i always thought sovereignty was something that existed only within the borders of the nation and something we should apply to other nations as well, at least unless there is overwhelming international support to do otherwise. it always seemed to me that the "do unto others..." thing applied at this level too.
Debate between Iraqi man vs Little Girl
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
How can the US possibly justify attacking Iraq all on its own without the approval of the rest of the world (ie UN) but be outraged at Iraq attacking Kuwait (first Gulf war). Is it because they are right and Iraq is wrong? I'm sure Iraq thought it was perfectly justified in attacking Kuwait (some argument about it being a province of Iraq a long time ago or something, I don't remember the details). The US cannot just do as it likes, it is a member of the UN and if the UN should mean anything then its members must go through the UN security council before declearing war on other countries. Its called democracy, the thing that America supposedly stands for. My country (New Zealand) does not support the war by the way, not that that means anything. 
Democracy is better than dictatorship and the world government is the UN but the USA is behaving like a dictator (you know, metaphorically speaking). With this they are in complete contradiction to what they stand for. Don't get me wrong, I think the world is a better place with the US being here and all. I just think that for stability and peace to come to this world we need a world government like the UN but for it to work its members need to listen to it and not go off and do what they like just because they can.
Democracy is better than dictatorship and the world government is the UN but the USA is behaving like a dictator (you know, metaphorically speaking). With this they are in complete contradiction to what they stand for. Don't get me wrong, I think the world is a better place with the US being here and all. I just think that for stability and peace to come to this world we need a world government like the UN but for it to work its members need to listen to it and not go off and do what they like just because they can.
I'd be all for the UN taking charge in this situation. Sadly, they haven't. They have, for the most part, proven themselves to be about as effective as the League of Nations, which is to say not really at all.
Wow, you still don't get this. One final time I shall try in the easiest, most 'Nickalodean' terminology I can apply.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in '90. The UN fought Iraq out. Iraq, the agressor, signed a cease-fire agreement. This means the UN stops fighting based on conditions. Iraq has violated these conditions for 12 years during which 17 UNSC resolutions and 30+ SC presidential directives were broken. This invalidates the cease-fire agreement of '91. Thus, the UN attacks Iraq for this.
If you still can't comprehend or agree to these facts, then you have no buisness talking about the subject.
The United States is a Federalist Republic thats guided under the Constitution. We're a Sovereign state whose citizens and constitution's vitality and safety are the foremost concern and of paramount importance to the elected officers. To the leadership of the US, the UN and their decisions are second fiddle to the Constitution.
This is how it works, I realize that especially to those in contemporary Europe where the nationaistic boundries have disappeared this seems useless, but to the country (eg. US) whose Aegis the EU sat protected under for the last 50 years - it's the rightous way, it the just way, it's the only way. This is the course of action the United States must embark on to protect it's people.
kyleb said:
Ineffective at containing Saddam's aggression via virtual states and his preventing the ongoing and illegal WMD programs and the development of fieldable weapons based on these programs.
Must I again post the massive list of UN resolutions and SC presidential orders he's broken over the past 11 odd years?
The UN is as ineffective at containing Saddam and his WMD programs as the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles was at preventing the Nazi build-up[ of the 1930s.
Fine, but it is the UN's decision to go to war again not the US's. The United States is not the most important country in the world just because it has the largest military. I guess this is just one of those things we should agree to disagree on though since its one of those things. The level of patriotism displayed by Americans never ceases to amaze me but I guess it means that its leaders are doing something right
I can't say I've been following the whole thing too closely and that is why I can't really say if a war would be justified or not, I simply don't know all the facts. I believe the leaders of the UN do however and that they will make an informed decision.
All the arguments about how the UN is incapable to act and so on are the same arguments that can be made as to why we should have dictators rather than democracy. Sure, democracy is not perfect but it sure as hell beats a dictatorship. And yes, I'm fully aware of the events sorounding the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations appeasement strategy that failed misereably but I think the situation is different now and the UN has proved to be capable of action when needed during its 50 or so years of existance.
@Goragoth: I read your posts and am amazed at how naive your points are. Lets see, where should I start?
The UN has shown itself to be useless, and some might argue that it has been detrimantal(sp?), to stability, to peace, to protection of the weak. Case and point: Yugoslavia, Rawanda, USSR (under stalin), North Korea, Cambodia, ..... Where was the UN when there was the need for them to be there protecting against genocide in one form or another. Ill tell you where, debating, planning,discussing, arguing, BUT NOT ACTING. And humanity suffered.
Please tell me where UN has acted without the US support to stop a massacre/genocide from occuring, Im sure there is one or two cases but I dont think I can recall any of them. Where is the UN when it comes to Tibet, or dont they count.
Goragoth I wont even agree that "we should agree to disagree with each other". I wont even acknowledge your arguements since they are so ridiculous. I think you should read up on how the UN has failed as a body in protecting nations/people under threat. After Iraq invaded Kuwait the US had to drag along france into agreeing to kick Iraq out of there.
Lets take how the UN has dealt with Iraq for a second. There have been estimates that over the last decade almost ONE MILLION civilians(mostly children) have died due to sanctions. These sanctions agreed by the UN and Iraq have obviously faile unless you believe that ONE MILLION casualties is just the cost of diplomacy. If we continued for another decade of diplomacy another million could die. Do you not see that action is what is needed. And this action has been stalled by countries with direct interest with the current Iraqi government, mainly france, germany, russia. These countries need the the current regime to stay in power to keep their BLOODY contract intact. But they have succesfully hijacked the peace movement to suite their needs.
I think of the US as the parents and you ,Goragoth, the UN, and some of the countries in the UN, as children who have not had a chance to grow and mature. Its might not be your fault as the US has protect many countries from any sort of threat for so long, that we might have stunted your growth. Its time for the kids to shut up, take their medicine, got to bed and shut the door behind them. The parents are now going to take care of business (hopefully in the bedroom ).
BTW
Should the US care whether or not every little dinky country says. Its sad that we have had to troll around africa for votes because france, germany, russia, china have not had the balls to stand up to Iraq.
later,
The UN has shown itself to be useless, and some might argue that it has been detrimantal(sp?), to stability, to peace, to protection of the weak. Case and point: Yugoslavia, Rawanda, USSR (under stalin), North Korea, Cambodia, ..... Where was the UN when there was the need for them to be there protecting against genocide in one form or another. Ill tell you where, debating, planning,discussing, arguing, BUT NOT ACTING. And humanity suffered.
Please tell me where UN has acted without the US support to stop a massacre/genocide from occuring, Im sure there is one or two cases but I dont think I can recall any of them. Where is the UN when it comes to Tibet, or dont they count.
Goragoth I wont even agree that "we should agree to disagree with each other". I wont even acknowledge your arguements since they are so ridiculous. I think you should read up on how the UN has failed as a body in protecting nations/people under threat. After Iraq invaded Kuwait the US had to drag along france into agreeing to kick Iraq out of there.
Lets take how the UN has dealt with Iraq for a second. There have been estimates that over the last decade almost ONE MILLION civilians(mostly children) have died due to sanctions. These sanctions agreed by the UN and Iraq have obviously faile unless you believe that ONE MILLION casualties is just the cost of diplomacy.
If we continued for another decade of diplomacy another million could die. Do you not see that action is what is needed. And this action has been stalled by countries with direct interest with the current Iraqi government, mainly france, germany, russia. These countries need the the current regime to stay in power to keep their BLOODY contract intact. But they have succesfully hijacked the peace movement to suite their needs. I think of the US as the parents and you ,Goragoth, the UN, and some of the countries in the UN, as children who have not had a chance to grow and mature. Its might not be your fault as the US has protect many countries from any sort of threat for so long, that we might have stunted your growth. Its time for the kids to shut up, take their medicine, got to bed and shut the door behind them. The parents are now going to take care of business (hopefully in the bedroom
).BTW
Actually it doesnt. When the worlds fate rest in the balance and the only country that can decide humanities fate is New Zealand, well we are in the shitter and should just kill ourselves at this point.
Should the US care whether or not every little dinky country says. Its sad that we have had to troll around africa for votes because france, germany, russia, china have not had the balls to stand up to Iraq.later,
Epic
Your post doesnt deal with the fact of what the UN is... Its just a meeting place. If any NATION INCLUDING THE US doesnt do anything about a given problem thats occuring at a given time then nothing will happen at the UN. A failure of the UN is a failure of the US and France and Russia ect...
The UN has become a whippin boy for the ignorant. Had any country made a case and put a strong resolution forward at the time when Rwanda or Yugoslavia was occuring its likely something would have been done.
Now its not the UN thats blocking the current war its a member of the UN... Annan and his forebears never had any authority or ability to do anything because they were never given that to start with...
Your post doesnt deal with the fact of what the UN is... Its just a meeting place. If any NATION INCLUDING THE US doesnt do anything about a given problem thats occuring at a given time then nothing will happen at the UN. A failure of the UN is a failure of the US and France and Russia ect...
The UN has become a whippin boy for the ignorant. Had any country made a case and put a strong resolution forward at the time when Rwanda or Yugoslavia was occuring its likely something would have been done.
Now its not the UN thats blocking the current war its a member of the UN... Annan and his forebears never had any authority or ability to do anything because they were never given that to start with...
Re: Epic
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/data/pcekprs1.htm
if you need it in graph format:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/data/pcekprs1.htm
Go ahead and believe what you will pax. As long as you can sleep at night in your bed. We will try and make sure those that are in refugee camps, or those who have nothing at all get some hope, even if we have to do it alone if we have to.
later,
Please see click this link:pax said:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/data/pcekprs1.htm
if you need it in graph format:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/data/pcekprs1.htm
Go ahead and believe what you will pax. As long as you can sleep at night in your bed. We will try and make sure those that are in refugee camps, or those who have nothing at all get some hope, even if we have to do it alone if we have to.
later,
I some times think you just like to disagree with me kyleb.kyleb said:
which war was stopped in 2000, 1999,1998,1997,1996,....,1947. I dont doubt that some wars were stopped but, are you saying a war was stopped every year for the last 50 some years.
I think you misunderstood the post you were commenting on kyleb. Let me recap what was said. Pax is/was under the impression that the UN is only a meeting place. I replied by trying to state that the UN also has a peacekeeping force. SO the UN can do more than meet and talk, they can do stuff if they wanted to. This is where you said what you did. Not sure how it fitted in.
sometimes i do like to just disagree with what you say kyleb,
later,
sigh, the point is that the UN has direct control over a number of troops. they wear blue helmets, they carry guns, they do things assigned by the un. do i have to draw a picture to make it any more clear.MfA said:
later,
Joe DeFuria
Legend
MfA said:
At which point the question becomes: of what real vaule is such buraucracy without authority?
but Joe, authority is supposed to come from the masses; at least that is how i understand it is spoused to work in a democracy, even a representative one.
lol, no that is not it at all, i simply chose a bad term there with the word "war." while there was not a declaration of war in many of those situations, there was widespread fighting at the time, so the UN stepped in to maintain order, not to rip it apart and rebuild a new one.
epicstruggle said:I some times think you just like to disagree with me kyleb.kyleb said:
lol, no that is not it at all, i simply chose a bad term there with the word "war." while there was not a declaration of war in many of those situations, there was widespread fighting at the time, so the UN stepped in to maintain order, not to rip it apart and rebuild a new one.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
kyleb said:
Interesting...so if the representatives in the U.N. are not elected democratically, or at least appointed by democratically elected leaders, where does that leave us?
Answer: the U.N. is not a democratic institution.
I know that in this country, all of our law-making representatives are elected democratically. Since Iraq is the direct issue at hand, one would think it'd be prudnet to have Iraq's representative one of democratically elected origin, no?
Authority comes from law and from susequent enforcement of that law.
To my knowledge, there is no law authored by U.N. representatives stating that it is illegal for us to go into Iraq. There are laws stating that Iraq is to be fully disarmed or face "serious consequences." (Gotta love that term. Purposely vague for the purpose of every side supporting the resolution to "save face"...
)Joe DeFuria said:
were that is the case it leaves us in that position precisely, but many officials are appointed by democratically elected leaders, and some from democracies where the peoples opinion is being ignored. that is the position i have trouble with.
Joe DeFuria said:
that sounds like a might makes right argument again which is one i have never been able to accept. i belive that authority comes from respect and that should only be the case when it is clear that the alleged authority is behaving respectably.
The UN has no peacekeeping force. It has only those forces alloted to it on a mission basis by those countries willing to ghive it some of its tropps for a given mission on a given time. None of this is the UN's will or authority here. Any country can refuse to help it or its resolution... Its just a meeting place UNTIL a country or countries decides to enforce a resolution...
The problem with giving any authority to an international body would mean for a country to lose part of its sovereignty. That didnt happen in 1945. European countries have done it tho but not to the UN but to the EU.
The issue remains the same. The UN has no regular means at its disposal other than to organise meetings of the international community. Its yealry budget is a tiny 6 billion. Considering the many humanitarian programs it has to run along with its various international committees its amazing the UN fonctions at all.
The problem with giving any authority to an international body would mean for a country to lose part of its sovereignty. That didnt happen in 1945. European countries have done it tho but not to the UN but to the EU.
The issue remains the same. The UN has no regular means at its disposal other than to organise meetings of the international community. Its yealry budget is a tiny 6 billion. Considering the many humanitarian programs it has to run along with its various international committees its amazing the UN fonctions at all.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
kyleb said:
Many does not equal all. Isn't "all" a democracy?
Where is the "the people's" opinion being ignored, vs. the people's opinion not agreed with.
In what representative democracy are the elected officials bound to take polls and do the "popular" thing? And why do you label such instances as the officials IGNORING what the people are saying, vs. not agreeing that their position is in their best interest?
No, that's a "laws are democratically drawn up" argument (which is "right"), but such laws are only meaningful if there is a means to enforce them,with "might". Might does not give one the ability to make laws. Might gives you the ability to enforce the laws that were already passed because they were deemed to be "right."
EVERY security counsel member of the U.N. believed it was "Right" to draw up and sign 1441. EVERY security council member agreed that "serious consequences" should result for not complying with it.
And all I've heard so far from those that agree that 1441 is not complied with (which is everyone), but don't support war, is not what the serious consequences should be....just that it "shouldn't be forcible removing of Sadam's regime"
What kind of circular argument is that? Authority comes from respect, but it must be "clear" that the authority is behaving, uh, respectably?
It's clear to ME that the U.S. is behaving respectably. They've gone to the U.N. The U.N. has agreed that Sadam needs to disarm "or else."
Sadam has not disarmed.
So I have no issue at this time with the U.S. authoritive action to enforce 1441.
