Un And Iraq - Vapidity

[Craig Read]

The UN supported Hussein in the 90s, made the US pay for the costs of containment, obstructed Gulf War II, pulled out of Baghdad after refusing US protection and having its HQ blown up, and now has just passed a resolution supporting US occupation, after 3 weeks of posturing that the US must immediately hand over control to the Iraqi's.

What a circus and group of clowns.

I tried reading the last UN resolution. Its language is impossible to decipher. I have NO idea what it is trying to say. I found this Op ed which describes perfectly the problem with the UN process.

Any comments?

==================================

As a matter of civic education, everyone should have to read a Security Council resolution. Take number 1511 on Iraq, and begin with the obligatory last sentence "DECIDES to remain seized of the matter." The line is both arresting and baffling, and conjures an image of scores of goggle-eyed diplomats caught in a cataleptic fit as a result of wrestling with a knotty foreign policy problem. And it means nothing. Could one imagine the Council declaring that it "DECIDES this is the last time it will debate this tiresome issue"? Very few problems in international relations disappear, and neither, presumably, will the Council and its deliberations.

Vapidity has its fascinations. The resolution EXPRESSES condolences to Iraqis on terrorist attacks (sympathy rarely extended to Israelis, but that's another matter), TAKES NOTE of upcoming meetings of the Governing Council in Iraq, APPEALS for strengthened efforts to be benevolent, and EMPHASIZES, REMINDS, REQUESTS and AFFIRMS all manner of good things. However, it spends not one euro, equips no soldier and dispatches no relief worker.

The American diplomats who labored hard and skillfully for the resolution -- a real diplomatic triumph, to be sure -- would rightly say that its significance lies less in its wording than in the fact of international support for the U.S. presence in Iraq, and for a course of occupation and reconstruction in line with our wishes. The unanimous votes, however, reflect not so much a change of heart as the rule of the head -- and the hardest part of the head at that.

Take Syria's remarkable vote in favor. Was this a sudden effulgence of sympathy for the work of creating democratic institutions in a brother Arab country? Conceivably, but considerably weightier was the experience of having Israeli jets smash a terrorist camp outside Damascus, a demonstration of power made more worrying by the unequivocal American endorsement of diplomacy by high explosive. Syrian leaders woke up and realized that they're surrounded by Israel on one side, two allies of the U.S. on north and south, and American forces to their east. And those forces have, of late, been increasingly pointed on the matter of guerrilla infiltrations into Iraq from the direction of Damascus.

===============

So if nation state power is central to the destruction of fascism in Iraq, what exactly does the UN have to offer ???

[SirRiff]

The UN supported Hussein in the 90s

the US supported saddam while he killed his own people. the US sold him weapons, the US sold iran weapons, and let them kill each other. the US gave weapons to afgan terrorists/rebels. the US assisted in the 1953 coup in iran to secure oil interests with the british. the US assisted in the 1973 coup in chile. not to mention numerous other dictators the US helped to get into office, gave weapons to, or generally maintained. how exactly did the UN support hussein? did they give him missles or something?

made the US pay for the costs of containment

maybe if the US hadnt supported saddam in the first place they would have the moral highground. but they dont. and the US is the most dependant on middle east oil, hence they rushed to protect thier investment. japan actually sent 10B along with saudi arabia.

obstructed Gulf War II

you do recall why the US formed in the first place right? peacefully resolve conflicts? i'm sure they would not approve of vietnam (killing 1 million vietnamese) or funneling weapons to afganistan (helped to further destroy the nation), or supporting both iraq and iran kill each other.

pulled out of Baghdad after refusing US protection

the US looses 1 man a day. there is no such thing as 100% safe there. its way too dangerous. and it could go on like this for years. it would be stupid to sit there like a giant target nad half to rely on the whim of hte US.

and now has just passed a resolution supporting US occupation

yes well that is what the UN does. it is not a war machine. its very good at reconstruction. not to mention Bush & Co have been begging for UN legitimacy, and foriegn troops and money. so yes, the world needs to help iraq else it will turn into afganistan.

SirRiff

[KrustyKidd]

you do recall why the US formed in the first place right? peacefully resolve conflicts? i'm sure they would not approve of vietnam (killing 1 million vietnamese) or funneling weapons to afganistan (helped to further destroy the nation), or supporting both iraq and iran kill each other.

Very good point you have there Riff. I was too afraid of being on the bad end of your wrath for changing US to UN (bad net manners you know) but take it that you meant UN

I also agree with you that the aid in which the US gave Saddam was in fact weapons to fight our common enemy Iran. When it looked like he might win they gave aid to Iran. Reason being is that the world would've been a very bad place if either of them won. Hence the non partisan aid given.

Should have crossed quoted you to that Iltiss discussion we were having.

But Riff, isn't that the risk that all UN administrators take when they sign up for duty in a war torn country?

QUOTE

"pulled out of Baghdad after refusing US protection"

the US looses 1 man a day. there is no such thing as 100% safe there. its way too dangerous. and it could go on like this for years. it would be stupid to sit there like a giant target nad half to rely on the whim of hte US.