The Real Iraq

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thing is, those sanctions don't work too well. Unless "all" nations throughout the world are willing to cooperate.

The UN is practically worthless given the veto power the permanent members have.

Sanctions can work very well, as in South Africa.

I'm having trouble figuring out how the UN is being blamed for the failings of the UN Security Council. For some reason it appears that the two are being ultimately linked as the same; they are not. Refugees, poverty, hunger, economics, social issues, etc., etc. To say 'The UN is useless because the UNSC can't cooperate' is to ignore the fact that the UNSC probably passes 1% of the legislation the UN works with.

The UN is _not_ the UNSC.

The UNSC is made up of its 5 members (and other temporary states with very limited power). If you believe this council is a failed one, you don't have to look any farther than these 5 countries. I have no idea how they appear to get off scott-free (by never being blamed for UNSC vascillation in this thread) whereas the UN garners _all_ the blame.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

And Saddam somehow still managed to get money from somewhere in order to keep himself rich and alive. All those palaces? How do you think he paid for them? When you have sanctions being applied for 10 plus years, something is wrong.

Iraq was still making money somewhere.

Sure... because several countries were violating the sanctions. But that's the UN's fault, not those countries, right?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Sanctions seemed to work pretty well on Iraq, don't you think?

The military was castrated and the dreaded WMD programs had obviously come to a halt. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was kind of the point of the sanctions from Day 1.

Yeah they worked awesome. Saddam got richer and the people got poorer. He could even use food as a weapon to oppress.

Great thing it was. I think even a few UN beaurocrats got rich out of it.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sanctions can work very well, as in South Africa.

I'm having trouble figuring out how the UN is being blamed for the failings of the UN Security Council. For some reason it appears that the two are being ultimately linked as the same; they are not. Refugees, poverty, hunger, economics, social issues, etc., etc. To say 'The UN is useless because the UNSC can't cooperate' is to ignore the fact that the UNSC probably passes 1% of the legislation the UN works with.

The UN is _not_ the UNSC.

The UNSC is made up of its 5 members (and other temporary states with very limited power). If you believe this council is a failed one, you don't have to look any farther than these 5 countries. I have no idea how they appear to get off scott-free (by never being blamed for UNSC vascillation in this thread) whereas the UN garners _all_ the blame.

The whole organization is dead in the water. Look who has headed the Un human rights councils lately? You think that is a success? Is that run by the Un Security council? I think not. Look at the meeting they had about racism - that turned into an Anti-Semetic rant. Good stuff all.
Look at the racist policies that the Arab/Muslim block introduces against Israel every year.

When an organization has no admissions standards there is no sense in having an organization at all. You can only be as good as your worst member(s) and when the Islamic/Arab block have some 80 countries to vote with, you don't end up with an enlightened, effective organization.

End of story.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

The whole organization is dead in the water. Look who has headed the Un human rights councils lately? You think that is a success? Is that run by the Un Security council? I think not. Look at the meeting they had about racism - that turned into an Anti-Semetic rant. Good stuff all.
Look at the racist policies that the Arab/Muslim block introduces against Israel every year.

When an organization has no admissions standards there is no sense in having an organization at all. You can only be as good as your worst member(s) and when the Islamic/Arab block have some 80 countries to vote with, you don't end up with an enlightened, effective organization.

End of story.

Well, if thats the end of the story, I guess there's no more point debating it. I think your view of this massive organization is overly simplistic, and you've drawn 2 examples to disqualify an entity that is far larger than apparently you're aware of.

www.un.org

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Yeah they worked awesome. Saddam got richer and the people got poorer. He could even use food as a weapon to oppress.

Great thing it was. I think even a few UN beaurocrats got rich out of it.

So who's fault was the debacle? France, Germany, and other states that traded with Saddam despite sanctions? Or the UN, the organization that imposed sanctions on Saddam's regime?

You're blaming the group that imposed sanctions, and leaving alone the entities that violated them. Pretty selective.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

So who's fault was the debacle? France, Germany, and other states that traded with Saddam despite sanctions? Or the UN, the organization that imposed sanctions on Saddam's regime?

You're blaming the group that imposed sanctions, and leaving alone the entities that violated them. Pretty selective.

Or how about the ones who supported Saddam Hussein by arming him in the first place and validating an invasion on his neighbour?

It's funny when people try to blame France and Germany.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Yeah they worked awesome. Saddam got richer and the people got poorer. He could even use food as a weapon to oppress.

Great thing it was. I think even a few UN beaurocrats got rich out of it.

Now apply that thinking to Cuba...

If you listen closely you can hear White Doors argument deflating.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

So who's fault was the debacle? France, Germany, and other states that traded with Saddam despite sanctions? Or the UN, the organization that imposed sanctions on Saddam's regime?

You're blaming the group that imposed sanctions, and leaving alone the entities that violated them. Pretty selective.

Its not the UN's fault, but it just goes to show how the organization has quickly become useless. Like I said before, unless the sanctions are approved and upheld by "all" nations throughout the world, there is absolutely no point in serving them.

And again, with the veto power the 5 permanent members have, the UN Security Council is also practically worthless. And when you human rights discussion turns into a anti-jew hatred fest, something is severly wrong.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Or how about the ones who supported Saddam Hussein by arming him in the first place and validating an invasion on his neighbour?

It's funny when people try to blame France and Germany.

You see Agamemnon, this is exactly what I was talking about. People always going back 20 years where they find something the US did which in hindsight was stupid, and then they use that point to justify their arguement for what is happening today.

****es me off to no end.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

You see Agamemnon, this is exactly what I was talking about. People always going back 20 years where they find something the US did which in hindsight was stupid, and then they use that point to justify their arguement for what is happening today.

****es me off to no end.

I guess we just differ on this. I think to find out _why_ things are happening today, you have to look at yesterday. Conflicts have roots in history. 20 years is not nearly as long a period of time as you're making it out to be. 20 years is not ancient history

As far as I'm concerned, if someone, say, killed someone else 20 years ago, would they be innocent of the crime now? Should they be let off the hook because the event happened 20 years ago? I think this would be the same argument as people who bring up the past when complaining about the US. You have to adress their concerns, or not be surprised when they're ****ed decades later.

As I said earlier, when you're (the US) the one made out to be the bad guy I'm not surprised you'd have the attitude of 'lets just forget about it, it was 20 years ago'. Makes sense that you wouldn't want to adress the type of hypocracy you're (the US) being accused of.

Whether the US actually has something to feel guilty about or not is up to them. All I know is there are millions around the globe who still feel the events of 20 years ago had a lot to do with where they are now.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its not the UN's fault, but it just goes to show how the organization has quickly become useless. Like I said before, unless the sanctions are approved and upheld by "all" nations throughout the world, there is absolutely no point in serving them.

IF it is useless (which, again, it is not... for some reason you seem to continually say "UN" when it is beyond clear you mean "UN Security Council"), it is because it's member-states rendered it thus. The member-states, specifically those who obfuscate UNSC legislation, hold the blame for lack of UN interventionism. I believe the US has used the most vetoes in the UNSC since its inception.

And again, with the veto power the 5 permanent members have, the UN Security Council is also practically worthless. And when you human rights discussion turns into a anti-jew hatred fest, something is severly wrong.

I do not believe that the United Nations is an anti-Semetic organization. Several specific member-states may be anti-Semetic, but that is their failing, not the UN's. The right of free speech allows them to be ignorant racists if they like. Sometimes you just have to disagree with those of another opinion, rather than disqualify the entire forum that the differences are brought up in.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I guess we just differ on this. I think to find out _why_ things are happening today, you have to look at yesterday. Conflicts have roots in history. 20 years is not nearly as long a period of time as you're making it out to be. 20 years is not ancient history

As far as I'm concerned, if someone, say, killed someone else 20 years ago, would they be innocent of the crime now? Should they be let off the hook because the event happened 20 years ago? I think this would be the same argument as people who bring up the past when complaining about the US. You have to adress their concerns, or not be surprised when they're ****ed decades later.

As I said earlier, when you're (the US) the one made out to be the bad guy I'm not surprised you'd have the attitude of 'lets just forget about it, it was 20 years ago'. Makes sense that you wouldn't want to adress the type of hypocracy you're (the US) being accused of.

Whether the US actually has something to feel guilty about or not is up to them. All I know is there are millions around the globe who still feel the events of 20 years ago had a lot to do with where they are now.

I have no problem with looking at history, examining it, studying it, just to make sure it doesn't happen again. The US made a mistake to deal with Saddam, or any other dictator in the past 20 years. We both know they will never admit it, but today I'm sure they realize it.

My problem is when people, instead of debating on the subject at hand, such as the invasion of Iraq, WMD, Al-Queda, Afghanistan and so on, they will constantly bring up what the US did 20 years ago, and use that as their basis for not agreeing with the war in Iraq, or even in Afghanistan. I "know" that the US at one time supported Saddam, but what I also know is that Saddam has now been removed from power, making that argument from 20 years ago ridiculous.

We should take history as a lesson, not as an arguement used to justify one's opinion based on current events.

[Looger]

set 'em up. knock 'em down. not this arab, that arab. not that arab, this arab.

yeah, big mistakes by the US government. yep. huge cacaphony of errors.

must be it.

keep repeating it, and it will be true.

[Azure]

IF it is useless (which, again, it is not... for some reason you seem to continually say "UN" when it is beyond clear you mean "UN Security Council"), it is because it's member-states rendered it thus. The member-states, specifically those who obfuscate UNSC legislation, hold the blame for lack of UN interventionism. I believe the US has used the most vetoes in the UNSC since its inception.

Of course. It really doesn't matter who has used the veto power, what does matter is that those 5 nations can. Until that is fixed, the UN Security Council will have no effect on the world whatsoever.

For example, saying China wants to veto the UNSC's decison to go into Iran and set up a new government? Does that the force the US to form another coaliton and do it by themselves?

Not that the UNSC would agree with such an action; I used it merely as an example.

I do not believe that the United Nations is an anti-Semetic organization. Several specific member-states may be anti-Semetic, but that is their failing, not the UN's. The right of free speech allows them to be ignorant racists if they like. Sometimes you just have to disagree with those of another opinion, rather than disqualify the entire forum that the differences are brought up in.

I have no problem with the common civilian using their right of free-speech, but it does not bode well for the UN when certain members are using their position to hammer out Anti-Semetism remarks.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

set 'em up. knock 'em down. not this arab, that arab. not that arab, this arab.

yeah, big mistakes by the US government. yep. huge cacaphony of errors.

must be it.

keep repeating it, and it will be true.

Thank you for your insight.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thank you for your insight.

when it's _exactly_ the same bunch of administrators and facilitators, that supported saddam in his darkest actions, sold him WMD's, and it's those same guys that call for iraq to be occupied long before they have their excuse, then it starts to look a little ridiculous.

the US ignores / vetoes more UN resolutions than anyone else, and was caught RED HANDED using UNSCOM to spy on iraq. that's it, weapons inspectors HAVE TO LEAVE. done. finis. over. goodbye. had your chance, took a big stinky three-coiler on the world stage and everyone smells it.

when all 'legitimate' options were gone, the US just went ahead and did it.

trying to make it 'proper' after the fact is a total farce, people lie to themselves to make it all good and right.

fact is, lots of countries on earth could stand a 'regime change' by the same standards, but most of those countries aren't #2 on the proven oil reserves list.

no matter how bad saddam is / was, the ends can never be justified by means that did not exist.

[Azure]

when it's _exactly_ the same bunch of administrators and facilitators, that supported saddam in his darkest actions, sold him WMD's, and it's those same guys that call for iraq to be occupied long before they have their excuse, then it starts to look a little ridiculous.

I really don't get your point. Bush didn't sell Saddam any WMD.

the US ignores / vetoes more UN resolutions than anyone else, and was caught RED HANDED using UNSCOM to spy on iraq. that's it, weapons inspectors HAVE TO LEAVE. done. finis. over. goodbye. had your chance, took a big stinky three-coiler on the world stage and everyone smells it.

The US has the right to spy on anyone they want too. What does the UN have to do with that?

But nice of you to blame the US for why Saddam disallowed the weapon inspectors to never properly do their job.

fact is, lots of countries on earth could stand a 'regime change' by the same standards, but most of those countries aren't #2 on the proven oil reserves list.

Isn't Alberta #2 on the proven oil reserves?

no matter how bad saddam is / was, the ends can never be justified by means that did not exist.

Meaning Saddam could have killed more people then Hitler and you still wouldn't agree with invading Iraq.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

I really don't get your point. Bush didn't sell Saddam any WMD.

uh, i said administrators and facilitators. but go ahead and make stuff up, i mean in the spirit of the discussion, why not?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

Page 14:

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

who's in PNAC?

according to William Rivers Pitt, author:

http://truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/e...chive=1&num=53

Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.;

* I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant;
* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including;
* Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group;
* Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal;
* John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration;
* Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board;
* Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;
* Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein; * William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch.

i'm not going to post the photo of rumsfeld shaking hands with saddam, very very known stuff.

Originally Posted by Azure

The US has the right to spy on anyone they want too. What does the UN have to do with that?

But nice of you to blame the US for why Saddam disallowed the weapon inspectors to never properly do their job.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm

Scott Ritter went from:


In August 1998, Mr Ritter resigned from his job, accusing the Security Council and the United States of caving in to the Iraqis. To compel Iraq into compliance, he told the BBC that year: "Iraq should be subjected to a major campaign that seeks to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein."

to:


In 1999 he published a book, Endgame, where he argued that Unscom's mission had been compromised by Washington's use of inspections to spy on the Iraqis.
Last year he produced a documentary entitled Shifting Sands: The Truth about Unscom and the Disarming of Iraq. He said that his team was satisfied that Iraq had destroyed 98% of its weapons by 1995.

...


Mr Ritter accused the US Government of deliberately setting new standards of disarmament criteria to maintain UN sanctions and justify continued bombing raids.
He also said Iraq "did co-operate to a very significant degree with the UN inspection process" and blamed the US and the UK for the breakdown.
Mr Ritter essentially repeated those views during his trip to Baghdad last year.
He said the US seemed "on the verge of an historic mistake".
"My government is making a case for war against Iraq that is built upon fear and ignorance," he added. "The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders."

He has argued that the inspection team, Unscom, was a nest of US spies and that Iraq was disarmed long ago.

the US spying on iraq isn't the issue. it's that they infiltrated and discredited UNSCOM, which no longer could claim a right to be in iraq. period.

Originally Posted by Azure

Isn't Alberta #2 on the proven oil reserves?

suppose it depends on the list.

http://www.kilowattage.com/articles/..._countries.php

iraq's #4, iran's #3, canada is #2.

lists vary. iraq's high on them all.

why invade when you can just buy? iraq wasn't playing ball. we are.

Originally Posted by Azure

Meaning Saddam could have killed more people then Hitler and you still wouldn't agree with invading Iraq.

what the hell are you talking aboot? saddam was supported by the US during the worst of his purges, attacks, and gassings. nice try.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Meaning Saddam could have killed more people then Hitler and you still wouldn't agree with invading Iraq.

The US didn't invade Saddam because he was Hitler-like or 'the next Hitler', they invaded because he 'had' weapons of mass-destruction. This isn't a secret, everyone knew at the time that this was the major justification for the war in Iraq (the 'useless' UN didn't buy it, and they were right).

I don't think anyone is suggesting that because their intelligence and motivations are/were suspect that the US should immediately pull all of the troops out of Iraq. Obviously they're committed to the current course of action. That said, I think the US is screwed no matter what they do. It should be very interesting to see where this all stands in 5-10 years. I hope for the best.