The US, The UN and Iraq

You are not specific, Bill, so it must be my general take on things that you don't like. I knew I should have majored in Politics rather than Philosophy.

steve - Nice to see your willingness to examine your own point of view. It is very easy to attribute the worst things to a group and forget to regard the reality of the individuals that make up that group.

Happy V-D to you too.

From your post Tartarin:




I was interested to see this quote. I usually am dismayed by Jesse Jackson's comments, which so often seem to be inspired by posturing.

'nuf said

Kara says:



Bill replys:




Kara replys:



Kara, it has nothing to do with Politics or Philosophy - it's more at Biology. In my youth we referred to it as "the north end of a horse going south." That's where our leadership (sic) is doing it's listening and thinking! It certainly is not "open"!

Reading the polls is certainly interesting, though all results are suspect. Surveys are easily tilted even when carefully constructed with the intent of being objective. People's opinions are rarely simple, and yet survey questions reduce responses to the simple. Surveys are by their very nature short, but for any analysis of the data a great many variables have to be considered, and a six question survey doesn't permit the analyst to assess the variables. The means used to insure entirely random sampling can destroy the validity of any survey. Interesting stuff, but hardly definitive no matter what the published results might be.

The opinions of the commentariat are even more suspect. What background and claim to expertise do most of these people have? Newspaper and television reporters are earnest purveyors of opinion designed to sell advertising space, and the minimum qualification for them is the ability to write a clear sentence, or appear pretty on camera. Retired politicos tend to place their political agendas first and foremost. Comments by retired military officers have greater credibility, because they have direct and relevant experience/training in the topics they comment on.

It is important the the nation support any military action undertaken by the NCA, but the degree of that support is not likely to be found in either surveys, or in the comments made on television by most "experts". The government of the United States is not based upon plebesites, but upon the Constitution. The Founding Fathers recognized that only the Executive branch could effectively wage war. Congress has the power of the purse, and can prevent the Executive from prosecuting wars by denying the money to wage them. The Congressional power to declare war has been pretty much abbroggated by treaties and membership in international organizations. In this specific instance, the Congress has already approved the use of force and the President will almost certainly use that authorization if necessary. The People's Will is made known through their elected members to the Congress and Senate, not through polls or the opinions of commentators outside government.

If our government is not directed by polls of the American People, why should it be driven by foreign polls? Our government is responsible for protecting the nation and the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic. If the Executive, with the backing of Congress, believes that this nation's security is threatened he it is his duty to act.

Well France clearly won the argument in the UN.
Now its a simple question of whether the US goes ahead regardless.
Of course they will, these things have a momentum of their own.

Your bias is showing.

"Your bias is showing." nah, nobody on this forum has any bias.

Well, I don't see anyone else holding forth as to which arguments made in the UN today were the absolute winners. Most of us seem willing to digest what was said and recognize that we each probably nodded our heads up and down when something we liked was said, and side to side when something we didn't like was said. (I don't assume that just because my head is moving up and down it means that the issue has been decided by all, for all, once and for all.)

Having just watched the various Foreign Secretaries at the UN comment on Hans Blix second inspection report on Iraq, and listened to Mr Aziz from Iraq speaking from Rome, as well as listening to George W Bush speaking at the FBI office with the various Intelligence Leaders present, I can't help feeling that there are three agenda in effect:

1. Colin Powell is being humored by his President by trying to win over the UN Security Council into using Resolution 1441 for war - the council won't bite, France, Russia and Germany are stalling for time and pushing for more inspections.

2. President Bush has been bolstering the US homeland defense with new cross-communication initiatives between the Intelligence Agencies in anticipation of inevitable attacks, and encouraging the armed forces with rally speeches that are preparations for war with Iraq.

3. Iraq continues to play the game of divide and conquer within NATO and the UN Security Council, as well as delay and deny with respect to UN Inspections and UN Resolutions.

Through all of this three things are clear:
1. The US, UK and various other allies will go to war with Iraq.
2. The UN Security Council will be pressurised by the US and UK into passing another Resolution which will declare war on Iraq.
3. Certain UN Security Council members will resign in the light of such action.

Let's wait and see...

i would guess that it resulted in a status quo. nothing changed.

France has veto power on the Security Council. How then can a resolution be passed unless they agree?

France will either agree or resign - it will not use the veto because of the damaging consequences to itself...

France has performed such an act in the past. When it last did so, it stayed out of the Council for 30 years!

"France has performed such an act in the past. When it last did so, it stayed out of the Council for 30 years!

explain?

The post-UN session commentators on NPR -- from Belgium, Britain, and the US -- seem to agree that what has occurred has created a real crisis. I'm off to march this afternoon in a small demonstration (if it doesn't pour rain, as predicted) and hope we will begin to see an "Americans for the UN" movement.

I left behind a six-month old son(my first and only son) when I volunteered for Vietnam----My motivations( I think there are always many) were not all noble--some were selfish as I made that decision. Looking back on it now I admit that I did not give enough weight to the possibility of not coming back and the terrible consequences that would have had for my family. There's always that realm called "human nature"----that necessary state of mind that says it's "always the other guy who doesn't come back.

I can honestly say however that I had no delusions of there being any Glory in war. Any thinking person who has read and viewed pictures of real wars like WWII and Korea, doesn't need the Graphic reality of "Saving Private Ryan" to know that munitions blow bodies into pieces. I have read books and articles by supposedly intelligent people who seem compelled to exlain that war is fought by only exuberant but stupid young men who are there for the GLORY that, they say, is the essence of War. I have always had nothing but contempt for anyone who could possibly think there is anything called Glory in a physical exercise where the objective is to kill as many of the enemy as necessary to win. I must be in the minority who think that because one only has to witness the number of people who thought the "Titanic" wonderful movie and went back to see it several times-----is watching several hundred people drown a wonderful experience? Another ugly aspect of human nature.

Going back to Vietnam---I took solace in the fact that I was on the side of good vs evil---I was on the right side of the effort to stop the spread of this evil thing called communism. I under stood human nature and common sense and how could anyone win a war with warriors who had been brain washed with communist ideology? The ideology that taught anything so contradictory to "human nature" as---"the rights of the individual must be subserviant to the State" and " Each person must produce but take only enough to live and give the remainder to the State" and other quaint little sayins like "Religion is the Opiate of the masses". Human nature could not possibly fall prey to this madness.

I could not comprehend that little children would be recruited to lob hand grenades at American soldiers when they weren't expecting little children to be soldiers of this sick ideology. But what I really couldn't compredend was our leaders(LBJ and Robert S. McNamarra)being so terrified that China and Russia would object if we won the war. That wasn't what I expected from our leaders. But of course what I had failed to realize was that LBJ had inherited a war that he knew nothing about and he had a bean counter for a Secretary of Defense. (remember body count---a unique little measure of the day to day success or failure of a mindless campaign of making splinters out of trees). Those were dark days for the American Military. Remarkably there were many very bright young officers involved in that debacle who stayed in and became the generals of the next war---Gulf war I. Also remarkably the civilian leadership learned-----they learned that once diplomacy fails and the military option becomes the "only" option---then they must take a back seat after reviewing the plan and then let the military execute "the Plan".

We as obervers of this next war can take solace in the fact that the two primary advisors to the President are veterans of the last victory in Iraq----Powell and Cheney.

I apoligize to the participants for not knowing when to stop.

Thank you, perception.

We have a breaking news here that the US have expelled the Iranian correspondent to the UN.