09-19-2004, 06:17 PM
|
#21
|
Fearmongerer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
|
Yep....thats where the UN gets bogged down in its own bureaucracy...in effect making it useless in THESE situations.
I would apply the same logic to the Security Council vote on Iraq...they all agreed to impose sanctions, but refused to enforce them because some of those very members would be shooting themselves in the foot monetarily.
The whole thing is a boondoggle.
|
|
|
09-19-2004, 06:59 PM
|
#22
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Djibouti
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Sep 19 2004, 04:56 PM
Funny section in that article:
"In an 11-0 vote Saturday with four abstentions — China, Russia, Pakistan and Algeria — the Security Council said it would meet again to consider sanctions against Sudan's petroleum sector or other punitive measures if the government doesn't act quickly to stop the violence and bring the perpetrators to justice."
So in essence, they've resolved to meet again to consider imposing sanctions if things don't fix themselves soon. Are they sure they don't need another resolution to authorize them to act on the first resolution? I mean, holding another meeting without voting on it first would be kind of rash. :tdown:
|
They passed one resolution to put pressure on the Sudanese government to clean up their own house. The government of Sudan has said they got the message and will take steps. In the mean time the UN has sent high level representatives to assess the situation. If they're not satisfied they'll meet again to consider what sanctions to inplement.
What is it that you guys find so objectionable in that? Are you offended that they don't just jump to punitive meansures at the outset, without trying political pressure first?
|
|
|
09-19-2004, 07:18 PM
|
#23
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boxed-in
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 19 2004, 06:59 PM
What is it that you guys find so objectionable in that? Are you offended that they don't just jump to punitive meansures at the outset, without trying political pressure first?
|
I just get a laugh out of "we resolve to meet again."
A resolution stating that "we're going to stop buying your oil in 60 days if you don't satisfactorily rein in these rebels" would be some pretty good pressure too don't you think? It would allow for action before the punitive measures were put in effect, and might be more coercive than a simple "please do what you said you would do or we'll have to get tougher" resolution.
After being sidestepped by the US in Iraq, now would be a good time for the UN to try to show some teeth, or it will be completely marginalized. You'd think that Russia, France, Germany, and any of the other members who opposed the Iraq invasion would like to use this opportunity to make the UN relevant again because if they don't, their influence on the world stage will be degraded by further action outside of the UN's direction.
Ah well...I don't find it objectionable...just futile. Cynicism++;
|
|
|
09-19-2004, 07:24 PM
|
#24
|
CP Pontiff
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A pasture out by Millarville
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 20 2004, 12:59 AM
What is it that you guys find so objectionable in that? Are you offended that they don't just jump to punitive meansures at the outset, without trying political pressure first?
|
I wonder if Rwandans were offended by politicking versus action?
When you have a situation described as "genocide," maybe action is better than the promise of action.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
|
|
|
09-19-2004, 08:09 PM
|
#25
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 19 2004, 07:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 19 2004, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@Sep 20 2004, 12:59 AM
What is it that you guys find so objectionable in that? Are you offended that they don't just jump to punitive meansures at the outset, without trying political pressure first?
|
I wonder if Rwandans were offended by politicking versus action?
When you have a situation described as "genocide," maybe action is better than the promise of action.
Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Agreed. Stop screwing around and get in there and kick the sh*t out of the bad guys.
|
|
|
09-19-2004, 08:12 PM
|
#26
|
Fearmongerer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by peter12+Sep 19 2004, 10:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (peter12 @ Sep 19 2004, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 19 2004, 07:24 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike F
|
Quote:
@Sep 20 2004, 12:59 AM
What is it that you guys find so objectionable in that? Are you offended that they don't just jump to punitive meansures at the outset, without trying political pressure first?
|
I wonder if Rwandans were offended by politicking versus action?
When you have a situation described as "genocide," maybe action is better than the promise of action.
Cowperson
|
Agreed. Stop screwing around and get in there and kick the sh*t out of the bad guys. [/b][/quote]
But according to many on this very forum...no one has that right Peter.
Everything must be "approved" by the UN Security Council first...in the meantime people die un-necessarily every day.
Same thing happened in Iraq...and that went on for 12 years AFTER the UN said it was to stop.
|
|
|
09-19-2004, 08:16 PM
|
#27
|
Franchise Player
|
Genocide is quite different than what was going on in Iraq.
|
|
|
09-19-2004, 08:19 PM
|
#28
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Djibouti
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 19 2004, 06:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 19 2004, 06:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@Sep 20 2004, 12:59 AM
What is it that you guys find so objectionable in that? Are you offended that they don't just jump to punitive meansures at the outset, without trying political pressure first?
|
I wonder if Rwandans were offended by politicking versus action?
When you have a situation described as "genocide," maybe action is better than the promise of action.
Cowperson[/b][/quote]
Unlike Rwanda, where the President had been assassinated and the ruling "government" had killed UN peacekeepers in addition to the ethnic cleansing, in Sudan you have the possibility for a "peaceful" solution -- you have a stable government which has been in ongoing peace talks with the rebel groups and which is in a position to bring an end to the situation.
Unfortunately, at this point it's not about stopping further death, it's about minimizing it. Sending in UN troops to forcably bring and end to the conflict is a good way to have this blow up in everyones face and will just end up with more people in refugee camps for a longer time. It should be the last option, only after it's clear the government won't do it themselves. That's the best option and it should at least be given a shot.
|
|
|
09-19-2004, 08:24 PM
|
#29
|
Fearmongerer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by peter12@Sep 19 2004, 10:16 PM
Genocide is quite different than what was going on in Iraq.
|
Uhhh...genocide is EXACTLY what was going on in Iraq.
WHat do you think gassing the kurds was all about?
Or the mass graves of #####e Muslims?
|
|
|
09-20-2004, 01:05 AM
|
#30
|
Has lived the dream!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where I lay my head is home...
|
Quote:
Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 19 2004, 10:19 AM
The US is trying to get some pressure (diplomatically...the answer for everything apparently) put on the Sudanese leaders through that wonderful UN body that so many clamor for to do ANYTHING worldwide.
Once more...it isnt working.
UN drags its feet
So, would the leftists/anti-war crowd be upset if the US unilaterally went into Sudan and removed the rebels and allowed humanitarian aid to flow again, while ending the genocide that has been occuring?
Or, as we were told in the last week, should the US just wait by idly waiting for UN approval, because after all, we wouldnt want to impose "our" way of life on a people that know no other way of life, so it aint all that bad.
And another landmine...IF the US did go in to help, would they again be chastised if they wanted to help re-build the oil fields of Sudan? Or would this one be OK?
|
I would not be mad at that at all Tranny.
I only get mad whe the U.S. government lies to it's people and the world about the reasons for going into a country. I'm not a fool. I watched that whole U.N. meeting at home where Powell was trying to convince the world these three boxes where decontamination trucks. (was out of work at the time and addicted to CBC newsworld) I didn't believe it the very first day I saw it and it has come out that I and other 'leftists' were right.
If they had said they were going in for humanitarian reasons I would have backed that. But they did not. They lied. And I don't care if your a family member or 'the leader of the free world' I'm not going to support a lie.
Just leaves more questions about motive anyway.
Don't think I am or anyone else 'leftist' is necessarily anti-conflict. We're just against it for the wrong reasons. Don't lie to us, we are not uninformed idiots.
|
|
|
09-20-2004, 05:59 AM
|
#31
|
Fearmongerer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
|
I only get mad whe the U.S. government lies to it's people and the world about the reasons for going into a country.
What lies? The WMD?
Seriously.
If its bad intelligence that it was based on..OK. To suggest it was outright lies is ridiculous though.
Russia said he had them, so did China, and Germany and France and EVERY other member of the Security Council, 17 resolutions prove that. Their reasons for not supporting a UN backed invasion was not because they belive he didnt have them, but instead they wanted inspectors to "have more time" to locate and destroy them and avoid armed conflict. 8 years hadn't been enough time in their opinion.
I agree with you, when the use of military can be avoided, you do so. It was time Hussein was made to face the music after 9/11. The extreme radicals in the middle east had been getting off rather easy for a long time while diplomacy was tried....look what it led too.
Hard to talk your way to a resolution with a mad man hell bent on the eradication of at least 2 races and one that held a large disdain for the entire Western culture.
Sometimes you have to fight for whats right in your eyes. They do.
|
|
|
09-20-2004, 10:48 AM
|
#32
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: not lurking
|
Quote:
Originally posted by transplant99+Sep 19 2004, 07:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (transplant99 @ Sep 19 2004, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-peter12@Sep 19 2004, 10:16 PM
Genocide is quite different than what was going on in Iraq.
|
Uhhh...genocide is EXACTLY what was going on in Iraq.
WHat do you think gassing the kurds was all about?
Or the mass graves of #####e Muslims? [/b][/quote]
Those attrocities occured over a decade ago. The invasion of Iraq disposed a leader who had committed genocides in the past, but did nothing to prevent any genocides in progress. The situation in Iraq was not one where thousands were dying for every week that the rest of the world did not take action. Any humanitarian concerns in the Iraq invasion were motivated by a desire to punish for past attrocities and a fear of future attrocities. Both of these can be valid reasons (discussing whether they were justified or not is a completely different argument), but do not require the same urgency as attrocities currently underway.
|
|
|
09-20-2004, 11:22 AM
|
#33
|
Fearmongerer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by octothorp+Sep 20 2004, 12:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (octothorp @ Sep 20 2004, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 19 2004, 07:24 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-peter12
|
Quote:
@Sep 19 2004, 10:16 PM
Genocide is quite different than what was going on in Iraq.
|
Uhhh...genocide is EXACTLY what was going on in Iraq.
WHat do you think gassing the kurds was all about?
Or the mass graves of #####e Muslims?
|
Those attrocities occured over a decade ago. The invasion of Iraq disposed a leader who had committed genocides in the past, but did nothing to prevent any genocides in progress. The situation in Iraq was not one where thousands were dying for every week that the rest of the world did not take action. Any humanitarian concerns in the Iraq invasion were motivated by a desire to punish for past attrocities and a fear of future attrocities. Both of these can be valid reasons (discussing whether they were justified or not is a completely different argument), but do not require the same urgency as attrocities currently underway. [/b][/quote]
Are you suggesting that Hussein stopped killing people by the thousands after the gulf war?
Based on what exactly?
And since you agree that he committed atrocities in the past, how does it make it less valid to remove him now than when it was happening?
I dont understand that....it's not like there is a statute of limitations on mass murder/genocide.
|
|
|
09-20-2004, 11:26 AM
|
#34
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally posted by octothorp+Sep 20 2004, 04:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (octothorp @ Sep 20 2004, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 19 2004, 07:24 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-peter12
|
Quote:
@Sep 19 2004, 10:16 PM
Genocide is quite different than what was going on in Iraq.
|
Uhhh...genocide is EXACTLY what was going on in Iraq.
WHat do you think gassing the kurds was all about?
Or the mass graves of #####e Muslims?
|
Those attrocities occured over a decade ago. The invasion of Iraq disposed a leader who had committed genocides in the past, but did nothing to prevent any genocides in progress. The situation in Iraq was not one where thousands were dying for every week that the rest of the world did not take action. Any humanitarian concerns in the Iraq invasion were motivated by a desire to punish for past attrocities and a fear of future attrocities. Both of these can be valid reasons (discussing whether they were justified or not is a completely different argument), but do not require the same urgency as attrocities currently underway. [/b][/quote]
This would be compariable to stopping the investigation of a sex offender because his crimes were thoretically committed in the past, and even though his house might be loaded to the ceiling with Kiddy Porn, we should focus on the guys that are doing it now.
Wow
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
09-20-2004, 11:46 AM
|
#35
|
Scoring Winger
|
Wow, Americans complaining about lack of UN action when the US has exercised the second most vetoes in the history of the UN, and the most in every period since 1966.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm
It seems to me the US is the #1 obstacle to making the UN more effective simply b/c it would prefer to be the ultimate arbiter of global justice. Furthermore, it is not clear to me where someone gets off suggesting the UN dragged its feet on this issue - the resolution the US put forth was passed. The article is more critical of the potential effectiveness of the resolution as I read it. However, I guess if you are single-minded that all the world's problems either a. rest at the feet of the UN, or b. can be solved by blowing up one side or the other, I guess an attempt at economic pressure as opposed to war comes off as dragging your feet.
Here is a question for the usual crowd: given that Israel is one of the worldwide leaders in breaking UN resolutions, international law, etc., how would you feel if Europe unilaterally went into Israel and imposed a solution between Israeli's and Palestinians. After all, it is US vetoes over the issue that has prevented progress being made by the UN. Or, is cutting through international red tape an exclusive right of the US?
|
|
|
09-20-2004, 12:38 PM
|
#36
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: not lurking
|
Quote:
Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 20 2004, 10:22 AM
Are you suggesting that Hussein stopped killing people by the thousands after the gulf war?
Based on what exactly?
And since you agree that he committed atrocities in the past, how does it make it less valid to remove him now than when it was happening?
I dont understand that....it's not like there is a statute of limitations on mass murder/genocide.
|
Great job of not reading my post! Had you done so, you might have noted that I said that attrocities in the past can be valid reasons for disposing a leader. But I'd say that punishing a country for something that happened over ten years ago is an act that would require some amount of international approval, but the US never even tried to seek such approval--I don't remember this ever given to the UN as a reason for launching the assault into Iraq.
There was no pressing need for the US to act unilaterally and hastily in their invasion of Iraq. Because, as I stated, there was not genocide currently underway. You ask on what do I base my suggestion that there was no current genocide underway in Iraq? Okay, let's look at Amnesty International's records for Iraq in 2002 (I'll paraphrase their entire list of offences. Sorry, I don't have a link but it's probably on the amnesty international website somewhere.)
--
General amnesty: Thousands of politial prisoners were granted amnesty. However, many, particularly those who had been accused of spying for the US or Israel, were denied amnesty.
Death Penalty: Extensive use of death penalty (note that it accuses the US of the same). AI points out 13 people were put to death for crimes of conscience or for cases where there was no apparent trial. In answer to your question, yes, based on that, I would suggest that prior to the start of this war, Hussein was no longer killing people by the 'thousands', as you suggest.
Forcible expulsions of non-arabs: a number of Kurds and Turkmen were expelled from the Kirkuk region to southern Iraq or to Kurdish Iraq. Two incidents recorded.
Threats against families of opposition activists: Two instances of people being threatened, to try to get information about the political activities of family members.
Iraqi Kurdistan: Sporadic fighting between Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and and the Islamic group, Ansar al-Islam.
Political arrests: A former human rights worker was arrested for spying. He was later released. A journalist and an editor for a Iraqi newspaper were arrested; the reasons for their arrest have not been released.
--
So, that's at least thirteen innocent civilian deaths (there are likely more, but likely less than a hundred). All of these suspicious executions were commited on the grounds of politics or supposed crimes. None of them were based on ethnic groups, there's no way you can pretend that these executions were carried out to exterminate particular ethnic groups. Hence, it's not genocide.
Yeah, it's not a very good human rights record--I'm not going to pretend that it is. But it's no worse than at least a dozen other countries in the world against whom the US hasn't lifted a finger, and far better than the current situation in Sudan, where there have been 30-50 thousand killed over 17 months. Compare it also with the number of civillians killed in Iraq (between 10 and 15 thousand) in the war so far.
That would be my evidence that there was not genocide underway in Iraq at the time that the US invaded. Now, let's see your evidence that there was genocide underway. Or would you simply argue that the genocide, like the WoMDs, simply have not yet been found?
|
|
|
09-20-2004, 12:47 PM
|
#37
|
Norm!
|
Here is a question for the usual crowd: given that Israel is one of the worldwide leaders in breaking UN resolutions, international law, etc., how would you feel if Europe unilaterally went into Israel and imposed a solution between Israeli's and Palestinians. After all, it is US vetoes over the issue that has prevented progress being made by the UN. Or, is cutting through international red tape an exclusive right of the US?
The Israel issue is far more complex than that. The UN has passed resolutions that are a complete detriment to thier security at times, so Israel who never agreed with the resolution has somewhat of a right to reject or ignore them
The UN resolution concerning Iraq were agreed upon by Hussien as a condition of ending the first Gulf War, he refused to abid by something that he originally agreed too.
A couple of completely different scenarios.
Besides if the Europeans decided to impose thier will on Israel they'd get thier butts kicked all the way back to thier nations capital.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
09-20-2004, 01:17 PM
|
#38
|
Franchise Player
|
Yes the UN is useless. Let the US sort it out they've singlehandedly stopped terroism haven't they. Because 3/4 of the world didn't do what the US lyingly told everyone was necassary, they're useless.
__________________
Canuck insulter and proud of it.
Reason:
-------
Insulted Other Member(s)
Don't insult other members; even if they are Canuck fans.
|
|
|
09-20-2004, 01:46 PM
|
#39
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Djibouti
|
|
|
|
09-20-2004, 02:01 PM
|
#40
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: not lurking
|
Interesting (well, not really) article on CBC about Japan lobbying for a permanent seat on the UN.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...nun_040920.html
Would granting such a seat to Japan (or to Brazil, Germany, and India, all of whom are lobbying for such a seat) make the UN even more ineffective?
I do seriously doubt the security council's ability to deal with urgent matters, such as Sudan. At the same time, I have a hard time coming up with any more effective system. More security council seats is definitely not the way; especially when Japan's constitution prevents it from sending troops into battle.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:40 PM.
|
|