UN refuses to protect its own mission in Baghdad

[miir]

I dont think its arrogance at all its just the hard plan truth

I suspect you do not know the actual meaning of the word arrogance.

[Kelshara]

Of course the UN can't function without two of the most powerful countries in the world. I mean.. duh?

[archeiron]

You know what Siji I dont think its arrogance at all its just the hard plan truth. I never said the world would cease to function if the US was gone I said the UN would.

This fact is only valid because the UN headquarters would be "destroyed" with the US.

[Cartalas]

You know what Siji I dont think its arrogance at all its just the hard plan truth. I never said the world would cease to function if the US was gone I said the UN would.

This fact is only valid because the UN headquarters would be "destroyed" with the US.

Just curious who would do the destroying?

[archeiron]

You know what Siji I dont think its arrogance at all its just the hard plan truth. I never said the world would cease to function if the US was gone I said the UN would.

This fact is only valid because the UN headquarters would be "destroyed" with the US.

Just curious who would do the destroying?

As a clarification, the UN headquarters would be dismantled and "exported" if the US were to leave and close its doors. I was in a hurry to post a reply and made an ambiguous comment.

[Avestan]

think Bush and the gang were naive about the difficulty of the task. They assumed Iraqi's would be rolling out the red carpet. I think Bush should have involved Iraq's neighbors before considering invasion. I mean that situation affects Iraq's neighbors. They could have been strong players in working out a peace. I blame lousy intelligence as well. The low quality of inteligence seemed to be glossed over.

It would be more accurate to blame the Bush administration's obvious isolationism.
He rarely travels overseas, rarely meets with foreign leaders, insults and alienates potential allies and seems to have a very poor understanding of international politics.
Anyone with a even a marginal understanding of regional politics in the middle east could have forseen the potential hornets nest the US was disturbing by invading and occupying Iraq.

The UN to me is a non player. The UN just likes to sit around and talk. That's not what you need when big world issues present themselves.

Saddam was yanking our chain for 14 years. We had finish it.

From the looks of things... (no evidence of any chem/bio/nuclear weapons prograps, the non-existance of WMDs, their patchwork armed forces and no real evidence of any underground terrorist networks)... it seems the UN sanctions and UN weapons inspectors did a rather effective job of keeping Saddam in check.


But I guess some of you are still bitter that the UN wouldnt support your invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Forgive me. . .but wouldnt an isolationist state NOT do anything outside its borders? Frankly, the UN is more isolationist than the US is. Just because Bush doesn't go to Europe does not make the US isolationist. . .why in god's name would he go there when he simply becomes the target for all the Anti-Americanism. . .no point.

[Kelshara]

Well frankly, the anti-Americanism got about 100 times worse when he was elected president and with his decissions and comments as a president. That said, I wouldn't call the US isolationists.. I would say that they did a bad job of HOW they went out into the world.

[miir]

Forgive me. . .but wouldnt an isolationist state NOT do anything outside its borders?

Isolationist in attitude.
Not physical isolation.

why in god's name would he go there when he simply becomes the target for all the Anti-Americanism. . .no point.

Up until the Bush administration really started pressuring the rest of the world to support their invasion of Iraq, the worldwide anti-american sentiment was not particularly widespread. His actions since then have created a pretty harsh turn in world opinion of your country.

You need only to look within your own borders to see how his attitude and actions could stir up such dissent.

[Metanis]

Only a bunch of hypocrites would let their sentiment for America stand in the way of saving Iraqi lives.

History may judge America harshly for this war but the UN and much of Europe will be viewed as a joke and a laughingstock.

[Adex_Xeda]

History may judge America harshly for this war but the UN and much of Europe will be viewed as a joke and a laughingstock.

The UN won't even be mentioned in the historical record about this. Hell they didn't "do" anything notable.

[miir]

History may judge America harshly for this war but the UN and much of Europe will be viewed as a joke and a laughingstock.

Only by ignorant and arrogant Americans... and thier opinions mean very little outside of your own borders.

[Krimson Klaw]

If they are viewed as a joke and a laughing stock, it will be because they did not have the balls to prevent America from invading. So I agree with you. Just so we are clear, I am not crazy about the UN either, but in the Iraq invasion case, they were right.

[miir]

If they are viewed as a joke and a laughing stock, it will be because they did not have the balls to prevent America from invading.

I never considered that angle... but then again, did they actually have the means to stop Bush from invading?

I don't even think that threatening to try Bush as a war criminal if he invaded would have stopped him. International support and opinion seemed to matter not to the current administration at the time.

[Boogahz]

Not to mention that it might require acknowledgement of the International Court that would probably be used to try him.

[Krimson Klaw]

The only thing I can think of that would have 100% stopped America from invading would have been UN troops in Iraq to prevent an invasion. The symbolism would have been enough I think. Of course if I were wrong, that could have made matters worse if America invaded anyway and caused UN casualties.

[Avestan]

America would not have invaded, but we would have gotten out of the UN which would make it almost completely powerless. We fund more than 25% of the total cost of the UN and 31% of the cost of peacekeeping operations.

[miir]

America would not have invaded, but we would have gotten out of the UN which would make it almost completely powerless.

I think you guys really underestimate how much influence the UN has outside of your borders. I don't think even George Bush would be foolish enough to remove the US from the UN.

[Cartalas]

America would not have invaded, but we would have gotten out of the UN which would make it almost completely powerless.

I think you guys really underestimate how much influence the UN has outside of your borders. I don't think even George Bush would be foolish enough to remove the US from the UN.

No Miir I think you overestimate it.

[miir]

No Miir I think you overestimate it.

I'm afraid you're mistaken.

You guys are making it out like the UN is a completely useless and redundant organization that would cease to exist if the US was no longer a part of it.

The UN is the sum of it's parts.
It would be weaker without the US and the US would be weaker without the UN.

The UN has done a lot of good in the past few decades.
It has united international support on a lot of recent conflicts.
Why, when the UN does not support the US invasion of Iraq, do they all of a sudden lose all their credibility in the eyes of some americans?

I guess it's just indicative of the 'If you're not with us, you're against us' attitude that George W Bush has sold to the american people.

[archeiron]

America would not have invaded, but we would have gotten out of the UN which would make it almost completely powerless.

I think you guys really underestimate how much influence the UN has outside of your borders. I don't think even George Bush would be foolish enough to remove the US from the UN.

No Miir I think you overestimate it.

No, Catalas (Mr. I am not mature enough to not post shit about other people's RL weight once a week), you underestimate it. The US is slowly waking up to the realization that there is an interdepedent global economy in place whether we want it or not. We can't just piss off the French, Russians, Japanese, Chinese, etc whenever we want. The trade embargos and tarrifs would rip us a new one in no time. The global community interacts with one another in many ways and one of those is through the UN.

Admittedly, as voluntary ("opt-in") organization, the UN only has the power that we (member states) are willing to grant it, but that willingness is not dependent solely on the American benefactor.

It is sad that any of you would want to pull out of the UN. Yes, it should be reformed, but it is there for a more noble purpose. A purpose that was shat upon by that ignorant, unrefined man in the White House.

[Voronwë]

well if it weren't for the Chinese, Japanese, and British we couldn't have this massive deficit spending. so from that angle, the White House depends on the global economy, and welcomes it.

i love how the interest we pay on our debt will essentially be tax dollars leaving our economy to become profits for the overseas bondholders. I think some estimates are that the interest on our debt will be our 3rd largest expenditure in a few years. great.

[Cartalas]

No Miir I think you overestimate it.

I'm afraid you're mistaken.

You guys are making it out like the UN is a completely useless and redundant organization that would cease to exist if the US was no longer a part of it.

The UN is the sum of it's parts.
It would be weaker without the US and the US would be weaker without the UN.

The UN has done a lot of good in the past few decades.
It has united international support on a lot of recent conflicts.
Why, when the UN does not support the US invasion of Iraq, do they all of a sudden lose all their credibility in the eyes of some americans?

I guess it's just indicative of the 'If you're not with us, you're against us' attitude that George W Bush has sold to the american people.

While I agree the UN has done some good in the past and maybe in the future, dont kid yourself they have done it at the expense of the American tax payer, Its no secret who supports the UN both finacialy and in strength of the military, Its the US.

[miir]

Once again, your arrogance is getting in the way of rational thinking.

[Cartalas]

Once again, your arrogance is getting in the way of rational thinking.

Ok Miir put it this way, The Us stops supporting the UN, And the next week China invades S. Korea, S.Korea ask the UN to help. Now where in the hell do you think the UN will get its bite with its teeth removed? ( US and England). Do you really think China will listen I mean come on who else has the ability to stand up to China?
Canada? Nope
Germany? Nope
Japan? nope
Iran? Nope
Those 4 countries combined? Nope

[Krimson Klaw]

I agree with you Cartalas. The UN would probably be able to stop Chinas invasion of Korea just as well as they stopped Americas invasion of Iraq!

[Metanis]

The only thing I can think of that would have 100% stopped America from invading would have been UN troops in Iraq to prevent an invasion. The symbolism would have been enough I think. Of course if I were wrong, that could have made matters worse if America invaded anyway and caused UN casualties.

Ummm, we forgot an important issue.

The UN had one kinda embarrassing aspect to all this... the USA was enforcing many years of UN Resolutions.

You can forget that part if you like... but the USA was very patient with the UN in the face of Saddam's bluster and bull.

Even that marvel of logical thought, John Kerry, admitted just this week,he would have still have voted for the invasion.

Let the attempts to re-write history begin.

[Voronwë]

COngress didn't vote for the invasion. They voted to give the president hte authority to use military force.

i know the pro-Bush camp wants to make the case that there is only one way to go about the Iraq invasion, and you are either for it or against it.

However, not even the US army holds that positions, let alone the president's cabinet.

So while the distinction may be lost on you, it is a reality, and the fact of the matter is, this president invaded iraq without a plan to ensure the peace, which means there was no plan to ensure SUCCESS.

It is the executional mismanagement of the process that Kerry differs with Bush on. ANd the propagandists will try to gloss over that nuance.

I'm sure your household finances are somethign that you might go over with your spouse from time to time, and there are a number of different ways you can go about keeping food in the kitchen. I voted for us to eat. Therefore, i am OK with us spending $100 a night to go to a top flight steakhouse. Sure I can't pay for this, and sure it will give me clogged arteries, but you are either FOR eating or AGAINST eating, so this is the way it had to be.

[Akaran_D]

Just a thought. If the US were to completely piss off the French, the Russians, the English, and whomever else and they in turn imposed massive trade embargoes on the US.. the US would follow suit.

It's scary if you think about it - the US can do whatever they feel like because they know if they get hit with trade sanctions, they can do the same and the combonation of the two could very liekly bring down the entire global economy, starting with small countries first then cascading into larger ones..

It's the monetary equivilent of chicken..

[Xzion]

Once again, your arrogance is getting in the way of rational thinking.

Ok Miir put it this way, The Us stops supporting the UN, And the next week China invades S. Korea, S.Korea ask the UN to help. Now where in the hell do you think the UN will get its bite with its teeth removed? ( US and England). Do you really think China will listen I mean come on who else has the ability to stand up to China?
Canada? Nope
Germany? Nope
Japan? nope
Iran? Nope
Those 4 countries combined? Nope

Without nukes/various WMDs... China would hand our ass in a 1 on 1 fight...they would be able to invade us threw canada anytime they wanted (no offense canada ) without any problems at all...then were fucked

[Krimson Klaw]

The only thing I can think of that would have 100% stopped America from invading would have been UN troops in Iraq to prevent an invasion. The symbolism would have been enough I think. Of course if I were wrong, that could have made matters worse if America invaded anyway and caused UN casualties.

Ummm, we forgot an important issue.

The UN had one kinda embarrassing aspect to all this... the USA was enforcing many years of UN Resolutions.

You can forget that part if you like... but the USA was very patient with the UN in the face of Saddam's bluster and bull.

Even that marvel of logical thought, John Kerry, admitted just this week,he would have still have voted for the invasion.

Let the attempts to re-write history begin.

You forget an important issue. We never found WMD's via UN inspections, and at this point in time, do you know why? Because he did not have any or got rid of them, and that was the ENTIRE reason for the invasion. Let me repeat this, finding WMD's was THE ENTIRE REASON America invaded. One more time, we invaded because we said Iraq had WMD's, that was the ENTIRE REASON. Now, I'll leave rewriting history about WHY we invaded up to you.

[Kelshara]

Why would the UN stop China from invading Korea? They have as much right to do that as US has to invade Iraq, right?

[Metanis]

The only thing I can think of that would have 100% stopped America from invading would have been UN troops in Iraq to prevent an invasion. The symbolism would have been enough I think. Of course if I were wrong, that could have made matters worse if America invaded anyway and caused UN casualties.

Ummm, we forgot an important issue.

The UN had one kinda embarrassing aspect to all this... the USA was enforcing many years of UN Resolutions.

You can forget that part if you like... but the USA was very patient with the UN in the face of Saddam's bluster and bull.

Even that marvel of logical thought, John Kerry, admitted just this week,he would have still have voted for the invasion.

Let the attempts to re-write history begin.

You forget an important issue. We never found WMD's via UN inspections, and at this point in time, do you know why? Because he did not have any or got rid of them, and that was the ENTIRE reason for the invasion. Let me repeat this, finding WMD's was THE ENTIRE REASON America invaded. One more time, we invaded because we said Iraq had WMD's, that was the ENTIRE REASON. Now, I'll leave rewriting history about WHY we invaded up to you.

ROFL. That's fine Krimson, we haven't found any major WMD systems yet. Why don't you get in your time machine and zoom back a couple years and shout that from the rooftops, maybe get an interview with the NYT. Hindsight is 20/20... unless you are liberally challenged.

[Voronwë]

speaking of time machines, on Jan 30, 2001 Warren Rudmann and Gary Heart contacted the White House regarding the findings of a bipartisan committee - the first of its type since 1947 - regarding the gathering terrorist threat to the United States, and even proposed a Department of Homeland Security to this end.

Pres Bush refused to meet with the committee, as did VP Dick Cheney. Eventually in March or April I believe Rumsfled, Rice, and Powell met with the committee.

At that time George Bush cautioned Congress not to move forward with any legislation regarding Homeland Security.

The August 6th, 2001 PDB according to the 9/11 Commission findings noted that Al Qaeda was actively involved in attempting to highjack planes in the United States as well as commit acts of terror in the United States.

[Krimson Klaw]

The only thing I can think of that would have 100% stopped America from invading would have been UN troops in Iraq to prevent an invasion. The symbolism would have been enough I think. Of course if I were wrong, that could have made matters worse if America invaded anyway and caused UN casualties.

Ummm, we forgot an important issue.

The UN had one kinda embarrassing aspect to all this... the USA was enforcing many years of UN Resolutions.

You can forget that part if you like... but the USA was very patient with the UN in the face of Saddam's bluster and bull.

Even that marvel of logical thought, John Kerry, admitted just this week,he would have still have voted for the invasion.

Let the attempts to re-write history begin.

You forget an important issue. We never found WMD's via UN inspections, and at this point in time, do you know why? Because he did not have any or got rid of them, and that was the ENTIRE reason for the invasion. Let me repeat this, finding WMD's was THE ENTIRE REASON America invaded. One more time, we invaded because we said Iraq had WMD's, that was the ENTIRE REASON. Now, I'll leave rewriting history about WHY we invaded up to you.

ROFL. That's fine Krimson, we haven't found any major WMD systems yet. Why don't you get in your time machine and zoom back a couple years and shout that from the rooftops, maybe get an interview with the NYT. Hindsight is 20/20... unless you are liberally challenged.

I don't need hindsight when I was openly opposed to military action without proof of WMD's from the very beginning, along with most of planet Earth.

[miir]

ROFL. That's fine Krimson, we haven't found any major WMD systems yet. Why don't you get in your time machine and zoom back a couple years and shout that from the rooftops, maybe get an interview with the NYT. Hindsight is 20/20... unless you are liberally challenged.

Haha.... yet?

[Lynks]

Without nukes/various WMDs... China would hand our ass in a 1 on 1 fight...they would be able to invade us threw canada anytime they wanted (no offense canada ) without any problems at all...then were fucked

Give us some credit. We don't have the best technology but I highly doubt we would just roll over and die. And besides, we have the Commonwealth on our side!!!! Wait till the Aussies come to our rescue!

[Lynks]

Met, us "liberals" have been saying it for over a year that no WMDs existed. You talk about hindsight, I talk about wanting the proof before making a judgement call.

[kyoukan]

America would not have invaded, but we would have gotten out of the UN which would make it almost completely powerless. We fund more than 25% of the total cost of the UN and 31% of the cost of peacekeeping operations.

lol what a load of fucking bullshit. you haven't paid your UN dues since the mid 90s and UN member countries paid for the ENTIRE gulf war.

[Cartalas]

America would not have invaded, but we would have gotten out of the UN which would make it almost completely powerless. We fund more than 25% of the total cost of the UN and 31% of the cost of peacekeeping operations.

lol what a load of fucking bullshit. you haven't paid your UN dues since the mid 90s and UN member countries paid for the ENTIRE gulf war.

I call Bullshit here

[Sirton]

You forget an important issue. We never found WMD's via UN inspections, and at this point in time, do you know why? Because he did not have any or got rid of them, and that was the ENTIRE reason for the invasion. Let me repeat this, finding WMD's was THE ENTIRE REASON America invaded. One more time, we invaded because we said Iraq had WMD's, that was the ENTIRE REASON. Now, I'll leave rewriting history about WHY we invaded up to you.

Krimson

Wrong WRONG WRONG......its because WMDs were not accounted for which is a entirely different situation then what you are saying........were did they go...were were they destroyed....what happened to the WMDs that were known about in the past?? Show proof of destroying them...because in this new world a country defying UN resolutions for 12+ years that the UN had to use military force against could not be trusted and would have to account for the missing weapons...

Putin told Bush that Iraq was planning a attack on the US..terrorist type attack.

UN said they couldnt account for Saddams weapons they knew he had at one time.

France said he had em

Britain and Germany said he had them.

Jordan and Egypt said he had.

The US got UN resolutions even as we were building up troops..which prob. gave him time enough to hide any WMDs he had...HE went to the UN and if not for France it would of been entirely different. France does not deserve a Veto they are just a tiny little minor country in the World..

Bush was also right about Africa in the state of the union address....the media doesnt like to let the people know...cause may make Bush look better.

Remember WMDs are still not accounted for....hes used them in the past...hes even been quoted to saying something similar to His only mistake about invading Kuwait was that he didnt wait till he had nuclear weapons and he was pursuing them back then too....its good hes gone.

I hate how libs have changed it to its all about WMDs..when it was because Saddam choose not to account for his WMDs that everyone in the World knew he had. What happened to the documents and trails showing he destroyed them. He gambled that the UN with France and his oil ties would stop the US from finally calling him on the hide a seek game for 12 years..Bush called him on it.

I still see the progress in Iraq also going at a unreal pace.....Name other wars and similar situations were a new gov't was made so fast...with such a large percent of the population supporting it. I think there is a spin machine put out there by libs and democrats and media to talk down the war so much to make the general american people look at it negative and vote against Bush.....but seriously name other conflict that have accomplished so much at such a quick pace...talk about things that have been done there dont just throw up negative BS the democrats and media have spun with no proof.

[Rasspotari]

The UN to me is a non player. The UN just likes to sit around and talk. That's not what you need when big world issues present themselves.

yah you need to lie to your country and send some people with guns over and kill the local population damnit !

heh just had to highlight this

[Rasspotari]

I still hold the view its harder than exspected after major operations, but its been a success sofar. We won we captured Saddam...there is a new government, which will be voted on by the people and 20+ million Iraqi's dont have to live under a dictators thumb. Our losses have been very minor for the type of conflict I was exspecting 10,000 US troops dead by this point.

yah for a few years, then another one will come along and presto .. history repeats it self and same damn shit happens again.

you'd think presidents and people in power read history books

[Krimson Klaw]

You forget an important issue. We never found WMD's via UN inspections, and at this point in time, do you know why? Because he did not have any or got rid of them, and that was the ENTIRE reason for the invasion. Let me repeat this, finding WMD's was THE ENTIRE REASON America invaded. One more time, we invaded because we said Iraq had WMD's, that was the ENTIRE REASON. Now, I'll leave rewriting history about WHY we invaded up to you.

Krimson

Wrong WRONG WRONG......its because WMDs were not accounted for which is a entirely different situation then what you are saying........were did they go...were were they destroyed....what happened to the WMDs that were known about in the past?? Show proof of destroying them...because in this new world a country defying UN resolutions for 12+ years that the UN had to use military force against could not be trusted and would have to account for the missing weapons...

Putin told Bush that Iraq was planning a attack on the US..terrorist type attack.

UN said they couldnt account for Saddams weapons they knew he had at one time.

France said he had em

Britain and Germany said he had them.

Jordan and Egypt said he had.

The US got UN resolutions even as we were building up troops..which prob. gave him time enough to hide any WMDs he had...HE went to the UN and if not for France it would of been entirely different. France does not deserve a Veto they are just a tiny little minor country in the World..

Bush was also right about Africa in the state of the union address....the media doesnt like to let the people know...cause may make Bush look better.

Remember WMDs are still not accounted for....hes used them in the past...hes even been quoted to saying something similar to His only mistake about invading Kuwait was that he didnt wait till he had nuclear weapons and he was pursuing them back then too....its good hes gone.

I hate how libs have changed it to its all about WMDs..when it was because Saddam choose not to account for his WMDs that everyone in the World knew he had. What happened to the documents and trails showing he destroyed them. He gambled that the UN with France and his oil ties would stop the US from finally calling him on the hide a seek game for 12 years..Bush called him on it.

I still see the progress in Iraq also going at a unreal pace.....Name other wars and similar situations were a new gov't was made so fast...with such a large percent of the population supporting it. I think there is a spin machine put out there by libs and democrats and media to talk down the war so much to make the general american people look at it negative and vote against Bush.....but seriously name other conflict that have accomplished so much at such a quick pace...talk about things that have been done there dont just throw up negative BS the democrats and media have spun with no proof.

We obviously are talking about two different planets Earth's. I'm almost speechless. Fine, you are right. We had every right to invade Iraq and all the proof in the world sitting in our laps right now in our ends to justify the means. No Mas!

[Forthe]

America would not have invaded, but we would have gotten out of the UN which would make it almost completely powerless. We fund more than 25% of the total cost of the UN and 31% of the cost of peacekeeping operations.

lol what a load of fucking bullshit. you haven't paid your UN dues since the mid 90s and UN member countries paid for the ENTIRE gulf war.

I call Bullshit here

Yeah its bullshit. We only paid for 90% of the first gulf war.

[Aruman]

Don't even bother Sirton, the people here against Bush don't want to see things like that.

The President Bush bashers get infuriated when other justification besides WMD focus is shown for the events in Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was in part due to WMD, most likely a larger percentage of the reason, but there was more to the invasion other than WMD.

As far as my opinion of what is going on. The easiest path is usually never the best choice.

Diplomacy had it's chance and did not work. Saddam had more than enough time to comply with the UN Resolutions.

Saddam was playing the UN like a fiddle.

[Karae]

We get infuriated with justifications other than WMD because that was the main reason given before the way. None of us have ever disputed that Hussein was a bad guy, just that regime change is not a reason for war. That was demonstrated in Iran by Reagan, Cuba by Kennedy, and many other times.

Every single reason given for the war in Iraq before the war has been refuted. This shifting justification for the war there is absolute bullshit.

Saddam was not playing the U.N. like a fiddle. He disarmed and when he had shown he had disarmed he said "GTFO." This is evidenced by the fact that there are no WMD in Iraq.

Get over it, Saddam did what the U.N. asked - we were wrong to invade. You, and GWB, need to admit that we fucked up and instead of trying to rhetorize the situation figure out how we can rectify it.

[Aruman]

There was no shift, other than the President Bush bashers jumping on the "OMG where are the WMD bandwagon".

Sirton has it right.

[Karae]

There was no shift, other than the President Bush bashers jumping on the "OMG where are the WMD bandwagon".

Sirton has it right.

Sirton is a fucking retard and so are you.

[Aruman]

Ooh! The name calling card! That's the way to refute what is being said! I'm soooooo proud of you!

[Karae]

Ooh! The name calling card! That's the way to refute what is being said! I'm soooooo proud of you!

I learned from the best...your hero...President Bush.

I don't refute what you posted because you posted nothing of value. Just idiocy, bullshit, and fallacy.