So who thinks the UN failed regarding Iraq?
If so please explain why you think that was the case.
If so please explain why you think that was the case.
The UN and Iraq
- Thread starter fluff
- Start date
yeah, I think the UN was a complete failure, I mean, they actually asked for EVIDENCE of WMD and more time for inspectors before we went in and got involved...fluff said:
actually, I think they're going on the Colin Powell "You break it, you bought it" theory, and I'm not that surprised. GWB thumbed his nose at them, not going back for second resolution authorising force in March, insulted them with the whole Freedom Fries and Old Europe comments, and invaded anyway. Now that things didn't go out exactly as the admin planned, they're not willing to jump in, spend tons of $$$ and lives to go bail us out.
This is the only reason I think Kerry will have an easier time getting foreign aid/troops into Iraq. He can say "look, this was the previous administration's screw-up, not mine, I just inherited this mess, now can't you do what's best for the region and world and internationalize this thing???"
Just my thoughts...
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic there. Why would you consider the above to be a failure on the part of the UN, considering what they are there for?dante said:
sorry, should've putfluff said:
after the first part to let people know I was being sarcastic. I just laugh at all the anti-French sentiment that's still around seeing as the UN turned out to be right and we turned out to be wrong as far as WMD and the rush to war. How dare they not back us unquestionably when we invade another country on *very* shaky evidence???What is the role of the UN, help out every country that invades another country? Should USSR have come to the UN after invading Afghanistan in 1980 and asked for help subduing the "insurgents"? I know for a fact that we wouldn't have helped, seeing as we were supplying said insurgents with weapons and cash. So us invading Iraq on pretenses that ended up being false and then claiming the UN failed by a) not backing us in the first place and b) not jumping in immediately to help us out is pretty funny. The UN is around to settle disputes between nations, not intervene when we beg for
.
The problem is when the Authoritative position of the UN was challenged. The collective group of them sat there dumb founded someone would defy them. Over a decade passed and they did not resolve the problem that was Saddam. they were given peice meal accomidations to just keep them off Saddams back. Even though Saddam was left in power by the UN under conditions (Resolution 1441.)
The UN has nothing to debate with....they were locked out of Iraq, Saddam was not cooperating with them, He still had not shown the inspectors the distruction of said WMD, etc, the list goes on. They had no real power to force any cooperation and over a decade of diplomacy didn't work.
The UN sat there....stopped trade so the people of Iraq could not eat...while Saddam sat pretty in his palace.
Did the UN fail in Iraq? Yes, undoubtfully yes. They left a mess that should have been taken care of over a decade before, that grew to the current day problem.
The UN has nothing to debate with....they were locked out of Iraq, Saddam was not cooperating with them, He still had not shown the inspectors the distruction of said WMD, etc, the list goes on. They had no real power to force any cooperation and over a decade of diplomacy didn't work.
The UN sat there....stopped trade so the people of Iraq could not eat...while Saddam sat pretty in his palace.
Did the UN fail in Iraq? Yes, undoubtfully yes. They left a mess that should have been taken care of over a decade before, that grew to the current day problem.
They failed.dante said:
The problem is that the above is untrue. Weapons inspectors were allowed in, WMD programmes were stopped, Saddam's armoury was effectively destroyed. So the policy of containment was effective. You can deny as many times as you like but the facts are that the policy had worked.RhinofromWA said:
One of the prime functions of the UN is to enforce international law, especially that no state should invade another. Effectively the US and the UK broke that law on a false premise of Saddam's WMD.
you're contradicting yourself there... either Iraq had WMDs or they didn't. If the UN actually stopped programs, then Iraq did have WMDs and the US and UK didn't lie.fluff said:
Just because the UN was successful in dismantling most of their programs and weapons doesn't mean some weren't still active. And more importantly, without CONSTANT supervision by the UN, you have to admit that Iraq would just re-supply and re-start programs. Remember UNMOVIC complaining about Iraq re-assembling weapons after they left?
If you look at the inspections versus invasion strictly on the basis of money, inspections were more cost effective.
The only debate is how effective was the UN... it's not a black and white topic.
NO the inspectors where not let in and around uninterupred....or did you hibernate for a couple years?fluff said:
WMD were not found to be stopped....
His armoury was not shown to be destroyed....
He did not show us any of that....only held back with a huge bluff that was called. Hindsight is truely a wonderfull thing....to bad you don't have that in the moment. The US/UK breaking the law under false premise (deemed real at the time, later to be found as false) is unfortunate but does not change the fact we didn't go in and rule the country. We removed Saddam and are transfering power to the "new Iraq" as we type......and you can argue that as much as you want.
The UN did not enforce international law....they didn't remove Saddam....they let him stay in power....with conditions. Saddam thumbed his nose at the conditions and the UN did nothing.
hahaha, it's great they way you formed that ambigous statement with so much anger that it almost sounds 100% hardline.RhinofromWA said:
"uninterupted"... that's the key point you seem to be trying to bury in your outrage
They were let in, did their job, and was kicked out before completing it. This happened a number times. But while UNMOVIC was there, they did seriously put a dent in Iraq's weapon systems.
LordOpie said:hahaha, it's great they way you formed that ambigous statement with so much anger that it almost sounds 100% hardline.
"uninterupted"... that's the key point you seem to be trying to bury in your outrage
Not contesting a dent was not done to their programs.....but as to completing a job....that was not confidently proved by anyone. It is the uncompleted dismantling of systems left in Iraq that were in contention. If Saddam was compliant and there was no question of WMD. If Saddam played like a nice dictator and nothing he did felt liek he was hiding something, I feal it would have gone much differently.
I guess other would say it would have gone the same.....
Bush gung-ho and all. that's just it tho, what's the definition of "completed job".RhinofromWA said:
Not contesting a dent was not done to their programs.....but as to completing a job....
I think containment was sufficient. I supported the invasion for other reasons.
.Which is why the UN took on the role for gulf war part 1... but since the conditions of the agreement to end that conflict were never actually met or adhered to, then the US and UK had every right to go in.fluff said:
Now I still believe they lied and fabricated reasons to do so, but the UN was useless and spineless. The UN failed the Iraqi people. They new Saddam was re-building his palaces instead of taking care of his people. The new that their inspectors were being denied 100% of the access that they wanted.
When you have members of the UN who were making money off of Iraq's oil, there was never going to be a proper resolution. It's a conflict of interest to allow Russia(staying away from the French bashing...) to veto plans while they are partnering with Iraqi oil interest.
I think that our administration jumped into a big pile of chit splattered it everywhere and made a horrible stinky mess... the whole time the UN was going "dont jump in that, your gonna get it all over the place and its gonna smell like chit"
GW was all like, "phuck you I know how to jump in chit without making a mess, hell, I'm from Texas"
Now GW is covered in chit and he smells awful and he wants the UN to clean him off... the UN is probably like, "haha phuck you we told you so, get away from us you smell like ass"
GW was all like, "phuck you I know how to jump in chit without making a mess, hell, I'm from Texas"
Now GW is covered in chit and he smells awful and he wants the UN to clean him off... the UN is probably like, "haha phuck you we told you so, get away from us you smell like ass"
*cough* oil for *cough* food *cough**cough*
There was never a real possibility of getting UN Security Council to vote for military action because key people in France and the former USSR were being paid off by Saddam...
Not only that but Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari says the UN failed Iraq:
"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."
There was never a real possibility of getting UN Security Council to vote for military action because key people in France and the former USSR were being paid off by Saddam...
Not only that but Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari says the UN failed Iraq:
"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."
You'll have to break that one down for me, it makes no sense (to me).LordOpie said:
If the UN stopped Iraqi weapons programs, how did Iraq have WMDs?
But clearly the UN did stop Iraq having WMDs, that's why they don't exist!LordOpie said:
Only in hindsite... the UN weapons inspectors felt that 90-95% of Iraqs WMD's/programs were either dismantled or destroyed... that leaves 5% unaccounted for....fluff said:
WTF? Did you just post that?N8 said:
Let's say you're right... how does a nation with less than 10% of their previous weapons capability post a threat to anyone? Wouldn't that make them like 100th on the list of most dangerous countries? Heck, I think they'd fall below the KKK on the threat level.
LordOpie said:
That's what the UN weapons inspector thought anyway... in hindsite...
5% of 100 WMD's is still significant.
And Hans Blix said that if they'd been given another 2-3 months they would have been able to confirm what had happened to the other 5%.N8 said:
Of course invading and looking for them is another way of doing it.
Seems a bit unnecessary in hindsite (sic).
Still, I guess there was always the possibility of Saddam suddenly building an army, navy, air-force and arsenal to rival that of the US in those couple of months.
Shall we dance?LordOpie said:you're toying with me and you know that simplistic statement ain't true
Well, they did have 13 years and...???fluff said:
Yep.
It wouldn't take anything near that to cause a major problem for the West in that region. One WMD into Saudi Arabia or take your pick of oil producing countries and the West has got a major problem on its hands.
Not FOR oil but BECAUSE of oil...LordOpie said:
N8, The problem with you is that you seem to be under the delusion that you are the most important person in the world. The reason people hate your point of view is that you fail to accept that other humans, especially ones in other countries might have a right to exist, and have a quality of life as good as yours. The world is not America's play thing.
Changleen said:
Yeah, that's it.
We'll be the first ones to come bail you out when you get into trouble.
(global reference)
this is the real reason we went to Iraq. and look, they're well on their way. You're welcome.Changleen said:
No, you went to Iraq to stop Iraq harbouring Al-Quaeda and giving them cash. When it was pointed out that this was rubbish, the reason became the 'Imminent Threat' of Saddam Husseins non existant WMD program to the US. That was the stated goal of your leader before you went in.BostonBullit said:
When this turned out to be a sham it only then became the 'people' of Iraq. And, no, they're not 'on their way'. As we speak the US is leading a huge offensive in Najaf, hundreds of Iraqi people are dying. Most of the worlds media are wondering if this is going to cause furthr problems - it looks like they're right:
The people who are now protesting are the Shia majority. When you first invaded these were the people who were most welcoming. Now American policy has pissed them off as well.AP said:
3 reasons, each rolled out as the previous was disbunked. You cannot deny this. Now, let me ask you a question, what about all the other countries where a vicious dictator holds sway? Why aren't you in there?
I'll answer that for you - because that's not the reason either. This is a war about American oil interests in the Middle East. Afghanistan was about a pipeline. If you're to dumb to see that through the haze your media throws in your face then I'm sorry.
Once Iraq was brought in the sites again after 9/11....it was found that Saddam was still screwing around with the UN's emotions and laying the ground work to have him removed. Saddam was the big bad bully that the UN wouldn't touch....even when they are the group to lay out the terms of him staying in power that Saddam did not follow.Changleen said:
Well that town is the meca and strong hold of the malitia. We stirred the hornets nest. They are organized and trained militia. In black uniforms and working in an organized fashion...according to the AP atleast. The people dieing in that town right now are either caught in the fire or militants. the US is brodcasting from their vehicles what they are there to do and it is a warning to those not wanting to be in that skirmish to get out....pretty commendalble if you ask me. They are fighting in a massive cemetary (think New Orleans above ground cemetery's on steroids) and there are only a couple people hanging out around there right now.....dead people and soon to be dead people....from both sides. You aren't going to jsut stroll thru that skirmish.
Another bunk theory....so how have we gained anyhing in going into Iraq because of the oil that:
a) we don't have control over for ourselves
b) the cost of securing this oil would not be able to cover teh expense to get it. It would be easier to dril in alaska or go somehwere else.
It is amazing we haven't been awash in new found oil recently and instead subsidize the Iraqi people so they can have gas and start the process of rebuilding.
Wow, even George Bush can think more long term than you...
The whole point of this is to install a government hospitable to Western needs and ideals, that will provide a long term source of Oil to sale to the US, and to put pressure on local governments to reform so they too become more ameanable to western ideas and needs - Basically to get them on our side before China gets them on its.
Drilling in Alaska is still, fortunatley, politically unacceptable to even the befuddled American public. Seconldly those resources are largely unproven.
The whole point of this is to install a government hospitable to Western needs and ideals, that will provide a long term source of Oil to sale to the US, and to put pressure on local governments to reform so they too become more ameanable to western ideas and needs - Basically to get them on our side before China gets them on its.
Drilling in Alaska is still, fortunatley, politically unacceptable to even the befuddled American public. Seconldly those resources are largely unproven.
Me thinks Changeileen is French!
Hmmmm nothing you wrote about why we whent in there has panned out....Changleen said:
I know it is a nono to drill in Alaska....I am not really for it.
Funny, you of all people should mention something is "unproven"
(see 9/11 attack theories) Good night Changleen. I will have to catch you on the flip side.....going home.
I am thinking of wearing a tin foil hat in honor of you tonight.
I don't need any of that liberal media transmitted directly into my head via my fillings installed when I was in 9th grade. j/kDon't take it so hard....I question a lot of things. But some theories are pretty wacked....and the people pushing them don't help matters.
:mumble: at you tomarrow.
Yup, your President is an utter failure eh? Can't even pull off a simple bit of Imperialism. Maybe he should takes some lessons from British history.RhinofromWA said:Hmmmm nothing you wrote about why we whent in there has panned out....
Glad to hear it!
Yes, the Governments version of events holds as much water as N8's gran's bladder.Funny, you of all people should mention something is "unproven"
See you tommorow.
Well, maybe it'll protect you from Fox News as well!I am thinking of wearing a tin foil hat in honor of you tonight.
I won't. I'm off for some lunch. L8r. I'll wake up at about 2pm Mountain time.Don't take it so hard....I question a lot of things. But some theories are pretty wacked....and the people pushing them don't help matters.
:mumble: at you tomarrow.
OK: Here's a new topic altogetherLordOpie said:fixed
N8's being such a partisan-wanker on this that I think we should start a new topic altogether.
I didn't think you guys understood what a wanker was?