Canadian Seat on U.N. Security Council

[nicky10013]

Ummm... Both North Korea and Cuba are both members of the United Nations. Both are dictatorships that supress human rights. So.... how does "talking through the United Nations" actually work now?

North Korea is also "involved with" the the IAEA. Well, they were... but they expelled inspectors.

The US refuses to deal with North Korea outside of the 6 party talks of the US, South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and North Korea. No UN involved.

[jbg]

Yes, I remember the adminstration making this claim, and everyone taking it as fact, in contradiction to the public record; even the news agencies who correctly reported the situation intitially, apparently decided that Bush understood things better than did mere objective reality:

Saddam made rhetorical threats of destruction. At some point his words were to be credited at face value when the West acted accordingly.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think we need to also be honest about "American" property in Cuba. Curious to know what proportion of it was owned by the mafia.

Most of it......

[nicky10013]

Most of it......

Bingo. So the US Government is holding out to reclaim expropriated policy for gangsters. Niiiiiice.

[M.Dancer]

They do all over the West coast,though...

Really....how many arrived fleeing the revolution leaving their confiscated property behind?

[segnosaur]

But to say that "true, he didn't literally kick them out, but made it difficult," etc...that's all well and good, but it's no justification for the repetaed, baldly-stated, flatly-false claim being made.

Ummm... you do realize that I actually pointed out that some inspectors were "kicked out" (ordered to leave) by Iraq.

By defending it, you're defending propaganda--propaganda that, in this case, was part of the deception used to lead countries into a war.

Ummmmm... while it might be inaccurate to say "inspectors were kicked out" (well, except for the ones that were kicked out, which you seem to be ignoring), the fact that they: A: were prevented from doing their job, and B: were not permitted back in the country as per the U.N. mandate is a rather significant point.

Remember, we're not debating the fine points of Iraq weapons inspections here (in which case I would have been more specific in my statements). We're talking about an off-hand statement about the U.N. and its ability to enforce "peace and good will".

[jbg]

They do all over the West coast,though...

Not with a large enough %tage of the vote to swing a state in the Electoral College.

[segnosaur]

Ummm... Both North Korea and Cuba are both members of the United Nations. Both are dictatorships that supress human rights. So.... how does "talking through the United Nations" actually work now?

North Korea is also "involved with" the the IAEA. Well, they were... but they expelled inspectors.

The US refuses to deal with North Korea outside of the 6 party talks of the US, South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and North Korea. No UN involved.

Ummm... You DO realize that it was North Korea that was insisting on direct talks with the U.S. back in 2003?

Of course, given your rather, ahem, limited knowledge of world history/politics, I guess its understandable that you didn't know this. (After all, you are the one who thinks Kofi Anan had an iron-man suit that he used to stop the war in Bosnia. Or something like that.)

http://www.simonbaker.me/2/hi/asia-pacific/2604437.stm

Of course, you were thinking logically, you might wonder "If the UN is so wonderful, then why aren't all parties talking through the UN"? Why did North Korea demand direct talks?

Heck, why didn't the IAEA (you know the UN agency involved with nuclear issues) stop them before they obtained nuclear weapons? Why didn't the Security Council actually take real action if sanctions are ineffective?

[bush_cheney2004]

Bingo. So the US Government is holding out to reclaim expropriated policy for gangsters. Niiiiiice.

"Gangsters" are Americans too.

[nicky10013]

Ummm... You DO realize that it was North Korea that was insisting on direct talks with the U.S. back in 2003?

Of course, given your rather, ahem, limited knowledge of world history/politics, I guess its understandable that you didn't know this. (After all, you are the one who thinks Kofi Anan had an iron-man suit that he used to stop the war in Bosnia. Or something like that.)

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of having limited understanding of world history/politics considering you have an incredible penchant of picking your battles. I notice my last response to you is the last in our previous sparring match. Yet, despite the lack of any counter argument on our discussion regarding the UN you're calling me uninformed? Yikes.

As for the UN, despite it being designed for civilised debate, as I pointed out in my previous unanswered post, it has grown to do so much more, things only the UN can accomplish. Furthermore, the fact that you're trying to pin me to such a narrow opinion, such as the UN should be the sole body for international discourse, is pathetic at best.

What makes the pathetic nature of your attack on me even worse is that you've taken a statement by me which was in no way meant to convey happiness for what Kofi Annan did and punched it up to the extreme where the only funny thing about the statement is the person who attempted this malodious attempt at humour. All I said was he approved of the mission to NATO because a resolution wasn't possible in the Security Council. Wow. I sure made him look like Superman.

Furthermore, I never said the UN was perfect. I've never shied away from saying it needed reform. Like all human created institutions, they do err. Unfortunately, it's people like you that demand perfection from something that can't give it. Despite the merits of such an organization, people like you will always be against something like the UN and never for it. Cynicism never accomplished anything good.

http://www.simonbaker.me/2/hi/asia-pacific/2604437.stm

Of course, you were thinking logically, you might wonder "If the UN is so wonderful, then why aren't all parties talking through the UN"? Why did North Korea demand direct talks?

Heck, why didn't the IAEA (you know the UN agency involved with nuclear issues) stop them before they obtained nuclear weapons? Why didn't the Security Council actually take real action if sanctions are ineffective?

Talks worked. Unlike what our good friend Bush_Cheney2004 believes (lots of statements, no proof), the Agreed Framework was in place. The North Koreans would recieve 2 light water reactors (can't produce weapons grade fissile material) and so much food aid in return for the shut down and regular inspection of their Yongbyon Nuclear Reasearch Facility. Funny, the country that breached the Agreed Framework of 1994 wasn't the North Koreans but the Americans. Congress wouldn't pass the aid promisied in the bill. Bush Jr. came to power, named them part of the "Axis of Evil." After this speech, Iraq was invaded and the North Koreans feared for their sovereignty. They very publicly withdrew from the NPT, declared that they were now in violation of the Agreed Framework and very publicly declared their intent to build nuclear weapons. They already had all the technological and theoretical know-how to do it. 3 years later, they tested a bomb.

You were saying about knowledge of international politics/history? Might want to read up yourself.

[bloodyminded]

Ummm... you do realize that I actually pointed out that some inspectors were "kicked out" (ordered to leave) by Iraq.

But it wasn't the situation that is consistently (and inaccurately) referred to; that situation is the one in which Butler pulled out the inspectors...which was reported at the time, accurately...and now everyone blabbers on ignorantly about how they were "kicked out."

All because some greasy little lying president said so.

Ummmmm... while it might be inaccurate to say "inspectors were kicked out" (well, except for the ones that were kicked out, which you seem to be ignoring),

I didn't ignore it. I said it was irrelevant to the lie and the barrage of propaganda from the news media.

the fact that they: A: were prevented from doing their job, and B: were not permitted back in the country as per the U.N. mandate is a rather significant point.

Lies, and propaganda which helps to deceive people into supporting a war--and everyone who supported the Iraq War was deceived by propaganda--is rather significant as well.

Look, we both agree that Saddam was deceptive and subversive as to the processes by which he was supposed to be bound. There's no argument there.

Our disagreement seems to hinge, fundamentally, on your implied defense of lying, anti-democratic, criminal gangsters...when they're us or our allies. That's our disagreement, at bottom.

Remember, we're not debating the fine points of Iraq weapons inspections here (in which case I would have been more specific in my statements). We're talking about an off-hand statement about the U.N. and its ability to enforce "peace and good will".

I understand. A statement was made referring to the oft-repeated falsehood, and I corrected it, with evidence.

Edited October 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Saddam made rhetorical threats of destruction. At some point his words were to be credited at face value when the West acted accordingly.

That wasn't the subject. the subject was the continually-repeated claim that "Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998."

when, in fact, and as was reported accurately at the time, Butler oulled the inspectors out in 1998.

We're talking about the basic factual record.

[Saipan]

Why was there a decade long embargo against Saddam? Just for the heck of it?

[bush_cheney2004]

That wasn't the subject. the subject was the continually-repeated claim that "Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998."

Since we are defining our own subjects, the far more interesting point of contention in pre-war 2002 was that Saddam would not let the inspectors back in until threatened with military force. So he got just that...in spades.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Since we are defining our own subjects, the far more interesting point of contention in pre-war 2002 was that Saddam would not let the inspectors back in until threatened with military force. So he got just that...in spades.

I wonder how the US would respond to a demand for unfettered weapons inspection access?

[bush_cheney2004]

I wonder how the US would respond to a demand for unfettered weapons inspection access?

You mean like this?

Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/13/tentative-inspection-program-allow-russia-visit-nuclear-sites/

...and US didn't lose a UN sanctioned war.