If you were against the war....

"Elysium" wrote:

I don''t think that poll shows that any more people are necessarily happy with the war, or support the methods that brought us to war, but that we recognize reality and will come together when needed. That''s not to say there won''t be fallout later.

So far, thought, so good. A reporter from the NYT just described the scene of celebration in an Iraqi border town that had just been liberated by Coalition forces.

Because they are United Nations, not just one country. That''s world wide democracy and I, as well as a sh*tload of people accross the world believe in that Ulairi.

World wide democracy? Most of the countries in the UN are not democracies and only the SC has any power. The U.N. doesn''t have a standing Army the U.N.''s army is the UK and US (by and large). The UN has let millions die because they don''t act.

I have no use for the UN.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Elysium" wrote:

I don''t think that poll shows that any more people are necessarily happy with the war, or support the methods that brought us to war, but that we recognize reality and will come together when needed. That''s not to say there won''t be fallout later.

So far, thought, so good. A reporter from the NYT just described the scene of celebration in an Iraqi border town that had just been liberated by Coalition forces.

I saw that. They had video tape running of it. This is going to make the support grow.

"Ulairi" wrote:

The UN has let millions die because they don''t act.

And when they act they do it real half-assed. When the UN sent Canadien forces into Rwanda to ""stop"" the genocide, the UN set their RoE to be ""attack only when attacked."" The Canadiens were never attacked, but a lot of people around them got slaughtered. Even now, Kofi Annan invokes diplomatic immunity whenever an official inquiry tries to get answers out of him.

The problem with the UN is that the big countries will use their veto if they feel their national interests are at risk which while not necassarily morally right is perfectly within their rights, after all part of the reason we''re invading Iraq is in our own national security interests (not the only reason however). If the US the UK China France etc feel that a resolution goes against their national interests they''re virtually always going to veto it.

The problem with what happened is that gives other countries the opportunity to say that if we did it why can''t they. What would happen if say China decided to invade Korea because they were worried about the security of their state?

Or Taiwan?

Or Russia invades Chechnia?

Pakistan/India?

The problem with what happened is that gives other countries the opportunity to say that if we did it why can''t they. What would happen if say China decided to invade Korea because they were worried about the security of their state?

I know this is going to sound bad but the United States can do things other nations can''t. It''s not like we just up and invaded Iraq, we have 45 nations agreeing with us.

Is there a double standard? Yes.

[quote]If the US the UK China France etc feel that a resolution goes against their national interests they''re virtually always going to veto it. [quote]

So you agree its completely worthless in situations such as these good lets move on.

The problem with what happened is that gives other countries the opportunity to say that if we did it why can''t they

Which by the way they''d say anyway, with or without the United Nations, they did this prior to the UN/LoN. The problem is that while they may ask this. They don''t act on it, if they did they know that they''re be consequences. Note: That also according to the UN charter if some country does do something barbaric to another one of the big guys can''t intervene unless their is a threat to them somehow, i.e Balkans/GW1/etc never had UN approval till the action was pretty much done, or in the case of the balkans at all. Though this is a way is changing.

What would happen if say China decided to invade Korea because they were worried about the security of their state?

Never happen N. Korea is a client state of China. If anything they''d invade Taiwan. But in this case they wouldn''t becuase it would start a third world war, besides the fact Taiwan could very well be nuclear & odds are they''d lose. Its one thing to invade and remove a nasty little dictator, and while those nations that support him, i.e. France/Russia/China may complain they really won''t do anything. France=selling/brokering supplies for weapons/arms. Russia=supplying most of the tanks/guns/etc for Iraq. China=For providing missle technology & arm parts to Iraq. Hence the fact that in January The chinese sold parts for thier planes/missles, the French borkered the deal and arranged transport through syria. The Chinese can then say we just sold them to syria, and the french... well they don''t care. They''ve sold/build things for Saddam since the 70''s. Note this is all very, very shady/illegal according to the UN agreements and you didn''t see the UN step in to stop it.

Personally the only thing the UN has done and done well is its medical missions, combatting malnutrition/disease. This its succeeded quite well at, with help from our CDC/USAMRIID & their European counterparts. An should be continued at all costs. Their Monetery/Fiscal support for nations in distress/struggling has been outright disgusting. Much of its peace keeping missions have been outright failures, can''t think of 1 good success, those that have been are becuase other nations stepped up militarily outside the UN to solve the problem.

For much of the outside world I think the UN is seen as a possible counter for the US, or as a place for their ruling elite to enjoy. Take a look at the very good looking hookers that abound around many of the delegates/the massive unpaid parking tickets/accidents they ring up/plus all the cultural attraction that New York can offer them.

Those in the US that defend it so vigorously see it as the same counter, or are in love becuase its the ""UN"" and its united, and well every nation can speak, and well its united, i.e. for emotional, not logical reasons.

Ulairi, are you sure your a Dem? You sound conservative.

As for the UN:
It''s a spinless body which completely lacks power. In it''s current state, the UN can''t do a damn thing. They are hurt by their lack of a military and their insistence on talking things into the ground. While I believe that diplomacy is always the best course of action, sometimes it just doesn''t work. When diplomacy fails, we must have someone that will take action. IF the US must be the nation to lead a call to action, so be it.

"scoli" wrote:

Ulairi, are you sure your a Dem? You sound conservative.

As for the UN:
It''s a spinless body which completely lacks power. In it''s current state, the UN can''t do a damn thing. They are hurt by their lack of a military and their insistence on talking things into the ground. While I believe that diplomacy is always the best course of action, sometimes it just doesn''t work. When diplomacy fails, we must have someone that will take action. IF the US must be the nation to lead a call to action, so be it.

I''m a Classic Liberal Hawk. I''m on The New Republic side not the side of the Nation.

I know this is going to sound bad but the United States can do things other nations can''t

I agree with you and I have to say that the year I had in Dale City VA in ''90-''91 was one of the best years I''ve ever had and I''d love to live there.(Canda being the other place I''d love to live) I think that despite all it''s problems it''s one of the most welcoming places on earth and I''ve been to a fair part of the world. The US is one of the youngest nations in the world but has come so far in such a short time. A lot of people may hate it but there''s a whole lot more who would love to live there.

I don''t think there are too many nations who would want to do or be able to do what America can militarily and I for one am glad that America does the things no one else can if someone doesn''t stand up to dictators we''d soon be living under one ourselves.(without Americas help in WW2 we would be living under a dictator)

Don''t get me wrong I love my own country too but hey the weather sucks here in comparison!

Edit:What would happen if say China decided to invade Korea because they were worried about the security of their state?

I was only using this as an example to illustrate a point not because I actually think that would actually happen.

What would happen if say China decided to invade Korea because they were worried about the security of their state?

We would support China. However, we would also have channels open to Korea to try and negotiate their peaceful surrender or terms to peacefully end the invasion.

The UN doesn''t actually have any enforcement powers. It relies on the member nations to carry out the decisions. Personally, I''m glad it works that way. If the UN had it''s own troops, where would they come from? Do we need a world-wide governing body with it''s own army?

If the UN had it''s own troops, where would they come from? Do we need a world-wide governing body with it''s own army?

If you want the world to be a peacefully place and everyone to get along, yea. Until the UN gains enforcement power, the US will be forced to do everything.

I know this is going to sound bad but the United States can do things other nations can''t. It''s not like we just up and invaded Iraq, we have 45 nations agreeing with us.

Why is that exactly? Because we have a strong democratic tradition? or because were the most powerful? I don''t really see what you mean. And having 45 nations agreeing with us is different than having the populations of those democratic countries agreeing with us, which most of them didn''t.

For some reason, I take perverse pleasure in arguing moot points.

The war seems to be going better than we hoped. The armed forces are simultaneously negotiating surrenders, bombing with incredible power and precision, and covering ground at a record pace.

However, Bush''s biggest flaw, and many''s major argument against him, is that he literaly sees the world as black and white. Turkey has troops in Northern Iraq to ""limit"" the refuge influx. A lot of speculation and rumor is flying surrounding these developments and the fact the wouldnt allow ground troops passage. Did Bush really think that Turkey wouldn''t do this because we told them not too? The real scare begins when the rebuilding of Iraq begins. I cant help but think the wolves may be circling then.

It is odd that the millitary is achieving great successes because they adapt to the fluctuating black and white and cut through the gray. Yet, the amount gained from ridding Saddam, could cost a lot more than expected due to a President incapable of dealing with cyclical black and white and the gray.

Thankfully, he still has the support of Blair and Powell.

Because we have a strong democratic tradition? or because were the most powerful?

Because we''re the most powerful of course. Just because you''re the oldest democracy on the planet doesn''t give you a tremendous ability to change things. Our economic/military might is what gives us this ability & the responsibility to implement that change.

And having 45 nations agreeing with us is different than having the populations of those democratic countries agreeing with us, which most of them didn''t.

Of those 45 countires, those that are democratic. The majority of those countries people did support us. Britian/Spain/Australia the majorities don''t, though in recent polls show that the majority of Australians do support us, on wether they approve of Howard''s use of troops at this juction is another story. But the vast majority of those democracies we''re eastern european, who quite frankly like us a hell of a lot more then the western Europeans, say the french/germans. The difference is they remember what it was like to live under a brutal regime, most of the people living in those countries we''re alive at the time. And they''re overwhelmingly for us, not only for what we did to get them out from under that regime, but the mass support we''ve shown since, such as our support for them in the EU/NATO, as well as monetary support after the fall of the Soviets.

If you want the world to be a peacefully place and everyone to get along, yea. Until the UN gains enforcement power, the US will be forced to do everything.

Oh God no!!! NO NO NO NO. I do not want to see the lovely wonders of peace and human rights such as Libya, Iran, Iraq, Zimbabwe, etc to have access to controlling large amount of well armed/equipped troops to throw more of their weight around. LOOK at the UN. They have LIBYA as the head of the human rights commission, LIBYA!!!. And in a couple of months Iran/Iraq we''re supposed to share the head disarmament committee! The UN isn''t the glorius picture of democracy that you people think it is. Its made up of so many of the nasty little regimes in the world, and its that same nasty brutal regime that has the voice, its own self-serving voice. Not the people who are brutalized under them. Here''s the website for the committe on human rights go look for yourself who makes up this committee. And then come back and tell me that it must be all rosy and wonderful. ITS NOT. The ONLY thing I can think of that it does well, besides whine bitch and complain about the US/Israel. Is its medical missions. Thats it. It needs some serious reforms for it to become what many seem to think it is, but it will never see such reforms, they''re not in the interest of all the petty little dictators that have some much voice their now.

I never said that the fact that the UN doesn''t have a military power was it''s only problem. I know all about the hypocrisy that occurs at the UN. However, if the UN is ever going to have the power to enforce its resolutions, it needs a military that it can directly control; it can''t rely on member nations such as the US and UK.

However, if the UN is ever going to have the power to enforce its resolutions, it needs a military that it can directly control

First off it has its ""Peacekeeper"" forces. Second are you really willing to trust to a massivley corrupt organization a powerfull standing military? I honestly think it shouldn''t have a single soldier until its massivley cleaned up and can be trusted, which I don''t think we''ll see in our lifetime. Not only that as it currently stands its inept at doing anything. Anytime action needs to be taken it never does, since it will interfere with some nations interest. So not only is it corrupt, just look to see what happens to the ""aid"" it delivers, but its paralyzed to act at anytime it should. I.E. the UN is a joke, and I for one don''t want to see it as a globally corrupt joke with a standing military.

Oh, I agree that the UN is absolutely inept in just about every action it takes.

I really think it''s a moot point to argue about what makes it more worthless, the lack of a military or the corruption and hypocrisy.

Let''s be civil and agree that the UN is, for the most part, worthless.