An Iraqi said it well

[Ed]

NYT, today

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iraq's foreign minister accused the United Nations on Tuesday of failing his country by leaving Saddam Hussein in power for decades and appealed to the world body to assume a leading role in Baghdad immediately.
...

The Iraqi minister said the United Nations had failed to help rescue his country from ``a murderous tyranny'' that lasted more than 35 years and ``today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure.''
``The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again,'' Zebari said. Until Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United States also was a supporter of Saddam's government.

Well, at least they are good for talking.

[American]

So you don't think a group of career diplomats and retired ex-state and provincial governors from every scattered ass-backward nation on earth who live on permanent vacation in New York City, headed by a man from Ghana (a nation best known for its spear-weilding pygmies) should be trusted with the mission of world peace and security, let alone the welfare of one sad nation like Iraq?

[Zep]

No, American, we all think that a dimwit lying religious-nut fascist with his finger on the biggest nuclear and conventional military power on earth should impose his own will on the people of another country on the other side of the Earth, on his own prejudices and whim, and not give that country any option to decide their future for themselves. That would be MUCH better...

:rolleyes:

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by American
headed by a man from Ghana (a nation best known for its spear-weilding pygmies)

If you mean the Efe, they inhabit southern Cameroon, Gabon and the Congo. Ghana is well known as the home af the Ashanti, a most excellent people. The history of Ghana is not without its violent episodes, but it stands as a beacon of stability in the region, with a long association with the west. If the UN secretary general has to be from Africa (and I think it's their turn at the moment), then a Ghanaian is an excellent choice. Who would you suggest?

[American]

Originally posted by Hypocolius

Who would you suggest?

You had to ask.

http://www2.infinit.com/archives/artsetculture/grosplans/television/media/2000/12/20001218-111102-g.jpg

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Here thar be troll, me thinks.


http://store2.yimg.com/I/trollville_1768_4153964

[Eos of the Eons]

Iraq's foreign minister accused the United Nations on Tuesday of failing his country by leaving Saddam Hussein in power for decades

What I find most interesting is that here we have an Iraqi miffed at having to put up with Saddam for so long. Yet we still have protestors out there that say "it was all about oil".

Yeah, Saddam used the oil to become a dictator ya morons...it wasn't the US being after oil that finally got them to kick Saddam's butt

It was Kuwait, it was defiance of UN sanctions, etc etc. Yet I still hear in every bit of news how it was wrong to go to war, that Bush is a tyrant, that the US is evil.

There are self righteous Canadians that are darn proud that Chretien didn't back up Bush. Personally, I think it has to do more with his distracions at home and the lack of resources at his disposal.

AND there are still people saying Saddam is there leader. There are still people killing for him.

WTF?

[Zep]

Eos, I learned first-hand long ago that (a) the media are basically stupid, (b) they write what gets the most coverage for their organisation, regardless of true or false, and (c) politicians have only a tangential impingement on reality at the best of times.

So the reality in Iraq is probably a lot different to what anyone in the media or politics says, and you won't get to hear the half of it anyway.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Zep
Eos, I learned first-hand long ago that (a) the media are basically stupid, (b) they write what gets the most coverage for their organisation, regardless of true or false, and (c) politicians have only a tangential impingement on reality at the best of times.

So the reality in Iraq is probably a lot different to what anyone in the media or politics says, and you won't get to hear the half of it anyway.


Sad thing is that people eat it up instead of actually looking into it.

Hence...media AND people are basically stupid...heh...

[a_unique_person]

Once again, why Iraq in particular, and why now? There are plenty of countries around the world run by despots. Take Angola, for instance. The US set up an anti-communist force that is now just a bunch of bandits. I see now inclination for Dubya to take matters into his own hands with this country or any other countries in a similar predicament.

What distinguished Iraq was it's strategic location and strategic resources. Any pretence at concern for people around the world suffering under oppresive regimes is just empty rhetoric.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

What distinguished Iraq was it's strategic location and strategic resources..

Agreed, but it is the presence of those strategic resources, and the cash they bring that allows despots to export their lunacies. Of course Mugabe in Zim (or whichever nutcase particularly annoys you) is bad news, however he's too poor to effectively threaten his neighbours, however much he would like to. Iraq, however,was in the (fortunately rare) position of being able to afford to indulge the furthest extremes of Saddam's lunatic imagination. That is what was so dangerous about him, and why, IMO the US acted.

[Hypocolius]

delete double post

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Once again, why Iraq in particular, and why now? There are plenty of countries around the world run by despots. Take Angola, for instance. The US set up an anti-communist force that is now just a bunch of bandits. I see now inclination for Dubya to take matters into his own hands with this country or any other countries in a similar predicament.

What distinguished Iraq was it's strategic location and strategic resources. Any pretence at concern for people around the world suffering under oppresive regimes is just empty rhetoric.

Okay. Angola? What bandits?

[Mr Manifesto]

NYT, today

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iraq's foreign minister accused the United Nations on Tuesday of failing his country by leaving Saddam Hussein in power for decades and appealed to the world body to assume a leading role in Baghdad immediately.

Did he mention what he wanted the UN to do? I seem to understand that the UN was negotiating to help out the US, but the US wanted everything their way and acted surprised when they were told to go jump.

But never mind that. What does the Iraqi foreign minister want from the UN?

[Graham]

The Iraqi minister said the United Nations had failed to help rescue his country from ``a murderous tyranny'' that lasted more than 35 years and ``today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure.''
``The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again,'' Zebari said.

Here is a link to The Charter of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html)

Now presumably Ed or someone else equally keen to repeatedly point out how the United Nations has failed in its mission, can point to the passage in the UN Charter that makes it the business of the UN to rescue countries from murderous tyrannies.

Anybody?

Anybody?

I didn't think so.

Graham

[Ed]

Originally posted by Graham


Here is a link to The Charter of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html)

Now presumably Ed or someone else equally keen to repeatedly point out how the United Nations has failed in its mission, can point to the passage in the UN Charter that makes it the business of the UN to rescue countries from murderous tyrannies.

Anybody?

Anybody?

I didn't think so.

Graham

I see nothing there that suggests that it should be an impediment.

And if it is not the UN's job, what exactly is it good for?

[Crossbow]

It sounds like the new Iraqi foreign minister is doing a good job of reading the statements provided by the White House.

That statement neatly absolves the other countries that supported Iraq during its war with Iran, those that continued to buy Iraqi oil, and sell Iraq vast amounts of weapons during the rule of Saddam.

[Giz]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Once again, why Iraq in particular, and why now? There are plenty of countries around the world run by despots. Take Angola, for instance. The US set up an anti-communist force that is now just a bunch of bandits. I see now inclination for Dubya to take matters into his own hands with this country or any other countries in a similar predicament.

What distinguished Iraq was it's strategic location and strategic resources. Any pretence at concern for people around the world suffering under oppresive regimes is just empty rhetoric.

Surely getting rid of one dictator is getting rid of none? Must they all be taken down simultaneously? Did you think the USA's "Germany first" strategy in WW2 was morally wrong for prioritising?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ed


I see nothing there that suggests that it should be an impediment.

And if it is not the UN's job, what exactly is it good for?

- sigh -

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

In the case of a murderous tyranny, the role of the UN is not to rescue the country from it's own ruler.

The sovereign nature of member states is referred to repeatedly in the Charter. Such action would be in direct violation of that sovereignty.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Who would want a world body with that sort of power anyway?

If, however, a country with such a dictatorship should become a threat to another country or countries; or if another country or countries decides that the internal situation in that country is unacceptable to them, it is then the role of the UN to provide a mechanism for resolution of the problem.

It is intended that, if at all possible, that mechanism should be a peaceful one but the charter also provides for the possibility of more agressive action - sanctions or, ultimately, military intervention.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


The function of the UN is not to act it is to regulate and moderate the actions of its members with a view to promoting and maintaining world peace.

Graham

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons



Sad thing is that people eat it up instead of actually looking into it.

Hence...media AND people are basically stupid...heh...

Ain't that the truth :(

[Ed]

Originally posted by Crossbow
It sounds like the new Iraqi foreign minister is doing a good job of reading the statements provided by the White House.

That statement neatly absolves the other countries that supported Iraq during its war with Iran, those that continued to buy Iraqi oil, and sell Iraq vast amounts of weapons during the rule of Saddam.

I was sort of waiting for this. In other words, we can never believe that anything that comes from an Iraqi is anything other than US-speak? Or is the rule that only if the US is slammed, it will be authentic?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Graham


- sigh -



In the case of a murderous tyranny, the role of the UN is not to rescue the country from it's own ruler.

The function of the UN is not to act it is to regulate and moderate the actions of its members with a view to promoting and maintaining world peace.

Graham

- sigh -

What a waste of precious oxygen in the NY area. So, when faced with human disaster they ... meet?

[Skeptic]

No, American, we all think that a dimwit lying religious-nut fascist with his finger on the biggest nuclear and conventional military power on earth should impose his own will on the people of another country on the other side of the Earth, on his own prejudices and whim,

If by "dimwit lying religious-nut fascist" you mean Bush, then by "imposing his will" on Iraq, it is rather obvious that, at least for the vast majority of Iraqis, his will coincided with their greatest desire: to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

Even if your rather nasty caricature of Bush were accurate, it wouldn't matter: for all most Iraqis care, it could have been the devil himself that removed Hussein. They needed all the help they could get, even from a "dimwit".

and not give that country any option to decide their future for themselves.

Only to a leftist could leaving Saddam Hussein in power to kill and butcher for another thirty years or so means "letting the Iraqis decide their future for themselves", while working to establish a democratic government there is "not giving the country any option to decide".

Oh, by the way, why on earth did the USA invade Europe in WWII??? Surely Europe should have been allowed to "choose its fate for itself"--e.g., Hitler or Stalin, depening on who is more ruthless and evil in the war to exterminate the other?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Ed


- sigh -

What a waste of precious oxygen in the NY area. So, when faced with human disaster they ... meet?

Yeah Ed,

What? You didn't know that? Sometimes they even talk about politics, but mostly they consult on the best methods of collecting parking tickets. Great gig if you can get it. I bet they have a big statue of Nevil Chamberlain that they pray to in their spare time as well.

-z

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
The sovereign nature of member states is referred to repeatedly in the Charter. Such action would be in direct violation of that sovereignty.

And UN inspections for WMD didn't compromise Iraqi sovreignty?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Ed


- sigh -

What a waste of precious oxygen in the NY area. So, when faced with human disaster they ... meet?

No, they TALK, too. Usually about condemning israel.

By the way, had you heard the UN's latest "moral achievement"? israel, for the first time in its history, actually dared to suggest a UN resolution.

The (symbolic) resolution called for the right of israeli children to "live free of terror". The UN, of course, led by the Arab world--those bastions of human rights--overwhelmingly rejected this evil, zionist initiative.

And JUST THINK: the USA went to war WITHOUT THE MORAL AUTHORIZATION of these people! I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya'.

[The Don]

The Iraqis should be very grateful the US forced a regime change so long as (and this is almost certain) the new regime is nowhere near as bad as the old one.

To pretend that the US did this for anything other than selfish reasons is to hide one's head in the sand. Or more accurately, if George Bush went to war for reasons other than for the direct benefit of the US he should be indicted.

See that way the American people can stomach the fact that the Iraqis en-masse aren't as grateful as they ought to be.

[Skeptic]

Eos, I learned first-hand long ago that (a) the media are basically stupid, (b) they write what gets the most coverage for their organisation, regardless of true or false, and (c) politicians have only a tangential impingement on reality at the best of times.

In other words, you "learned first hand long ago" that you're right, and everybody else is wrong.

So the reality in Iraq is probably a lot different to what anyone in the media or politics says,

Of course, you yourself don't know any Iraqis, never been to te middle east, do not speak a word of Arabic, and could not name three cities in Iraq without looking them up.

But, since you know everybody who IS there is stupid and lying--after all, they disagree with you, and what else could be the reason for THAT?--you have declared what THE TRUTH(tm) is: they're all wrong, you're right, end of conversation.

Next time, I won't watch CNN. I'll just ask you for what is "really going on".

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ed


- sigh -

What a waste of precious oxygen in the NY area. So, when faced with human disaster they ... meet?

Are you being willfully obtuse?

It's not up to the UN to do anything.

The function of the UN is to provide a facility for its members to interact without having to resort to unilateral military or other action and to provide a mechanism for the coordination and control of multilateral action.

Period.

Graham

[Tmy]

So you don't think a group of career diplomats and retired ex-state and provincial governors from every scattered ass-backward nation on earth who live on permanent vacation in New York City, headed by a man from Ghana (a nation best known for its spear-weilding pygmies) should be trusted with the mission of world peace and security, let alone the welfare of one sad nation like Iraq?- American


Yeah no kidding. The next thing you know some steriod freak, womenizing, Austrian immigrant , Hollywood action movie star will be running the biggest state in the US. NAHHHHHHHHHH that could never happen.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


And UN inspections for WMD didn't compromise Iraqi sovreignty?

I think this is covered under the second part of the remit - in the event of a dispute between nations it is up to the UN to provide a mechanism for resolution.

In the case of Iraq, Gulf War 1 was part of that mechanism, as were the subsequent sanctions.

Graham

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ed


I was sort of waiting for this. In other words, we can never believe that anything that comes from an Iraqi is anything other than US-speak? Or is the rule that only if the US is slammed, it will be authentic?

Let me see, there are some 130,000 US combat troops in Iraq along with thousands of tanks, helicopters, troop carriers, and artillery pieces, that were used to invade and now to occupy Iraq.

So excuse me for being just a tad skeptical of statements made by the US appointed leaders of Iraq.

[Tmy]

People play the UN card whenever it suits them.

Reasons to invade Iraq: Saddam's not following the UN.
Reasons to stay in Iraq: The UN is stupid. Screw them.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Graham


Are you being willfully obtuse?

It's not up to the UN to do anything.

The function of the UN is to provide a facility for its members to interact without having to resort to unilateral military or other action and to provide a mechanism for the coordination and control of multilateral action.

Period.

Graham

So then, if the US did not act in Iraq there is no alternative UN mechanism. OK.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Graham


It's not up to the UN to do anything.

Period.

Graham

What a waste of precious oxygen resourses.

[Ed]

Originally posted by The Don
To pretend that the US did this for anything other than selfish reasons is to hide one's head in the sand. Or more accurately, if George Bush went to war for reasons other than for the direct benefit of the US he should be indicted.



So what?

All you are saying is that the US is part of the same club that France, Germany, and Russia are part of. These poor guys are pissed that they are not getting contracts. It's all money and to single out the US is the height of hypocrisy.

What you might have said, more accurately is:

To pretend that the US, France, Germany, and Russia had anything to do with Iraq for anything other than selfish reasons is to hide one's head in the sand.


And, again, so what?

Incidentially, I would not have invaded in the first place. I also think that a nations selfish self interest trumps most other considerations.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ed


So then, if the US did not act in Iraq there is no alternative UN mechanism. OK.

Well, yes and no - as usual.

The UN was already involved in Iraq and a mechanism was already in place, that of economic sanctions and weapons inspectors.

Whether that mechanism was achieving its aim or not, or had reached the end of its useful life is a matter for debate.

The primary function of the UN is to prevent war. Insofar as that goes, it was succeeding in Iraq. It only failed when the US led coalition took action outside of UN auspices.

Graham

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed


- sigh -

What a waste of precious oxygen in the NY area. So, when faced with human disaster they ... meet?

What did you guys do until some planes hit some buildings in your country?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic


No, they TALK, too. Usually about condemning israel.

By the way, had you heard the UN's latest "moral achievement"? israel, for the first time in its history, actually dared to suggest a UN resolution.

The (symbolic) resolution called for the right of israeli children to "live free of terror". The UN, of course, led by the Arab world--those bastions of human rights--overwhelmingly rejected this evil, zionist initiative.

And JUST THINK: the USA went to war WITHOUT THE MORAL AUTHORIZATION of these people! I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya'.

Source?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


I see nothing there that suggests that it should be an impediment.

And if it is not the UN's job, what exactly is it good for?

One of the basis of the UN is that of national sovereignty. That is, a country rules itself, and if it isn't interfering in some other country, it is to be left to it's own devices to work out it's own future.

It would have been interesting if England had invaded, for example, the US to rid it of the scourge of Democracy and re-imposed the Divinely inspired institution of Monarchy.

That is why, for example, Israel gets motions passed against it, it is a military occupying force in a land, much as Saddam was in Kuwait. When Saddam withdrew from Kuwait, the legal basis for attacking him had passed.

In Rwanda, the UN had been told the attack was coming from it's monitoring forces there. If the members of the UN, who are the only military forces the UN has, (There is no UN army, only rebadged forces of it's members), ignored the threat, then that is the fault of all the members of the UN. In their defense on this particular atrocity, I don't think anyone could have forseen this unprecedented act of genocide. That is, so many civilians attacking another ethnic group with whatever weapons they had at hand.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


Okay. Angola? What bandits?

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/History-of-Angola

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

It would have been interesting if England had invaded, for example, the US to rid it of the scourge of Democracy and re-imposed the Divinely inspired institution of Monarchy.


Sure, it would be interesting.

I am curious do you think all forms of government are equal.

BTW,
Since you often decry what you see as the US and the West's support of dictatorships, aren't you being inconsistent?

Who are we to object to a nation's internal way of governing? I suppose we should actually be supporting all governments no matter what then?

Or is this yet more situational ethics?
Whatever standard of ethics makes the US wrong is the right one...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Sure, it would be interesting.

I am curious do you think all forms of government are equal.

BTW,
Since you often decry what you see as the US and the West's support of dictatorships, aren't you being inconsistent?

Who are we to object to a nation's internal way of governing? I suppose we should actually be supporting all governments no matter what then?

Or is this yet more situational ethics?
Whatever standard of ethics makes the US wrong is the right one...

The US has been known to intervene in a country's process of deciding who its leader is in favour of a leader the US likes. For example, it will interfere in elections, or support coups, etc.

Think Prime Directive.