What happens to the U.N?

[Bearguin]

So, if the US and whatever allies invade Iraq without a UN resolution, what will this do to the future of the UN?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
So, if the US and whatever allies invade Iraq without a UN resolution, what will this do to the future of the UN?

I don't care...

[Tmy]

BAH! I say its time we bailed on teh UN. It looks more like they are against the US. As if putting us in our place takes priority over anything else. I say we move the UN to Newark as a punsihment.

I say we become the big bad nation they portray us to be. F the Un and there votes. We have the Spainards on our side!

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
So, if the US and whatever allies invade Iraq without a UN resolution, what will this do to the future of the UN?

Two words.

Un
Necessary.

Like the League of Nations... if at first you don't succeed...

[richardm]

The UN will probably just pretend that the whole thing never happened. To be fair, this is just one element of the UN.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jocko


Two words.

Un
Necessary.

Like the League of Nations... if at first you don't succeed...

The UN's charitable organizations do a lot of good worldwide, but the security council can go the way of the dinosaur if you ask me...

[Troll]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I don't care...

Very well said. Short. simple. Right to the point. Okay, now I'm being wordy. I agree:D

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The UN's charitable organizations do a lot of good worldwide, but the security council can go the way of the dinosaur if you ask me...
But wouldn't the money be better spent if the contributing countries gave their charitable aid directly to the receiving countries? That way, you eliminate one middle man, and money spent to run the U.N. charity organizations can go directly to people who need it.

[rikzilla]

The UN is a legislator. They write "international law" that only people like UCE think is binding.

A legislature can write all the laws they want. The way that the society enforces the law is through their police or military. The UN makes law, but this law lacks the enforcement mechanism of a police or military.

In other words this international law is not worth the paper it's printed on. It's bogus...it's superfluous.

The UN is a mythical legislator. It's past "laws" only enforceable if there is the will of a world power to support it. The myth of UN "law" is now being exposed by Saddam's disregard of it, and will be exposed further by the US's disregard of it when we launch the attack into Iraq.

This bumper-sticker comes to mind:
THE US OUT OF THE UN, THE UN OUT OF THE US!!!

-zilla

[Kodiak]

Don't be surprised if France or one of the others veto the resolution authorizing military action, then, after we invade anyway, draft and unanimously approve a resolution officially expressing friendship and continuing allegience for the US even though they do not approve of our use of military force against Iraq.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

But wouldn't the money be better spent if the contributing countries gave their charitable aid directly to the receiving countries? That way, you eliminate one middle man, and money spent to run the U.N. charity organizations can go directly to people who need it.

Absolutely, that's why I originally said "I don't care".

[bignickel]

The UN will probably do the same thing that they did when we invaded Panama.

Anyone ever see that cartoon with one smaller fish about to be eaten by a bigger fish, who in turn is about to be eaten by an even bigger fish?

Small fish: "Life isn't fair."
Bigger fish: "Life is mostly fair."
Biggest fish: "Life is fair."

[ssibal]

Invade without resolution? What do you call 1441?

[Reginald]

Prior to the disbanding of The USSR it did very little, they couldn't it always vetoed for the silliest of reasons. The UN had it's chance to shine after that, twas a shame that "after that" came the Iraqi invasion of kuwait. and then it passed plenty of resolutions, none of which it was prepared to back up. Hence it proved itself impotent in resolving acts of conflict.

It couldnt even sort out the Cyprus issue, its been hammering away at that for decades.

[aerocontrols]

The same thing that's happened to it every time a powerful country has gone its own way. It will adapt (or not) and move on.

MattJ

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The UN's charitable organizations do a lot of good worldwide,

Hmmmm. Having seen many of the UN's organizations in "action" I can tell you that... they spend a lot of money trying to do good, do they actually achieve very much? Debatable. Anyone here ever worked for a UN agency?

[Doctor X]

This is based upon a conversation with a person I know who works for the State Department.

I asked what use the UN had. Let us be frank: for better or worse, the UNSC is ineffective. Depending upon the stance ye want:

1. The US/Britain/Et Cetera want oil, revenge, a new parking lot

2. France/Russia/Germany/Et Cetera care more about their profits from Iraqi contracts than human rights

what will happen will happen.

So, what is the point?

The "point" is that the UN provides a venue for very small countries who cannot afford missions and embassies in many countries.

I would like to see the UN reformed, if possible.

I would also like to date Shakira, Uma Thurmon. . . .

--J. "If You Wish Upon a Star" D.

[John Bryce]

Gen. MacKenzie, who was commander of UN forces in Sarajevo during the Bosnian civil war and who led one of the relatively few successful international peacekeeping and stabilization operations in recent years, challenged head-on the Chrétien government's mantra that it will act in the Iraqi situation only with the approval of the UN.

Not only is the UN's credibility as either a peacemaker or a peacekeeper minuscule (which is why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization decided to go around it in both Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia), but sticking to its current position means Canada has abdicated one of its most important foreign-policy decisions in decades to France, whose veto will likely determine the UN position on war.

Gen. MacKenzie cites major disasters of UN peacekeeping where this weakness applied: the failure of the UN to protect civilians in designated safe areas in Yugoslavia; the UN takeover from American forces in Somalia; East Timor, where the Australians had to go in to protect UN workers; Sierra Leone, where the mission was so badly executed the British had to go in and rescue the peacekeepers; and Rwanda, where the UN peacekeeping bureaucracy in New York and the member states consistently ignored Gen. Romeo Dallaire's pleas for help.

"This is the organization that should decide whether we go to Iraq or not? Give me a break."

MacKenzie's critique has a ring of truth (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030310.wwinsor1003/BNStory/International)

[Tmy]

The UN lost all credibilty when they started wearing those powder blue helmets. Powder blue does not strike fear into your enemies.

[Doctor X]

Hmmmm . . . French military hats . . . UN hats . . . history of failure . . . connection?

--J.D.

[Bearguin]

John. While I am ashamed at the information in the link you provided, it is mostly about the state of affairs with our millitary.

I'm more intrigued by a couple of headlines (for some reason the links are'nt working for me) on the globe and mail home page.

Canada brokering new deal - why does this stink of just another Chretian attempt at a legacy as opposed to realy dealing with the issues at hand.

Defence Minister signs off on combat role in Iraq - So, despite the official gov't position, we can still send combat troops in. Wierd.

I just wish Chretian would come out and say one way or the other what we are going to do.

Anyway, if anyone want to read the articles, go to www.globeandmail.com. Sorry but I can't seem to get the links working right now.

[Thumper]

The United Nations has as its greatest purpose a commitment to the free expression of complaints and ideals from all countries in its organization. The General Assembly is a place for countries to come together to work out their transnational and international problems.

The Security Council was envisioned by FDR as a way for the great nations to keep the peace in the rest of the world. (Actually, FDR only wanted it to deal with Europe, but that idea got thrown by the wayside quickly.) One thing about going through the UNSC, however, it does force a country to re-examine its reasons for going to war.

One of the biggest problems here is that three of the top four nations selling things to Iraq hold veto power in the UNSC (France, Russia, China).

Another problem is that the US is looking at a post-war Iraq as being solely their responsibility. If the US were to allow other nations to be the nation-builders, I am very sure they would sign on to a war, or at least they would be more amenable to a war resolution. Let Russia and France be intimately involved in re-creating Iraq after the war. It would go a long way to show everyone that the US is not merely trying to extend its already extensive hegemony in the region.

Just some thoughts.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by ssibal
Invade without resolution? What do you call 1441?

1441 only promises "immediate consequences", or something along that line. A resolution specifying military force is preferable.

[John Bryce]

I just wish Chretian would come out and say one way or the other what we are going to do.

So do I, but he won't. As MacKenzie says:

The present government has abdicated its foreign policy to the UN over the past 10 years and is continuing to do so. We are hiding behind the UN's skirts.

While the UN has little:

...credibility as either a peacemaker or a peacekeeper...

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Thumper


One of the biggest problems here is that three of the top four nations selling things to Iraq hold veto power in the UNSC (France, Russia, China).



Agreed. If this were a legal proceeding, this would constitute a conflict of interest and the participant would recuse (i.e., abstain) from the proceedings.

[Tmy]

Why should they have veto power anyway. How fair is that.

[Bearguin]

No one country should have veto power. It should take at least two to Veto. Although I'm not sure I agree with the veto concept at all, having one country able to control the outcome is stupid.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thumper

Another problem is that the US is looking at a post-war Iraq as being solely their responsibility. If the US were to allow other nations to be the nation-builders, I am very sure they would sign on to a war, or at least they would be more amenable to a war resolution.

I don't recall seeing anything where the U.S. has said that other nations can't be involved in nation building. They may have said that, but I haven't seen anything. However, some countries may avoid helping just to spite the U.S. I remember seeing an article (sorry, I don't have a link to it...) where the head of some sort of European EEC aid organizaiton said that they would provide aid, but not if the U.S. goes in alone. (The heck with helping the poor people, if the U.S. invades alone we'll let them suffer!)

Question: are you suggesting the U.S. totally pull out of Iraq afterwards and let other nations take over? (If they did that, I'm sure the anti-war people would shout "See, the U.S. isn't interested in rebuilding Iraq".)

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Kodiak


1441 only promises "immediate consequences", or something along that line. A resolution specifying military force is preferable.

It says:

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


I would consider military action to be a serious consequence.

[aerocontrols]

The US 1st Circuit Court (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf) says:

It also noted that "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." Id. In diplomatic parlance, the phrase "serious consequences" generally refers to military action.

MattJ

[Doctor X]

I rather thought that is what it meant way back then. . .

. . . silly me for taking the UNSC seriously.

--J.D.

[John Bryce]

I am not sure I agree with the folowing, but I thought I would throw it in for discussion:

Some scenarios for the aftermath of a US-led invasion of Iraq (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/2003/Feb03/McMahon1.htm)

Scenario 2: "Business as Usual"
A short war takes place with minimal disruption

Without UN support, the US invades Iraq; fighting and destruction is minimal; Saddam goes, and the US occupies Iraq. A puppet government is set up, the oil flows and prices drop, and everyone returns to business as usual. However, resentment of Western power grows in the Islamic world, and radical terrorism grows with it. Terrorist attacks become commonplace but are comparatively ineffective due to increased powers of suppression. The principle of collective security is weakened, as is the UN, and international relations generally become more strained. Cooperation to face global problems in regard to health, climate change, development, and so on, is limited. The rich countries become ever more militarised and security conscious, and this acts as a major tax on economic growth.

Scenario 3: "Skin of our Teeth"
A messy war occurs but the repercussions are contained

The US invades without UN support; its high-tech weaponry does not work as well as was hoped; the Iraqis strongly resist (including messy house-to-house fighting); Saddam burns oil wells and deploys some WMD against the invaders. The US wins albeit with thousands of casualties, and many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and injured. The US sets up a puppet government. Resistance within Iraq is sustained and a sizeable occupation force must be maintained to suppress it. The whole region becomes destabilised and the US is drawn into a series of brush wars. The US becomes increasingly militarised and nationally chauvinistic, souring relations with other countries. European integration gains pace, with an eye to challenging rampant US power. The US economy weakens severely, adding to global instability.

Scenario 4: "**** Happens"
A messy war unfolds and a new international arms race begins

As above, the invasion and aftermath do not go well. The US leadership becomes increasingly belligerent as it responds to growing international criticism. The UN is completely sidelined. A solidifying Europe (led by France and Germany) and Russia begin to rearm as they perceive the US as presenting a growing danger. The global economy suffers as international tension undermines trade and the financial markets. China, having caught up in the technology race and operating in quasi-alliance with the Europeans and Russians, overtly challenges US dominance. Meanwhile, the emergence of new diseases and the effects of climate change wreak havoc in the developing world and begin to affect the West.

[dsm]

How can you NOT agree? The article covers the whole gambit of possibilities for what will happen, so there must be one of the scenarios that you (basically) agree with as being the most likely.

Do I hear a poll? ;)

[dsm]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate

So, if the US and whatever allies invade Iraq without a UN resolution, what will this do to the future of the UN?


Maybe the better question is what will it do to the future of the US? :eek:

[John Bryce]

How can you NOT agree? The article covers the whole gambit of possibilities for what will happen, so there must be one of the scenarios that you (basically) agree with as being the most likely.

Okay, I mostly agree with #2. No, I change my mind...

Oh, damn. I can't decide. May I take parts from each one and make my own? :)

[John Bryce]

Alright. Number three I basically agree with. There. I decided. :)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm
How can you NOT agree? The article covers the whole gambit of possibilities for what will happen, so there must be one of the scenarios that you (basically) agree with as being the most likely.

Do I hear a poll? ;)
No, it doesn't cover all the possibilities. In fact, I don't think any of them are really reasonable.

Frankly, this list of scenarios looks like some frustrated anti-war activist trying to ignore the evidence and come up with fantasy scenarios to make the coalition look bad.

Look at his scenarios:
#1 (Not posted above) - Assumes Saddam allows full inspections. We have 12 years experience to know he won't cooperate. Has a catch 22... Iraq only let in the inspectors because of the threat from the U.S. (Blix admitted that), yet the scenario described seems to ignore the importance of the U.S. in forcing that.

#2 - Short war (which makes sense) followed by a puppet government - Assumes that the U.S. would actually do that. (With all the world's attention, the U.S. wouldn't dare do that... Democracy is the most likely scenario). It also assumes Arabs will resent the invasion; however, Iraqis want the invasion, and the rest of the arab world will either: #1 want the same (since other arab countries are oppresed themselves), or #2 now have reason to respect the Americans, as they will show they follow through when force is necessary

#3 - Yes, things could get messy. But the vast majority of Iraqis want Saddam gone, so urban warefare will not be an issue. (Yes, Saddam can destroy oil wells. But I doubt Americans will be to blame for that.) Again, it assumes a puppet governemt (not likely). Europe integration? Remember, most European countries are siding with the U.S. in this conflict.

#4 - Messy war, with arms race - Again, it assumes the Europeans will somehow integrate. Not likely. As for European countries and Russia seeing the U.S. as a 'danger'. I really don't think people believe that. (People are smart enough to know that the U.S. really isn't interested in invading France or Germany, and I doubt they could really muster the will to build up their armed forces just to take on the U.S. which isn't really threatening them...) And where the heck did this 'disease' thing come from? and why is it only in this scenario? Does that mean there will be no widespread diseases in any of the other scenarios?

#5 - Iraqi war goes really badly - Chance of happening: about 0.1%. (How many Iraqis have surrendered even before the war starts?) The only sides in this that have nukes now are the western powers and Israel, and its not likely they would use them, even if Iraq did use chem weapons. As for new bio weapons... People can build chem/bio weapons fairly easily, but I doubt much of the middle east has the technical knowhow to develop NEW stuff.

Here's my scenario:
- US and a coalition invade Iraq. Victory is fairly quick. (Surveys show most Iraqis want Saddam gone, and the army is likely to surrender quick.) Saddam unleashes chem weapons and blows up oil wells, but strangely enough, its Saddam that gets the blame. When the U.S. gets in there, they start uncovering the true horrors of what has happened in Iraq (their complete weapons programs, mass killings, etc.). Anti-war activists slink away.
- U.S. sets up a temporary government but starts moving to democracy. (May be slow, but it will happen, because the U.S. knows that if they don't, they'll look bad to the world.) People have more freedom, sanctions are lifted
- Temporary increase in terrorism, but it dies down quickly. Governments in the area realize the U.S. is willing to stand up to rogue nations. (Remember, for many years, there have been constant terrorist attacks WITHOUT American having major interventions in the middle east. But I believe the Arabic people will respect strength more than weakness.)
- People in countries neighbouring Iraq see the increase in freedom, and start pushing for more freedom in their own countries. Iran is probably the next major nation to turn democratic. (Iran has a large population of young people who are not fond of Islamic militancy). Having more democracies in the area further decreases terrorism.

My scenario makes a heck of a lot more sense. And its based on real facts (like the survey that shows support of Iraqis wanting Saddam overthrown).

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Here's my scenario:
- US and a coalition invade Iraq. Victory is fairly quick. (Surveys show most Iraqis want Saddam gone, and the army is likely to surrender quick.) Saddam unleashes chem weapons and blows up oil wells, but strangely enough, its Saddam that gets the blame. When the U.S. gets in there, they start uncovering the true horrors of what has happened in Iraq (their complete weapons programs, mass killings, etc.). Anti-war activists slink away.
- U.S. sets up a temporary government but starts moving to democracy. (May be slow, but it will happen, because the U.S. knows that if they don't, they'll look bad to the world.) People have more freedom, sanctions are lifted
- Temporary increase in terrorism, but it dies down quickly. Governments in the area realize the U.S. is willing to stand up to rogue nations. (Remember, for many years, there have been constant terrorist attacks WITHOUT American having major interventions in the middle east. But I believe the Arabic people will respect strength more than weakness.)
- People in countries neighbouring Iraq see the increase in freedom, and start pushing for more freedom in their own countries. Iran is probably the next major nation to turn democratic. (Iran has a large population of young people who are not fond of Islamic militancy). Having more democracies in the area further decreases terrorism.

My scenario makes a heck of a lot more sense. And its based on real facts (like the survey that shows support of Iraqis wanting Saddam overthrown).

This is basically the #2 scenario and, if you thought about it, you'd see that the differences are not that great.

Questions -- in your scenario:


What survey are you basing this on?
How much of a "coalition" are you talking about?
What will the al Quaida do?
What will the Iranian government do?
What will the Saudi government do?
What will Turkey do?
What will the (radical) Palestinians do?
What will the US do? (How long is "temporary"?)
How will the Kurds react to the above?
Will North Korea "distract" the US at critical times for the Middle Eastern region?
How will the "snubbed" UN nations react to the above?
What makes you think that having a presense in the Middle East will have any bigger effect on terrorism than Israel has had?
If Saddam destroys the oil wells, why won't the US get (much of) the blame because of starting the war?


There's a lot of variables that your scenario hasn't yet addressed.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

This is basically the #2 scenario and, if you thought about it, you'd see that the differences are not that great.

Actually, I think the differences are very great. The main differences are that Iraq will NOT have a puppet government, and that there will be no long term increase in terrorism. A democratic Iraq can be a good example to other middle east nations to show that the U.S. can actually act to their betterment.

Originally posted by dsm


This is basically the #2 scenario and, if you thought about it, you'd see that the differences are not that great.

Questions -- in your scenario:


What survey are you basing this on?
How much of a "coalition" are you talking about?
What will the al Quaida do?
What will the Iranian government do?
What will the Saudi government do?
What will Turkey do?
What will the (radical) Palestinians do?
What will the US do? (How long is "temporary"?)
How will the Kurds react to the above?
Will North Korea "distract" the US at critical times for the Middle Eastern region?
How will the "snubbed" UN nations react to the above?
What makes you think that having a presense in the Middle East will have any bigger effect on terrorism than Israel has had?
If Saddam destroys the oil wells, why won't the US get (much of) the blame because of starting the war?


There's a lot of variables that your scenario hasn't yet addressed.


The survey was run by a think tank in Belgium, and published in newspapers in December. I can dig up the link if you'd like. Basically, it said that although people don't want war, they wan't saddam even less, and would support an invasion, as long as the west was willing to reguild.
The "coalition" is the U.S., U.K., Australia, Spain, Italy, etc. (Obvioiusly the U.S. and U.K. are the main members, but Australia will be helpful too)?
al Quaida will do what they want to do. They may make a lot of noise, bin Laden may release another tape from the grave. There may even be another terrorist attack (or attempt). But, there would have been one sooner or later anyways. If they decide to move ahead just because of the Iraq war, there is a better chance of them slipping up
Iran may complain, but I doubt they will act. The leaders don't like Saddam, and the people really want democracy.
Saudi will probably allow the U.S. to use their territory to launch attacks from. Some ratical elements in S.A. may complain (and some may even join terrorist groups). But in the long term, having a democratic Iraq on their doorstep will make S.A. a little calmer
Turkey may allow attacks from its territory or it may not. The U.S. can accomplish its mission without using Turkish territory.
Palestinians may support Iraq, but if they get actively involved against the military action, they will loose support in the world. (As long as they attack only Israel, people will let them do whatever they want.) Of course, in the long term, removal of Saddam will remove one source of funding for Palistinian terrorists
What will the US do? (How long is "temporary"?) How long did it take for Japan? I don't know.
Not sure how the Kurds will react. They will likely be glad Saddam is gone, but they may push for an actual Kurdish state. It may get messy, but they will be better off
North Korea probably won't be able to "distract" the US because the war will be relatively short. Plus, the way that NK should be handled is different than the way Iraq should be handled
How "snubbed" UN nations act is irrelevant. France made them that way. The damage is already done. Perhaps it will be a lesson that the U.N. can't work the way it is set up.
A democratic and allied Iraq will have more impact because it will be an islamic democracy, something missing in the world. It will be harder for the people of other middle east countries to dismiss them because of a different religion
I think people are smart enough to realize that it was Saddam that set off the explosives to destroy the oil wells. People will realize it as a last-gasp of a tyrant. Why SHOULD people blame the U.S.? Did they get blamed when Saddam blew up Kuwaits oil fields?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
So, if the US and whatever allies invade Iraq without a UN resolution, what will this do to the future of the UN?

Not really much. The US and other Nations have invaded other countries without UN backing in the past and nothing happened to the UN.

[Reginald]

Ironically the French sending troops to the Ivory Coast is not sanctioned by the UN.

So as for this respecting the UN moral high ground some countries are taking...........forget it.

The net result of all this WRT the UN will be that no country will believe that the UN will sanction armed force UNTILL the troops are in place, be them from one or a group of nations.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Reginald
[B]Ironically the French sending troops to the Ivory Coast is not sanctioned by the UN.


How can this be compared to the situation in Iraq?
Has France invaded and attacked Ivory Coast?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by armageddonman



How can this be compared to the situation in Iraq?
Has France invaded and attacked Ivory Coast?

NATO bombed Serbia without UN approval

[rikzilla]

...besides. The US is only acting on prior language in 1441 that promised "severe consequences"....a euphamism for military action if I ever heard one.

The 18th resolution is un-needed.....war is called for under 1441....resumption of hostilities is called for under 687. 687 has been violated every day for 11 years.

Conclusion....war on Iraq is legal under several previous resolutions.

-zilla

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by ssibal
I would consider military action to be a serious consequence.

So would I...

Unfortunately, France, and possibly others, are willing to veto over just such a distinction...

[Reginald]

Originally posted by armageddonman



How can this be compared to the situation in Iraq?
Has France invaded and attacked Ivory Coast?

Whats the difference? Do you have a rule or dont you? Is this not a military action? if the french see the need to fight to defend something there do you think they will follow your line of thought and say "Oh this is different to other military actions....forget the guns lets get out the piano and have a sing song with the enemy"

Its not France, its a foreign military action.

Your arguements are consistant with bias, inconsistant in content.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Actually, I think the differences are very great. The main differences are that Iraq will NOT have a puppet government, and that there will be no long term increase in terrorism. A democratic Iraq can be a good example to other middle east nations to show that the U.S. can actually act to their betterment.


The proof is in the pudding. ;)


The survey was run by a think tank in Belgium, and published in newspapers in December. I can dig up the link if you'd like. Basically, it said that although people don't want war, they wan't saddam even less, and would support an invasion, as long as the west was willing to reguild.


Who'd they base the survey on? Ex-Iraqis? Given that it seems to be so hard to get interviews with Iraqi scientists, I wonder how in-depth a survey they could do (not that I disbelieve what you say they want).


The "coalition" is the U.S., U.K., Australia, Spain, Italy, etc. (Obvioiusly the U.S. and U.K. are the main members, but Australia will be helpful too)?


Do you think this will remain a coalition both during and after the war?


al Quaida will do what they want to do. They may make a lot of noise, bin Laden may release another tape from the grave. There may even be another terrorist attack (or attempt). But, there would have been one sooner or later anyways. If they decide to move ahead just because of the Iraq war, there is a better chance of them slipping up


The "attack" itself is relatively meaningless. The key is the propaganda effect it could achieve.


Iran may complain, but I doubt they will act. The leaders don't like Saddam, and the people really want democracy.


Wasn't there already reports of Iran military operations in northern Iraq? The question is how will Iran set itself up to be a player in the post-Saddam Iraq? And how much could that "bog down" the US efforts at democatizing Iraq.


Saudi will probably allow the U.S. to use their territory to launch attacks from. Some radical elements in S.A. may complain (and some may even join terrorist groups). But in the long term, having a democratic Iraq on their doorstep will make S.A. a little calmer


But will the Saudi ruling families see it that way? I'm sure they always thought they could just "buy off" Saddam.


Turkey may allow attacks from its territory or it may not. The U.S. can accomplish its mission without using Turkish territory.


I'm thinking post-Saddam. Like Iran, might the Turks have designs on being a player in Iraq. More things to "bog down" operations in Iraq.


Palestinians may support Iraq, but if they get actively involved against the military action, they will loose support in the world. (As long as they attack only Israel, people will let them do whatever they want.) Of course, in the long term, removal of Saddam will remove one source of funding for Palistinian terrorists


They may not take kindly to that. There have been reports that they are massing for a missile attack against Israel with the beginning of the war. That could immediately expand this "short" war into something much broader.


What will the US do? (How long is "temporary"?) How long did it take for Japan? I don't know.


As has happened in the past, the US may go until the "war is won" and then loose the peace.


Not sure how the Kurds will react. They will likely be glad Saddam is gone, but they may push for an actual Kurdish state. It may get messy, but they will be better off


Without an internationally recognized Kurdish state, they may be in trouble from other factions (Iran and Turkey) trying to annex them.


North Korea probably won't be able to "distract" the US because the war will be relatively short. Plus, the way that NK should be handled is different than the way Iraq should be handled


Why should North Korea be different? Also, remember that a "short" war may be followed by a relatively long "peace" before things actually settle down. NK probably already realizes that now is the time to act.


How "snubbed" UN nations act is irrelevant. France made them that way. The damage is already done. Perhaps it will be a lesson that the U.N. can't work the way it is set up.


Or it may be that if (or, maybe I should say, when) the US gets into trouble in the region, these nations, when needed most, will say "I told you so".

How should the UN be set up?


A democratic and allied Iraq will have more impact because it will be an islamic democracy, something missing in the world. It will be harder for the people of other middle east countries to dismiss them because of a different religion


Or will they be viewed as part of the "Imperial US"?


I think people are smart enough to realize that it was Saddam that set off the explosives to destroy the oil wells. People will realize it as a last-gasp of a tyrant. Why SHOULD people blame the U.S.? Did they get blamed when Saddam blew up Kuwaits oil fields?


That's different. There Saddam blew up something that he didn't have a right to. He invaded Iraq and we were throwing him out. In this case, there isn't (yet) a "smoking gun" and now the US are the invaders. The cleanup operation from the damage to the oil wells could take years which is long enough for people in the region to "forget" what Saddam may or may not have done and just focus on the problems that were caused by the "war".

[patnray]

Most people seem to asume that a democratic Iraq, and other middle eastern countries, will automatically be pro-American and anti-terrorism. Just as plausible is a democratically chosen anti-American theocracy.

The entire debate is dominated by wishful thinking. There is no sound, well tested, scientific theory that can predict the outcome. We don't know what will happen in the long run. There is little doubt that the US military will prevail in the short term, but it is a huge gamble that military victory will result in long term stability.

Only time will tell...

[Advocate]

Originally posted by patnray
Most people seem to asume that a democratic Iraq, and other middle eastern countries, will automatically be pro-American and anti-terrorism. Just as plausible is a democratically chosen anti-American theocracy.

The entire debate is dominated by wishful thinking. There is no sound, well tested, scientific theory that can predict the outcome. We don't know what will happen in the long run. There is little doubt that the US military will prevail in the short term, but it is a huge gamble that military victory will result in long term stability.

Only time will tell...

A theocracy has always been my biggest worry in a post war Iraq. But I don't think this will happen via democratic elections since there are both large Sunni and Shiite populations neither of which would accept an opposing theocracy. Of course how they will get any elected government that both groups (plus the Kurds) will accept is anothe story. Also, an actively anti-American government is pretty unlikely also. I would certainly not count on a PRO-American government, but I think we can count on one that is at least not actively against us as Saddam has been and as Iran is also. Probably more like Egypt or Jordan. Not really an ally, not really an enemy. And IMHO this would be a perfectly good result.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

Who'd they base the survey on? Ex-Iraqis? Given that it seems to be so hard to get interviews with Iraqi scientists, I wonder how in-depth a survey they could do (not that I disbelieve what you say they want).

It was a survey done within Iraq, in 3 of the major cities (including Baghdad), where they sent people in covertly to query people. The survey was done by a think tank in Europe, and published at : http://news.independent.co.uk/ in December last year. Unfortunately, the link to it goes to a totally different article. (Do they take articles off line after a few months?)

Originally posted by dsm

Do you think this will remain a coalition both during and after the war?

If anything, there will probably be more countries involved after the war, after the 'hard' work has been done. For example, Canada is sending troops into Afghanistan as peace keepers, long after the bulk of the fighting is done.
Originally posted by dsm

They may not take kindly to that. There have been reports that they are massing for a missile attack against Israel with the beginning of the war. That could immediately expand this "short" war into something much broader.

The missle attacks against Israel during gulf war 1 were largely ineffective. Israel didn't respond because they didn't want to upset the Arab members of the coalition.

In the next war, launching Scuds won't lengthen the war at all, since Israel isn't a strategic target. Israel could sit tight again, but even if they responded, the coalition doesn't have a lot of Arabic members that they have wo worry about upsetting.
Originally posted by dsm

Why should North Korea be different? Also, remember that a "short" war may be followed by a relatively long "peace" before things actually settle down. NK probably already realizes that now is the time to act.

North Korea already has nukes, and a much larger army than Saddam. So, military action can result in many more casulties. This means that NK has to be handled differently. It sucks, but the U.S. didn't handle the situation earlier, and now they have to suffer.

For better or worse, NK has China and Japan to worry about, and China may be able to influence North Korea.

Originally posted by dsm

How should the UN be set up?

I have no idea. Perhaps we don't need a U.N. (since they are unwilling to actually enforce the rules they set out, they are worthless.)

Perhaps we can create an organization where only contries with democratic rights can gain membership.

Originally posted by dsm

That's different. There Saddam blew up something that he didn't have a right to.
Saddam doesn't "own" the oil wells. They are a resource owned by the people of Iraq.

[patnray]

Wishful thinking and speculation. There is no rational basis for predicting how a new Iraqi government will look or act once the troops leave (probably not until after the next US elections)...

Might as well consult a psychic.

[DanishDynamite]

Segnosaur:I have no idea. Perhaps we don't need a U.N. (since they are unwilling to actually enforce the rules they set out, they are worthless.)Perhaps not all members of the UN have the same opinion of what "serious consequences" mean. Perhaps you feel that "might makes right" is a good way to secure peace among humans.

Perhaps you don't feel that every politician or political party you have voted for actually came through on their promises. Perhaps you think the democratic system is therefore worthless.
Perhaps we can create an organization where only contries with democratic rights can gain membership. Of course we can. What would be the purpose of such an organization?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Saddam doesn't "own" the oil wells. They are a resource owned by the people of Iraq.


Regardless of how you feel about Saddam and the Iraqi regime, he is the "elected" head of the Iraqi government. As such, he has the authority to make decisions about the resources of Iraq and how to use them in response to an "invasion". Destroying the oil wells may be extreme, but it's not an unprecedented strategy (Napolean's march on Russia).

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Segnosaur:Perhaps not all members of the UN have the same opinion of what "serious consequences" mean. Perhaps you feel that "might makes right" is a good way to secure peace among humans.

Perhaps different countries DO have different opinions as to what the phrase "serious consequences" means. However, the countries opposed to military action haven't really given any other ideas. (Well, lets see, they've suggested doubling the number of weapons inspectors. Would you really call that a consequence?) If France signed something that said 'expect serious consequences', but they don't want military action, then for gods sake, tell us what a 'serious consequence' is! Maybe they'll come up with a magic solution that will deter Iraq from its weapons programs. But they haven't suggested anything.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Perhaps you don't feel that every politician or political party you have voted for actually came through on their promises. Perhaps you think the democratic system is therefore worthless.


But if I elect a politician, he will enact laws that I must follow. If the majority of people don't like what he's done, they will elect someone else, who will pass laws that I must follow. If I do not follow the laws, I know I will be punished, so I follow them.

That's what I'm complaining about. They are failing to act on serious affairs, in this case a resolution that they themselves agreed to. (They also failed to act in Kosovo, because they felt Russia would veto any action.) When faced with situations where the U.N. could help avoid major tragedies, they fail to act.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Of course we can. What would be the purpose of such an organization?
A replacement for the U.N. I'm not that serious about that suggestion (you just suggested how the U.N. could be 'fixed'.) But, I do have concerns about an organization where votes are counted from countries which do not allow their own members to vote, and where Libya heads the human rights organization. Where a dictatorship with a population in the thousands has as much weight as a democracy with close to a billion people.

I don't have a good solution to fix the U.N. I just know where some of its major problems are.

[DanishDynamite]

Segnosaur:Perhaps different countries DO have different opinions as to what the phrase "serious consequences" means. However, the countries opposed to military action haven't really given any other ideas. (Well, lets see, they've suggested doubling the number of weapons inspectors. Would you really call that a consequence?) If France signed something that said 'expect serious consequences', but they don't want military action, then for gods sake, tell us what a 'serious consequence' is! Maybe they'll come up with a magic solution that will deter Iraq from its weapons programs. But they haven't suggested anything. The reason that 1441 was unanomously agreed upon, was of course because the consequences of non-compliance were sufficiently vague. Otherwise France (among others) would never have voted in favor, just as the reason that there are no clear cut paragraph 7 resolutions against Israel is because the US would never have allowed it. Hence, all "clear-cut" resolutions against Israel are paragraph 6 resolutions.
But if I elect a politician, he will enact laws that I must follow. If the majority of people don't like what he's done, they will elect someone else, who will pass laws that I must follow. If I do not follow the laws, I know I will be punished, so I follow them. Exactly. You follow the laws enacted. Even if they weren't the laws you would like to see enacted. That is democracy.
That's what I'm complaining about. They are failing to act on serious affairs, in this case a resolution that they themselves agreed to. (They also failed to act in Kosovo, because they felt Russia would veto any action.) When faced with situations where the U.N. could help avoid major tragedies, they fail to act.I understand your frustration. However, the UN is not created as a "peace-making" organization, but as a peace-keeping organization. Demanding that the UN perform above its mandate, when you feel it should, is understandable, but naive. The UN is only what its member nations and it's charter, make it.
A replacement for the U.N. I'm not that serious about that suggestion (you just suggested how the U.N. could be 'fixed'.) But, I do have concerns about an organization where votes are counted from countries which do not allow their own members to vote, and where Libya heads the human rights organization. Where a dictatorship with a population in the thousands has as much weight as a democracy with close to a billion people. Read the Charter of the UN. The word "Democracy" isn't mentioned once. The word "peace", however, is mentioned often.

I don't have a big problem with Libya chairing the Human Rights Commision, because the post of chairman doesn't provide much influence.
I don't have a good solution to fix the U.N. I just know where some of its major problems are. Halleluyah! I don't want to be condescending, but really: Criticism is easy. Constructive criticism is hard.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Segnosaur: The reason that 1441 was unanomously agreed upon, was of course because the consequences of non-compliance were sufficiently vague. Otherwise France (among others) would never have voted in favor, just as the reason that there are no clear cut paragraph 7 resolutions against Israel is because the US would never have allowed it.
Which brings me back to the original point... what DID france assume would constitute 'serious consequences'. I know the resolution was vague. But, I think that everyone knew what the U.S. had in mind for serious consequences.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I understand your frustration. However, the UN is not created as a "peace-making" organization, but as a peace-keeping organization. Demanding that the UN perform above its mandate, when you feel it should, is understandable, but naive. The UN is only what its member nations and it's charter, make it.
Read the Charter of the UN. The word "Democracy" isn't mentioned once. The word "peace", however, is mentioned often.

I know that the U.N. is a "peace-keeping" organization. And while I didn't know "democracy" wasn't mentioned, it doesn't suppise me. But its failure to be a "peace maker" is part of its failure. So, we have a poor implementation of an organizaiton with poor goals.

(Note: I know the dynamics of the U.N. and the world have changed since the cold war ended... It may have been understandable that the U.N. was paralized when there were 2 superpowers against each other. However, now that the cold war is ended, it would be an ideal time for the U.N. to step up, if it could be trusted.)

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Halleluyah! I don't want to be condescending, but really: Criticism is easy. Constructive criticism is hard.
And that's my chief complaint of the anti-war protesters. They like to chant "No war for oil", but when asked what exactly they should do about Iraq, they say, "er, I don't know... but No War for Oil".

[DanishDynamite]

Segnosaur: Which brings me back to the original point... what DID france assume would constitute 'serious consequences'. I know the resolution was vague. But, I think that everyone knew what the U.S. had in mind for serious consequences.And?
I know that the U.N. is a "peace-keeping" organization. And while I didn't know "democracy" wasn't mentioned, it doesn't suppise me. But its failure to be a "peace maker" is part of its failure. So, we have a poor implementation of an organizaiton with poor goals.No. We have an Earth-spanding organization with limited goals, goals which could be agreed upon, doing its best to fulfill those goals.

In some ways I find your (and others) derision of the UN similar to woo-woos derision of science because science doesn't provide all the answers.
(Note: I know the dynamics of the U.N. and the world have changed since the cold war ended... It may have been understandable that the U.N. was paralized when there were 2 superpowers against each other. However, now that the cold war is ended, it would be an ideal time for the U.N. to step up, if it could be trusted.)I agree that the UN Charter should not be written in stone. It should be ameniable to change. And while I'm no expert on the UN, I expect it is.
And that's my chief complaint of the anti-war protesters. They like to chant "No war for oil", but when asked what exactly they should do about Iraq, they say, "er, I don't know... but No War for Oil". What does this have to do with the UN?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
The missle attacks against Israel during gulf war 1 were largely ineffective. Israel didn't respond because they didn't want to upset the Arab members of the coalition.

In the next war, launching Scuds won't lengthen the war at all, since Israel isn't a strategic target. Israel could sit tight again, but even if they responded, the coalition doesn't have a lot of Arabic members that they have wo worry about upsetting.

My sources inform me that the State Department has recently informed Israel that they should use any and all means at their disposal to defend themselves as they see fit...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Saddam doesn't "own" the oil wells. They are a resource owned by the people of Iraq.

Satellite photos shown on FOXNEWS last night show well fires strategically placed upwind so that the rest of the oil field is obscured by smoke.

Also, according to FOXNEWS, intelligence gathered from inside Iraq has shown that Saddam already has plans in place to mine the oil fields in both northern and southern Iraq in the event of invasion.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Segnosaur: And?
No. We have an Earth-spanding organization with limited goals, goals which could be agreed upon, doing its best to fulfill those goals.

In some ways I find your (and others) derision of the UN similar to woo-woos derision of science because science doesn't provide all the answers.

I wouldn't expect the UN to provide ALL the answers.

The problem is, it seems to be ineffective in providing solutions to the BIG problems (such as genocide).

As for the 'smaller' things that the U.N. does right, is it really the best solution? There are other channels that may be able to accomplish many of the same goals as the U.N.

For example, instead of giving money to the U.N. for charity work, donor countries can suppy the aid themselves. More reliance can be placed on other orgaizations, and parts of the U.N. that focus on specific areas can be made independent bodies. (For example, the World Trade Organisation.) The overhead of the U.N. would be eliminated, thus freeing up money to spend for the countries that really need it. (This is sort of a 'libertarian' idea.)

These are only ideas. I have never sat down and thought about what the U.N. could or should do before. (I knew how it was set up, and the purpose of it, but never bothered to learn the finer details.) Admittedly, the Iraq has caused a lot of people to focus on the U.N shortcomings (either rightly or wrongly.)