Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Pres.Bush and the UN

  1. Apr 3, 2003 #1
    Pres.Bush does not like the UN. For example, going to war without UN consent, Bush does not want much UN involement in post war Irag and a US envoy walked out of the UN.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 3, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    And ?
  4. Apr 3, 2003 #3

    The U.N is not as good as everyone brags. They talk about keeping peace but if you watched the news before we went to war, a few iraqi citizens went up to UN inspectors at different times. One was screaming that he would testify if they saved him or took him away. The U.N ignored it and left him in the hands of Iraqi security. He was probably killed. Whoopi for the "wonderful" UN

    I used to like them but they did NOT act well with the iraqi situation.

  5. Apr 3, 2003 #4
    The U.S. has not only flipped off the U.N., but by extension the entire world. Great plan from a president with the diplomatic savvy of a baseball bat, huh?
  6. Apr 3, 2003 #5
    Oh please. Clinton did nothing except sell secrets to enemies. And he only has the title president. The moron let his "wife" run the administration with the exception of what I said before. Oh he also ran his own affairs. And I am not talking about foreign affairs.
  7. Apr 3, 2003 #6
    LOL...and how does pointing out Clintons(somewhat imaginary or irrelevant) flaws absolve Bush from his mistakes?
  8. Apr 3, 2003 #7
    Ohh it doesn't! Did I say it did? I don't recall so... All I'm saying is that you defend clinton and try to defame bush while Clinton was probably the worst president we have had (besides nixon the other impeached one)
  9. Apr 3, 2003 #8
    The common tactic when defending the Chimp in Chief is to bring up Clinton...you brought up Clinton, instead of addressing the issue of Bush and his relentless defiance towards the international community. Try to stick to the topic, ok?
  10. Apr 3, 2003 #9
    And now the UN thinks they deserve some sort of role in the rebuilding of Iraq?!?!?

    Now that's hilarious.
  11. Apr 4, 2003 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    Buildings blowing up don't have much effect on you,
    do they ?

    The US was talking about world peace and democracy
    for decades. It's time it started to back its
    principles with actions before those that try
    to destroy them worldwide succeed.
    (I think France, Germany and Russia built enough
    bunkers, supplied enough chemical/biological
    weapons and provided enough military hardware already...:wink:)

    Live long and prosper.
  12. Apr 4, 2003 #11
    They'll have plenty of opportunity to sell weapons to the new Iraqi government once it gets on its feet.
  13. Apr 4, 2003 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It is hypocritical for the UN to want a part of the reconstruction after a war they didn't have the stones to fight. They should have no more part in the reconstruction than we allow them to have.

    IMO, the UN has never been more than a forum for discussion and thats fine. What isn't fine is when people act like it is a real government with real sovereignty over other countries. It is not. When real action needs to be taken, don't look to a body that was designed to avoid action.

    IMO also, Clinton's single foreign policy success was Yugoslavia. He went around the UN and invoked NATO instead. He got a little lucky with the way the war went, but at least he took action.
  14. Apr 4, 2003 #13
    And the common tactic to defend the former Chimp in Chief is to bring upp our currentPresident And the U.S started the international "community" although we didn't join until far after it started. But I guess we can continue this in the other topic...

    YES IT IS!!!

    Your right drag I think it is time we backed our principles instead of letting terrorists and dictators destroy and corrupt the world.
  15. Apr 4, 2003 #14
    Opposing starting a war doesn't mean you don't have guts!

    I see the sequence of events as follows:
    1) Bush says Iraq in violation of international law; seeks UNSC resolution
    2) UNSC passes 1441 unanimously.
    3) Inspections commence.
    4) Bush is unhappy with inspections; says war is required by 1441.
    5) UNSC disagrees.
    6) Bush gives UNSC the finger, invades anyways, keeps citing 1441.
    7) Bush says this war is about liberating Iraq, not about seizing US control. Iraqi oil will be given to the Iraqi people.
    8) Iraq conquered.
    9) US rejects UN and multilateral administration of Iraq (even Blair wants this), installs own leadership - Garner, Bodine.
    10) USAID announces major reconstruction contracts will all go to American companies.
    11) Said reconstruction will be financed by selling Iraqi oil.

    To me, 8-11 make the claims in #7 look pretty hypocritical. We have American firms going into Iraq, developing their oil reserves, and selling the oil to pay for the development (plus a profit.) Sounds suspiciously like what American oil companies do with American oil...
  16. Apr 4, 2003 #15
    WRONG!!!! Talk about revisionist history.

    Let me help you out.

    1) Bush points out that Iraq is in violation of international law; and seeks UNSC resolution.
    2) UNSC passes 1441 unanimously. 1441 states that Iraq will provide a report detailing the extent of its disarmament or serious consequences will result.
    3) Saddam lied in the report. This was confirmed by the VERIFICATION TEAM. Saddam was in material breach.
    4) The UN failed to enforce 1441 by imposing serious consequences and was declared irrelevant by definition.
    5) A coalition of countries with some stones is now providing serious consequences to the Hussein regime.
    6) After Iraq is conquered, it will be owned by the coalition until such time as the coalition sees fit to give it back to the people of Iraq.
    7) Every wussified member of the UN that wants to take part in the reconstruction can send money, food and supplies to the coalition for proper disbursement. Otherwise they can just shut-up about it. They've caused enough trouble already.

    And by the way, why are these countries so eager to help? It's as if there is some sort of pie to divide up. Sort of hypocritical, don't you think?

    When it's all over, people can critique and complain all they want about how the coalition restored the freedom and dignity of the Iraqi people. In the mean time this is the business of the coalition and the Iraqi people. If they don't like it, too bad.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2003
  17. Apr 4, 2003 #16
    Alias, #6 is the sticking point...the oil will be owned by America until it feels like giving it back?!?

    Alias, watch your tone and your language. NOW.
  18. Apr 4, 2003 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !

    You're partialy right damgo. And it is horrible
    when any Iraqi civilians get hurt. But, overall
    it is both the gain of the Iraqi people and
    of the coalition countries. I see nothing wrong
    with these countries gaining from some contracts
    while rebuilding a free country. Certainly
    better than some other countries from selling
    weapons to a ruthless dictator. And the
    coalition countries finally act in the name of
    freedom and democracy instead of just talking
    about it and showing it in movies.

    There are no perfect deeds just perfect intentions.

    Live long and prosper.
  19. Apr 4, 2003 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Whoaah ! Wait a minute !
    Nobody's being conquered and no one is going to own
    anything ! The coalition countries will help the
    establishment of a new stable democratic goverment
    and leave. (And if that won't be the case then
    the UN will be the least of Bush's problems.)

    Live long and prosper.
  20. Apr 4, 2003 #19
    I only used the terms 'conquered' and 'owned' because I was loading up for a big 'punch'. I knew it would start fires. You can substitute the words 'defeated' and 'controlled' if that makes you feel better. I, on the other hand, am perfectly comfortable with the words I originally used because of the benevolent nature with which the coalition will act. In the end, the meanings of those particular words don't mean squat. Watch what happens.
  21. Apr 4, 2003 #20
    Revisionist history? I intentionally kept that list to the facts, and tried to avoid (too much) editorializing. It's clear that Bush/the Security Council disagreed on whether 1441 was sufficient authorization for the US to unilaterally attack... I'm not going to debate it now (honestly I haven't even read the whole thing), but it seems to me a bit odd to claim the Security Council is mistaken/incapable of interpreting what they meant in their resolution they passed a couple months ago. This doesn't mean that the war is wrong -- just that's it wrong to invoke UN justification when the UN strenuously disagrees.

    I do believe the Iraqi people will have much more freedom afterwards -- but not dignity; no one's dignity is helped by seeing your country's army get it's ass kicked, or your soldiers surrundering.

    Anyways, this does not change the fact that the reconstruction should be done ethically. Iraqi oil should go to the Iraqi people, and these types of decision should be made by them. It shouldn't be 'the spoils go to the victor' attitude that we're starting to see now, with arguments like "we did the fighting, so we get to make the decisions afterwards." That smacks of conquest and exploitation, not liberation.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook