Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Has diplomacy run its course?
- Thread starter gymrat
- Start date
HansNZ
New member
gymrat said:
If the US's case wasn't so pathetic then there might be progress.
It is only by watching the US media that you could even begin to think the US case had any credibility. Observing this process of the US media "watch-dog" becoming the "lapdog" is reminiscent of the quality of journalism you used to see from the old Soviet TASS news agency.
George Orwell's vision has well and truely come to pass.
HansNZ
New member
jnuts said:
There would be a war regardless.
If Iraq was totally disarmed the US would come up with new conditions to justify a war - such as regime change. Or they'd invent new threats like they are already doing, i.e: Iraq's non-existent "links" with al-qaeda.
The whole WMD was just a pretext in any case. That was never the real issue. It was an excuse rather than a reason. As has been the case for the last 60 years, it is about the US's greater geo-strategic ambitions in the region.
yes
when you have players like the US and arguably france (both only concerned with their interests in the reigon) carrying huge veto powers, how on earth can any progress be made
france will veto any military resolution
america will veto any free vote in the UN regarding iraq
the UK, spain, germany and russia are probably the only countries directoly involved that if left on their own might be able to wrangle something out. it wont happen with the other two
if anything happens i;ll be suprised. blair needs some kind of diplomatic conclusion or there will be hell to pay in his own government
when you have players like the US and arguably france (both only concerned with their interests in the reigon) carrying huge veto powers, how on earth can any progress be made
france will veto any military resolution
america will veto any free vote in the UN regarding iraq
the UK, spain, germany and russia are probably the only countries directoly involved that if left on their own might be able to wrangle something out. it wont happen with the other two
if anything happens i;ll be suprised. blair needs some kind of diplomatic conclusion or there will be hell to pay in his own government
T
TerraNoble
Guest
HansNZ said:
What's NZ take on the possible war?
Are they pro or against?
Baby Gorilla
New member
Re: Re: Has diplomacy run its course?
Has Saddam not buchered his own people and others?
Has Saddam proven compliance with UN inspections and the numerous resolutions previously passed against him?
Maybe if the UN has a set of balls of their own, the USA would not have to be doing what should have happened 1 year after Dessert Storm ended....punish Saddam for non-compliance with the terms of surrender.
Pardon if this sounds ignorant, but how is the US case pathetic.HansNZ said:
Has Saddam not buchered his own people and others?
Has Saddam proven compliance with UN inspections and the numerous resolutions previously passed against him?
Maybe if the UN has a set of balls of their own, the USA would not have to be doing what should have happened 1 year after Dessert Storm ended....punish Saddam for non-compliance with the terms of surrender.
HansNZ
New member
TerraNoble said:
Won't get involved without a second UN resolution. The government does not consider that there is sufficient leagl authority residing in previous resolutions for war. Also war is not considered a helpful outcome. NZ did send medical teams during the 1991 war and also sent special forces troops to Afghanistan. But wants nothing to do with this current charade.
For small countries the rule of international law is extremely important because it is our only defense against attacks from more powerful countries. NZ always supports UN processes good or bad, regardless of whether it the UN isn't always efficient. You have to take the good with the bad.
Baby Gorilla
New member
Hmmm....
When Saddam surrendered in 1991, his obligation to disarm was unconditional. He's never complied. How is this not sufficient legal authority to go in and force his compliance by force?
I agree that war is not a helpful outcome, but who is causing this war? The horrible USA with its cowboy G.W. Bush, the wussified UN that can't back the resolutions it passed with the might to compel compliance (which in 90%+ of cases makes the USA do most of the work), or Saddam for not doing as required when he surrendered after wrongfully invading a neighboring soveriegn country.
My dad taught me that violence never really solves anything. He's right. However, I learned from experience that while violence never really solves anything, there are times it is the only option you have.
We've used diplomacy for over 12 years with Saddam. It has utterly failed. Want the results of diplomacy? Saddam's not disarmed. Saddam's obtained materials to make more biological, chemical, and nearly had the ability to make nuclear weapons before Israel got the balls to level the reactor before it came online. Saddam's got allies around the world fighting to keep him safe (France, Germany, and Russia). Saddam's got other nuts rallying to help him (N. Korea was not a threat until a month ago when invasion of Iraq became a near-certianty) either by direct aid (Iran?) or distraction (N. Korea). Saddam's even delluded some nations (like your beloved NZ) into thinking unless the UN can agree as a whole (never mind the biggest voices of opposition are nations with a blatant and unethical--if not illegal--conflict of interest) there is no authority to touch him.
This is what diplomacy had accomplished. Horray for diplomacy.
No. The time to end this passed 11 years ago. When the order to and agreement to surrender and disarm was made, it should have been followed with military force. Give Saddam a year, and by '92-'93 if he had not done it, go in and force it to happen. Remove Saddam from power for non-compliance with the terms of his surrender and put a better leader in power (not one of his cohorts).
This is the failure of the UN. If the UN was around when Hitler did what he did, they'd likely get his surrender and a promise to disarm then turn a blind eye until he was poised to start WWIII. Even then, they'd probably wait until he started invading other nations before they acted.
Ever consider that while the US Congress has the sole power to formally declare war, the US President is Commander-in-Chief of the military? It's simple. You can't protect a soveriegn nation by a committee (UN). In the time the US Congress would debate a bill to declare war, a foreign power could utterly destroy the USA. So, the US President has the power to do whatever he deems in the USA's best interest as he feels he needs to act. Often, our need to act with military power isn't of a scale needing a declaration of war from Congress.
That's why the UN needs the USA. The UN can't act decisively. By time they get a majority on the Security Council to agree to anything with no vetos, the problem has gotten worse. The USA, however, has no such limits. If a problem threatens our interests, we can begin action while politics plays out. If the UN can't agree, we will not sit back and wait to be a victim.
On this level alone, our action against Iraq is 100% justified. Saddam is supposed to be a harmless dictator....toothless by UN disarmament. He isn't. Saddam hates the USA and would do anything he can to hurt us given time. After 9/11, our nation declared war on ALL terrorists and ALL those who aid them.
Target #1....Afghanistan. Justified 100%. We gave the government the chance to turn over Bin Laden and Al Queda. They refused, we invaded.
Target #2....Iraq. Justified 100%. Saddam is supposed to be disarmed. He is not. We've gotten yet another new UN resolution demanding his compliance. He is not complying. We have all the legal justification we need to invade and remove Saddam from power. He is not the leader of a soverign nation. Is is the brutal dictator of a DEFEATED AND SURRENDERED country. Iraq shall regain it's soveriegnty when it fully complies with all the terms of its surrender....which it never has.
Whew....
And this is why the UN is a failure.HansNZ said:
When Saddam surrendered in 1991, his obligation to disarm was unconditional. He's never complied. How is this not sufficient legal authority to go in and force his compliance by force?
I agree that war is not a helpful outcome, but who is causing this war? The horrible USA with its cowboy G.W. Bush, the wussified UN that can't back the resolutions it passed with the might to compel compliance (which in 90%+ of cases makes the USA do most of the work), or Saddam for not doing as required when he surrendered after wrongfully invading a neighboring soveriegn country.
My dad taught me that violence never really solves anything. He's right. However, I learned from experience that while violence never really solves anything, there are times it is the only option you have.
We've used diplomacy for over 12 years with Saddam. It has utterly failed. Want the results of diplomacy? Saddam's not disarmed. Saddam's obtained materials to make more biological, chemical, and nearly had the ability to make nuclear weapons before Israel got the balls to level the reactor before it came online. Saddam's got allies around the world fighting to keep him safe (France, Germany, and Russia). Saddam's got other nuts rallying to help him (N. Korea was not a threat until a month ago when invasion of Iraq became a near-certianty) either by direct aid (Iran?) or distraction (N. Korea). Saddam's even delluded some nations (like your beloved NZ) into thinking unless the UN can agree as a whole (never mind the biggest voices of opposition are nations with a blatant and unethical--if not illegal--conflict of interest) there is no authority to touch him.
This is what diplomacy had accomplished. Horray for diplomacy.
No. The time to end this passed 11 years ago. When the order to and agreement to surrender and disarm was made, it should have been followed with military force. Give Saddam a year, and by '92-'93 if he had not done it, go in and force it to happen. Remove Saddam from power for non-compliance with the terms of his surrender and put a better leader in power (not one of his cohorts).
This is the failure of the UN. If the UN was around when Hitler did what he did, they'd likely get his surrender and a promise to disarm then turn a blind eye until he was poised to start WWIII. Even then, they'd probably wait until he started invading other nations before they acted.
Ever consider that while the US Congress has the sole power to formally declare war, the US President is Commander-in-Chief of the military? It's simple. You can't protect a soveriegn nation by a committee (UN). In the time the US Congress would debate a bill to declare war, a foreign power could utterly destroy the USA. So, the US President has the power to do whatever he deems in the USA's best interest as he feels he needs to act. Often, our need to act with military power isn't of a scale needing a declaration of war from Congress.
That's why the UN needs the USA. The UN can't act decisively. By time they get a majority on the Security Council to agree to anything with no vetos, the problem has gotten worse. The USA, however, has no such limits. If a problem threatens our interests, we can begin action while politics plays out. If the UN can't agree, we will not sit back and wait to be a victim.
On this level alone, our action against Iraq is 100% justified. Saddam is supposed to be a harmless dictator....toothless by UN disarmament. He isn't. Saddam hates the USA and would do anything he can to hurt us given time. After 9/11, our nation declared war on ALL terrorists and ALL those who aid them.
Target #1....Afghanistan. Justified 100%. We gave the government the chance to turn over Bin Laden and Al Queda. They refused, we invaded.
Target #2....Iraq. Justified 100%. Saddam is supposed to be disarmed. He is not. We've gotten yet another new UN resolution demanding his compliance. He is not complying. We have all the legal justification we need to invade and remove Saddam from power. He is not the leader of a soverign nation. Is is the brutal dictator of a DEFEATED AND SURRENDERED country. Iraq shall regain it's soveriegnty when it fully complies with all the terms of its surrender....which it never has.
Whew....
Last edited:
F
Frackal
Guest
Look bro, Israel has broken a myriad of UN resolutions themselves, the US has vetoed that shit into oblivion over and over. Trying to justify the war, a war not supported by the UN, by using UN rules is ridiculous. Saddam is supposed to abide by UN regs, but we are not. Hippocracy. Nevertheless, the war is going to go, so we should all wish that it go as well as possible, and that our boys come home safe, alive, and not stricken with disease or radiation cancer from DU tank-killers.
Baby Gorilla
New member
Good point....
What's the list of UN resolutions Israel's violated. I ask because if I remember correctly, the UN wanted Israel to do things that would make maintaining domestic secuirty impossible. Likewise, the PLO has long committed terrorist acts and not gotten the sanction of the UN, so basically, if the PLO won't play nice, why should Israel do so?
I do think we can justify war based on UN resolutions. Israel didn't loose a war. Iraq did. That's a huge difference. Of course, that's why I contend that the UN is useless. It's all politics and no action.
Food for thought....Frackal said:
What's the list of UN resolutions Israel's violated. I ask because if I remember correctly, the UN wanted Israel to do things that would make maintaining domestic secuirty impossible. Likewise, the PLO has long committed terrorist acts and not gotten the sanction of the UN, so basically, if the PLO won't play nice, why should Israel do so?
I do think we can justify war based on UN resolutions. Israel didn't loose a war. Iraq did. That's a huge difference. Of course, that's why I contend that the UN is useless. It's all politics and no action.
HansNZ
New member
Re: Good point....
I think the problem this poses is that you end up getting caught in a "my resolution is not as bad as your resolution" type of debate. Most countries could come up with reasons why a resolution against them is unfair.
Lets face it, neither Iraq nor Israel are particularly good global citizens.
Baby Gorilla said:
I think the problem this poses is that you end up getting caught in a "my resolution is not as bad as your resolution" type of debate. Most countries could come up with reasons why a resolution against them is unfair.
Lets face it, neither Iraq nor Israel are particularly good global citizens.
H
HULKSTER
Guest
Frackal said:
Frackal, I just took a look at the link that you have posted on your Sig and I felt as if I were going to vomit....I saw the picture of the drunk driver crying....was he crying out of true sorrow and remorse, or because his idiotic ass was about to be sentenced to prison?
Baby Gorilla
New member
Re: Re: Good point....
Which sort of begs the question of what makes a "good" global citizen. I don't believe in turning national soveriegnty to a global body (the goal of the UN). I do believe in nations coming to agreements to live in peace and cooperation with each other.HansNZ said:
F
Frackal
Guest
HansNZ
New member
Re: Re: Re: Good point....
I don't know what your opinions on the following issue is. But there is a contradiction on the part of many right-wingers. Many complain about global organisations and world government such as the UN. Yet at the same time they are advocates of free-market capitalism and the globalisation it stands for with national sovereignty being ceded to multinational corporations.
Baby Gorilla said:
I don't know what your opinions on the following issue is. But there is a contradiction on the part of many right-wingers. Many complain about global organisations and world government such as the UN. Yet at the same time they are advocates of free-market capitalism and the globalisation it stands for with national sovereignty being ceded to multinational corporations.
Baby Gorilla
New member
NGOs
The UN is a bunch of beurocratic panty-waists. They are useless dreamers. The NGO's (non-government organizations) have all the clout and all the power. At EVERY UN summit and like event, the NGOs pay the bills, they choose who goes, it costs thousands of dollars for a single person invited to attend. It's a big hoedown for the people with big bucks.
People say this....Republican or Democrat, they are all globalists. The Democrats are more favorable to the UN treaty making efforts to form a global government. The Republicans shun the UN but are more favorable to NGO affairs that create a web of supernational corporations which dictate foreign affairs.
UN or NGO, it's all the same thing. The UN will adopt policies that favor the NGOs. The agenda of the NGOs will further UN goals for a global government system.
BOTH ARE EVIL.
The UN wants the surrender of national soveriegnty. Power will belong to the UN with certain "rights" being extended to the individual. This is evil because the USA is one of the few nations that states that the power comes from the people, not the state.
The NGO wants the surrender of personal entreprenuership. Small businesses will die off so that super-corporations will do everything. This is evil because the backbone of America's prosperity is the small businessman. The ability of a person with near-nothing to open a shop and make a fortune by selling goods. The global economy is killer for a small businessman with limited resources to compete in the local market. Hence is why local shops hate when a Wal Mart comes to town. They don't have the financial clout to compete equally, and the consumers flock to the cheaper prices...often obtained by buying garbage made in some 3rd world country by someone making maybe $1 USD per day.
Well, really it's one and the same.HansNZ said:
The UN is a bunch of beurocratic panty-waists. They are useless dreamers. The NGO's (non-government organizations) have all the clout and all the power. At EVERY UN summit and like event, the NGOs pay the bills, they choose who goes, it costs thousands of dollars for a single person invited to attend. It's a big hoedown for the people with big bucks.
People say this....Republican or Democrat, they are all globalists. The Democrats are more favorable to the UN treaty making efforts to form a global government. The Republicans shun the UN but are more favorable to NGO affairs that create a web of supernational corporations which dictate foreign affairs.
UN or NGO, it's all the same thing. The UN will adopt policies that favor the NGOs. The agenda of the NGOs will further UN goals for a global government system.
BOTH ARE EVIL.
The UN wants the surrender of national soveriegnty. Power will belong to the UN with certain "rights" being extended to the individual. This is evil because the USA is one of the few nations that states that the power comes from the people, not the state.
The NGO wants the surrender of personal entreprenuership. Small businesses will die off so that super-corporations will do everything. This is evil because the backbone of America's prosperity is the small businessman. The ability of a person with near-nothing to open a shop and make a fortune by selling goods. The global economy is killer for a small businessman with limited resources to compete in the local market. Hence is why local shops hate when a Wal Mart comes to town. They don't have the financial clout to compete equally, and the consumers flock to the cheaper prices...often obtained by buying garbage made in some 3rd world country by someone making maybe $1 USD per day.
