BS: Irony: Bush and the UN

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:55 AM

Perhaps this would be worth resurrecting temporarily now.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Ard Mhacha
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 05:50 AM

Yes Jim well summarised, looks like another four years of entertaining press conferences, they really are that naive.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:02 PM

Jim - well spoken.
I turn on the tube and watch Charlie Rose, and marvel at the intelligent commentary, but suspect that more people get their news from Dennis Miller.

when national geographic surveys indicate that 80% of young americans
cant find Iraq on the map and 20% cant even find the US one is not surprised that Bush and co. can pull the wool over their eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 03:33 PM

Jim - All I can say is me too. Seems that the people outside of the U.S. have seen this coming for a long time. The world cried, STOP!

...but nobody listened.

It definitely follows a pattern. U.S. makes war. U.N. tries to clean it up. U.N. blamed for blowing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 10:53 AM

Well, there is the little problem that the individuals involved might not be that anxious to thought to be involved in what might be characterized as fraud, dianavan, and they don't seem to be cooperating.

I wouldn't expect much from this, anyway. These guys are too powerful and it would reflect badly on their countries if they got busted. Volker doesn't have supenoa power. It won't go far in 3 or 4 months.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: el ted
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:36 AM

Alas, Ron Davies has given the game away!

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:39 AM

Oh, I never really had any doubt from the first "Go get 'em boys" that at some stage the UN would be left holding the baby in Iraq. They'll also take the rap for failure, should the bathwater be hard to replace. And we'll be discussing how that is developing in 2014, as well (hindsight notwithstanding). Never had any doubt about that from the start, either.

Is it just because I'm getting older, and the time tends to move quicker than before, or is it really that long ago, because I find it hard to believe that some people have forgotten all the statements Bush made in the run up to the war, and all the back-peddling he has done hereto? There has to come a point in the politically aware individual's thinking, in my opinion, where one realises that the belief that one's leader can do no wrong, is in danger of blending into that muddy water, into the realms of blind faith.

And that is that very quality which we abhorr so much in others' cultures; the blind faith in a person, or ideology, the restriction this puts on free-thinking, and the effect it has on progress, purely for progress' sake.
It is just a roller-coaster ride, that we seem to have no control over, nor any part in determining the direction of, and more than just irony, I would venture to suggest a very serious credibility question regarding Bush 43, and his take on the whole 'War on Terror' has surfaced.

He had the American public assured that they could manage it themselves; without us if necessary. It is a U Turn of gargantuan dimensions, and if an alleged immoral President should be brought to the reckoning table, so should an alleged dishonest and unscrupulous one.
Isn't it in everybody's interest?

The trouble here is, that if GWB cries 'Wolf' again, will there be many people metaphorically stand up, and not so metaphorically say "Ok, that's enough"?
Several threads ago, DougR mused over the notion that Iran must really be shitting themselves at the time he made the post. I think that idea can now be safely put to rest.

White has always been black, and black has always been white. Some navigate through that kaleidoscope, and become coloured blind in the process. The one's with the apparent rose-tinted sunglasses at least should have the freedom to describe what the spectrum should look like, and not be construed as being in any way un-patriotic behaviour, or 'whistle-blowing' as the charge has been levelled at some of those in opposition to The US Government's policy. Very 'McCarthyish', altogether...

Either way, with all the doubleuspeak and un-proveable negatives, and what have you, that it now seems to be the Time of, and the much of a muchness that the Predidential Election is turning out to be, my prognosis is less than encouraging. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, though.

The more people, however, that accept this kind of breach of promise, and the more who keep on accepting as fact the questionable statements and predictions that the Bush administration has made about this very unique debacle that is now called a war again, well, the less of the spectrum I see.

We live in interesting times.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:05 AM

Strick -

Can't you link something a little more substantial than,

"The documents behind the list have yet to be authenticated, however."

And in 3-4 four months??????????????????????????????????????????????

Is this coincidence or is it timing?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 09:20 PM

Don't take the Journal (gave it up 25 years ago). These sentences are interesting:

"George Bush's administration recently praised a proposal for greater involvement by the United Nations in Iraq's political future. The plan, drafted by the UN's special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, would let the UN choose, in consultation with America, ministers to run Iraq after the June 30th handover of sovereignty."

Who's proposing what to whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 09:14 PM

Strick--

The oil-for-food scandal is one of the favorite themes of the Wall St. Journal editorials. Doesn't change the irony of the current sitiuation.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 09:03 PM

.... sorry.... little thread creep, here, but here we have an example of The El Ted Syndrome

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 08:46 PM

Please don't be hard on el ted. I asked him to post and pronounce the thread 'boring' at least once every 24 hours, lest it fall off the list, and in order to raise the number of postings . I offered to pay him, but he's such a public-spirited citizen he offered to do it for nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 08:21 PM

Ron, if you don't believe what I've said, read this one in the Economist.

U.N. Oil-for-fraud Scandal

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 08:17 PM

Strick, Teribus, et al. Bushites-------------

Wall St. Journal, today (22 April)--Albert R. Hunt column

Headline: "The UN to Bush's Rescue?"

First sentence: George Bush's re-election may well hinge on the success of a Sunni Arab and an institution he considers feckless, the United Nations".

If you have any doubt about what I said at the start of the thread, read the column.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 06:03 PM

Your proclivity for becoming bored s a reflection of your own self-abuse, el ted.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Shlio
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 05:31 PM

69 posts and 22 posters disagree with you, el ted

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: el ted
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:30 AM

Boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 09:09 PM

Pretty much the same as you on the issues before the war. I wasn't fooled by things apparently other people heard as arguments, Saddam alone was enough.

Bush is hardly inflexible, just determined. Arrogant? Compared to what? After Clinton and Gore? At least Clinton was nominally better at hiding it. Unwilling to admit mistakes, no, we see that as not dwelling on them to the point of paralysis. The last guy to do that, Carter, was a disaster. I don't think the plane evidence is as clear as so many people who've apparently never had to do post mortems on their own major screw ups, or anyone else's for that matter. No one dies in my line of work when we screw up, but millions of dollars are often at stake. I never think to blame the guy whose watch it is when something happens, he doesn't owe anyone an apology. Ben Laden earned that honor. I think the Buck stops here died a couple of administrations ago, politics killed it.

I change my mind over time, too. I voted against Dubya 24 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 09:02 PM

I dont dislike you Strick, by any means. I respect your right to have an opposing view, I just dont agree with it.

before the Iraq war started - I thought about it a lot. After a lot of soul searching- I decided from a humanitarian standpoint that it was ultimately better for the Iraqi people. But at what cost? that can only be known in the long run.
I certainly didnt buy into Bush's reasons of imminent wmd threat, or any Alqaeda connection - the real reasons behind seemed to be some kind of democratic restructuring of the Middle east. An admittedly gutsy move but one that has alienated its allies, and enraged a lot of the muslim world.

and now we know that Saddam was no threat after all, and yet one of our so-called allies Musharraf has pardoned AQ Khan the pakistani nuclear appleseed - and an international nuclear black market has come to light (how much of that is in the news?) There really is a threat, and just like one European diplomat said, Iraq is sunday school compared to this.
Meanwhile ALqaeda has grown, in the 30months following 911, close to 3000 people have died in al qaeda bombings around the world. Are we safer?

I dont know about you, but all I see from Bush is inflexibility,arrogance, unwillingness to admit any mistakes
(even though he contradicted himself at his press conference on
whether anyone could have predicted hijacking planes into buildings, when he himself and was informed of that very threat in Genoa G8 july 2001 conference - they setup up antiaircraft defenses - I remember hearing about that.
the Buck stops here sign is gone.


I have changed my mind on issues over time,
what about you?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 08:55 PM

Strick: "Why does that matter? "(if the UN will in fact bail W out by his election-inspired 30 June deadline) (posting 17 April 04 11:58 AM)

Why? Because it has to do with the election--which is all Bush cares about.


His tender feelings for the Iraqi people are, to say the least, rather low on his list of priorities, considerably below, for instance, his tender feelings for Americans deprived of their right to own semi-automatic weapons.

If he can by any means put the UN officially in charge of the Iraqi governing body (such as it is) on 30 June or soon thereafter, even if the US pulls the strings behind the scenes, he has a ready-made scapegoat if anything goes wrong. After all, that's what Teribus suggests (20 April 04 4:24 AM post). Depending on what happens before the election, the UN could indeed be Bush's political salvation. That would be the height of irony.

He may not be able to bring any troops home beaming for the camera any time soon (even a few would be election nirvana) but his team has other ideas. I'm sure broadband conversations with soldiers "on the front lines of freedom" are on the agenda, for instance.

One need not be a believer in wooly conspiracies of co-opting Iraqi resources on a permanent basis (an idea which might well blow up in his face) to see that absolutely everything Bush does between now and November will be geared to the election.   Also, since so many Americans unfortunately get their news from TV coverage, photo ops become very important, dismayingly so to anybody who gets information from other sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 08:06 PM

"point? earlier you said it was a matter of opinion, make up your mind.

bribes? spoils? odd way of looking at it."

I never said the question of whether Bush said the UN was irrelevant was a matter of opinion. It's conceded.

When a country won't do something unless it gets something valuable in return, why isn't it a bribe? Didn't people here say that many of the countries who participated in the Coalition were bribed to do so? What's the difference?

Exactly what does June 30th have to do with the elections? Heck the Iraqis wanted this to happen last year. The elections are scheduled for January next year.

Lot of people are running around like chicken little at every obstacle in Iraq, but not the administration.

I'm becoming fond of you, petr, honest. I know it's not mutual, but that's OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 07:57 PM

point? earlier you said it was a matter of opinion, make up your mind.

bribes? spoils? odd way of looking at it.

I just see poor diplomacy by an arrogant, inflexible administration that twisted the notion of immiment threat and used the fear from 911
(with no proof) to scare the US populace into supporting a pre-emptive war (for the first time in US history). The same administration that alienated its friends and allies, squandered the goodwill that was felt around the world for the US after 911
and is now seeking the help of the UN and other major European nations it so disdained only recently.

(vacation man BUsh - 31 so far) is so unwilling to admit that
they made any mistakes, -
(not having enough troops to establish security despite Shinsekis 'wild' overestimates - which turned out to be true,
but hey... the oil fields were secured, who cares about the museums and hospitals.

disbanding the IRaqi army (instantly creating a large cadre of armed, idle and angry young men)

both Cheney and Wolfowitz predicting they would be greeted as liberators with flowers )


who do they give soveignty June 30th? (Bremer=Good Question)
(Bush=were working on that)
(what happened to 'operation Iraqi Freedom' - and free elections)
why June 30th? could it have something to do with the US elections?

they havent got afucking clue whatto do next.
little red hen my ass.

more like chicken little.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 04:42 PM

"Well, well--in 4 days, Strick, you've realized there is a role for the UN after all---unless of course you plan to waffle yet again."

I don't see the contradiction. Someone else insists the UN get involved and then complains when we try to get them involved because the situation is a mess. Damned if we try to get them involved now, damned if we don't. My mother always said that when you're in that situation you might as well make your own choice. Given that they're irrelevant, I say fine, we won't bother those nice people. What's not to understand?

So petr, those countries would have forgiven the Iraqis debts run up under Saddam (money that went for palaces and weapons) if they had been bribed by reconstruction contracts? As Metchosin points out, reconstruction's not that much money given all the other costs. Or is it that hard to imagine that countries that wouldn't cooperate in one part of this might not cooperate in the next? If they aren't willing, they aren't willing. I keep thinking of the little red hen.

Yes, petr, Bush called the UN irrelevant. History shows it is, too and was before all this started. Your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 03:53 PM

its an undeniable fact - not opinion - that Bush called the UN irrelevant (he only tried to get UN support because Powell pushed the issue) and now that he's made a Mesopotamia he wants the UN to come in and be relevant again.

they sent Powell to Europe a few months ago trying to get France Germany and Russia to forgive or reduce the Iraqi debts - while at the same time announcing only US and coalition of the 'willing' can bid on reconstruction contracts - another example of irony - and how not to build a coalition,

when asked who the US will hand sovereignty to on June 30th
Bremer : 'Thats a good question'
Bush : 'Were working on it'

does anyone except a few diehard conservatives believe it will be easy to stabilize and democratize Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Metchosin
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 01:01 AM

Regarding the US and Britain's "spoils" of Iraq. There seems to be the presumption that the "economic benefits", derived by the citizens of the individual countries involved in Iraq's "reconstruction", will somehow outweigh the cost to individual taxpayers for upgrading and maintaining the armed forces required to "keep the peace" there.

I'm not sure I have that much faith in the trickle down economics. What other carrots are the US and Britain willing to hold out for Canada and other UN members' participation in the costly clean up of this non UN sanctioned mess?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 11:40 PM

Strick 16 April 10:23pm
"The UN is nearly useless as it's currently constituted...Why is it such a big deal now?"


Strick 20 April 1:41 PM
" So the US should continue to go it alone then? No point bothering those nice people, it's now our problem, right?"



Well, well--in 4 days, Strick, you've realized there is a role for the UN after all---unless of course you plan to waffle yet again. Of course you Bushites are only following your Fearless Leader in double-talk----he easily beats Kerry in that category----(e.g steel quotas for political reasons, later rescinded---this is a free trader?, ridiculing nation-building as a candidate--what, pray tell, is the plan in Iraq now?,    such high deficits (caused in large part by his absurd tax cuts) that he even annoyed his number 1 cheering section. the Wall St. Journal editorial page ---and so on ad nauseum.)    So I suppose if you want to blow like a weathervane you're just following your idol.

At any rate, I never said there was no role for the UN in Iraq---just that Bush's conduct on this topic offers a strong irony. You went off on wild tangents--so I have made a modest contribution------ and only recently have managed to crash-land on the thread's point.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 10:55 PM

dianavan, I thought petr meant that the only way we could get the UN involved now was if the rich countries that theatened a veto in the first place were given a "fair" crack at the billions of dollars of contracts for rebuilding Iraq. Nothing to do with right or wrong, just what they consider their share.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 08:46 PM

First of all, the U.N. never supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They did not believe there was enough evidence of WMD's. I believe the Bush statement regarding the irrelevance of the U.N. was after the fact. Why would the U.N. go now when they thought it was an act of U.S. aggression in the first place, unless the U.S. lets go of its power in that country.

Strick - in regard to the "spoils" of war (you said it, not me) the U.S. did the spoiling. Why would anyone in Iraq trust them or want them in their country for one minute more. But, heh, thats O.K., the U.S. wants to go it alone. Let them! They can have the whole damn mess or get out and let somebody trustworthy do the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 06:24 PM

Brown & Root apparently has the southern reconstruction contract. Not insignificant, $412 MM of the $8 Billion awarded so far. Another firm, Parson working with Australians, got the larger contract in the northern part of the country.

Are you proposing they stop rebuilding? All of it, water, power, the airports? The UN will come in if they get their share of the spoils?

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 05:52 PM

right, strick we all just imagined that Bush called the UN irrelevant,
and now seeks its help.
OIl contracts? ok oil industry reconstruction contracts given to Haliburton etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 04:25 PM

It's opinion you agree with petr, that's all. What oil contracts? The US backed off using Iraqi oil to rebuild Iraq. I'm not aware that the US is getting any Iraq oil. We get more from Canada our second largest import partner after Saudi.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 02:44 PM

well what that 'retired general' says - is not just some personal opinion - its the plain truth. or do you deny that BUsh called the UN irelevant and is now seeking the UNs help?

unless the US is willing to cede control to the UN, and revoke the oil contracts , yes they should go in alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 02:28 PM

well what that 'retired general' says - is not just some personal opinion - its the plain truth. or do you deny that BUsh called the UN irelevant and is now seeking the UNs help?

unless the US is willing to cede control to the UN, and revoke the oil contracts , yes they should go in alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 02:06 PM

Hi there, GUEST,guest from NW -

Remeber way back around the 5th April, we were discussing Condi Rice testifying under oath and you were looking for folks to blame and sack for failings in the intelligence community?

Well pay a visit to the BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship Thread and have a look at the last paragrapgh of a Washington Post Article "Ashcroft's Smear" posted by - Guess who - Guest 20-04-04 11:11 AM. In particular have a decko at the last paragraph and read carefully what it says - then go back to our old arguement and see if there is any difference to what my original contention was.

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 01:41 PM

Fair enough. So the US should continue to go it alone then? No point bothering those nice people, it's our problem, right?

(BTW, there are lots of retired generals who'll say what they believe one way or the other. One even ran for President recently and boy, you should have seen how his story changed once he threw his hat in the ring.)

Subject: RE: BS: Irony: Bush and the UN
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 01:03 PM

sure the Un should go in - the US will have to cede control to the UN - any contracts given only to US companies or from countries of the 'Coalition of the Willing' should be revoked.

and Strick, youre still avoiding the point. Even Retired General Anthony Zinni put it bluntly, 'we arrogantly dismissed the UN and called them irrelevant and now were going to them cap in hand' so that the UN can bail them out -

this is the 'irony'

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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.