Where is the cry to get out of Iraq?

Originally posted by generalissimo
If only the wtc hadn't been bombed. While the cold war didn't affect the US as directly, the war on terror was motivated by an actual attack from foreign enemies.

So what did Sadam have to do with it again?

Originally posted by joe beyser
So what did Sadam have to do with it again?

money again, the only excuse Bush could find was WMDs, it seemed possible at the time especially because of saddam's brutality as a leader.

Saddam despite being a cruel leader, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Originally posted by generalissimo
money again, the only excuse Bush could find was WMDs, it seemed possible at the time especially because of saddam's brutality as a leader.

Saddam despite being a cruel leader, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I totally agree. I heard that we provided Saddam with chemical weapons but I don't know for sure. The United States didn't want weapons of mass destruction to fall into the hands of terrorists. So the connection there shows that the war on terrorism is more of an excuse than a real war. It doesn't matter who blew up the towers. Could there also be a connection between the UN and this war? The United states made quite a show how it was going to have a coalition of the willing regardless of what the UN said. Wasn't going to wait on Hauns Bricks. Could it be an example of why the UN should have more power and control? Is it all theatrics?

Originally posted by joe beyser
I totally agree. I heard that we provided Saddam with chemical weapons but I don't know for sure. The United States didn't want weapons of mass destruction to fall into the hands of terrorists. So the connection there shows that the war on terrorism is more of an excuse than a real war. It doesn't matter who blew up the towers. Could there also be a conne ould it be an example of why the UN should have more power and control? Is it all theatrics?

I think you're still overrating the UN.

I agree with FMF that the creation of the UN in the post WWII environment was a triumph. And, the fact that it exists and functions is in itself, a testament to improved geopolitical relations over, say, a century ago.

Still, when it comes to maintaining security and starting or ending wars, the UN has always been pretty much irrelevant. Did Argentina ask the UN before claiming the Falkans? Did the Brits give a hoot whether the UN gave them permission to beat the stuffing out of the Argentinians? Did the UN do anything to prevent the Russian/Afghan conflict? Has all the UN meddling in the Middle East done one iota to help anything? Did the UN promptly withdraw its peacekeeping force as soon as Nasser said the word? Was it the UN or the French that finally went into Rwanda to try to stop the bloodshed in the mid 90s after the rest of us westerners did nothing but wag our collective fingers? Was it NATO or the UN that went in and stopped ol' Slobo from massacring the Kosovars? Was the UN relevant in the decisions to go to Gulf War I or II? (Sure, UN resolutions were used as pretexts; but does anyone think Bush fundamentally cared about what the UN had to say?) Has the UN forced the US to withdraw from Iraq or set a timetable therefor; or is that up to Barack Obama? etc. etc. ad nauseaum

The UN is fine for dialogue. The UN might even be good for organizing humanitarian missions. But for security and stopping conflicts, the UN has proven itself over and over again to be useless.

Originally posted by sh76
I think you're still overrating the UN.

I agree with FMF that the creation of the UN in the post WWII environment was a triumph. And, the fact that it exists and functions is in itself, a testament to improved geopolitical relations over, say, a century ago.

Still, when it comes to maintaining security and starting or ending wars, the UN has always been p ...[text shortened]... r security and stopping conflicts, the UN has proven itself over and over again to be useless.

good point.

Originally posted by sh76
I think you're still overrating the UN.

I agree with FMF that the creation of the UN in the post WWII environment was a triumph. And, the fact that it exists and functions is in itself, a testament to improved geopolitical relations over, say, a century ago.

Still, when it comes to maintaining security and starting or ending wars, the UN has always been p r security and stopping conflicts, the UN has proven itself over and over again to be useless.

Kind of a figure 8 argument with the UN in the middle. Your statement is what we can only logically come to. The UN does not have enough power now, but should it? Are some of the world events staged so that we come to this conclusion? Once we come to this conclusion, do we want to strenghen the UN?

Originally posted by generalissimo
good point.

Thank you.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Kind of a figure 8 argument with the UN in the middle. Your statement is what we can only logically come to. The UN does not have enough power now, but should it? Are some of the world events staged so that we come to this conclusion?

Like I said, only if you can find a way to allocate power among countries that would be palatable to the countries of the World could the UN become truly relevant.

Originally posted by sh76
I think you're still overrating the UN.

I agree with FMF that the creation of the UN in the post WWII environment was a triumph. And, the fact that it exists and functions is in itself, a testament to improved geopolitical relations over, say, a century ago.

Still, when it comes to maintaining security and starting or ending wars, the UN has always been p ...[text shortened]... r security and stopping conflicts, the UN has proven itself over and over again to be useless.

Given a polarized world (and when wasn't it polarized?) and the existence of the veto on the Security Council, it could hardly be any other way.

The UN does a lot of good things, but "collective security" ain't one of them.

BTW, I don't agree the UN handled all the situations you mentioned badly, but it was never set up in such a way as to stop any of the five powers from attacking who they pleased.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Given a polarized world (and when wasn't it polarized?) and the existence of the veto on the Security Council, it could hardly be any other way.

The UN does a lot of good things, but "collective security" ain't one of them.

BTW, I don't agree the UN handled all the situations you mentioned badly, but it was never set up in such a way as to stop any of the five powers from attacking who they pleased.

I agree. I don't think the UN has done a bad job. I don't think there was much else it could have done in most of those cases (Rwanda possibly excepted).