UN Irrelevant?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » September 3, 2003, 2:14 pm

Remember the grandiose statements about going it alone and how the UN would be made irrelevant if it didn't cave in to the US?

Well the US did go it alone. Deal with it and stop the begging. The US made the mess, stop looking for others to clean it up for you.

Maybe after you spend some number of billions of dollars the sheep won't allow this kind of of shit to happen in the future.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3078016.stm

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 3, 2003, 3:15 pm

You know, to pay for it, we could always just start an income tax in the 51st and 52nd states.

Canada and England

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 3, 2003, 3:20 pm

If you pissants want a say in the direction Iraq takes, then it's time to pony up. If you don't, then STFU.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » September 3, 2003, 3:21 pm

I`d like to remind you that Canada chose not to help the US in this massive clusterfuck..

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » September 3, 2003, 3:23 pm

masteen wrote:If you pissants want a say in the direction Iraq takes, then it's time to pony up. If you don't, then STFU.

I wanted a say in it before we decided to attack them unprovoked...

-=Lohrno

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 3, 2003, 3:40 pm

They'd been provoking us for a dozen years by not complying with the treaty they signed in '91.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » September 3, 2003, 3:56 pm

masteen wrote:They'd been provoking us for a dozen years by not complying with the treaty they signed in '91.

That's a diplomatic issue, not a provocation.

When did they start firing missles at us, or saying "We're going to come invade you?"

-=Lohrno

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 3, 2003, 3:58 pm

Lohrno wrote:
masteen wrote:They'd been provoking us for a dozen years by not complying with the treaty they signed in '91.
That's a diplomatic issue, not a provocation.

When did they start firing missles at us, or saying "We're going to come invade you?"

-=Lohrno

We told THEM "Comply, or we are coming for you!" They didn't so we did.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 3, 2003, 4:00 pm

I see the UN is doing a real bang up job all over the world.

Hail Kofi Anus!

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » September 3, 2003, 4:09 pm

Skogen wrote:We told THEM "Comply, or we are coming for you!" They didn't so we did.

Well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place. We should just have left them the hell alone.

Speaking of, where are the WMDs?

-=Lohrno

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 3, 2003, 4:15 pm

masteen wrote:If you pissants want a say in the direction Iraq takes, then it's time to pony up. If you don't, then STFU.

I don't give a fuck what direction it goes in. Thus I hope Kofi Anan tells your government to fuck off so I can laugh my ass off while the president you robots voted for drives your country into the worst financial disaster since the great depression.

The only good that's come out of this is watching the americans come snivelling to the UN with their hand out looking to them to bail them out of the fucking mess the bush administration put them in. Hopefully there will a lot more public begging and pleading.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » September 3, 2003, 4:19 pm

kyoukan wrote: I don't give a fuck what direction it goes in. Thus I hope Kofi Anan tells your government to fuck off so I can laugh my ass off while the president you robots voted for drives your country into the worst financial disaster since the great depression.

In this regard, the UN is in fact useless. Even if Kofi Anan had the balls to put sancitons on the US for it's aggression, it wouldn't help. The US does not listen to the UN.

As far as us being all robots, a big Fuck You to you too. I'm definitely voting in the next election, and It's not going to be for that monkey.

-=Lohrno

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 3, 2003, 4:22 pm

actually most of the country didnt vote for him

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 3, 2003, 4:25 pm

I'm not a big fan of the UN jumping in right now.

The added complexity of mulitiple political agendas I suspect will slow down the rebuilding process.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 3, 2003, 4:42 pm

It has to actually start before It can slow down. the americans are still just camped around the ministry of oil guarding it and doing stupid raids on suspected saddam allies while islamic fundies run the cities like they're kings.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » September 3, 2003, 4:46 pm

I predict the UN will prove itself useless by taking three years to decide whether or not they have the right to decide to consider becoming involved in Iraq.

That's if someone doesn't offer them four choices on a dinner menu instead of the usual three, in which case it will be five years.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 3, 2003, 4:52 pm

better to take 3 years to decide than to take 6 months to fuck everything up. too bad you're too stupid to figure that out.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 3, 2003, 4:52 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Skogen wrote:We told THEM "Comply, or we are coming for you!" They didn't so we did.
Well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place. We should just have left them the hell alone.

Speaking of, where are the WMDs?

-=Lohrno

I agree. I am just saying that we went in there without warning them, or reason, whether that reason is viable or not. (which is wasn't IMHO)

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 3, 2003, 4:55 pm

kyoukan wrote:
masteen wrote:If you pissants want a say in the direction Iraq takes, then it's time to pony up. If you don't, then STFU.
I don't give a fuck what direction it goes in. Thus I hope Kofi Anan tells your government to fuck off so I can laugh my ass off while the president you robots voted for drives your country into the worst financial disaster since the great depression.

The only good that's come out of this is watching the americans come snivelling to the UN with their hand out looking to them to bail them out of the fucking mess the bush administration put them in. Hopefully there will a lot more public begging and pleading.

I did NOT vote for that little fucker!!

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » September 3, 2003, 5:04 pm

Obviously Kyou.

I mean, who really gives a fuck if people were dying by the thousands? They're just ragheads, right?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 3, 2003, 5:18 pm

yeah because baghdad is a really safe place to live atm.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 3, 2003, 5:19 pm

i would say no more then 25% of the over 18 american population voted for bush, counting the people who didnt vote too

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 3, 2003, 5:23 pm

the UN was already useless prior to this ...

Deward · Post by **Deward** » September 4, 2003, 10:26 am

I didn't vote for Adolph Bush either but there are a lot of stupid fucks in this country that did and will do so again. The Democrats have yet to field a viable candidate and the only real chance they would have is if Hillary Clinton decided to make a run at it. She has name recognition. I wouldn't vote for her either though. She scares me.

As for the UN. They were worthless before and they are worthless now. The only reason they are still around is so that instead of saying US troops are occupying then we can say UN troops and maybe the countries will accept it a little better if they know it isn't the Americans. Although teh majority of UN troops are American as far as I know.

Thank god I am thirty (over draft age) and have less than two months left in my National Guard unit. Rumor has it that nearly all National Guard units will be expected to take a tour in Iraq in the coming years. On top of that Rumsfeld is trying to turn all National Guard units into Army Reserve Units to be used as personnel pools and get shipped everyone in the world. Not a good time to be in the military.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 4, 2003, 10:36 am

America asking for UN involvment is laughable, and that's pretty much indisputable. It's shameful really, and why should Kofi cooperate?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 4, 2003, 11:23 am

Krimson Klaw wrote:America asking for UN involvment is laughable, and that's pretty much indisputable. It's shameful really, and why should Kofi cooperate?

beyond that it is embarrassing.

Timeline:

Aug 2002: Dept of Defense wants to invade Iraq w/o even talking to the UN
Sept 2002: Powell convinces Bush that it would be a diplomatic disaster to follow Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz's guidance in this issue.
Dec 2002: UN resolution (another one)
Feb 2003: US pretty much says we're going in, and screw the UN
Sept 2003: US solicits assistance from the UN.

the very fact that we are soliciting help, to me, suggests that our leadership does in fact think that we cannot handle the situation. Either that or the administration is scared of the body bag count come election time in 2004. Both of those scenarios are pathetic in their own individual way.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 4, 2003, 11:38 am

To be honest, the first thought that popped into my mind when I read this was "they are trying to get out of rebuilding Iraq like they said they would". Seems like a ploy to wipe their hands of the mess and get out of there, then blame someone else later on down the road.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 4, 2003, 11:38 am

I'd say both your reasons are valid Voronwe. I seriously don't think they realized just what a hellhole they got themself into. They threw rocks at a beehive and now they are paying for it. They have tried the typical American way of "More military will solve it", but it doesn't work there. So they are affraid it will get even more out of hand.

And yes, I'd say the recent polls that show the free-falling support of Bush definitely has something to say about it. More dead Americans = less support = no Bush!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 4, 2003, 11:56 am

the US has such a reputation for being pussies when it comes to 'boys' coming home in body bags on TV.

And we should absolutely value every single American soldier. And the way to do this is to not deploy them haphazardly. But once they are deployed in a military action, we cannot let small body bag counts effect the military plan.

Our oposition knows why we lost in Vietnam. There is no military equal to the US, but the adversaries know that they can succeed against us if they send home one GI in a body bag per day. And simply put, we cannot encourage their guerilla tactics by capitulating to them and attempting to withdraw.

we have to show resovle in this conflict, or the next one will be much worse in terms of suicide bombings and sniper attacks. We have to show that we have the resolve to deal with these minor losses, and from a military standpoint they are minor.

for politicians to be wimps and pull out when the death toll gets high only makes the next conflict more dangerous for our troops. It is also a very childish behavior. To not take the responsibility for your actions and follow them through.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 4, 2003, 12:16 pm

Voronwë wrote:we have to show resovle in this conflict, or the next one will be much worse in terms of suicide bombings and sniper attacks. We have to show that we have the resolve to deal with these minor losses, and from a military standpoint they are minor.

for politicians to be wimps and pull out when the death toll gets high only makes the next conflict more dangerous for our troops. It is also a very childish behavior. To not take the responsibility for your actions and follow them through.

Exactly my thoughts. If Bush wants to use the big stick, there are going to be consequences.

We're in Iraq, and there is no going back. The cost to America is high in both dollars and blood, but to pull out now without rebuilding Iraq and the forgotten Afghanistan would be both shameful in the short term and counterproductive in the long term.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » September 4, 2003, 12:19 pm

Voronwë wrote:the US has such a reputation for being pussies when it comes to 'boys' coming home in body bags on TV.

And we should absolutely value every single American soldier. And the way to do this is to not deploy them haphazardly. But once they are deployed in a military action, we cannot let small body bag counts effect the military plan.

Our oposition knows why we lost in Vietnam. There is no military equal to the US, but the adversaries know that they can succeed against us if they send home one GI in a body bag per day. And simply put, we cannot encourage their guerilla tactics by capitulating to them and attempting to withdraw.

we have to show resovle in this conflict, or the next one will be much worse in terms of suicide bombings and sniper attacks. We have to show that we have the resolve to deal with these minor losses, and from a military standpoint they are minor.

for politicians to be wimps and pull out when the death toll gets high only makes the next conflict more dangerous for our troops. It is also a very childish behavior. To not take the responsibility for your actions and follow them through.

While I agree with most of that I also think you have to consider the reason why the body bags are being filled and weigh the pros and cons.

Hopefully you actually think about this before you send troops in. I think the main reason you see the vietnam\iraq reaction is the government pushes through its agenda blitzing the media with rhetoric (stop the evil communists\stop the evil tyrant-wmd) and plays the patriot card. Some people are very susceptable to this (we have a few of them here on VV) but after a period of time the emotions run dry and they are left scratching their head wondering why the fuck they are there.

If this was a just war, and more importantly now a just occupation I doubt you would see public support slump as much.

As it now stands what is the benefit of occupying the country for 5-10 years as has been stated vs. expediting elections and getting out ASAP?

The only thing I see is corporations profiting from military personel deaths and maybe a fear that a non-US model government is installed. However, if the citizens vote for said government then we should respect that.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 4, 2003, 12:26 pm

masteen wrote:They'd been provoking us for a dozen years by not complying with the treaty they signed in '91.

They were UN (not american) resolutions.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 4, 2003, 12:33 pm

If this was a just war, and more importantly now a just occupation I doubt you would see public support slump as much.

I think this is what the current scenario has in common with Vietnam. I don't recall there being any hue and cry about casualties during D-Day or the Pacific campaign. The problem starts when the public see soldiers dying for no clear reason or clear benefit to the US.
No WMDs were found, the terrorist threat has not receded, no tidal wave of democracy is in process and you have US troops dieing daily in a country with an increasingly "ungrateful" population. Not a great situation.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » September 4, 2003, 12:36 pm

As it now stands what is the benefit of occupying the country for 5-10 years as has been stated vs. expediting elections and getting out ASAP?

Expediting elections and pulling out would amount to the same end result as simply abandoning the initiative. This was never a short term action. Those who believed it would be simply were not taking historical and cultural differences into account.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » September 4, 2003, 12:43 pm

Fallanthas wrote:
As it now stands what is the benefit of occupying the country for 5-10 years as has been stated vs. expediting elections and getting out ASAP?

Expediting elections and pulling out would amount to the same end result as simply abandoning the initiative. This was never a short term action. Those who believed it would be simply were not taking historical and cultural differences into account.

If you are going to quote a question try answering it. You just said a whole lot of nothing.

I'm curious, what is the "same end result" of expediting elections?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 4, 2003, 1:00 pm

I don't see people complaining about the casualites.

I only hear my messageboard friends and a few democrats on TV complaining.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 4, 2003, 1:04 pm

I don't see people complaining about the casualites

I don't see anyone saying anyone is complaining.

But I don't think this state of affairs will last forever. Especially if it keeps costing lives with no "results" to show for it.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 4, 2003, 1:12 pm

People have a sense of hardened determination for the most part.

It's like having a wasp nest in your front yard. If you do nothing the wasps will periodically attack you and your guests.

There comes a time were you have to go out there and risk a bunch of wasp stings to remove the nest.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 4, 2003, 1:16 pm

Poor analogy,

Periodic wasp stings understate the threat of inaction.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » September 4, 2003, 1:19 pm

If you pull out now there will be a fundy government in power in less than three months Forthe. I didn't think it was all that hard to figure out.

A government is going to have to be established and given time to build both physical and cultural support before it has any kind of chance of surviving. "Expediting" elections would be absolutely useless.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 4, 2003, 1:31 pm

Periodic wasp stings understate the threat of inaction.

Ah yes the good old unquantifiable threat. A great propoganda tool.

But I'm not going to argue about that. Again.

I'd liken your "action" to dancing around the wasps nest in your swimming trunks playing the pre-emptive trumbone. You get stung, you don't cure the problem and the neighbours look at you like you've gone a bit mental.

Was action needed? Debatable, as we've seen here ad nauseaum.
Was the taken action correct? We'll see. But I'm going with a pre-emptive "nope".

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 4, 2003, 2:27 pm

Stay the course!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 4, 2003, 2:39 pm

Adex i am not saying that people are complaining about the body count.

what i am saying is that I am wondering if the US motivation to get UN troops in Iraq (now) is motivated by the 2004 election cycle. And if that is the case, i think that is pretty sad.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 4, 2003, 3:11 pm

Voronwë wrote:Adex i am not saying that people are complaining about the body count.

what i am saying is that I am wondering if the US motivation to get UN troops in Iraq (now) is motivated by the 2004 election cycle. And if that is the case, i think that is pretty sad.

Anyone ever think maybe the UN contacted the US and asked to be involved? Just a question!

Maybe the UN wants a little more control then they deserve?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 4, 2003, 3:20 pm

Cartalas wrote: Anyone ever think maybe the UN contacted the US and asked to be involved? Just a question!

No.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » September 4, 2003, 3:21 pm

Anyone ever think maybe the UN contacted the US and asked to be involved? Just a question!

Anan is not approaching Bush. Bush is asking Anan for help.

Ajran · Post by **Ajran** » September 4, 2003, 4:23 pm

miir wrote:
masteen wrote:They'd been provoking us for a dozen years by not complying with the treaty they signed in '91.
They were UN (not american) resolutions.

Correct, but would those resolutions exist if the U.S. said "so what.. you can take kuwait... " who else would have gone in there and stopped it?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 4, 2003, 4:47 pm

Personally I think we should pull out of Iraq, Afganistan, the Former Yugoslavia, Liberia, Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. Prior to doing so we inform the rest of the planet that we will cleanse with nuclear fire any nation who harbors anyone that directs an attack against American citizens or properties.

Then we act on it.

However this would not fix anything, nor would pulling out of everywhere, then not responding to foreign threats.

If you live on a street, and 20% of your neighbors want to kill you because of your religion, and of those 20% 3 are willing to do it quietly with a sniper scope while you are getting in your car to go to work. Then survival behooves you to ace the SOB's first.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » September 4, 2003, 6:03 pm

Kylere wrote:Personally I think we should pull out of Iraq, Afganistan, the Former Yugoslavia, Liberia, Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. Prior to doing so we inform the rest of the planet that we will cleanse with nuclear fire any nation who harbors anyone that directs an attack against American citizens or properties.

Then we act on it.

However this would not fix anything, nor would pulling out of everywhere, then not responding to foreign threats.

If you live on a street, and 20% of your neighbors want to kill you because of your religion, and of those 20% 3 are willing to do it quietly with a sniper scope while you are getting in your car to go to work. Then survival behooves you to ace the SOB's first.

I'd suggest that you find out what is the real motivation behind the 20% wanting to kill you and work on that.

Try not to fall for the "because they hate freedom" or the other often used but equally simply minded rhetoric. I can name a half dozen democratic, rich, and predominately christian countries besides the US off the top of my head as I hope you can also.

Why don't these countries draw the same hatred as the US? Why isn't the Vatican a target? Do you think it is because the US has the biggest military and they enjoy longshots?

The US has been messing around with so many countries since WWII it is hard to keep track. In the future will you fail to understand why Iraqis hate you? Will you simply chalk it up to a religous hatred or hated of freedom?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » September 4, 2003, 6:12 pm

How about we chalk it up to the fact that the religious leaders of the area cannot stand to have their authority undermined by a culture proving that something other than slavish subservience to their leaders works.