The US, The UN and Iraq

Boy timber...on this we really disagree. That the UN should be at the beck and call of the US has it backwards.

The US is a sovereign nation and should be at NO ONE's beck and call.

Personally, I think we should simply drop out of the UN (and watch as it slowly falls apart). If we need to act internationally on any issue, we can build a coalition to deal with that issue as it arises.

If there's one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

I'm comfounded by the president's 'rush to war' with an enemy that is not a threat to the US. Many of Iraq's neighbors do not want the US to start a war with Iraq. If they don't feel the threat, why should we? Are we the most powerful country in the world, or a terrorist country, threatening a war with a pepsqueek country like Iraq - whose military capabilities compares to a spitball compared to what we have? If they are a threat, then to whom? Be careful about presumptions, guesses, and "what if's." There are other countries in this world that presents a greater threat to our security than Iraq. c.i.

Everyone is sovereign, which is a matter of principle, it's just that some are moreso, possibly due to another principle.

Perhaps the problem is similar to that of censorship. We're all against it except when we are personally offended, then that is oddly different.

No, I don't think watching the UN die is a great idea. What if the Republican party were to die? One voice running the show isn't a great idea.

The UN benefits the US far more than vice versa. Me thinks it should stay there!

Friedman on why the liberals have it wrong in reticence for removing Sadaam...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/22/opinion/22FRIE.html

blatham, Friedman's current article and promised future article are the reason I enjoy being a Centrised - I understand why Saddam needs to be removed and the cost of doing it, right?

The rhetoric coming out of the white house is quite different from Friedman's article. I still disagree with Friendman's thesis, that freeing the Iraqis from Saddam will bring a safer world for all. Friedman assumes too much from a change of leadership in Iraq. We just need to look at the totality of the US to see that opportunity alone does not guarantee success for all. Why do we still have people in the US without medical care? Bad schooling? Bad roads? Poor people? Bad leadership? c.i.

c.i. - yours is a pragmatic approach, I think Friendman's is a realists approach - not taking in consideration what is happening in the WH - I think that will be looked at in the upcoming article.

Both yours and Friendman's views are correct from different approaches - IMHO.

My gut tells me we are less than two weeks away from the shooting.

Allies are yelling, "stop":

NYTimes Online

The public says, "wait a minute":

Poll Suggests Public Caution on Iraq

The soldiers say, "Ready NOW, sir":

Yahoo News

And, Bush is losing the media (yes, yes, I know this is a Canadien, but the same sentiments are beginning to bubble up in the media here):

U.S. President George W. Bush says Saddam Hussein is running out of time. What Bush does not say is that the clock is running out on him, too.

Bush's constraint is political. He has done a masterful job in whipping up war fever against Saddam. But as polls and the anti-war demonstrations throughout the U.S. this past weekend illustrate, the fever is subsiding.

Should he wait much longer to attack Iraq, Bush risks beginning a war that the majority of his own people no longer support.

The Toronto Star

Bush has got to get this war on before it all slips away from him: the coalition, the polls, the weather, etc., etc.,...

That a hell of a way to fight a war, gees. Good sumup PD

Being one of the Fritz', I really wonder, if some Yankees have ever read more about the UN than some headlines.

"What you mean, 'We', white man?" :wink:

1) Proponents of the UN want it to be the "one voice running the show".
2) I did not advocate having "one voice running the show".
3) If the UN disappears from the face of the planet tomorrow, every nation on the planet will still have a voice, and we will in no way be in danger of "one voice running the show".
4) If the Republican party were to die, America would not have "one voice running the show".

The UN is not one voice, should it ever run the show the world will be a bit further from "one voice running the show".

Using the same logic, the US is not one voice, but is an amalgam of the voices of its constituent states. In the end the question is who will speak for the people of this and other countries. I want those who speak for me to have my interests foremost in their minds and hearts.

tres, So would the other 290 million people. c.i.

Which means they should share my distaste for the UN.

I'm tired of stupid analogies. Any nation can attempt to join the UN, thus all peoples of the world could theoretically have their voice heard there.

Yes the US is comprised of many states, individuals and so on and so forth. Since the overwhelming majority of the world's poulation aren't represented by the US it is still the voice of a minority.

When the majority are ruled by a minority often the expression "one voice running the show" is used, no, this does not mean that the number "one" is literal. It's meant to represent a minority.

Your post is based on the premise that the expresion "one voice running the show" is representing more than one literal voice. NO DUH!

You are trying to equate vastly different ratiocination. By your definition Sadaam Hussein and his brother could rule the world and it still wouldn't be "one voice running the show" because they have two separate voices.

You are reducing this to a logomachy and choosing to ignore the substance of the arguments.