BS: Irony: Bush and the UN

Subject: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 09:57 PM

Now Bush (through Powell, who is the only one of this bunch of trigger-happy clowns
( in the current American regime)   who makes any sense) is asking the UN to come pull his chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq. After years (a political lifetime?) of denigrating the UN, now Bush wants a new UN resolution and more UN participation, so that the US and UK will not be going it alone, particularly since other participants are showing signs of easing out. I wonder how the Wall St. Journal editorial writers and other mindless Bushites will spin this.

I hope Kerry rubs this in every chance he gets. Eh, Doug R. et al.?


Also, now we'll see if somebody can rein in the cowboys who are saying "we will capture or destroy al-Sadr", as they prepare to attack the Vatican of Shiite Islam. Sounds like said cowboys should also, like Bush, have a nice feast of crow to dine on quite soon. Either that or they will in fact be stupid enough to attack the holy city of Najaf and further inflame Shiite Moslems all over the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 10:23 PM

Excuse me? Have you forgotten that the first Bush was the US ambassador to the UN and was soundly accused of being too pro-UN during his presidency? Or that Dubya at least tried to go through the UN? Clinton couldn't get the votes he needed to get them to act in Bosnia or Kosovo, so he by passed the UN embargos and forced NATO to redefine it's defensive charter so NATO could intervene. The UN didn't intervene in Rwanda or any of other major international crisis of the last 30 years. At least unless the rich nations who run the club decided there was nothing to lose by getting involved. The UN is nearly useless as it's currently constituted. It's been bypassed by US Presidents for decades. Why is it such a big deal only now? Where were you when Clinton was making them irrelevant?

The left's been whining that the UN wasn't involved in Iraq from the beginning. OK, the US is asking them to get involved a second time. More damned if you do and damned if you don't? Get your story straight, do you want the UN in or out?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 10:45 PM

Ahhhhhh, Strick, did you forget to take your memory pills again???

If you'll remember, The UN was an afterthought fir Bush the Junior. Ha had allready gone before the Amercian people with his *woof-woof-I'm-gonna-get-that-son-of-gun-that-tried-to-kill-my-daddy* 'bout a half a dozen times plus had Condi "Mushroom" Rice and Dick "More-Mushroom" Cheney running from coast to coast warning people to batten down the hatches 'cause Saddam was gonna get 'um if they didn't. Remember them days, Strickster? No? Take another a pill...

So then.... along come Powell, who walks into the Oval Office and say's "Hey, Junior. Yer messin' up and I think we need to go to the UN before invading Iraq, or I'll quit!"

So Junior went to the UN and di the perfunctory UN stuff and then invaded Iraq... Hey, good move. He didn't have to suffer the lose of his much needed and second favorite "House Negro".... and now folks can think that the UN, which was totally stripped of any world respect by Junior, can save his butt????? Like make that a big ***NOT***!!!!!!!!!

Sure, Junior will get reslected becuase the folks who get to count the votes say so, but hs won't be able to breathe any respectability back into the UN. Like givin' a tranfusion to a dead man...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 11:15 PM

Strick--


1) We're talking here about W, not Daddy.

2) It's obvious that what W wants is UN cover so he can VERY soon after 30 JUne declare victory and bring planeloads of LIVE Americans home, all beaming for the cameras just before the election. The attitude of W and his supporters definitely falls under the heading of hypocritical---do I need to cite you chapter and verse?

3) It's somewhat evident that you and other Bushites don't think tremendously highly of the UN. Therefore it's interesting, to say the least, that the UN looks to be Bush's salvation in the mess he got us all into.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 11:45 PM

OK, Bobert, Powell forced Bush to go to the UN. Shame there was no one in Clinton's administration that talked him into going before them for the major issues during his tenure. I think at least as highly of the UN as Clinton did. He didn't think it was important in his wars and it did nothing in Rwanda. It was irrelevant long before this Bush came to office.

Therefore, I don't think the UN is Bush's salvation. I don't think the permanent members of the Security Council will ever take a risk on anything. They'll do something only if it doesn't cost them anything or if it doesn't interfere with their national interests. Otherwise they'll styme any initiative as they always have. Look back at their actions and tell me different. Show me examples that contradict this assessment if you can.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 12:06 AM

Strick--


The only question now is whether the UN will in fact bail W out by his election-inspired 30 June deadline. It 'll also be interesting to see what carrot if any, he offers.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 12:25 AM

Has the US paid its debt of several billions of promised funds to the UN yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 02:15 AM

Foolestroope, you pipped me, only just, with your riposte! The US right---which includes most of the Democrats in its scope--has detested the UN almost from its inception. If the USA had come even close to pulling its weight in UN-based operations there would be less need for the muscle-flexing prancing of the NATO organisation. Similar commitment to the UN organisation would have made a wonderful difference in\, say Rwanda. Now Bush expects to have the UN favouring a "democratic handover of sovereignty" to the Iraqis on June 30th.
"Democratic " in a pig's eye! There cannot possibly be democracy in Iraq untill the last "coalition" soldier has departed, or has been placed under the total control of the Iraqi government. Any foreign force which remains in that battered country under the control of an outside power can only be a complete mockery of true democracy. The Iraqis may not wish to embrace democracy as most of the enlightened nations know it---but that is their prerogative. No matter what form their government took, it couldn't be worse than the status quo, and at least would have the right, for instance, to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to assess the extent of contamination of their environment by coalition uranium-tipped ordnance---a right which under the occupation regime is flatly denied at this time. The contamination from this source is described as "horrific" by Dr Doug Rokke, the director of the US army depleted uranium project in the aftermath of 1991. He insists that deaths from this source alone run into many thousands---including American personnel; how's that for a weapon of mass destruction?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 02:33 AM

What makes you think the U.N. will enter Iraq at the invitation of the U.S.? Bush was told not to go it alone and now he wants the U.N. to go in and clean up his mess.

Nobody wants to go in under American control so if the new, U.S. apptointed, Iraqi govt. can hold together for a week or so...the U.N. might go in after all. Unfortunately, this is very unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 11:58 AM

"Has the US paid its debt of several billions of promised funds to the UN yet?"

We're basically paid up. See link below. The US agreed to pay after the UN agreed to abide by better accounting procedures and external audits and caps the percentage of the UN budget the US would be asked to pay at 25%. The US wasn't the only government to withhold payment due to questionable accounting practices: The Dutch Government will resume payment after Director Arlacchi has shown the will to reform the organisation, and after two upcoming reports have been released. One from an external accountants and one report from a special UN Inspector. The UN has a slightly different view and isn't happy with the changes Congress insists on, of course.

Status of U.S. Payments to the UN

"The only question now is whether the UN will in fact bail W out by his election-inspired 30 June deadline."

Why does that matter? The June 30th deadline is a show of good faith, one for which the UN is irrelevant (as in so many things). What matters to the Iraqis is the election in January. That's when they get to say what government they want. That, dianavan, is the reason so many Iraqis are trying to help resolve the scattered uprisings peacefully. They see that all the uprisings did was to induce the US to bring in more troops and scare the fainted hearted UN away. It helps that the people behind the uprisings are not popular within Iraq. The notion that they could use violence to come to power is an anathma to most Iraqis.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 07:29 PM

So if June 30th passes without any handover, we should also let Bush away with that as well, Strick?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 07:52 PM

While it is true that Shrub the First was UN ambassador, I think the more relevant position to Shrub the Second's presidency will turn out to be Papa Shrub's stint as Director of the CIA.

Baby Shrub's presidency has a lot of eerie echoes and long shadows cast by Papa Shrub's past.

I'm betting the reason why George Tenet hasn't been fired by the Baby Shrub is because he has some serious Hooveresque goods on the Shrub dynasty and it's Mayberry Machiavellians.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 08:10 PM

"The left's been whining that the UN wasn't involved in Iraq from the beginning. OK, the US is asking them to get involved a second time. More damned if you do and damned if you don't? Get your story straight, do yoowant the UN in or out?"

here's the straight story as simply as we can put it, strick. no whining, just the facts.

1. this question is about GWB not clinton. we know it's extremely difficult to get any bushies to talk about anything involving him without bringing up clinton. can you show us that you're not like all the rest?

2. GWB went to the UN under pressure, fed them a pack of misinformation and distortions, never planned on doing anything but what he did and was scurrilous in his condemnations. many americans favored using the UN to give some legitimacy to this unilateral act. GWB was not interested beyond making a show.

3. now he wants the UN to pull his ass out of the fire, immediatly signed on to brahimi's outline, and acts like "oh, sure, the UN was in on this all along and , of course we want their help".

4. the question posed in the thread "don't you find some irony in this?"

5. so the question is not "do you want the UN in or out" since many thought they should be involved from the beginning. the question regards the fact that bush didn't but now that the sh*t is hitting the fan, he does.

simple and straight enough, with numbers and everything? so why not address the point instead of talking about bill clinton?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 08:17 PM

And while we're setting recors straight. The US didn't act to pay its arrearages to the UN until Ted Turner threatened to pay them himself out of his own bank account...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 08:18 PM

Yes Boab,

after ages of trying to shaft the UN, the USA wonders why the rest of the world is a little suspicious of the USA wanting to run away from Iraq, now the shit has hit the fan and the place is starting to look like another Vietnam/Rwanda/Afghanastan/etc/any_other_place_the_USA_has_stuck_its_dick_in ?

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 08:31 PM

The "handover" is about as genuine as the puppet governments that every now and then got set up in Vietnam.

It's not jusat a public relations gimmick though - it's also a ploy to provide a pseudo-legal basis for signing agreements and so forth that will limit the power of any genuine Iraqi controlled government in the future to reverse commercial arrangements deigned to cream off Iraqi resources for the benefit of foreign companies, especially those in the Bush camp.

If there was a prospect of a genuine handover to a caretaker Iraqi administration free from American control, and restricted from agreeing anything that can't be undone by a democratically elected Iraqi government, that would be something that the rest of the UN Security Council could reasonably be expected to back. Except that Bush would probably use the USA veto to stop anything like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 08:33 PM

Irony indeed:

Thank God for the death of the UN

(in the words of a member of the Bush administration).

While I was searching around for that article, I also ran into this one. It's one of the more fascinating articles I've seen so far about the ideology that drives the Bush administration:

A Tragedy of Errors by Michael Lind

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Hrothgar
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 11:20 PM

Maybe Dubya should only let the UN in if they promise to find the WMD?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 11:46 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 12:14 AM

Looks like the first link isn't working any more (or at least not right now). Here's the cached version:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:XXyB9N9p9T8J:www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,918812,00.html+%22Thank+God+for+the+death+of+the+UN%22+guardian&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 12:18 AM

I love the conjoined twin Bushie attitudes
that
1. Everthing Clinton did was wrong and
2. that If Clinton did something then you can't criticize Bush for doing the same thing.

My Favourite interaction between Bush and the UN was the "Resolute" Bush saying that he wanted a vote on the invasion of Iraq "No matter what the whip count is". Then, just a couple of days later he chickened out and backed down when he found that his bullying didn't work and the whip count indicated a resounding defeat.

This from a man who talks about the credibility of his word.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 12:30 AM

here's another quote that fairly drips with irony from Fearless Leader...

"Having failed to secure Iraqi support for any of the American plans for a transitional government, Bush was asked to whom he would hand the reigns on June 30.
"We will find that out soon," the president said. He assigned the task to Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations' special envoy. "That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing," Bush said.
Last month, however, the president declared that "America must never outsource national security decisions to leaders of other countries." That was his response to Democrat John Kerry's call for greater UN involvement in the Iraqi political transition."

so, c'mon you bush believers, explain that bit to us lefty whiners.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 08:48 AM

I must confess that I haven't been greatly impressed by the UN's effectiveness. I'm often not too impressed with the local police department's effectioveness either.

Neither feeling in anyway justifies vigilante actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 11:42 AM

Bush is an international vigilante. Blair is his sidekick.

I'm not a great fan of police action but, at least the U.N. has broad based support from other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:44 AM

From Strick--
---"the UN is irrelevant [as in so many things]...."
"....To induce the US to bring in more troops, and to scare the fainthearted UN away...."
    If ever there was corroboration of the fist statement in my last posting requires, then here it is.   Strick---tell us all; do you believe that the US should not take any part in world affairs other than in furtherance of its own perceived interests? Be aware that if such a belief is anything like general in the USA , the enmity of MOST of the world is guaranteed. No nation or individual has the divine right to impose their way on any other society or individual.
Democracy is a word thrown around with gay abandon by some of our leaders today. Trouble is, they don't appear to get the meaning any more than Osama does!

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 08:07 AM

The big deal now is that there is nothing constitutional about a US president decideing he is going to invade other countries for "democracies sake".

To turn around and unilaterally say some country broke a UN rule/resolution so we are going to attack without UN support is a despicable irony.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Redhorse at work
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 08:43 AM

Listen to McGrath.

The current Iraqi "government" has no legitimacy under international law so cannot make laws or agreements that will bind its successors.
The handover on 30 June is looking so dodgy that the successor government could also be regarded as illegitimate. If the UN backs the post-June 30 puppet government, all the oil contracts, leases on military bases etc will not be legitimately revocable by successor elected governments, so Iraq will become what Bush has always wanted: a wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc.

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:40 AM

I am getting confused from all of these arguments.   Let me see if I have this straight.

In Iraq we should have gotten a UN coalition before going in with the support of France

In Haaiti we waited too long to build a UN coalition with the support of France and should have went in unilaterally.

With Al Queda we should have made a preempive strike to have avoided 9/11 but we should not have done this in Iraq.

In North Korea I don't know if we are supposed to form a UN coalition, go in unilatterrally, or form a coalition of the willing with Japan, China, and Russia.   The only thing we know for sure is that North Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq or Al Queda.

I guess we will have to wait to see what Bush does and than say we should have done the opposite.

1 million Rowandans and 3 million Cambodians would probably disagree with you about putting the UN in charge, but they are dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:00 PM

No, you haven't got it straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:57 PM

Less succinctly:

In Iraq - if there had been a UN resolution authorising military action against Iraq, this would have given it legitimacy. The only reasons for rushing an invasion seem to have been (a) to fit in with Bush's election timetable at home and (b)because it was feared that, if further inspections revealed that there were in fact no WMDs in Iraq, this would remove the grounds for an invasion, which was desired for quite different reasons.

In Haiti - providing help to the democratically elected government, instead of backing the vested interests engaged in overthrowing it, would have required no international issues. Moreover the reason Aristide's government was in serious trouble in the first place was as a result of economic sanctions sponsored by Washington.

So far as Al Quaida was concerned there had in fact been a number of unsuccesful preemptive strikes, and there is no reeason to think thta this was an effective way of countering the threat; at no time was Iraq involved in carrying out or planning any terrorist actions agains the US, so this id completely irrelavnt in relation to the Iraq war.

There is no reason whatsoever to see North Korea as a threat to anyone except perhaps to North Koreans. People who see "nuclear deterrence" as a good thing when the arms are in the hands of the USA, and to whom the possession of a massive nuclear arsenal by Israel is seen as stabilising, should see the possession of some nuclear weapons by North Korea as a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 01:12 PM

"And while we're setting recors straight. The US didn't act to pay its arrearages to the UN until Ted Turner threatened to pay them himself out of his own bank account..."

Not really. Ted's paying what he promised despite his diminished circumstances and the US is paying what it thinks is due now that the UN promises to abide by legitimate accounting standards and provide audits.

"In Haiti - providing help to the democratically elected government, instead of backing the vested interests engaged in overthrowing it, would have required no international issues. Moreover the reason Aristide's government was in serious trouble in the first place was as a result of economic sanctions sponsored by Washington."

Those sanctions were sponsored by the international community in general, not just the US. Imposed overt fraud in the 2000 elections before Bush came to office. The US followed the French plan on this one and didn't take the initiative, like it or not.

"The big deal now is that there is nothing constitutional about a US president decideing he is going to invade other countries for 'democracies sake'."

There's nothing in the Constitution about why or why not the US can go to war. Congress effectively delegated their powers through the War Powers act out of cowardice. Since they don't have until after a war is started, they're free to see how it's going before committing themselves.

"There is no reason whatsoever to see North Korea as a threat to anyone except perhaps to North Koreans."

The Japanese (and the Chinese when you get them alone) whole heartedly disagree. It would be different if the government in North Korea were a little bit more rational or their economic situtation not quite so desparate. Now that they can launch nuclear armed missles at Japan, there's growing concern they're going to try blackmail to get what their hopeless economy can't provide.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 01:23 PM

In the case of Haiti the US government was indeed able to get other countries to back the sanctions it wished to impose on Haiti because of fears that the government might other wise be able to hold to the promises it had made in the election. These caused a great deal of suffering to ordinary people as well as making it inpossible for the elected government to carry out its electoral pledges for economic changes.

Whatever failings there may have been in Haiti's elections under Aristide, they pale into insignificance in comparison with those demonstrated in elections held by its northerly neighbour.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:15 PM

"In the case of Haiti the US government was indeed able to get other countries to back the sanctions it wished to impose on Haiti because of fears that the government might other wise be able to hold to the promises it had made in the election."

What promises? What does Haiti have that the US wants? Why would the French side with us if there was something we wanted?

Except for the humanitarian issue, most of us could care less what happens in Haiti. After over 100 years of US intervention we don't think there's anything we can do to make things better there. Why not let them settle their own differences? Well, since when we don't intervene we're criticized and when we do we're criticized and we really don't give a damn, why not do what France suggests?

BTW, why is it "Bush" when the US does something while he's in power and "Washington" when Clinton is in power?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:30 PM

I hope you don't imply that I think Clinton was a President that Americans should have any reason to be proud of? When a policy is carried over from one adminstration to another, or has been supported by both your parties, "Washington" seems a reasonable term to use.

Why should the USA and its friends worry about an island in the Caribbean going its own way, and wish to interfere with that? True, that doesn't make much sense, but then it never has. Cuba has had similar problems hadn't it?

The expression that has been used in this kind of context is "the fear of a good example", and the solution is to impose stresses that tend to distort the good example into a bad example, as part of an agenda of replacing the government with one that won't involve those kind of problems. The interests of the ordinary people involved is a very secondary matter indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:35 PM

"Why should the USA and its friends worry about an island in the Caribbean going its own way, and wish to interfere with that? True, that doesn't make much sense, but then it never has. Cuba has had similar problems hadn't it?"

Cuba has been an example for nearly 50 years. If it weren't for the Cuban American lobby in Miami we'd be ingnoring them even more than we do now. As for Haiti, it's government has been so fundamentally corrupt for decades that I can't imagine anyone holding it up as a "good" example of anything except as something to avoid.

Who do you think we're worried they're going to influence? Barbados? The Bahamas? Puerto Rico?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:43 PM

The obvious risk is to the Dominican Republic, with whom they share an island.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:53 PM

OK, but from what I understand, the Dominican Republic would be the last place that would use Haiti as a good example. Familiarity breeds comtempt and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:04 PM

No, the DR is not about to want anything to do with the Haitian model, as their own works much better; but the reverse - Haitians forcing their way into the DR to make up for their own desperate and denuded economy -- is certainly conceivable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:14 PM

OK, so why does the US give a damn about the Dominican Republic? And given what you say, why doesn't the DR just annex Haiti and get it overwith?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:20 PM

"the US is paying what it thinks is due now that the UN promises to abide by legitimate accounting standards and provide audits"

Well, now that we've got the UN in line on that, when can we expect the same from this administration? Instead of the Tax and Spend Democrats, we've got the "Don't Tax and Spend Anyway" Republicans.

I agree that the UN has been ineffective in many areas but the one in which it functions best is as international scapegoat. At least if we had backed down we could blame it on them for not backing us. As it is we have: No WMDs, No Nuclear program, No joyously celebrating crowds of well wishers, No absolutely factual, dyed in the wool, "bash on it" proof (should have never put that in the UFO thread, I love it!)of a connection between Al Quiada and Iraq, and No Bin Laden as well.

Hey, we didn't need the UN when we trained and armed this sum-bitch, we didn't need the UN when we supported him against Iran, We didn't need the UN when we sold arms for hostages, we didn't need them when we invaded based on their resolution, which does not abdocate authority to our nation if they should falter on it. We do need them now, for legitimacy, to lower the US body count, and by involving the Arab members of the UN the chance to end the "Crusade" which the Muslim community sees happening through their world view.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:26 PM

The DR is an ally of the US -- that doesn't mean much now, but in the Cold War days it did.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:32 PM

"Hey, we didn't need the UN when we trained and armed this sum-bitch, we didn't need the UN when we supported him against Iran, We didn't need the UN when we sold arms for hostages, we didn't need them when we invaded based on their resolution, which does not abdocate authority to our nation if they should falter on it."

Right, we didn't need the UN, it's true. The UN is strictly a club for and run by rich nations to justify their actions while giving poorer nations the appearance of having some say. Oh, all those weapons they've been using in Iraq, the AK-47s, the RBGs and the mortars, are Russian. Sorry, we didn't provide them.

"We do need them now, for legitimacy, to lower the US body count, and by involving the Arab members of the UN the chance to end the 'Crusade' which the Muslim community sees happening through their world view."

You asked for international cooperation. Do you mean you don't want it? I ask again, do you want international cooperation or not? You can't complain we didn't ask for it and then cast aspersions on the reasons for asking for it when you're one of the people insisting on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 04:04 PM

"You asked for international cooperation. Do you mean you don't want it? I ask again, do you want international
cooperation or not? You can't complain we didn't ask for it and then cast aspersions on the reasons for asking for it when you're one of the people insisting on it."

you're showing a bit of thickheadedness here strick. you want to ask an irrelevant question and then answer it yourself to your satisfaction. i tried to simplify this in an earlier reply but you seem to have missed it, so here again, with numbers.

1.people asked for international cooperation and UN involvement BEFORE the bushits took unilateral action while declaring the UN "irrelevant".

2. bush and his "washington" cabal made a cursory appearence at the UN, under pressure, told lies and misrepresented information, used the UN resolution as a fake justification for their war and did their dirty work.

3. to slander the UN & international community, have your war no matter what they say, kill a bunch of innocent people along with a few terrorists while creating hundreds or possibly thousands more along the way, create a huge mess and then come back to the UN and international community and say "hey, you're about cooperation, right? how about some cooperation now to clean up our sh*t in iraq"... no, you say?! well then you never gave a darn about international cooperation anyway...isn't that what you wanted?" is a pretty underhanded and shabby way to conduct your foreign policy i'd say.

now is that simple enough or are there too many big words?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 04:49 PM

"while declaring the UN 'irrelevant'."

Well you miss my point. The UN was declared irrelevant quite sometime ago by other administrations of both parties. What I see is that there's a persistent community demanding "international" cooperation for whom only the UN will do. They don't recognize that the UN is a club designed to prevent things that certain powers don't want to see happen. Its other functions happen or not by at the rich power's pleasure.

The UN is perfectly willing to participate, or rather France and Germany who've deadlocked the body are provided they get their say in how Iraq is managed. Ditto, NATO. Not the UN, because, of course, only the permanent members of the Security Counsel with veto power have any real say. France and Germany are still playing games trying to establish a coalition that will dominate the EU. They really don't care much what happens to Iraq, so long as it futhers their interests.

If this were really about international cooperation alone, the nations that are already participating with the US would be enough. They aren't because only rich ex-colonial powers are the only countries entitled to have a say, now aren't they?

My objection still remains. If you want UN participation, fine, just quit bitching when someone asks for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 05:04 PM

The UN is strictly a club for and run by rich nations to justify their actions while giving poorer nations the appearance of having some say.

I definitely agree with that one. As I said before, that needs to be changed, and the UN should become what it should have been all along... a democratic institution that fosters cooperation and accountability between nations. We need to get rid of the special priveleges that the most powerful member nations have and let all nations have an equal voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:30 PM

The problem with asking for international support is that nobody will participate under U.S. command. The U.S. appoints a new govt., decides the strategies, determines who gets the contracts to rebuild. Such a deal.

No matter how much compassion we have for the people of Iraq, nobody wants to co-operate with the U.S. because there is no trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 04:24 AM

I quite like CarolC's idea above. Knowing politicians, and those who represent their countries at the UN, are politicians, from the moment of it's reincarnation guess what? - the UN will be run by the US, Japan, EU then a bit further down the trail those mentioned above will be joined by Russia, China and possibly India.

It reverts to being a meaningless, ineffectual talking shop with all the member piggies with their snouts firmly lodged in the trough.

Example - UN Committees - every member with an equal voice:

"Oh, you want our vote on ___________ (any given subject) OK then, what do we get in return if we side with you on this?". The same thing happens now but it's a lottery, it all depends what comes up in the Security Council while your country is sitting on it.

The UN at some point in time will have to recognise whatever form of government emerges in Iraq. The hand-over on 30th June is important. It creates an interim Iraqi Government that will lead to the first democratic elections that that country has ever seen. But what this does do from that first step on 30th June is set up a "civil power" that can be supported and aided by the "international community". If, for whatever reason, the "international community" fails to support it, it will be the responsibility of the "international community" to explain why, like in so many other instances it has been faced with, it just sat back and did nothing.

The process, doctrine and necessity of international engagement cannot be promoted by those not prepared to engage in that process.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 12:24 PM

We'll never really know, Teribus, until either all of the member countries can veto or none of the member countries can veto. And until there are no countries that are permanently on the Security Council, and no countries that are never on the Security Council.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 12:45 PM

And just what makes you think that those Soviet arms weren't payed for by the U.S. Tax payer? In the last few fights that we've been in on the people we have been backing have been using AK's and other Soviet arms. We supported the Afghanis against the Soviets and they weren't playing with M-16s. Some of the weapons were taken from fallen soldiers but quite a bit was financed by the good old US of A.

What I'm saying is that we got ourselves into this mess with no help from the UN (prior to Desert Storm) and then we decided we didn't need the UN, just a coalition of the "arms twisted behind our backs to make us willing". Now that the body counts are rising, now that some of the coalition of the willing isn't so willing, now that what the nay sayers has come true in the way of revolt against the occupation and tying up of our troops on foreign soil instead of securing our own nation, we asking the irrelevant UN to come in and clean up after us.

Yes I wanted UN support before we acted and I still don't see how what we have currently found over there after inspecting for nearly a year justifies the actions we took as initially submitted to the public by this administration. But that is not the point. We are not whining, we are saying we told you so in a nice loud voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 12:57 PM

"We supported the Afghanis against the Soviets and they weren't playing with M-16s."

But we supplied the Afghans US-made Stinger missles, not Soviet style surface to air missles or the RPGs being used in Iraq. Iraq had plenty of oil money to buy their own weapons after the Iran war, thanks. The Afghans didn't. What ever nonsense you keep repeating, the vast majority of the weapons in Iraq were purchased from the Soviet Union with Iraq oil money without the aid or participation of the US. If we had been involved, there would have been no reason not to sell US weapons openly and plenty of pressure from the "military industrial complex" to do so. You're not claiming all those corporations suddenly lost their clout in Washington, I presume?

I'll accept you saying you told us so. I don't believe that a UN presence would have made any difference, but go ahead. Now the question is do you want the UN in or not? You can't take credit for saying they should be there and criticize people for asking them to come in.