HA ha! Bolton steps down from UN!

[chicot]

I could have sworn that the sovereign nation violated the terms of a UN resolution, and another UN resolution approved the use of force, if said sovereign nation violated the terms of the UN resolution.

858232[/snapback]

 

The UN did not approve the use of force and clearly was not going to approve the use of force, which is why the attempt to get a second resolution was abandoned.

[Bungee Jumper]

The UN did not approve the use of force and clearly was not going to approve the use of force, which is why the attempt to get a second resolution was abandoned.

858459[/snapback]

 

It's also why the UN is a complete joke: if they refuse to enforce their resolutions, they're nothing more than a glorified debating society, of no more relevance than this message board.

[GG]

It's also why the UN is a complete joke: if they refuse to enforce their resolutions, they're nothing more than a glorified debating society, of no more relevance than this message board.

858508[/snapback]

 

Better cocktail parties, though.

[chicot]

It's also why the UN is a complete joke: if they refuse to enforce their resolutions, they're nothing more than a glorified debating society, of no more relevance than this message board.

858508[/snapback]

 

So the only way to enforce their resolutions is by a full-scale invasion and occupation? Having UN inspectors crawling all over Iraq and blowing up missiles doesn't count at all?

 

Even assuming that an invasion was the only way to enforce the Iraq resolutions, does that mean that there should be no consideration of the consequences? If it is likely that invading Iraq is going to result in a far worse situation than not doing so, should the UN still approve military force just to look tough and not lose credibility?

[Bungee Jumper]

So the only way to enforce their resolutions is by a full-scale invasion and occupation?

 

Yeah, that's what I said. I never supported the invasion to begin with, recall.

 

Having UN inspectors crawling all over Iraq and blowing up missiles doesn't count at all?

 

Enlighten me: how many missiles did the inspectors "blow up"?

 

Even assuming that an invasion was the only way to enforce the Iraq resolutions, does that mean that there should be no consideration of the consequences? If it is likely that invading Iraq is going to result in a far worse situation than not doing so, should the UN still approve military force just to look tough and not lose credibility?

858580[/snapback]

 

Yeah, that's what I said too. If the UN passes a resolution, it MUST be enforced with an invasion, or not at all. There's no middle ground whatsoever.

[X. Benedict]

I could have sworn that the sovereign nation violated the terms of a UN resolution, and another UN resolution approved the use of force, if said sovereign nation violated the terms of the UN resolution.

858232[/snapback]

 

So we went to war to support the resolutions of an organization that shouldn't exist.

[chicot]

Yeah, that's what I said.  I never supported the invasion to begin with, recall.

Enlighten me: how many missiles did the inspectors "blow up"? 

Yeah, that's what I said too.  If the UN passes a resolution, it MUST be enforced with an invasion, or not at all.  There's no middle ground whatsoever. 

858610[/snapback]

 

Ok, so the inspectors didn't destroy the Al-Samoud missiles themselves but rather supervised their destruction. I don't really think that's a point worth splitting hairs on but there you go.

 

I'm sorry but I haven't got time to cross-reference every single post you've made on this subject, so I'm simply going to go on what you've said in this thread. When I stated that the UN did not authorise military action you said that that made it irrelevant because it doesn't enforce it's own resolutions. I took that to mean that you obviously didn't consider the presence of UN inspectors as any form of enforcement.

 

Yes, of course there is middle ground (or should be). However, I think it's pretty damn obvious that there was no middle ground that would be acceptable to the US (or it's UK lapdog) because they were hellbent on invasion come what may. Do you honestly believe that there was anything the UN could propose, short of the invasion of Iraq, that the Bush administration would agree to?

[GG]

Yes, of course there is middle ground (or should be). However, I think it's pretty damn obvious that there was no middle ground that would be acceptable to the US (or it's UK lapdog) because they were hellbent on invasion come what may. Do you honestly believe that there was anything the UN could propose, short of the invasion of Iraq, that the Bush administration would agree to?

858664[/snapback]

 

And leaving the decision to UN Security Concil members who's agents were pocketing millions in side deals in the Oil for Food program was as transparent as it got. So, exactly what was the result in the UN following the Volker Commission report?

 

Let's throw the statistics in this thread. What was the correlation between UN Security Council members most vocal against military action and ones getting the biggest kickbacks from Saddy?

 

If I'm Kofi, I'd be pissed too. His son wouldn't have lost a great job, if it wasn't for all those people snooping around.

[chicot]

And leaving the decision to UN Security Concil members who's agents were pocketing millions in side deals in the  Oil for Food program was as transparent as it got.  So, exactly what was the result in the UN following the Volker Commission report?

 

Let's throw the statistics in this thread.  What was the correlation between UN Security Council members most vocal against military action and ones getting the biggest kickbacks from Saddy?

 

If I'm Kofi, I'd be pissed too.  His son wouldn't have lost a great job, if it wasn't for all those people snooping around.

858714[/snapback]

 

Is it impossible that those security council members opposed to military action were so because of the kickbacks and because it was a completely half-baked idea?

 

Also, if all of those opposed did so only because they were getting kickbacks from "Saddy", is it completely out of the question that at least a part of the reason why the US invaded Iraq was because they felt left out and thought they could get a large slice of the action in the "new" Iraq? Or is it your opinion that all other countries act in their own economic self-interest, whereas the US is above all that sort of thing?

[Moose]

Can anyone list anything that the UN has actually accomplished in the last three decades?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/crickets]

[Moose]

Can anyone list anything that the UN has actually accomplished in the last three decades?

[/crickets]

859363[/snapback]

 

Bump!

 

 

So after a full week, no one can list a single thing. Just what I thought. Case closed.

 

 

The UN should be disbanded. It would save a lot of money and significantly decrease the amount of hot air being dumped into the atmosphere.

[RkFast]

Or is it your opinion that all other countries act in their own economic self-interest, whereas the US is above all that sort of thing?

858743[/snapback]

 

 

Pretty funny coming from someone like you, consideing the trend these days is for the US to be outcast FOR ANY effort that falls under "acting in self-interest", while the rest of the world wouldnt spit in someone else's mouths if they were dying of thirst.

 

There is most definitety a double standard here...and its comes from OUTside the US, not from within. How the rest of the World expects the US to act is quite differnet than how that World acts, itself.

[chicot]

Pretty funny coming from someone like you, consideing the trend these days is for the US to be outcast FOR ANY effort that falls under "acting in self-interest", while the rest of the world wouldnt spit in someone else's mouths if they were dying of thirst.

 

There is most definitety a double standard here...and its comes from OUTside the US, not from within. How the rest of the World expects the US to act is quite differnet than how that World acts, itself.

866365[/snapback]

 

I think the difference is the disparity in power between the US and the rest of the nations of the world. Other nations may like to behave like the US (and probably would if they could) but simply do not have the power to do so. When the US goes wrong it has the potential to go wrong in a very big way with real consequences for the rest of the world (i.e. Iraq). Whereas, if for example, Luxembourg acts in it's own self interests, it's unlikely to affect many nations beyond it's neighbours.

[Wacka]

Simply put, they are jealous of us.

[RkFast]

I think the difference is the disparity in power between the US and the rest of the nations of the world. Other nations may like to behave like the US (and probably would if they could) but simply do not have the power to do so. When the US goes wrong it has the potential to go wrong in a very big way with real consequences for the rest of the world (i.e. Iraq). Whereas, if for example, Luxembourg acts in it's own self interests, it's unlikely to affect many nations beyond it's neighbours.

866383[/snapback]

 

I understand the sentiment, but it doesnt wash. The US is held to a higher standard by the World, but not against the likes of Luxemborg. But against China, India, the EU and other VERY powerful nations.

 

If we pulled HALF the sh-- that these other Nations/communities are....especially China and India.....we'd get killed for it.

[Chilly]

There is most definitety a double standard here...and its comes from OUTside the US, not from within. How the rest of the World expects the US to act is quite differnet than how that World acts, itself.

866365[/snapback]

 

It comes from both outside the US and inside the US.

 

Our leaders talk about ourselves as the leaders of the free world, the guys that everyone should be aspiring to be. If we are supposed to be the best, and we act like we are the best, then we are going to be held to a standard as if we were the best.

[chicot]

I understand the sentiment, but it doesnt wash. The US is held to a higher standard by the World, but not against the likes of Luxemborg. But against China, India, the EU and other VERY powerful nations.

 

If we pulled HALF the sh-- that these other Nations/communities are....especially China and India.....we'd get killed for it.

866546[/snapback]

 

As far as I'm concerned, BlueFire nailed it with the answer to your first point so there's not much point in me repeating what he said. I am however a bit curious as to your choice of examples of nations that are "getting away with it". China I can see, but India?