The US, The UN and Iraq

"THE WORLD WILL GET OVER IT"----This too shall pass..............

I guess my point is, Timber, that we, as Americans, should look to our own sins first (our government's handling of a situation) before blaming others. There may be other bunglers, but we should be taking care of our own mistakes first. And NEVER use war to cover up a government's bungle -- don't care whether it's a Thai government bungle, a British government bungle, or the bungle of people we voted for.

Perception -- Obviously (shouldn't have to repeat this) you can never completely rule out conflict. But it should never be a factor in negotiations, a part of a threat, or (worst) considered some kind of "noble" option. Act on what is, not what if.

PS -- If insisting on the principle of saving lives constitutes "idealism," then I hope maybe we're all idealists here?

Come on Tartarin

Your idealistic concern for "saving lives" is misplaced here. I don't see you and your comrades demontrating over the 45,000 hyway deaths per year or the 65,000 accidental deaths in hospitals ea year.

You just want to use this war as a platform to politicise against this administration.

Tartain wrote:
Quote:
Perception - you can never completely rule out conflict. But it should never be a factor in negotiations, a part of a threat. End quote.



"Conflict should never be a factor in negotiations as a part of a threat."

Where were you when Saddam allowed the inspectors back in---AFTER WE MOVED IN 50,000 TROOPS AND EQUIP'T. IMO--it is this type of myopic thinking that leads to conflict.

Here again totally ignoring "human nature"

Tartarin

My definition of a "defending position in negotiations"---Preventing the opposition from gaining through diplomacy that which they are unlikely to win in war.

The Iranian suit in the ICJ is ludicrous. The treaty in question was signed a decade before the Islamic revolution in Iran and the seizure of our embassy and the illegal and inhuman confinement of our embassy staff there. Relations between the nations were severed as a result of Iran's actions, not ours. These actions themselves severed the treaty.

The oil platforms in question were being used by Iran as a base for small boats conducting attacks on the oil tankers exiting the Gulf. The U.S. retaliation was in derense of them..

The potential of the UN to maintain the peace and be a force for justice in the world is limited far more by the character of many of its member governments (think of Lybia, Myanmar, Iraq, Nigeris, Zimbabwe, Belarus, and others of that ilk.), than it is by the occasionally independent actions of the United States.

Because of our power and prominence we are (perhaps rightly) held to a higher standard than other nations. Russia is in violation of several UN resolutions concerning Chechnya. France did not bother to even consult with the UN before it sent a large military force to the Ivory Coast to protect its people and commercial investments during the civil war there. The list could go on. There are other, quite understandable reasons for this. While our power is far from overwhelming, compared to several other large nations, our relative prominence in the public mind make us subject to the attentions of many smaller nations seeking to tame a power they can't otherwise control.

The potential nexus between international (or Islamic) terrorism and a regime such as that in Iraq, is indeed a matter of serious concern. If the UN will not act (and it has spent several years demonstrating beyond all doubt that it will not act) then the United States has an independent right to remove an intolerable danger.

Certainly the Bush administration cannot be accused of an excess of sensitivity to French and German sensibilities or (perhaps) sophistication in dealing with them. However it is far from clear to me that the situation would be materially different had he even shown great delicacy in this regard. Recall that, although President Clinton was generally regarded by these nations as not having Bush's defects, they howled when, after over a year of needless slaughter and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and the emergence of similar conditions in Kosovo, Clinton finally forcefully called for organized intervention to end this slaughter near the heart of Europe. I recall Madeline Allbright was termed the "hectoring hegemon" by these governments. It appears to me that the degree of communication, consultation , and sensitivity required to animate these nations has not yet been demonstrated by anyone.

Finally, we should recall that we enjoy the support of the majority of governments in Europe - only France and Germany are actively opposing us.

This article make a whole lot of sense to me!
*************************************

A Man with an Opinion
by Joel Bleifuss

In November, Kurt Vonnegut turned 80. He published his first novel, Player Piano, in 1952 at the age of 29. Since then he has written 13 others, including Slaughterhouse Five, which stands as one of the pre-eminent anti-war novels of the 20th century.

As war against Iraq looms, I asked Vonnegut to weigh in. Vonnegut is an American socialist in the tradition of Eugene Victor Debs, a fellow Hoosier whom he likes to quote: "As long as there is a lower class, I am in it. As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it. As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

You have lived through World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Reagan wars, Desert Storm, the Balkan wars and now this coming war in Iraq. What has changed, and what has remained the same?

"One thing which has not changed is that none of us, no matter what continent or island or ice cap, asked to be born in the first place, and that even somebody as old as I am, which is 80, only just got here. There were already all these games going on when I got here. An apt motto for any polity anywhere, to put on its state seal or currency or whatever, might be this quotation from the late baseball manager Casey Stengel, who was addressing a team of losing professional athletes: "Can't anybody here play this game?" My daughter Lily, for an example close to home, who has just turned 20, finds herself - as does George W. Bush, himself a kid - an heir to a shockingly recent history of human slavery, to an AIDS epidemic and to nuclear submarines slumbering on the floors of fjords in Iceland and elsewhere, crews prepared at a moment's notice to turn industrial quantities of men, women and children into radioactive soot and bone meal by means of rockets and H-bomb warheads. And to the choice between liberalism or conservatism and on and on. What is radically new in 2003 is that my daughter, along with our president and Saddam Hussein and on and on, has inherited technologies whose byproducts, whether in war or peace, are rapidly destroying the whole planet as a breathable, drinkable system for supporting life of any kind. Human beings, past and present, have trashed the joint."

Based on what you've read and seen in the media, what is not being said in the mainstream press about President Bush's policies and the impending war in Iraq?

"That they are nonsense."

My feeling from talking to readers and friends is that many people are beginning to despair. Do you think that we've lost reason to hope?

"I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened, though, is that it has been taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d'etat imaginable. And those now in charge of the federal government are upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka "Christians," and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or "PPs." To say somebody is a PP is to make a perfectly respectable medical diagnosis, like saying he or she has appendicitis or athlete's foot. The classic medical text on PPs is "The Mask of Sanity " by Dr. Hervey Cleckley. Read it! PPs are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. They cannot care because they are nuts. They have a screw loose!

And what syndrome better describes so many executives at Enron and WorldCom and on and on, who have enriched themselves while ruining their employees and investors and country, and who still feel as pure as the driven snow, no matter what anybody may say to or about them? And so many of these heartless PPs now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick.

What has allowed so many PPs to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they cannot care what happens next. Simply can't. Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves! Privatize the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody's telephone! Cut taxes on the rich! Build a trillion-dollar missile shield! **** habeas corpus and the Sierra Club and In These Times (www.inthesetimes.com), and kiss my ass!"

How have you gotten involved in the anti-war movement? And how would you compare the movement against a war in Iraq with the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era?

"When it became obvious what a dumb and cruel and spiritually and financially and militarily ruinous mistake our war in Vietnam was, every artist worth a damn in this country, every serious writer, painter, stand-up comedian, musician, actor and actress, you name it, came out against the thing. We formed what might be described as a laser beam of protest, with everybody aimed in the same direction, focused and intense. This weapon proved to have the power of a banana-cream pie three feet in diameter when dropped from a stepladder five-feet high.

And so it is with anti-war protests in the present day. Then as now, TV did not like anti-war protesters, nor any other sort of protesters, unless they rioted. Now, as then, on account of TV, the right of citizens to peaceably assemble, and petition their government for a redress of grievances, "ain't worth a pitcher of warm spit," as the saying goes."

As a writer and artist, have you noticed any difference between how the cultural leaders of the past and the cultural leaders of today view their responsibility to society?

"Responsibility to which society? To Nazi Germany? To the Stalinist Soviet Union? What about responsibility to humanity in general? And leaders in what particular cultural activity? I guess you mean the fine arts. I hope you mean the fine arts. ... Anybody practicing the fine art of composing music, no matter how cynical or greedy or scared, still can't help serving all humanity. Music makes practically everybody fonder of life than he or she would be without it. Even military bands, although I am a pacifist, always cheer me up. But that is the power of ear candy. The creation of such a universal confection for the eye, by means of printed poetry or fiction or history or essays or memoirs and so on, isn't possible. Literature is by definition opinionated. It is bound to provoke the arguments in many quarters, not excluding the hometown or even the family of the author. Any ink-on-paper author can only hope at best to seem responsible to small groups or like-minded people somewhere. He or she might as well have given an interview to the editor of a small-circulation publication. Maybe we can talk about the responsibilities to their societies of architects and sculptors and painters another time. And I will say this: TV drama, although not yet classified as fine art, has on occasion performed marvelous services for Americans who want us to be less paranoid, to be fairer and more merciful. M.A.S.H. and Law and Order, to name only two shows, have been stunning masterpieces in that regard."

That said, do you have any ideas for a really scary reality TV show?

"C students from Yale." It would stand your hair on end."

What targets would you consider fair game for a satirist today?

"Assholes."

*******************************

Joel Bleifuss is the editor of In These Times magazine (www.inthesetimes.com)

I may not have the latest news about this, but media here report that Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Greece, Russia are in this line as well - governments, by the way, not people/voters.

It's interesting to see so much support from governments are claimed on this forum. What will be more interesting is to see how the next elections turn out from these very same governments. c.i.

Well, c.i., this quote from bbc.online could give some hints :wink: :


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2773877.stm

Walter, That's exactly my point. How will the citizens of these countries vote in their next elections? Will the leaders of these governments be reelected or not? That's the question. c.i.

Since this thread is about the UN it might be useful to discuss any possible actions that would make the UN more relevant. First let's examine the reasons why the UN was created. One reason was to provide a forum for those countries who wanted to participate in a global council on matters of concern to the global community. These same countries presumably shared a willingness to fight against violations of human rights, against leaders who willfully oppressed their citizens, causing torture and suffering while indulging in personal agrandizement. It was not created to provide a platform for lies and deception in order to thwart the will of the member countries of the UN. Any country that is found guilty of violating any of the above crimes against humanity should:

1. Be immediately expelled from any form of participation in the UN. Their delegates could sit in the back row and observe only for a period of one year. During this period this country and it's citizens would still be elegible for humanitarian aid and financial assistance.

2. At the end of the one year probation, they would be required to show proof of compliance and allow UN inspectors to validate compliance. If they were found guilty of non-compliance they would be expelled from the UN completely and put on notice that extreme measures would be expected to force compliance and all aid would be cut off.

Rogue nations are invariably guilty of the above type of behavior (as well as other types of criminal activities) and in order to avoid rewarding criminal behavior with a vote and voice at a forum, they should be punished by expulsion.

This is just one step toward converting the UN into a responsible, efficient organization which the US could fully support.

Anyone agree that at least this one step is essential?

I would like to see China confronted with this type of action if it could ever be enacted but of course they have veto power so this could never apply to them.

Just some food for thought.

Well, it's nice to see we are all coming to agreement.
Timber...I truly don't know how you've arrived at this conclusion.

george...have you ever, even once in your long and rich life, used the phrase 'potential nexus' before one week ago? Is there a 'potential nexus' between violent crime and poor black neighborhoods? Let's do away with them...pre-emptive crime fighting.

An argument which keeps popping its blonde head up here is that the US ought to get ballsy and blast Iraq because otherwise we are doing just what Sadaam wants. But of course attacking Iraq is surely exactly what Usama wants. That's not unimportant.

The Arab world is not doing well and countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are susceptible to collapse given great internal discord. Wouldn't that be fun? Or if Pakistan began to erupt in anger?

A very grave danger I see on this present course driven by the present attitudes of this administration is the extension into the larger middle east of the Israeli/Arab hatred.

Walter and Cicerone -- I keep noticing that Americans (is this as true of Germans, Walter?), once they buy a car, no matter how much trouble the dang thing gives them, no matter how many recalls and funny expressions on the faces of mechanics, these guys will swear up and down they've had no trouble and it was an excellent choice. This is just conjecture, mind you, but I think the same principle works for many voters. If you voted for the defective heap of junk now in the White House, and the dang thing lies and cheats and takes you to the brink of war, it's YOUR dang defective heap of junk and you'll defend it -- AND its actions -- to the end! Or so it would seem...

Ah -- pride of ownership! And then there are the rest of us who knew how bad this administration was from the very beginning. Our pride comes in knowing how many people -- world-wide -- we are joining with in an effort to stop the madness. Thank you for the stats, Walter.

Now, how many will bet with me that we will see mention of Clinton in the next few posts? But I won't be looking. I'll be cheering and yelling "Well done!" to Vonnegut, one of the very best. Thank you for the interview, Cicerone.

Well, perception, this really could start another thread!

According to the UN-webside,
"One of the primary purposes of the United Nations is the maintenance of international peace and security".
[...] "Although most people associate the United Nations with the issues of peace and security, the vast majority of its resources are devoted to economic development, social development and sustainable development. "Virtually every United Nations body and specialized agency is involved to some degree in the protection of human rights.
[...] "Virtually every United Nations body and specialized agency is involved to some degree in the protection of human rights. "

www.un.org

Tartarin

Well, that's here the same - with cars.
It doesn't work with voters, at least not with the majority of them.
Timmes have changed: we don't have such a high percentage of "lifelong-one-and-the-same-party-voters" as it used to be.

Personally, I was fixed to one brand in cars. Voting, however, ever depended on various items, regardless the fact that I'm a member of the Social Democratic Party.

Perception

That's not a bad couple of notions regarding how the UN might be organized to be a truly workable body.

But there is another element in your post I want to take aim at, because it keeps coming up in the context of this debate...moving into a country militarily to protect human/civil rights. I think this or the clear proof of imminent incursion of a neighboring state to be the two valid justifications for military action against a sovereign power. It's what made the Gulf War a justifiable action. It's what made Kosovo justifiable. But I do not think it is at all the motive for this administration focusing on Iraq...it is window dressing to make the move appear moral and palatable.

If civil/human rights were the measuring stick then Israel would be a justifiable target for action. The Shah and his crowd of torturers would not have been supported, not Sadaam two decades ago, nor Central/South American regimes with their death squads, nor any of a long list of bad guys. To assume the US is motivated in Iraq by its holiness is simply delusional.

Tartarin

That could also apply to the leftist platform of junk.

Blatham

LOL--I knew I could count on you to see the black side of the moon----my justification is your window dressing---sinister motives in your eye being the "black side of the moon"

Walter

Thanks for your support however I think it not necessay to start another thread because this one is called "The US, UN and Iraq.
It might be wise however to start this over as "The US, UN and Iraq II.