THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

The UN became irrelevant during the YEARS they allowed Saddam to go without inspections. That had little to do with US policy, and started before Bush took office and went unchecked until Bush announced we would do their job if they didn't. This is a matter of historical record that can be verified simply by looking at the timeline.

Saddam had over a decade to comply, and didn't.

The UN had over a decade to remedy that situation, and didn't.

Sick and tired of the Dog and Pony show, Bush says enough. Last chance. Comply or be crushed.

Fearing their irrelevance is about to be proven, the UN wakes up and passes yet another resolution.

Saddam still doesn't comply. (Timber already showed you why the inspections didn't constitute compliance. Please, at least, admit the obvious FACTS.)

The UN still wants to do nothing about it.

Bush makes good on his promise.

You have to be deliberately obtuse to pretend that the YEARS the UN allowed Iraq to go unchallenged isn't the main reason for the charge of irrelevance... And Bush wasn't even President when that started. Take off your hyper-partisan hats for just a moment and admit the truth.

Wow, well said Timber... I'm late as usual. <shrugs>

Before you get on shouting so loud, Bill, please have a look - on the web, in a book, a paper - what the UN is.

McTag, Steve, nimh, and Walter, Thanks for keeping the record straight.

I did that last time we had this conversation Walter. It was pretty fascinating. What's your point? (Could it be that it's easier to attack me than refute my point?)

Well, sometimes I really get angry about this "the UN is irrelevant" by ignorants, who obviously have no idea about what they talk:

I was hoping you'd clarify your point (I understood the insult just fine :wink: ).

well yeah, but he writes his own good old time gospels (according to John)

Bull. I still remember how the US government was boasting, by the mid- to late nineties, about how most of Iraq's WMD had already been destroyed through the inspections process. Something like 80%. The overwhelming majority of WMD that Saddam had in 1991 were gone by the time the inspections were suspended. Thanks to the UN process.

Now the case of the US last year rested on the fact that not ALL wmd had been certifiably destroyed, and that we therefore couldnt be sure that Saddam still had some - or might even be making new ones.

Note the difference between "nothing happened for ten years" and "most of the WMD were destroyed but we're not sure whether they were all destroyed".

Now according to the US government, it was sure not everything was destroyed - we supposedly knew exactly what he still had and where we would find it.

The complete and utter absence of any WMD now and the conclusions of even the likes of David Kay (the Republicans' last great hope at the time) that there just hadnt been any anymore, only underscores that what we were talking about was merely the absence of proof that Saddam had destroyed the last WMD he still might have had. Something that can hardly be made into, 'nothing happened for ten years, the UN did nothing'.

So let me get this clear. Because the UN did not act the way you think it should have acted, on this one subject of Iraq disarmament, the whole organisation has become irrelevant?

UNHCR, WHO, UNICEF, UNESCO, famine relief, atomic inspections of Iran, global anti-AIDS campaign, refugee shelter and resettlement - I am getting so tired of hearing myself rattle this list off once again - peace-keeping missions in Timor, Kosovo, Cyprus, and soon Sudan - none of it matters, the UN "has become irrelevant" because it didnt agree with the US on the consequences of its own resolutions on Iraq?

I think this is what Walter was elliptically trying to say in posting that graph. Face it. You have one interpretation of what follow-up action was implicitly authorized by the UN resolutions on Iraq with their abstract threat of "all means necessary". A majority of UN Security Council states disagreed with your interpretation and disagreed with your estimation of what "means" were "necessary" at the moment. They didnt want to do what you had wanted it to do in Iraq. And with that, all of the UN has become one irrelevant debating club?

On another thread, I was forced to closer analyze my beef with the UN.

It has been my mistake to lump all UN entities, such as Walter has shown above, in with my severe criticisms of the diplomatic main arm of the UN.

I applaud the IAEA, WHO, UNICEF and a few more of the UN sheltered agencies.

I think some may feel UN detractors are basing their dislike of the UN on the fact that we didn't get their support re Iraq.

It was not the result (disagreement with the US on Iraq), but the entire scenario of Resolution after Resolution being broken, avoided, refused by Saddam--and when we finally purposed to address it in the strongest means--all the previous, tough rhetoric from the UN, and Germany, France, Russia... dissipated.

Scrubbing dirt in the wound was the realization that these players were benefitting from the Oil For Food program, and/or dealing dirty with Saddam, during the sanctions.

THIS is a legitimate issue, and should not be swept under the rug.

The Resolutions became meaningless. Saddam was ordered to comply!! He continued to subvert the process of inspections. He never complied. The UN should have taken stronger measures. They should have made those resolutions MEAN what they SAID.

Walter, no offence taken or given, I trust, but I don't consider myself ignorant of the UN, its Charter, its history and protohistory, its purported and self-avowed functions and responsibilities, its makeup and membership, or of its long track record of playing no meaningful role in any but small, isolated, essentially inconsequential-to-all-but-the-unfortunates-directly-involved conflicts. The UN talhs a good talk, but when it comes time to buckle down and get the real work of seeing to overall global security, the UN takes a walk. The UN was a good idea, a nescessary idea. That idea still needs some work, and the UN has yet to demonstrate either the willingness or capability to undertake that work. If the UN is irrelevant, it is because the UN has made itself so, by its proclivity for half-measures, coddling, and oughtright refusal to undertake proactive engagement to threats to global security and stability. The UN just ain't doin' its job, and its a job somebody has to do. By process of elimination, only one qualified alternate to the UN in the matter of getting the job done exists. Its a dirty job, yeah, but somebody's gotta do it. If the UN doesn't like the way the US does the job, there are two options 1) The UN gets off its ass and gets to work or 2) The UN shuts up and gets out of the way while those who can and will get the job done. High words and good intentions, without implementation, are moot in the face of demonstrated action.

And c.i. , I wish folks would look at the facts and get over the notion "This was all about WMD" ... it was not about WMD, it was about Iraq's continued evasion of her obligations and responsibilities, among which obligations and responsibilities WMD divestiture was but a single component among many other components, components none of which Iraq satisfied.

timber, either you didn't even look at the UN's organigram or you are really saying that the UNESCO, UNICEF, WFP, OHCR, UNHCR .... are irrelevant because they have made themselves irrelevant only because of objections to security.


No offense taken, timber, but that sounds ignorant.

Walter--

You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The satellite UN groups can be appreciated, and the diplomatic body can be disrespected.

They aren't above criticism...

This is from Wikipedia: "Invasion justification and goals: The stated justification for the invasion included Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction, links with terrorist organizations and human rights violations in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government. To that end, the stated goals of the invasion, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were to:

end the Saddam Hussein government and help Iraq transition to democratic self-rule find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and terrorists collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists end sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support secure Iraq's oil fields and resources."

timber, Go have your argument with Rumsfeld, because he's wrong accoridng to you.

Doesn't say anything about "obligations and responsibilities."

Just in case you missed my earlier post, "What makes timber's argument false is that this administration went to war on two justifications: 1) Saddam's WMDs (none have been found, so in essence he's followed the mandates of the UN and the US), and 2) because Saddam is a tyrant."

What is why a "satelite group", Sofia?

Please do look at the UN's organigram!

It's not only the Security Council (you know, who's permanent member there, don't you?) or the General Assembly, which is the UN!

What is the "diplomatic body"? Employees, civil servants, diplomats?

Or just the "leaders"? (In this case, you certainly know, who is electing them.)

Just heard the South Korean guy was also beheaded.