The US, The UN and Iraq

I went to Viet Nam because I felt that the USA was the evil - by going I confirmed it. The soldiers are not the evil - the leadership is!!!!!!!!

Dick Cheney was a veteran of no war - he received 5 deferments to stay away from war - Bush, Jr.; we know about his lack of courage!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not aware that France has ever either resigned from or boycotted the UN Security Council. I find it hard to believe she would ever do such a thing as it elevates France to a position of power which it could not otherwise command.

Perhaps you are thinking about NATO's Military Council. France withdrew from it in the mid-60s (and forced NATO to very quickly move its military headquarters from Paris to Brussels). and has remained out of it ever since. They have never rejoined.

Well said, Perception. Much appreciated. Two aspects of what you wrote are of particular interest to one who was brought up to always question authority. One has to do with communism and its demonization. The problem wasn't really communism but those who took advantage of it. (I hope that in the future democratic republicanism won't be demonized because we were so badly led...) Certainlyly communist Vietnam has done better than survive under that winning regime. The other factor is, of course, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the lies which created and sustained it for so long. We've seen a lot of that, those of us who go back enough decades. The bottom line for me will always be to question the motives and actions of leaders. In my view, Cheney is certainly one of the most suspect, and I think Powell has also earned a special place Hall of Shame too, unfortunately.

I'm waiting for some other folks to give their interpretation of what I said before responding.

Per Walter my research has found:

No minds were changed, no "New Information" was revealed at The UN today. Iraq remains in control of the situation, benefiting from and exploiting the irresolute manner in which The UN enforces resolutions. Over the weekend, there likely will be frantic diplomacy going on essentially 24/7. Meetings scheduled for next week should occur as planned. Beyond next week, there are 4 possibilities.

Events within Iraq could obviate the need for war. The US could begin withdrawing forces. A UN Resolution, perhaps including a "Final Deadline" provision, not necessarily unanimous, could authorize the use of force. Finally, a decision to go to war regardless of The UN position could be made.

Of these, I see the second as least likely and the last as most likely. The third possibility amounts, in the face of the fourth, to mere nicety, not at all essential or even particularly relevant. I would prefer the first to prove to be the case, because failing that, the last inevitably will be the case. If Saddam is still in place at the end of February, with or without UN approval, with or without NATO, with or without anyone else, The US can and will take him out. The one certainty is that Saddam is doomed. The future holds many uncertainties, however ... for The US, The UN, the EU, Nato, The Middle East, and Asia. Saddam will play no part in the uncertainties arising after about the first week of March.

The UN soon will be faced with a Humanitarian Obligation of significant importance regardless the events of the coming weeks. With or without war, Iraq without Saddam and his cronies will be in dire need of The UN and its assorted aid agencies. If war does occur, an immediate refugee crisis is certain to ensue. If war does not occur, Iraq's infrastructure and civil administration are inadequate to the needs of her people. Effort which could be devoted to planning for the inevitable is being diverted to a fruitless debate. Though Iraq was the winner today, her people were, and will continue to be, the ultimate losers.


Emotion plays no part in this assessment; it is simply consideration of the facts as I see them. I am not happy about much of the current situation, but as I see it, Saddam goes away or The US goes to war. That is what The UN should be paying attention to. The UN will be there one way or the other. It is entirely up to The UN how difficult will be their task in Post Saddam Iraq. At this point, it appears to me The UN is doing nothing to decrease its oncoming burden.



timber

George

Link on Camp David here... http://www.nybooks.com/archives/search?author_name=&title=Camp+David&reviewed_author=&reviewed_item=&form=&year=

Tartarin wrote:

One has to do with communism and its demonization. The problem wasn't really communism but those who took advantage of it. (I hope that in the future democratic republicanism won't be demonized because we were so badly led...) Certainly communist Vietnam has done better than survive under that winning regime. end quote.


Yes---I demonized communism as I should because it is contradictory to everything I value. Did I understand you to say that there really isn't anything wrong with communism? Why then did we spend forty years trying to contain it?

Military industrial complex. See Eisenhower's famous plea. Buncha people made a buncha bucks off the Cold War. And they didn't just happen to get lucky.

timber

I think it is very important to point out that the claim 'Sadaam remains in control of events' is far more false than it is true. Unless one thinks that the only important element here is the prosecution of war.

Tonite, on PBS news, Madelaine Albright and Brent Scowcroft were interviewed (likely the transcript will be now available on line). Both consider the potential damage to existing alliances to be severe. Both acknowledge the value of the administration's actions which have resulted in the return of inspectors. Where Scowcroft would allow 'a little' more time for inspections, but worries that 'we will grow tired of watching Iraq', Albright clearly would allow more time and sees no reason why containment would not work. She said "There are people in this administration who wanted war with Iraq in the worst way" (but we here all knew that already, didn't we).

Later, Shields and Brooks debated and Shields, in discussing post-war Iraq made the point fifty years later, American forces are still in Japan, and they are still in Korea, and that the problems with baby-sitting anything like a peaceful democracy over the internecine struggles sure to plague Iraq, the situation there will be immensely costly in lives and in funds.

Bush keeps requesting for the UN to have some "backbone" it seems they have found their "backbone" and its not in Bush's favor. Blix contradicted Powell about the pics showing proscribed vehicles, 2 breaks occured for applause (very rare indeed) and they came for the Russian and French delegations. The US will NOT ask for a second resolution knowing that will fail, without the resolution G.B. will not be able to back USA in preemptive iraq war. expect other euro-nations to back away from US support. Bush will pretty much have to go it alone leaving the UN to clean up the mess afterwards.

Tartarin

Then you theorize that Stalin's communism was all a conspiracy concocted by the military/industrial comlex. Stalin didn't kill 100 million people----the military/industrial complex did.

Hmmmm---how may aliens and flying saucers did you see today?

Blatham

Please---how successful was Madelin Allbright as Secretary of State? I have lost a lot of respect for Scowcroft for his outspoken criticism of Bush 43's handling of a mess that he was partly responsible for.

The US is humliated and loses war end of story.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5856-2003Feb13.html



It is well past time "Whether to go to war" is a fruitful subject for debate. Conducting that argument now is pointless. Either Saddam steps down, or war ... those are the options. The UN is avoiding what has become the real issue, which is dealing with the inevitable and imminent Post-Saddam Iraq. If concern for the Iraqi people had any currency at all in the United Nations the mechanisms of humanitarian relief would be in high gear. What is in high gear is partisan politics, and is an abdication of The UN's chief responsibility.

Whether or not The UN is or remains relevant, it is clearly showing itself to be shortsighted and uncaring in the current matter. Principles are fine, and the principles of the anti-war faction at core are noble and well intentioned. Sadly, much the same may be said of the principles of the pro-war faction, something which terribly complicates the issue, engendering great emotion, to the detriment of both sides. Any realistic opportunity to create any situation other than Saddam goes or war comes, if such ever existed, vanished some time ago. If The UN as a body, and other nations individually, are to have any role in Post Saddam Iraq, they had better begin looking to that role. It may not remain open much longer.



timber

Timber

Looks like you're still reading 20/20.

I still think, war will start.

Looking over the US-reactions in the different media, however, it makes me a little bit wonder, how it is obviously disreguarded how many "mistakes" were done by showing 'proofs' and 'results'.

Furthermore, I think, the US will perhaps stay without the UK as biggest ally:
Blair will surely have to choose today between popularity at home and his special relationship with the US President.
I really don't know, how he how he will.