The US, UN & Iraq III

Lola, I believe you have the correct answer as to why most Americans remain ignorant of what's really happening. They're afriad to look under the rug, because they might find something that will upset them. c.i.

blatham,

Regarding your post of Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:45 pm in which you state:



Unfortunately I am unable to meet your expectations and your assumption at my reasoning for my post of Sat Apr 26, 2003 5:57 pm is incorrect.

My reasons for that post were to not to place blame for UN irrelevancy. To do so is akin to blaming an infant for crying when it is hungry. Indeed, those that assign " blame for the diminishment of the UN" upon any state are essentially participating in the age-old act of messenger killing.

My motivation was to illustrate the reasons for the disappointment of so many that the UN is unable to fulfill the paternal role they wish to subscribe to it. In the cited article we see exposed France's (et. al.) most worrying reason for its prewar UN actions: not WMD, Tyranny, State Terrorism, or Torture of the Iraqi people but "American hegemony". At best, the former seem secondary concerns to them. On the other side of the coin we have the U.S./UK who truly felt threatened by Iraq, so much so they felt it necessary to take the drastic step of taking unilateral action and make an end run around world perception of UN Security Council "Authorization". When thwarted the U.S. and U.K. then revert to an older more basic law and defend themselves accordingly.



My point: This is what nations have done and will always do when they perceive a threat. When dealing with such a time sensitive crisis a Nation, perceiving a dire threat, cannot always afford to wait for the conclusion of a UN debate steeped in another's desire for a balance of power.

In addition, Nations are not atomic units unsubject to divisible forces such as popular political parties or movements. Add to the mix those elected national leaders who base their world altering decisions on domestic political pressure and not the overall good of the world community and one only further complicates the foreign policy calculus.

Kara,

As regards your post of Sun Apr 27, 2003 7:11 am wherein you state:



Why, by your own admission that the UN is an ineffective, invalidated (vitiated) institution, whose " ...creation was clearly self-serving for some nations ", would you want this entity to continue "...no matter how often it fails..."? Surely you are not so needy as to place your own life in the trust of a hospital so described.

Regarding your statement in the same post also regarding the UN:



I would ask why one would aspire to an achievement embodied in a forum that " ...might be cumbersome and ineffective sometimes, and even fail completely in many of its goals..."? Although you draw a demarcation stating you are not a "nay Sayer", your stated observations suggest conversion may be imminent.

Further, you state the weakness of the UN is solely due to the US and imply its full participation is its only salvation. You seemed to have found the UN's Achilles heel. But conversely, this weakness does not lie in any one nation's power.

Many on this thread, as have you, have implied that even with the U.S.'s great powers it must still learn to live with other nations. This is most certainly true, but this cannot be effected at the expense of its national security.

The more one tries to come up with specific remedies to fix the UN the more obvious the enormity of the task. We (my frog and I) might take a lesson from Wilson's League of Nations failure and change the UN into another "different body" but, I fear we may be just deluding ourselves. I suspect we must start with a clean slate. Indeed, we must examine the "baby" more closely, if found deceased it, along with the bath water, must also be discarded for reasons of public health.

Respectfully,

JM

Lola -- I've heard the same thing and I find it thoroughly frightening. Wasn't anyone else in America brought up to Question? That's the whole burden of being a citizen in a democracy -- what do people think democracy is for? The fun of pulling little levers every couple of years? As a capital D Democrat, I didn't sit around during the Clinton years saying to myself, Well, if he says so...

I was going to make a list of behaviors I noticed when I came back to this country after a long absence, when I was startled how much Americans had changed. Think I'd better work on it before total senility sets in and I forget!!

James

First off, that the US acted because of a perceived threat to it's own security is a red herring the size of Pittsburg. Perhaps it is your choice from among the nexus of herrings, but it is contradicted by rather too much which I and many others have written here and elsewhere, not least of which is the neocon documents since 1992 arguing that Sadaam ought to go. Unless, of course, you want to do the slight of hand argument that security and interests are exactly the same thing.

Your argument regarding the UN is circular - it's dead because it was dead. Not terribly valuable. And there's your analogy to that body as an infant (with the US administration as wise and loving paternal force, no doubt) - well, that's also really compelling stuff.

You have some problem with a state such as France working purposefully against US hegemony. France is clearly not alone either in this concern or in such actions, it's in the majority.

But the most egregiously pompous and short-sighted argument you make is that 'this is what nations always do when threatened'. So, what ought China to do now, threatened by a foreign nation's desire for world hegemony (remember, this is stated policy from your pres at Annapolis). Ought it to follow the same policy recommendation? It's a might makes right argument, and it is sophmoric and foolish enough that one wouldn't bother despising it, except that folks like you actually think it great policy.

Where do you go with you 'real politik' notion James? You know, if you look ahead fifty years. Are you just going to trust in the godliness of your flag and country (ignorning the scores of historical examples of the US being a selfish international ****)?

The irony of a Jeffersonian republic setting out on such a course is, in great part, why the US has become such a pariah state.

During my visit in the UK (A2K gathering), I was invited to a Labour meeting, which had as main guest, discussion partner the local MP, who is a cabinet minister in the Foreign Office as well.

As one of his arguements (better: those to defend the UK position) he really said that he knew more than we all - this, however, was questioned a lot.

Two UK soldiers recently released in Syria
From Ha'arztz by Ze'ev Schiff

Two British soldiers who were at war in Iraq and crossed into Syria were recently released from Syrian custody after a surprise visit to Damascus by British Foreign Office minister Mike O'Brien two weeks ago. It remains unknown how the two crossed into Syria and were captured.

It is not known if they entered Syria by accident or were in on a mission across the border. Neither those details - nor even the fact of their release - have been officially released by the British, nor is it known what happened to other soldiers in their unit.

The release came just as U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell began warning Syria that it would face sanctions if it continued providing support to the Iraqis during the war. Powell began referring to Syrian stockpiles of chemical weapons and its experiments with them. Rumsfeld also called on the Syrians to reassess their support for terror.

Surprisingly, it was British Foreign secretary Jack Straw who issued a message of reassurance to the Syrians, saying they were not next on the list of American or British targets.

But he also demanded that Syria "answer a number of important questions," saying he was not sure if it had developed chemical weapons, although British intelligence had a lot of information on the subject. However, British Defense Minister Geoff Hoon said there was reason to worry because Iraqi scientists who escaped to Syria could help Damascus improve its unconventional weapons.

The next day O'Brien, who has a Middle East portfolio, arrived in Damascus and was taken to a meeting with President Bashar Assad. The British activity is now seen as part of their effort to secure the release of their two soldiers.

doesn history repeat itself?
the US go-it-alone policy is taking its extreme form when it unilaterally decided to wage war against Iraq, leaving the UN's decision ignored. the arbitrary act of the united States sent off bad signal for the rest of the world that supranational's role in reconciling international conflicts is still at the mercy of powerful nation states.
it is undeniably true that the world need a supranational to reconcile states away from wars, for the modern world, under the process of globalization, is however, more and more diversified, either in terms of national economic interests or cultural difference. with the end of colonial time, the newly-emerging nation state has a special need to reassert its culture which has been curbed in the colonial time. these countries are rather sensitive to the cultural invasion carried by the globalization. and what's more, based on empirical analysis, the process of globalization is pushed forward at the expense of some developing countries, whilst the developed countries prosper. conflicts between states, thus, are on the increase. the cost of globalization incurred by several leading developed countries increases according, which can be shown by the frequent radical military operations carried out by the US. when the cost incurred and benefit accrued break even, the process of globalization will probably lose the governmental assistance because any more action taken by government in order to wipe out obstacles against globalization will see a net loss registered on the profit book of the budget. will taxpayers allow this?
if at that time, not only is the world devoid of a powerful state, but also there is no a supranational authority to reconcile single hegemonic power around the world? the world,then, will have recourse, once again, to the balance of power, a tactic used in west europe hundred years ago. is it workable? maybe.
ironically, the history does repeat itself, doesn't it?

the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Ashcroft methodolgy is faith based. they have faith that most people are idiots and won't ask or expect answers to real questions.

Yes, Walter, questioning certainly works better in Britain! It's said that in a huge federation of states, such as the US, we err on the side of cohesion (vs. questions), whereas in the little British isle, cohesion (give or take a few Scots and Welsh nationalists!) isn't a big issue. You might say, we prefer to hang together...

aceploy

Welcome to our discussion. Nice to have you aboard.

Voltaire, only 32 and already enjoying his second stay in the Bastille, was offered freedom if he took a hike. The two years that followed across the Channel greatly modified his notions of what a citizen polity might look like. He described England as a place "where men think free and noble thoughts."

The anit-war discussion and activism in Britain, including the turmoil within government and the labour party itself, was refreshingly free of those repugnant accusations of 'traitor!' which sprang up in the US as if from some chorus of communist party officials sniffing counter-revolution on the breeze. It would be comforting if a few more of those voices understood the path they tread is totalitarian.

The urge to quell dissent (eg the Dixie Chicks, or as in labelling dissenting voices as traitorous) and this administrations behavior towards internationalist arrangements and agreements have a commonality. That commonality is administrative efficiency.

Pluralism, criticism and dissent, multiple viewpoints/decision points, and over-arching legal regimens (Kyoto, WCC) function as impediments to administration efficiency. Authoritarian or totalitarian states always seek to avoid these sorts of impediments - that's how we spot them. Napoleon and Hitler had very efficient administrations.

aceploy, WELCOME to A2K. Have a seat and stay awhile. c.i.

Reason for War?

Uh, no. I think you were lying. About everything.

Blatham wrote:

Pluralism, criticism and dissent, multiple viewpoints/decision points, and over-arching legal regimens (Kyoto, WCC) function as impediments to administration efficiency. Authoritarian or totalitarian states always seek to avoid these sorts of impediments - that's how we spot them. Napoleon and Hitler had very efficient administrations.

Really Blatham----I think you ought to consider switching "Pot" dealers----that stuff you're on is apparently too strong.

I really can't fathom why the vocal leftists on this thread have ignored one of the most news worthy items in today's headlines----I thought perhaps Steve 4100 would jump in here to defend Mr. George Galloway( British MP) on the alleged charge that he was on Saddams payroll to the tune of 600,000 pounds per year.

Small excerpt from the the BBC world news:

This week Mr. Galloway has proven a godsend to London editors wondering what Iraq-related stories to put on their front pages now that the war itself has ended. "Galloway Was in Saddam's Pay, Say Secret Iraqi Documents," in Tuesday's Daily Telegraph, was the headline that signaled their rescue.

Of course I'm sure that it will prove to be just a scurilous allegation by FOX news.

even more interesting news is the admission that the latest "discovery" of chemical WoMD is again and again and again proven false.

Hey Bruce Springsteen has supported and praised the Dixie Chicks on his website, according to my paper today.

Perception, you are very selective about what you will believe in (and quote from) the newspapers. But I think probably George Galloway is guilty as charged. We'll get to know later.
Rumsfeld, now; there's another one who has done business with Saddam.

McT

The stock market has survived the trend in "SHORT SELLING" therefore it might be wise for those seeking failure in Iraq to recognize the new trend and stop the short selling of America.

History does show however that there are those who will fail to spot the trend and dig their own grave. Somehow I don't think you will make it to Arlington dys

thanks for your interest in my death Perception but its premature. sorry to disappoint you.

while the Bush camp whooped and hollared for months and dragged us into a war over "hard and precise evidence of WoMD" the beat goes on and on and on and on. BAIJI, Iraq -- The New York Times is reporting that no chemical weapons have been found at a site in northern Iraq.
The newspaper quotes a member of a specialist team as saying a barrel at the site did not contain chemical weapons despite a preliminary positive test.
Capt. Ryan Cutchin also says initial suspicions that two vehicles at the site were mobile labs have been proven wrong.
U.S. Special Forces became suspicious after finding surface-to-air missiles guarding the area. About a dozen 55-gallon drums were checked. Initial readings suggested the presence of nerve agents and mustard gas in one drum.
An American officer had earlier said that initial tests showed one of the drums had the nerve agent cyclosarin, and a blister agent that could have been mustard gas. Lt. Col. Ted Martin had said that he was "satisfied" that sarin was found.
There have been several false reports of possible chemical weapons finds since Saddam Hussein's regime collapsed -- no reports are known to have panned out.
U.S. Central Command has not commented on the Times report