make a strong distinction between corruption of individuals, and demise of an institution. Any institution, no matter how noble, can be victim of having corrupted individuals in its system ; if it ends up dealing with them, I don't think that the institution is disavowed in that way (only if repeatedly, and systematically, corrupt people seem to be steering the institutions, there's an indication that there is something seriously wrong).
However, when its purpose and system is simply put aside by its "subjects" or "members" and nothing special happens, then the institution stopped existing. I repeat my example: when the president of the US turns out to be a corrupt person, then it is only this PERSON which is in cause, not the institutions of the USA. It may take some time to find out, but, if eventually this person is brought to justice - or even, if it is historically recognized - then this doesn't harm the democratic institutions of the USA. However, if, say, the president puts down decisions of Congress, or the Supreme court, or other violations of the rules of the institutions, and NOTHING HAPPENS, then that's the end of the democratic institutions of the USA. It means that the rules are now simply written on worthless sheets of paper.
This is essentially what happened to the UN. Now, there's some legaleze wiggle room to say that the US-led invasion did not go against the UN ; but let's face it, the major institution of the UN (the security council) DID NOT AGREE with the invasion in its spirit, according to the rules of that institution. If put to vote, there would have been two or three vetos (France, Russia, and China), and there would not even have been a qualified majority. This is why THE VOTE DIDN'T TAKE PLACE. Now, although, again, there is legaleze wiggle room to justify it, the SPIRIT of the UN security council is that no member nation goes to war against another nation (unless there is imminent threat and that nation acts in self defense). It is the PURPOSE of the UN: to avoid war, and IF war is necessary, that it happens with a UN mandate. As I said, there's enough legaleze to wiggle out, and to say that the US didn't sign any such contract, and reserves the right to military actions and so on, but nevertheless, this was the SPIRIT of the UN security council: to discuss and to come to a consensus before waging war. The US being one of its major members (one of the few with veto right and permanent membership) was supposed to keep up the standard. The very fact that the US - as one of its prominent members - went OVER the UN security council to go and do its invasion, is similar, say, to the president of the US to step over a decision of the supreme court. And nothing happened.
So I consider this as an act that totally discredited the INSTITUTION of the security council. The security council has no authority left anymore. Its resolutions and votes are worthless pieces of paper because one of its most prominent members trashed them. This - IMO - is far far more discrediting than having corrupt people in its machinery. The people could have been found, put to trial and the machinery cleaned up. The loss of authority, however, is irreversible.
Sure it does. Look at the Abramoff scandal. He made the US government loose its legitimacy with respect to those he bribed and paid off. Almost exactly the same scenario as with Sadam and the UN. As a result, Abramoff is going to go to jail, and the people he bribed are being indicted by congress or resigning. The people who he had bribed had lost all legitimacy in the process.
The *people*, yes. But the US gouvernment is still a working institution. Why ? Because, once the corrupt people removed, the belief is still there that the institution functions. But the day that the president, say, puts down a decision of the Supreme court, and nothing happens, the Supreme court has had it. This is what happened to the UN.
I do not like your analogy
. The US did/does not need sanctions by the UN to go to war. They can go through the UN to provide a case for war and to show legitimacy, but they do not serve the UN.
This is not the spirit of the UN - it was founded to discuss waging war. Now, as Mao put it nicely: "power only comes out of the barrel of a gun", of course, the one with the guns has the last word - in this case, the US. But if he does that, he reduces to worthless paper all agreements to act otherwise.
The only difference being that in this scenario we know they would have access and control over biological weapons that they could use against Europe or the US. I think your analogy is an oversimplification of the ramifications of an internal civil war without foreign intervention.
*what* biological weapons ? And in any case, I think that this kind of preemptive waging of war goes far too far: you cannot speculate over what MIGHT happen, how people MIGHT decide they don't like to, and how they MIGHT decide to take aggressive action upon you to go and hit them to hell, no ? Because if that's true, the only way to be safe is to conquer all you can, and to blow to pieces all you cannot conquer!
I think your statement that the public opinion is radicalized towards Islam extremism is incorrect. I think that they are more sympathetic to extremists who fight against the US because of the lack of planning and execution in the war. Had things been done right, I think the overall feelings would have been more positive towards the US instead of being seen as an attack on the middle east.
I don't think it was POSSIBLE to "do things right". Sure, it could have been done slightly better than things have been worked out, but I don't think the military failed. In fact, it was my impression that the military did a great job - especially the special agents who could convince some Iraqi generals to abandon fighting, which made the entry into Bagdad much much easier than should have been the case if they fought back - everybody was expecting a very bloody entry into Bagdad. But the instability that followed was inevitable, and the influx of terrorists was unavoidable. The only way for things to have a better image was to let the thing deteriorate WITHOUT intervention - so that it is clear that the blame was not on the West, and then go into try to stabilize - and even then you have an image fight to win.
The Iranians have control over choosing who the mullahs will approve to run for president. Not a totally free election. They can only choose from those approved to run.
Yes, and they chose the hardest one of those approved by the Mullahs. Rafsanjani was also in the running, was even expected to win and was much much more moderate. But people didn't vote for him.
