The UN's Effectiveness: An Overview

[pelastration]

And I don't see how the UN (lead by the "coalition of the unwilling") did anything but stand in the way of the removal of Hussein. That's one of the primary criticisms of the US invasion.

I think Russ that there was international unwill because USA went for an economic war and a Wurmser inspired political war, who was already in 1998 screaming to topple Saddam for a new axis Israel-Jordan-Turkey. Most UN-members knew this. Plus there was a high risk problem (since Iraq is so multi-cultural, multi race/tribe, ...) which was a problem that asked a slow solution. You can see that in the letters from 52 UK "professional" diplomates and 60 professional USA diplomates. The Europeans had the same prudence. But USA wanted to attack. And as you can see now the reality is: a giant mess, no exit-plan, 3 or 4 times more Iraqis are killed than on 9/11, more then 700 US soldiers killed, many people hurt for life, and a giant deficit of you US-taxpayers. Is there a "real" result? A mess, US lost it's face ... and a number of new smiling US executives becoming multi-millionairs.
Just give me one positive point for Iraq? But please not mention "freedom" and "democracy" because the facts show something else.

 

[kat]

Shut-up droopy-draws.

Pan T's not draaawwws.

 

[pelastration]

Pan T's not draaawwws.

Kat, the quality of your posts ... became poor, short. :tongue:
What happened?

 

[kat]

Kat, the quality of your posts ... became poor, short. :tongue:
What happened?

Sorry, I'm multi-tasking and have a huge amount of work and not much time to give well thought out responses. I probably should just browse in between working and keep my "mouth" shut...just..can't seem toooooo do that though.

 

[hughes johnson]

Do you ever base your comments on anything? You seem to just blurt out any knee-jerk reactionary thought that manages to squeeze its way into your tiny mind. You never propose any justification for any idea you have.

It is as if you are living your entire life in Rush Limbaugh's studio audience.

Njorl

Njorl,
It's nice to correspond with kind and gentle people like you, rather than the arrogant type normally found on forums like this. Have you thought about joining our diplomatic corps? You have a natural talent for diplomacy that shouldn't be wasted. Perhaps we could use your wit at the UN. It's too bad we don't have more people like you to help us make friends around the world. Maybe with your style of diplomacy, we could have avoided offending the Arabs.

 

[studentx]

I think Russ that there was international unwill because USA went for an economic war and a Wurmser inspired political war, who was already in 1998 screaming to topple Saddam for a new axis Israel-Jordan-Turkey. Most UN-members knew this. Plus there was a high risk problem (since Iraq is so multi-cultural, multi race/tribe, ...) which was a problem that asked a slow solution. You can see that in the letters from 52 UK "professional" diplomates and 60 professional USA diplomates. The Europeans had the same prudence. But USA wanted to attack. And as you can see now the reality is: a giant mess, no exit-plan, 3 or 4 times more Iraqis are killed than on 9/11, more then 700 US soldiers killed, many people hurt for life, and a giant deficit of you US-taxpayers. Is there a "real" result? A mess, US lost it's face ... and a number of new smiling US executives becoming multi-millionairs.
Just give me one positive point for Iraq? But please not mention "freedom" and "democracy" because the facts show something else.

Pelastration, make no illusions about this. This war is a mess because we are so divided about it. And who can we thank for that?
What if it was the French or Germans that liberated Iraq, or both or the entire UN? What if the French hadnt veto'd? Isnt it a fact, that the base (and only rational argument) for all the hate against America is that this war wasnt approved by the UN? And the reason this war wasnt approved by the UN is FAR from fair or just or calculated. It was political pressure, a large group of ppl that wants to prevent war AT ALL COSTS(including genocide), no matter what. These ppl are no experts and the majority knew nothing about Iraq. They were completely focused on the USA thanks to the tactful Bush, but they should have been looking at Iraq.
These ppl could not agree with each other about a biscuit.

 

[Njorl]

Njorl,
It's nice to correspond with kind and gentle people like you, rather than the arrogant type normally found on forums like this. Have you thought about joining our diplomatic corps? You have a natural talent for diplomacy that shouldn't be wasted. Perhaps we could use your wit at the UN. It's too bad we don't have more people like you to help us make friends around the world. Maybe with your style of diplomacy, we could have avoided offending the Arabs.

If you examine my discourse with Russ or Phatmonkey on the right, or with FZ on the left you will see that while I argue passionately, it rarely gets personal. But when it comes to those who have no respect for rational argument, such as yourself on the right, and one whom I no longer aknowledge on the left, I see no reason to spare their feelings. I see no reason to parse my words toward anyone who baselessly insults public figures in a forum in which said public figures will not be defending themselves. You have routinely insulted John Kerry without presenting any basis for those insults. Most of your posts are snide, insulting remarks with no attempt at logical or factual criticism. In what kind of society do you believe you should be accorded even the slightest hint of diplomacy?

Njorl

 

[hughes johnson]

...when it comes to those who have no respect for rational argument, such as yourself on the right, and one whom I no longer aknowledge on the left, I see no reason to spare their feelings. I see no reason to parse my words toward anyone who baselessly insults public figures in a forum in which said public figures will not be defending themselves...

Most of your posts are snide, insulting remarks with no attempt at logical or factual criticism...

Njorl

Njorl,
I do not disagree with you at all. When I first came to this forum, I found exactly the situation that you have described. The president of the United States was being treated exactly as you have described, with no chance to defend himself in this forum.

Almost without exception, all of the threads in this section are started with someone bashing the president. It would take at least 5 more people like me to even approach a fair balance. You will notice that I have never even started a thread. You will also notice that I fight fire with fire.

I see that we have both arrived at the same point, at the same time.

Best wishes,
hughes

 

[hughes johnson]

Now that that's out of the way...

...You seem to just blurt out any knee-jerk reactionary thought that manages to squeeze its way into your tiny mind...

My tiny mind? I don't see how a blithering idiot like you has any business saying something like this to a handsome intelligent man like me. Are you from Australia?

It is as if you are living your entire life in Rush Limbaugh's studio audience.

Why you nazi pinko commie left wing looney...

Hope we can still be friends,
hughes

 

[pelastration]

What if it was the French or Germans that liberated Iraq, or both or the entire UN?

It would be a different situation. Then the international community would have taken a joined action, like the first Iraq war.

Can you blame France, Germany, and also Belgium in first instance, for stating that there were no legal arguments to attack Iraq.
Where the arguments to start the war ... Correct? WMD were found?
So was France and Germany correct in their analysis? Yes or No?

 

[Njorl]

Njorl,
I do not disagree with you at all. When I first came to this forum, I found exactly the situation that you have described. The president of the United States was being treated exactly as you have described, with no chance to defend himself in this forum.

Almost without exception, all of the threads in this section are started with someone bashing the president. It would take at least 5 more people like me to even approach a fair balance. You will notice that I have never even started a thread. You will also notice that I fight fire with fire.

I see that we have both arrived at the same point, at the same time.

Best wishes,
hughes

I shall weigh my responses more carefully in the future. I do realize that you are heavily outnumbered on this board, and that many of those who have viewpoints opposing yours engage in far worse tactics than I have accused you of using. You have a point.

I will ignore your subsequent post.

Njorl

 

[hughes johnson]

Njorl,
You are an honest and fair man, and have given me the benefit of the doubt after being insulted during a heated discussion. You have my respect.
-hughes

 

[hughes johnson]

I will ignore your subsequent post.

Please don't. My subsequent post was meant to be funny. I hope you took it that way. It is really sad to see how well it would fits into this forum. What a shame.
-hughes

 

[Njorl]

Please don't. My subsequent post was meant to be funny. I hope you took it that way. It is really sad to see how well it would fits into this forum. What a shame.
-hughes

I figured it almost[i/] certainly was.

Njorl

 

[studentx]

It would be a different situation. Then the international community would have taken a joined action, like the first Iraq war.

Can you blame France, Germany, and also Belgium in first instance, for stating that there were no legal arguments to attack Iraq.
Where the arguments to start the war ... Correct? WMD were found?
So was France and Germany correct in their analysis? Yes or No?

No i can't blame them. And their analysis is correct as far as is known, but that isn't the problem. Saddam made a truthful analysis of the situation impossible because he repeatedly lied about the same issue before.

 

[Nereid]

So it's OK to invade a country because its leader lies?

 

[Townsend]

>>Just give me one positive point for Iraq? But please not mention "freedom" and "democracy" because the facts show something else.

I have a couple of question for anyone who thinks the US was not justified in going to war with Iraq.

1. Do you believe the first gulf war was justified?

If you say no then everything from here on is pointless to you so just stop reading this post now and save yourself the trouble.

If your answer is yes please proceed to the next question.

2. Do you believe that after the war was over the conditions for Iraq’s surrender were established so as to prevent Saddam from attempting to mount another invasion into Kuwait?

If say no answer is no please explain why.

If your answer is yes please proceed to question 3.

3. If you are here then you agree that we should have gone into the first gulf war. Now of course Iraq did not stick to the surrender agreement like I am sure many people here can provide you with information on. So my third question is do you believe that if left to his own devices that Saddam would have tried to attack Kuwait again?

If you say no please explain.

If you say yes please go to question 4.

4. Since you agree that Saddam, if left to his own devices, would try to invade Kuwait again and since you agree we should have gone into the first gulf war I will assume you believe that it was right for the US to stick around to make sure that Saddam did not try to mount another attack on Kuwait. What I want to know for my fourth question is if you think it would have been wrong of the US to have just left the gulf region altogether after the war and left whatever happens to happen?

If you said yes please explain.

If you said no then I assume that you believe that the US needed to stick around the gulf and act like a policing force to ensure the stability of the region. If the US was not to provide the policing of the gulf, which it did, I believe that Saddam would have eventually attempted to mount an attack on Kuwait and eventually the entire rest of the Middle East. I do not believe that any other country would have been the kind of deterrent that the US has been in the region. I believe that if it were not for the continued US presence in the gulf that Saddam would rule the entire Middle East with a ruthless IRON fist.

Having said that I would also like to ask the rest of the world why they think its no big deal for the US bear the burden (which is a huge sacrifice) of having a constant presence in the gulf? How many other countries had at least one carrier battle group present in the gulf for so many years? How many US ship were ever relieved by foreign ships? For example how many Canadian seamen can say they sacrificed over 2 years of their life to be at sea performing patrolling operations in the gulf to ensure the stability of the region? How many years of your life would you be willing to waste to ensure the safety of another country or region of the world?

I personally have over two years sea time. (Six months total time spent in the gulf) That means time spent actually underway which I seriously doubt if very many of you can actually appreciate what it means to be underway. If you want to get an idea start by trying to imagine working twelve hours straight, day in, day out, not seeing the light of day for 72 consecutive days, try standing in line for 2 hours because you have not had a meal that day only to be told the galley is secured for cleaning stations. (This happens at least twice a week) Imagine your entire life is stored in a coffin rack that’s about 7 feet long and 3 or so feet high by about 3.5 feet wide all while living in a berthing with 110 or so other men (or women if your a girl). Not to mention not seeing any of your loved ones for six months (The US Navy has a very high divorce rate, I wonder why?). I doubt words could ever really make someone appreciate all the sacrifices that are made by thousands of sailors aboard ships around the world. (For the other branches of the military I know the sacrifices have been very great as well. I have only my experiences to share and so I apologize if you feel excluded but please know that I appreciate your service.)

It takes a huge sacrifice to force the hand of a ruthless dictator like Saddam. I am one of thousands who have had the honor of serving my country in the Middle East. If I am given a lawful order to follow then I will and to the best of my ability no matter the personal sacrifice. I, like thousand of others in the US military, make these sacrifices all the while knowing that the majority of the general public has no idea or appreciation for just what I do to serve my country.

The President sent the US to war with Iraq saying it’s because Saddam had WMD’s. Maybe President Bush believed there were actually WMD’s and so that would make for a good excuse to go to war with Iraq. In my opinion it dose not matter what excuse he used to start the war with Iraq (real or fictitious) because I believe that his REAL REASONS were not the same as the unnecessary excuse he gave everyone. I believe he felt that the constant sacrifice that the US was making everyday was very taxing. I think he believed that if the US were to leave the gulf the situation would quickly deteriorate and we would be forced to again rescue the Middle East from Saddam. I think the president thought as I think and I think that it was nobody else’s decision on whether the US goes to war since nobody else was making any real sacrifices to keep the peace in the Middle East. I believe that if ANY other country had to keep their boys oversea for so long and at such a great cost to their own country, they would not have been as patient as the US had been for so long. I believe that not a single other country could have won this war with as little blood shed as we did. I believe this war was inevitable and that we should have taken out Saddam during Operation Desert Fox. The longer the US postponed this war the greater the sacrifice that thousands of men women and families would have had to have made. (Not to mention that if in fact this war was inevitable then by going to war now it will save untold amounts of taxpayer’s money.)

As of now a WESTPAC deployment is set for four months instead of the six months because the constant carrier battle group presence in the gulf is no long required. That makes a HUGE difference to thousands of sailors and their families. Not to mention that it cost over a million bucks every day a carrier is underway. It cost considerably less for a carrier to be in port.

For all of the liberals who believe that the US should not have gone to war with Iraq I believe you’re being so open minded that your mind fell out. I know that nobody will ever know for sure all of the, “what if’s” and personally I don’t think it matters. I believe that any country that does not bear any of the responsibility of a situation does not have an opinion that counts. If other countries wanted a say as to what the US should be doing in the Middle East then they should have been showing their support by making the kinds of sacrifices the US had been making all along.
If anyone can show me proof that another country had been making huge sacrifices all along to assist in keeping the peace I would like to know cause the only thing I have ever heard in terms of any real help came from Britain. (No coincidence they are on our side).

Cheers

(I wrote this post in another forum and my feelings have not changed so I wanted to post this here as well.)

 

[hughes johnson]

Townsend,
You and your shipmates gave a lot, and received little in return for the sacrifices that you made. Thank you for all of your hard work, and your dedication.
-hughes

 

[studentx]

Amen to that townsend

 

[Andre]

Townsend, an impressive narrative. Perhaps you should have made your own thread. I wonder how you evaluate being there because you desired to be or because you are forced to be.

Can't say: been there, done that. But there are a lot of burdens that my little country is involved in and you never know.

As for your questions.
The first Gulf war (was incidentely the Iran Iraq conflict 1980 but you did not mean that one). If freeing a country from an brutal invader is justified, than you have my vote.

Do you believe that after the war was over the conditions for Iraq’s surrender were established so as to prevent Saddam from attempting to mount another invasion into Kuwait?

That question cannot be answered correctly. You cannot foresee what will happen in the next 5-10-20 years based on that action. All I know is that the objective of operation Desert storm was limited to freeing Kuwait, destroy the Republican Guard and protect the (US) citizens. The objective was neither to neutralize Saddam, nor to weaken Iraq to a status of beggership. Some stratigic thinkers were concerned about a huge instability in the Middle East in case Iraq was destroyed.

So my third question is do you believe that if left to his own devices that Saddam would have tried to attack Kuwait again?

Who can read his mind? He might, but he would have made sure not to make the same errors again. The most powerful enemy or ally is the publiic opinion. You don't need tanks to fight it, just shrewd manupilation. He who have attempted to play with the public opinion that would have prevented the US from countering again. If it worked he could alway try but its a wild guess.

fourth question is if you think it would have been wrong of the US to have just left the gulf region altogether after the war and left whatever happens to happen?

The US made the implicit choice to maintain Saddam, whilst Gen Schwarzkopf could have easily finished the job by force or by negotation. But his mandate was limited. So yes, showing the flag was the inevitable job to do.

But the second conflict remains a can of worms. There is no other way to think about it.

 

[Nereid]

Interesting post townsend, much to consider and discuss.

For now only two things: in your post you use the word "we" several times - who did you have in mind when you wrote that, the US people, the US government, the world's people, members of the UN, ...? I believe the answers to your questions will be - potentially - quite different depending on who this 'we' is.

More broadly, your post addresses the large question of the proper role of the only global superpower in world affairs, the limits of unilateralism, the reality of the principle of 'no interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states', and so on.

For example, how do the debates in this thread - and this sub-forum in general - look when re-cast as from the perspective of a powerful US ally (e.g. the UK)? a powerful neutral player (e.g. China)? a modest opponent of the US (e.g. Iran)? a small country (e.g. Honduras, Bulgaria, Nepal, Singapore, Mauritania)? the oppressed people of a country not invaded by the US, whether engaged in foreign adventures and invasions or not (lots of examples)?