The Kofi Annan Hypocrisy Agenda

[Jedi Knight]

Kofi Annan is quite the character. Here is the guy who has a security detail to protect him that is more heavily armed than the President of the United States' security detachment. Annan has teams of covert soldiers carrying MP-4's that surround him if he moves three feet beyond any building or structure that doesn't have a "UN" logo attached to it.

Now, since he loves heavily armed men who protect him day and night, one would probably think that he understands the dangerousness of the world. But no. When it comes to US national security, the icon of the UN has US national security on the back-burner, in favor of Marxist socialist causes that have no basis in reality.

The "king" of the UN stood idly by when France and Germany began their anti-American rhetoric as the United States prepared to deal with the terror state of Iraq. Annan allowed the UN to take a life of its own against the US, tossing aside the potential freedom of the Iraqi people to protect Saddam Hussein.

Do we need an impotent Marxist at the helm of the UN? A man who so quickly walked away from the Iraqi people as Americans prepared to risk their lives to free them?

Now, what is really laughable, is that Annan whined recently that it would be America who would have to pay for all of the Iraqi rebuilding and the UN wouldn't get involved. So in other words, Annan said: "You dare to free the Iraqi people?!? How dare you! The UN will not help those you free!!!"

That is what Annan said.

Then France, unbelievably, stuck their selfish noses in it and said: "We want to come into Iraq and get the rebuilding contracts."

Uh, hello?!?!?!?! France is joking, right?

As the heroic capitalists George W. Bush and Tony Blair give their press conference today, it becomes clear that the UN is a Marxist focus group filled with people who do not understand what the UN charter is about--the very basic foundation of what the democratic ancestors who created the UN envisioned.

Bush is the next Abraham Lincoln and Blair is the next Winston Churchill. By taking action against Iraq, these two heroes have once again carried the world forward in the name of freedom, casting off the evil that penetrated nearly all UN institutions. That evil is closet-Marxism, seeking to grab a global foothold over all the free peoples of the world and a potential terror organization as proved by its willingness to cast off the dreams of freedom that tens of millions of Iraqis had as they looked to the UN to free them.

Annan should bow his head in shame and resign so a man for the vision of global freedom can step forward and take his place.

JK

[Richard G]

We need to kick their asses out of N.Y., and let them go set up shop in some 3rd world toilet.

[Q-Source]

As usual, your comments are....brilliant and insightful :rolleyes:

Seriously Jedi, if Kofi Annan is a closet-marxist, how is it possible that he is still in the UN?

Of course, the USA has to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq, what did you expect? :D

Some of the money that you people pay in taxes will be used to finance Iraq. :D

...and some of your money will go straight to the French companies that get the contracts :D

[Richard G]

There is more than enough oil in Iraq to pay for any, and all reconstruction efforts. And that is what you will see happen.

[Checkmite]

Jedi, perhaps your anger stems from a misunderstanding of UN procedure, and the way things work there. The Secretary-General simply does not have the power to do what you suggest - no matter who he is.

The Secretary-General of the UN does not attend or chair the Security Council (which is where the misunderstandings between France and the US took place). He most often chairs the General Assembly. Aside from what he reads in the ambassadors' reports, the rare occasions when he comes to speak, and from what he may catch on TV, the Secretary-General is mostly unaware of the minutae of particular Security Council sessions, and is typically only concerned with the resolutions that body churns out. There is a "president" of the Security Council who is in charge - but his position is rotated amongst the Security Council nations.

Perhaps a comparison to the US House of Representatives is in order. The Secretary-General is "in charge" of the United Nations as a whole, so to speak - much as the Speaker of the House is "in charge" of the House as a whole. The Security Council would be like one of several House committees, each composed only of certain members. The various committees meet, and the Speaker of the House is informed of any decisions or recommendations they might make - but doesn't always sit through their meetings.

If the representatives from Illinois are really trying to get a bill passed, yet keep getting voted down by the representatives from Montana, the Speaker of the House cannot "punish" or "prevent" the Montanan representatives from doing this. The reps are expected to work things out and come to a comprimise.

The Secretary-General is not a babysitter who keeps after the member nations, nor is he a king who has the authority to punish particular members for not playing along.

And, by the way, the United Nations cannot be forced to pay for the damage of an attack it didn't condone. The U.S. can't blow the hell out of whomever it likes, and then command someone else to clean up the mess - it's just not right. The United Nations has agreed to provide humanitarian aid, but cannot until the war is over.

[Q-Source]

Excellent post Joshua.

You have a very clear idea of what's going on.

Regards,

Q

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Excellent post Joshua.

You have a very clear idea of what's going on.

Regards,

Q

Appeal to popularity logic fallacy.

JK

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Appeal to popularity logic fallacy.


Jedi,

Instead of telling me that I made a logic fallacy, why don't you respond to Joshua's post?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Jedi, perhaps your anger stems from a misunderstanding of UN procedure, and the way things work there. The Secretary-General simply does not have the power to do what you suggest - no matter who he is.

The Secretary-General of the UN does not attend or chair the Security Council (which is where the misunderstandings between France and the US took place). He most often chairs the General Assembly. Aside from what he reads in the ambassadors' reports, the rare occasions when he comes to speak, and from what he may catch on TV, the Secretary-General is mostly unaware of the minutae of particular Security Council sessions, and is typically only concerned with the resolutions that body churns out. There is a "president" of the Security Council who is in charge - but his position is rotated amongst the Security Council nations.

Perhaps a comparison to the US House of Representatives is in order. The Secretary-General is "in charge" of the United Nations as a whole, so to speak - much as the Speaker of the House is "in charge" of the House as a whole. The Security Council would be like one of several House committees, each composed only of certain members. The various committees meet, and the Speaker of the House is informed of any decisions or recommendations they might make - but doesn't always sit through their meetings.

If the representatives from Illinois are really trying to get a bill passed, yet keep getting voted down by the representatives from Montana, the Speaker of the House cannot "punish" or "prevent" the Montanan representatives from doing this. The reps are expected to work things out and come to a comprimise.

The Secretary-General is not a babysitter who keeps after the member nations, nor is he a king who has the authority to punish particular members for not playing along.

And, by the way, the United Nations cannot be forced to pay for the damage of an attack it didn't condone. The U.S. can't blow the hell out of whomever it likes, and then command someone else to clean up the mess - it's just not right. The United Nations has agreed to provide humanitarian aid, but cannot until the war is over.

The power flows in the UN have got nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about UN corruption that is rooted in all its institutions to benefit Marxist causes.

The UN, under the leadership of Annan, tried to subvert US national security policy from day one as the US was dealing with the Iraqi crisis.

Annan makes his position clear when he speaks in the leftist media. He is very open about his Marxist agenda.

The point I was making is that beyond humanitarian actions, the UN is worthless and has no business even commenting on US national security actions. Those nation-states that have not sided with the US are out. They are out. France is out. Germany is out.

When the US finishes the war, the UN will go into Iraq and do the only thing they are capable of doing with any degree of competence--provide humanitarian assistance. The US will foot the bill--I never disputed that--because the US funds almost the entire UN. That is nothing new.

Just don't say Annan and the other Marxists in the UN have valid opinions about US national security. They don't and that is why Annan should resign in shame. The free world needs a capitalist as Secretary General, not a commie.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Jedi,

Instead of telling me that I made a logic fallacy, why don't you respond to Joshua's post?

Well hon, 60 words per minute isn't good enough for you? :D

As the busy-body you are you didn't even give me a chance to reply to Joshua's post before you Ogressed into this thread and started chick trouble with it.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Come on Q. Get all your chick-pals like Renata to come over here and Ogress me. Make your non-contribution.

JK

[Crossbow]

To: Joshua Korosi

That was a great post you wrote about how the UN actually works.

You know your stuff!

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Come on Q. Get all your chick-pals like Renata to come over here and Ogress me. Make your non-contribution.

JK

Did you really read my post in Banter?

I said that I did not agree with her opinion about trolling.
I find your reference to me very offensive and disappointing. I have always treated you with respect even though we have different opinions.

I am going to ask you to do the same.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The power flows in the UN have got nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about UN corruption that is rooted in all its institutions to benefit Marxist causes.

The UN, under the leadership of Annan, tried to subvert US national security policy from day one as the US was dealing with the Iraqi crisis.

Annan makes his position clear when he speaks in the leftist media. He is very open about his Marxist agenda.

The point I was making is that beyond humanitarian actions, the UN is worthless and has no business even commenting on US national security actions. Those nation-states that have not sided with the US are out. They are out. France is out. Germany is out.

When the US finishes the war, the UN will go into Iraq and do the only thing they are capable of doing with any degree of competence--provide humanitarian assistance. The US will foot the bill--I never disputed that--because the US funds almost the entire UN. That is nothing new.

Just don't say Annan and the other Marxists in the UN have valid opinions about US national security. They don't and that is why Annan should resign in shame. The free world needs a capitalist as Secretary General, not a commie.

JK

That the current Secretary-General may have Marxist leanings means nothing. Unlike the President of the United States, the Secretary-General cannot issue "executive orders" or veto resolutions reached by the body. As the chief and most visible representative of the United Nations, Annan has the responsibility first and foremost to speak for peace, regardless of the situation, as that is the spirit and purpose of the United Nations organization. If the Security Council voted to support the war, then such support would be extended regardless of the Secretary-General's personal political or ethical views; and indeed, Annan would have modified his public statements to reflect support. He cannot influence the member nations to do anything or vote any certain way. Having a capitalist as Secretary-General wouldn't have made a difference. The capitalist Secretary-General would still be required to assert peace above all, as the UN charter mandates.

As far as the Secretary-General commenting on or attempting to dictate US national security policy, I don't see where this has happened. Remember, the UN's job is not to advance US national security - that is the US's job. The UN's job is to advance the cause of peace for all of its members - and this may place it at odds with this or that member nation. As far as current events goes, Annan has pleaded for a quick end to the war so that the UN can get to the business of humanitarian assistance - which is, as you say, the only thing the UN can do with consistent success. He has not called on members to "boycott" or "sanction" the United States. He has not taken any measures against the US at all.

That the Iraq situation was brought up in the Security Council is nothing subversive; one way or another, the situation was a threat to the peace of several member nations, which the United Nations is obligated to protect inasmuch as it is able under the charter. Indeed, the US had no problem using this avenue to attempt to achieve its ends; only when it was clear that there was significant opposition did the US withdraw from that channel. That France or Germany refused to jump at the possibility of conflict may relegate them to the realm of insignificance or even give them threat status in your eyes should not reflect on the United Nations as a whole, nor Kofi Annan who couldn't have done anything about it anyway.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


That the current Secretary-General may have Marxist leanings means nothing. Unlike the President of the United States, the Secretary-General cannot issue "executive orders" or veto resolutions reached by the body. As the chief and most visible representative of the United Nations, Annan has the responsibility first and foremost to speak for peace, regardless of the situation, as that is the spirit and purpose of the United Nations organization. If the Security Council voted to support the war, then such support would be extended regardless of the Secretary-General's personal political or ethical views; and indeed, Annan would have modified his public statements to reflect support. He cannot influence the member nations to do anything or vote any certain way. Having a capitalist as Secretary-General wouldn't have made a difference. The capitalist Secretary-General would still be required to assert peace above all, as the UN charter mandates.

As far as the Secretary-General commenting on or attempting to dictate US national security policy, I don't see where this has happened. Remember, the UN's job is not to advance US national security - that is the US's job. The UN's job is to advance the cause of peace for all of its members - and this may place it at odds with this or that member nation. Remember, it was under Kofi Annan's secretaryship that Kuwait obtained succor from the UN when it was invaded in 1990. As far as current events goes, Annan has pleaded for a quick end to the war so that the UN can get to the business of humanitarian assistance - which is, as you say, the only thing the UN can do with consistent success. He has not called on members to "boycott" or "sanction" the United States. He has not taken any measures against the US at all.

That the Iraq situation was brought up in the Security Council is nothing subversive; one way or another, the situation was a threat to the peace of several member nations, which the United Nations is obligated to protect inasmuch as it is able under the charter. Indeed, the US had no problem using this avenue to attempt to achieve its ends; only when it was clear that there was significant opposition did the US withdraw from that channel. That France or Germany refused to jump at the possibility of conflict may relegate them to the realm of insignificance or even give them threat status in your eyes should not reflect on the United Nations as a whole, nor Kofi Annan who couldn't have done anything about it anyway.

Joshua, you must have missed every policy that oozed out of the UN in the last twelve years. You seem to be pretty articulate and I appreciate that, but your understanding of UN politics is radically incorrect.

In 1991, the US formulated a cease-fire plan with Iraq based upon a series of conditions that Iraq was forced to agree to. One of the main conditions was that Iraq disarm those weapons that could threaten other countries, especially his neighbors. The US applied this standard to Iraq because Saddam used agression against his neighbors. We just didn't "show up" in Kuwait and line the Iraqis up and shoot all of them. Iraq caused us to deploy there.

There have been 56 resolutions shot through the UN since then about the Iraqi problem, the most recent being the selection of Hans Blix as Chief Weapons Inspector. Blix was number 25 on a rather lengthy list of those selected to do the job. The first 24 candidates were disapproved by the UN body not because of qualifications to do the job, but because of Iraqi protectionism.

Days before the US penetration of Iraq, Hans Blix strutted around on TV and claimed: "We have found no evidence of any weapons violations". Days later Iraq is firing missiles at Kuwait which completely violate the very standard that Blix was sent to Iraq to evaluate.

In the meantime, France and Germany promised to veto any second resolution on the use of force against Iraq without thinking clearly about the implications to global national security. Annan was right behind the rhetoric, threatening the United States that the UN would "pull out" of any action against the Iraqi leader.

The UN is supposed to infuence peace. I completely agree with you. Now tell me, after 56 failed UN resolutions to put Iraq's feet to the fire regarding their weapons, what else could the UN possibly do to prove they are a waste of resources? Annan failed. You say that he should sit back and act like a "secretary general". That is laughable. That is advising for the "status quo".

The United States had twelve years of the status quo. We had it forced down our throats. Twelve years and the UN couldn't do anything about Iraq because they didn't want to take any action against Iraq. Iraq is a utopia socialist state, the product of the global UN agenda. Attacking Iraq is attacking the very system that the UN elite wants to put in place globally.

As Secretary General of the United Nations, Annan can certainly take a position and his position should have been to stand with the United States. When you are put in place to lead, either lead or get out of the way. There was no "peace" flowing out of Iraq with the current UN policy. The UN policy with Iraq was a perversion and a failed policy. It was the protection of a terror state.

We can look at a state like Iraq and want "peace" and not attack it, but is that peace? Is it? Is it peace when we do not take action against agressor states and allow them to mass-produce weapons of mass destruction while they interact with Al Qaeda?

Annan's policy against Iraq was simple. Ignore Saddam and hopefully he would go away. That was the UN policy.

In the real world, you do not ignore men like Saddam Hussein. When you ignore them, you appear to be weak to men like him and they will cause more wars and destruction. They will undermine peace. The UN is for creating peace. The US action in Iraq is creating peace by taking direct military action against a regime that is anti-peace.

That is why Annan has to go. He is in the way of a peaceful world and doesn't understand the global security dilemma. The leader of the UN can't ignore regimes like Iraq while they churn out ballistic missiles, nerve agent and nuclear weapons.

To do so, is that "peace"? What did the 56 resolutions against Iraq in the last twelve years do for "peace"?

JK

[Checkmite]

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter how much Annan is "against" the US-led war in Iraq - he simply does not have the authority to commit the UN to a course of action. He cannot begin a war against Iraq. He cannot stop a war against Iraq. He cannot "pull the UN out of a military action" against Iraq. He does not make policy for the UN. The Secretary-General cannot make policy for the UN.

Certainly, Annan can take a "position" on an issue...but that position is not official UN policy, and is absolutely meaningless. You seem to regard the Secretary-General as some kind of "ruler" or "president" who can command, and that's simply not true. The UN's policy may have been to "ignore" Saddam - but that isn't because of Annan, it's because the majority of the member nations chose that policy. In order to get that policy "changed", you would have to change the opinions of the governments of the member countries.

As far as your opinions as to Saddam's being a threat to peace, or military action being the only possibly way - I am not arguing the politics of the issue. My point is, you are blaming the Secretary-General for doing and not doing things that are simply not in his authority to do or not-do.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
You still don't get it. It doesn't matter how much Annan is "against" the US-led war in Iraq - he simply does not have the authority to commit the UN to a course of action. He cannot begin a war against Iraq. He cannot stop a war against Iraq. He cannot "pull the UN out of a military action" against Iraq. He does not make policy for the UN. The Secretary-General cannot make policy for the UN.

Certainly, Annan can take a "position" on an issue...but that position is not official UN policy, and is absolutely meaningless. You seem to regard the Secretary-General as some kind of "ruler" or "president" who can command, and that's simply not true. The UN's policy may have been to "ignore" Saddam - but that isn't because of Annan, it's because the majority of the member nations chose that policy. In order to get that policy "changed", you would have to change the opinions of the governments of the member countries.

As far as your opinions as to Saddam's being a threat to peace, or military action being the only possibly way - I am not arguing the politics of the issue. My point is, you are blaming the Secretary-General for doing and not doing things that are simply not in his authority to do or not-do.

I am not blaming Annan for being who he is. He is an appeaser of Marxism and socialism. He is the secretary general of the United Nations. He could stand in front of the world body, which he does regularly, and explain the justness of the US action. He has yet to do so. He could explain why it is happening so that peace can be secured.

You are trying to shelter him unnaturally with your continued references to how informal he is as a leader. Annan is not an informal leader. He is a very formal leader, but his selective influence works against US national security policy. The United Nations postured against the United States as it sought to finalize dealing with Iraq recently and that was a very grave mistake.

The point to all this is that the UN does not have the will to protect freedom and manage global threats. Annan knows better than that. He should simply know better. Global history proves time and again that when you appease dangerous megalomanics like Saddam Hussein, peace and security begins to unravel globally. Fifty-six resolutions at the UN couldn't resolve the Iraqi problem in twelve years, and the secretary general had nothing to say on behalf of the United States as we sent our boys over there to clean that mess up. It is outrageous.

It is time for some leadership changes at the UN because it is an impotent organization. I say that because I do "get it".

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

It is time for some leadership changes at the UN because it is an impotent organization. I say that because I do "get it".

JK

Ah, the crux of the matter. You want the UN to be an organization with more "bite", or power to enforce its own resolutions.

Let's play an hypothetical game. Pretend that the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution that small firearms (pistols and sawed-off shot guns, for instance), with the exception of those owned by militaries and police forces, are banned from all member states, and any such weapons as exist must be destroyed. Should the UN be able to force the President - and through him, the People - of the United States to disarm? If the United States refuses, would military action be justified to enforce the UN resolution?

[Crossbow]

I am always amazed at the comments made by those who do not understand how the UN functions.

They seem to think that the UN has the power to collect its own funds and raise its own armies and do whatever it wants to do whenever it wants to; but it just ain't so.

The UN is dependent upon donations from member nations. It does not collect its own taxes nor raise its own funds.

The UN Forces are staffed by military forces from the member states who have not relinquished command of these forces. The member states have to power to countermand any UN orders and they can pack-up and go home whenever they like.

The UN makes all of its decisions through consensus since it has no enforcement ability of its own. The real reason why most countries adhere to UN Resolutions, is because it is in their best interest to comply, it is not because of any UN enforcement powers.

Ugh!

Some people have no appreciation for facts and logic and they just do not get it.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Bush is the next Abraham Lincoln and Blair is the next Winston Churchill.

JK

Please give a detailed outline of your thesis that demonstrates that:

- the personal lives and careers of
- events and challenges in the lives of
- qualities and character of
- folk stories and myths attributed to

Lincoln and Churchill parallel Bush and Blair respectively.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Ah, the crux of the matter. You want the UN to be an organization with more "bite", or power to enforce its own resolutions.

Let's play an hypothetical game. Pretend that the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution that small firearms (pistols and sawed-off shot guns, for instance), with the exception of those owned by militaries and police forces, are banned from all member states, and any such weapons as exist must be destroyed. Should the UN be able to force the President - and through him, the People - of the United States to disarm? If the United States refuses, would military action be justified to enforce the UN resolution?

The UN formed to create peace. All the UN needs is a secretary general that has the balls to tell a country that was ordered by the UN 56 times over 12 years to disarm or face war.

Annan couldn't get the job done. Marxist appeasement.

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The UN formed to create peace. All the UN needs is a secretary general that has the balls to tell a country that was ordered by the UN 56 times over 12 years to disarm or face war.

Annan couldn't get the job done. Marxist appeasement.

JK

Annan didn't have the authority to give such an order. Rule by democratic committee.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I am always amazed at the comments made by those who do not understand how the UN functions.

They seem to think that the UN has the power to collect its own funds and raise its own armies and do whatever it wants to do whenever it wants to; but it just ain't so.

The UN is dependent upon donations from member nations. It does not collect its own taxes nor raise its own funds.

The UN Forces are staffed by military forces from the member states who have not relinquished command of these forces. The member states have to power to countermand any UN orders and they can pack-up and go home whenever they like.

The UN makes all of its decisions through consensus since it has no enforcement ability of its own. The real reason why most countries adhere to UN Resolutions, is because it is in their best interest to comply, it is not because of any UN enforcement powers.

Ugh!

Some people have no appreciation for facts and logic and they just do not get it.

I worked for the UN in humanitarian actions--as a warrior, of course.

The UN has one mission--the implementation of peace even if there needs to be war to achieve that peace. That is why the UN Security Council formed institutionally. The problem is that the UN Security Council has been perverted. Peace is not gained via appeasement. That is the flaw of the UN body as it seeks to redefine itself into a Marxist global leadership cell.

56 UN resolutions flowed through the UN and Annan has been negligent on his watch and caused the new Iraqi war. If he would have rallied UN support, instead of rallying appeasement, Iraq may not have had direct combat action taken against it.

So my question to you is what did the 56 UN resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm over the last twelve years do for peace? What?!

You and Joshua conveniently ignore that truth.

Not a problem. Annan needs to be replaced by someone who is genuinely concerned with international security and the rights and freedom of men, not Marxist socialist slavery and appeasement.

JK

[Checkmite]

What if Annan had told Iraq to disarm or face war...but when the time came, the Security Council voted against war anyway? Annan would come off looking pretty stupid.

Besides, do you think Annan "rallying" for war would've changed France's and Germany's opinion on the issue?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Annan didn't have the authority to give such an order. Rule by democratic committee.

That is BS. Annan told the United States that we were "on our own" with the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. You know, "payback" for acting on the 56 failed resolutions on Annan's watch. That is laughable. What, is Annan really that stupid to think we would have waited another 12 years and 112 resolutions?

So Annan is spineless when it comes to advocating what needs to be done against dangerous nation-states that go against peace and when Annan doesn't get his way he whines and threatens to ensure the UN won't assist those that seek to implement peace.

See the leftist hypocrisy in your definition of UN purpose?

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That is BS. Annan told the United States that we were "on our own" with the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. You know, "payback" for acting on the 56 failed resolutions on Annan's watch.


Nice spin.

No, Annan has told the United States that he will not allow the UN humanitarian workers to enter Iraq until the war has ended. What good is the aid if all the UN workers get blown to pieces in the crossfire?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
What if Annan had told Iraq to disarm or face war...but when the time came, the Security Council voted against war anyway? Annan would come off looking pretty stupid.

Besides, do you think Annan "rallying" for war would've changed France's and Germany's opinion on the issue?

No, Annan should have done the right thing and the US would have stood with him. It doesn't matter what the UN Security Council votes. You have countries on the council that have always been mortal enemies of the United States since the UN was formed.

What Annan needed to do was express will. Votes are meaningless if you do not have the political will to stand behind what needs to be done.

Lead, follow or get out of the way. That is what happened with the Iraqi crisis. 56 resolutions went through the UN. The US asked for leadership. None come from Annan. So then the US asked for help. We got that help from coalition allies who understand the dangerousness of the Hussein regime.

Annan didn't lead and he didn't follow because he had to get out of the way. That was the third phase of his failed leadership. He got out of the way because the US laughed at his impotence and brought war to disarm Iraq. The US is merely acting on the 56 resolutions that Annan lacked the spine to enforce.

Annan had no choice but to get out of the way, because real leadership stepped up. It would be nice to have some of that leadership at the secretary general position, but that's life.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi



Nice spin.

No, Annan has told the United States that he will not allow the UN humanitarian workers to enter Iraq until the war has ended. What good is the aid if all the UN workers get blown to pieces in the crossfire?

Annan said the US is on its own. "Payback" for freeing the Iraqis.

Explain to me how the UN didn't force this war between Iraq and the United States under Annan's leadership. There were 56 resolutions weighed against Iraq.

What was Annan thinking?!? :eek: Is Annan working to subvert the national security of the free world? I think he is.

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No, Annan should have done the right thing and the US would have stood with him. It doesn't matter what the UN Security Council votes. You have countries on the council that have always been mortal enemies of the United States since the UN was formed.

Jedi, you know that's complete nonsense. What do you mean, "it doesn't matter what the Security Council votes"? If the council votes "no war", then Annan can "stand with" the United States all he wants - the UN will not go to war. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


...

Explain to me how the UN didn't force this war between Iraq and the United States under Annan's leadership. There were 56 resolutions weighed against Iraq.

...

JK

Excuse me, but where did you get that figure for the 56 UN Resolutions you keep mentioning?

I went to the UN web site and counted about 18.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


...

56 UN resolutions flowed through the UN and Annan has been negligent on his watch and caused the new Iraqi war. If he would have rallied UN support, instead of rallying appeasement, Iraq may not have had direct combat action taken against it.

...

JK

OK then JK, I guess that is your real issue.

If Kofi Annan would have been willing to attack Iraq some years ago,
Then the current war would no be happening now.

Perhaps you are right.
Perhaps you are wrong.

Since you are so good at following current affairs and you are so knowledge about history please check for yourself to see if someone who would do what you request would be elected as the UN Secretary-General.

Could such a person be elected?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Jedi, you know that's complete nonsense. What do you mean, "it doesn't matter what the Security Council votes"? If the council votes "no war", then Annan can "stand with" the United States all he wants - the UN will not go to war. Why is this so hard to understand?

It comes back to doing what is right. Did the US go to war without the blessing of the UN security council? Yep. Why is that?

Could it be that the UN Security Council could work against US national security interests? Yep. Why would they do that? Could it be that they want to see this country destroyed? Yep.

That is why it was important for Annan to say one sentence expressing support for the US but he was spineless.

What has the UN done for "peace" in Iraq?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow


OK then JK, I guess that is your real issue.

If Kofi Annan would have been willing to attack Iraq some years ago,
Then the current war would no be happening now.

Perhaps you are right.
Perhaps you are wrong.

Since you are so good at following current affairs and you are so knowledge about history please check for yourself to see if someone who would do what you request would be elected as the UN Secretary-General.

Could such a person be elected?

That doesn't matter. What matters is doing what is right. I could care less about elections. That is selfish.

The UN played games for twelve years with Iraq under Annan's leadership. US and coalition troops are now fighting for their very lives there trying to free the Iraqi people.

Something broken in the UN caused that to happen. It needs to be fixed.

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That doesn't matter. What matters is doing what is right. I could care less about elections. That is selfish.

The UN played games for twelve years with Iraq under Annan's leadership. US and coalition troops are now fighting for their very lives there trying to free the Iraqi people.

Something broken in the UN caused that to happen. It needs to be fixed.

JK

12 years huh?

Well, I find that quite interesting since Annan has only held his current job for about six years and four months!

Here is a hint: his title became offical on January 1, 1997.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow


12 years huh?

Well, I find that quite interesting since Annan has only held his current job for about six years and four months!

Here is a hint: his title became offical on January 1, 1997.

lol, you had to one-star my thread. That will "fix it".

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


lol, you had to one-star my thread. That will "fix it".

JK

One-star your thread? I take you are referring to the thread rating system.

If so, then do not worry about me because I have never rated a thread. Sometimes I cast a vote in the polls, but I have never rated a thread.

By the way, did you really believe that Kofi Annan had been in charge of the UN for the last 12 years?

And what about those 56 resolutions you mentioned? Do you have any more data on those?

Thanks much!

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Please give a detailed outline of your thesis that demonstrates that:

- the personal lives and careers of
- events and challenges in the lives of
- qualities and character of
- folk stories and myths attributed to

Lincoln and Churchill parallel Bush and Blair respectively.

How about it JK? You up for the challenge of defending the claim you made?

[DanishDynamite]

JK vs JK. Amusing.

I admire your tenacity Joshua, but it should be clear to you by now that the Martian has a shield impervious to facts. Any fact which doesn't fit in his worldview, simply doesn't get through. Impressive defensive capabilities.

Unfortunately for him, he has no offensive capabilities. Nothing but blanks being fired. While skimming through this thread, I counted at least 3 Martian "facts" which weren't. And I'm not counting the blanks you pointed out.

Like "Frasier", I admire the Martian's ability to entertain, simply by being foolish.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
JK vs JK. Amusing.

I admire your tenacity Joshua, but it should be clear to you by now that the Martian has a shield impervious to facts. Any fact which doesn't fit in his worldview, simply doesn't get through. Impressive defensive capabilities.

Unfortunately for him, he has no offensive capabilities. Nothing but blanks being fired. While skimming through this thread, I counted at least 3 Martian "facts" which weren't. And I'm not counting the blanks you pointed out.

Like "Frasier", I admire the Martian's ability to entertain, simply by being foolish.

Well leftist, what have you contributed? In fact, what has your country contributed? Nada.

The UN failed...again. Yet again. Annan should resign. Twelve years of Iraqi protectionism by UN Marxists capped off with an unqualified chief weapons inspector.

Somebody tell me what the UN did for "peace" in Iraq. I have asked that question for the entire length of this thread and everyone is avoiding it. What has the UN done for peace in Iraq? :eek:

JK

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well leftist, what have you contributed? In fact, what has your country contributed? Nada.

The UN failed...again. Yet again. Annan should resign. Twelve years of Iraqi protectionism by UN Marxists capped off with an unqualified chief weapons inspector.

Somebody tell me what the UN did for "peace" in Iraq. I have asked that question for the entire length of this thread and everyone is avoiding it. What has the UN done for peace in Iraq? :eek:

JK Well, rightist, what have you contributed? In fact, what has your country contributed?

What are you talking about? Contributions to what?

Regarding the UN, Joshua has already pointed out your misunderstandings.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Well, rightist, what have you contributed? In fact, what has your country contributed?

What are you talking about? Contributions to what?

Regarding the UN, Joshua has already pointed out your misunderstandings.

Joshua is very articulate but I derailed his pro-UN view on the matter using facts.

You still haven't answered my question, and I will even include the leftist EU now. What has the EU and the UN done for "peace" in Iraq?

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Joshua is very articulate but I derailed his pro-UN view on the matter using facts.

You still haven't answered my question, and I will even include the leftist EU now. What has the EU and the UN done for "peace" in Iraq?

JK

You didn't derail anything. You're still all mad at Annan for not using this imagined power you just dreamed up for him. It's like you completely ignored my posts.

Have you heard of the "Oil for Food" program?

And by the way, Denmark has committed naval and medical resources to the war.

(Edited to add:) For the record...I'm not "pro-UN" or "pro-anything" in regards to this argument. I'm simply correcting your serious misunderstanding of how the UN works.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


You didn't derail anything. You're still all mad at Annan for not using this imagined power you just dreamed up for him. It's like you completely ignored my posts.

Have you heard of the "Oil for Food" program?

And by the way, Denmark has committed naval and medical resources to the war.

Imaginary power? Is Annan psychic?

I am not asking Annan to be psychic, just for him to say he works for the UN, that is he a man for peace, and when a country ignores 56 UN resolutions to disarm he has the balls to step up and confront that country. That is what his job is.

Oh, his job is also not to tell the United States that if we attack Iraq that the UN won't help Iraq with humanitarian issues after we disarm them. It was easier for Annan to deny help (to the US), while protecting Iraq. Plus Annan meeting with Jesse Jackson to promote a "truce" in Iraq (now that is laughable) is pretty ridiculous also.

So tell me Josh, what has the UN and Annan done for Iraqi "peace"? (5th time I have asked maybe?)

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Imaginary power? Is Annan psychic?

I am not asking Annan to be psychic, just for him to say he works for the UN, that is he a man for peace, and when a country ignores 56 UN resolutions to disarm he has the balls to step up and confront that country. That is what his job is.

There's where your stubborn misunderstanding is. That is not his job. His job is to say "we won't go to war" when the Security Council says "we won't go to war". It is the Security Council's job to confront a country who refuses to obey. The SG cannot threaten war if the Security Council votes for peace, because the Security Council commands him, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Oh, his job is also not to tell the United States that if we attack Iraq that the UN won't help Iraq with humanitarian issues after we disarm them. It was easier for Annan to deny help (to the US), while protecting Iraq. Plus Annan meeting with Jesse Jackson to promote a "truce" in Iraq (now that is laughable) is pretty ridiculous also.

Annan has done no such thing. He has specifically stated that the UN will provide humanitarian aid, but only after the war is over - and that until then, the US is responsible for providing aid in territory it controls.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
So tell me Josh, what has the UN and Annan done for Iraqi "peace"? (5th time I have asked maybe?)

JK

Again, ever heard of the Food for Oil program?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


There's where your stubborn misunderstanding is. That is not his job. His job is to say "we won't go to war" when the Security Council says "we won't go to war". It is the Security Council's job to confront a country who refuses to obey. The SG cannot threaten war if the Security Council votes for peace, because the Security Council commands him, not the other way around.

Annan has done no such thing. He has specifically stated that the UN will provide humanitarian aid, but only after the war is over - and that until then, the US is responsible for providing aid in territory it controls.

Again, ever heard of the Food for Oil program?

I am not being stubborn. For you to claim that I am being stubborn would require me in some way to ignore facts--and you have presented no facts to support your individual claim about the purpose of the UN.

To you, the Secretary General of the UN is but a statue that cannot comment on crisis which will leads to war. Joshua, that is a ridiculous position. So far, and the fact that we have had generally tolerant discussions in the past, I have not disposed of your argument like I would someone else. But please do not patronize me.

Here is the purpose of the UN, an agreement made by men who were part of the Greatest Generation:

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
--to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,

*and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,

*and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS
*to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours,

*and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security,

*and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,

*and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Now, taking from the very foundation of the purpose of the United Nations, it is clear that the United Nations is currently functioning in disregard of its own charter.

*to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours

Iraq invaded its peaceful neighbor Kuwait in August, 1991, creating a security condition that required the United States to deploy combat forces to Saudi Arabia and other locations to repel the hostile invader.

*and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security

This is where Annan allowed a purposeful breakdown in the positive global order. 56 UN resolutions were passed against Iraq since the Persian Gulf War, over a period of twelve years.

Annan's weakness was allowing the status quo, an untenable position when involving the national security interests of the west.

56 UN resolutions had the opposite effect of maintaining peace and security when dealing with Iraq, because it showed that even though Saddam Hussein was negligent as a leader of a nation-state, it allowed him to operate against the UN purpose and allowed him to build weapons which were in violation of the initial surrender agreements and UN agreements that ended the first Persian Gulf War.

If you capture a car thief and release them and tell them not to do it again, and the thief steals again and each time they steal you give them a "resolution" to protest their theft, shouldn't they have been stopped before 56 cars were stolen?

*and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest

The United States has been sucked into two world wars last century plus many other armed conflicts. In every one of those conflicts the United States has never held the real-estate that it captured in war, minus the Phillippines. The United States is the largest contributor of humanitarian aid and other aid to the United Nations. The peoples of the United States are free peoples, the freest in the world, the ultimate purpose of the United Nations for the global community.

...and yet, Annan rejected every effort by the United States to resolve the Iraqi question peacefully. Annan made no effort to unify the UN against the dangerous nation-state of Iraq, the primary purpose of the Secretary General position. Annan is not a statue when it suits leftist causes. Annan has a responsibility to keep the UN participants aware of crisis that can propel the world into war, and certainly nations into war. That is where Annan has failed.

Then, after the US was forced to form its own coalition since the UN Security Council was working in opposite of those things the UN charter demands, Annan whined and said he would take direct action to prevent the US form receiving UN assistance in Iraq and that it would be thrown upon the United States to deal with.

It is true that the Oil For Food Program has been restarted, but that is not true UN assistance and is merely a striving attempt to enforce one of the many failed 56 resolutions that caused the new war. Annan doesn't really understand the purpose of the UN. Iraq is the classic example of the nation-state that the UN collective wants to see the charter of the UN mandate fulfilled--freedom of people, walking forward together in purpose to disarm dangerous threats to global peace, and ending an ongoing humanitarian crisis in that country.

Under Annan's leadership, the UN has failed in every respect of the UN charter. It is not asking Annan to declare war or ask for war, but merely asking him to stand up in from of the UN body and state the purpose of the UN. The UN charter speaks for itself. If Annan would simply speak the charter, it becomes clear that the United States is not only operating within the spirit of the founders of the UN, but the United States should be receiving unaminous support from UN countries who are signatories to the charter.

*and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples

What "machinery" has Annan implemented for Iraq? What has the UN done for "peace" in Iraq? You continue to ignore that question because the very question totally undermines your position.

The United States is now operating with a coalition of 48 countries against Iraq, more than what the US accrued during the first Persian Gulf War. The US has done this without the assistance of Annan and the UN, but the US, as a responsible global partner, still attempts to approach the UN, hoping that the UN recognizes its shortcomings and the UN wandering away from the very charter that is the cornerstone to its purpose.

This is, of course, a leadership problem at the UN that could be fixed if Anann resigns and someone who understands the purpose of the UN takes the helm.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Now, what is Mr. Annan's responsibility (http://www.un.org/Overview/SG/sg_func.html)?

From the UN site itself:

The Secretary-General is described by the Charter as the "chief administrative officer" of the Organization. He is, of course, much more than that.

Oh, so he isn't a "statue" (unless perhaps it suits him to be for some Marxist cause, perhaps?)

The Charter empowers him to bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in his opinion, threatens international peace and security. It also calls upon him to perform "such other functions" as are entrusted to him by the Security Council, the General Assembly and the other main United Nations organs. Thus the Secretary-General functions as both spokesperson for the international community and servant of the Member States--roles that would seem to guarantee some amount of friction. Far from constricting his work, however, these broad outlines grant the Secretary-General an extraordinary mandate for action.

Well gosh, Joshua, the UN.org site this information comes from says that: "Thus the Secretary-General functions as both spokesperson for the international community and servant of the Member States--roles that would seem to guarantee some amount of friction. Far from constricting his work, however, these broad outlines grant the Secretary-General an extraordinary mandate for action."

That is the exact opposite of what you are claiming of Annan, Joshua. Or are you just saying that about Annan because I am critiquing him?

Regardless, I am right. I would appreciate your acknowledgement of the fact.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Joshua said:You're still all mad at Annan for not using this imagined power you just dreamed up for him.--the crux of Joshua's argument.

The UN website says:Far from constricting his work, however, these broad outlines grant the Secretary-General an extraordinary mandate for action.

I just want to state that I am not mad at Mr. Annan, I just find him to be highly unqualfied for his current position. He has not functioned within the UN charter. He has not performed within his position's UN-defined "extraordinary mandate for action".

He has walked away from the purpose of the UN and assisted in the escalation of tension which caused the United States to be forced to take military action against the nation-state of Iraq. He failed to take his authority in "extraordinary mandate for action", and instead seated the status quo which led to an irretrievable international security crisis for the west.

Joshua, are any more comments needed?

JK

[DrBenway]

JK, I think you are arguing that Annan ought to use his role as Secretary General of the UN as a kind of bully pulpit. Although Annan has no real power to enforce his will, he ought to take a stand in favor of action against Iraq. His voice might have some persuasive power, if it doesn't have real power.

Have I got that right?

Not being a U.N. expert, I now wonder:

1. Is there precedent for the UN Sec. Gen. using his position as a bully pulpit?
2. Is the UN Sec. Gen. restricted to a position of neutrality regarding highly contraversial issues?

JK, I agree with you, that Saddam has to go. I think the case against Saddam is quite strong. Obviously, there are those who feel differently. You would like for those others to wake up. You'd like them to see the benefit associated with removing Saddam's regime by force. I feel the same way.

JK, I think the burden is upon us, the people who feel action against Saddam is justified. It's our burden to persuade others that our position is correct. If people aren't persuaded, we first have to look at our arguments and our rhetoric, to see if our message is being properly understood. Maybe there are some problems with our argument, and that's why it's not convincing other people. Maybe our rhetoric is failing to convey the spirit of our intentions. Maybe we need to learn a little more about our listeners, so we don't use words or gestures that give the wrong idea in other cultures (e.g., "crusade").

Perhaps Annan is not convinced that military action against Iraq at this time is the right thing to do. If that's the case, he's in no position to stand up for our cause.

Persuasion is an art. When trying to persuade someone, it helps to try to stand in the other's shoes, to see the world from his vantage point. If you can appeal to what your audience values and needs, your message will have greater impact.

One thing most people want is respect. A lot of people overseas don't like our president because they feel he does not respect their views. That's disturbing to me. I fault our president for failing to provide a message of partnership and caring to the rest of the world.

The pen truly is mightier than the sword, and our president no have way with pen.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DrBenway
JK, I think you are arguing that Annan ought to use his role as Secretary General of the UN as a kind of bully pulpit. Although Annan has no real power to enforce his will, he ought to take a stand in favor of action against Iraq. His voice might have some persuasive power, if it doesn't have real power.

Have I got that right?

Not being a U.N. expert, I now wonder:

1. Is there precedent for the UN Sec. Gen. using his position as a bully pulpit?
2. Is the UN Sec. Gen. restricted to a position of neutrality regarding highly contraversial issues?

JK, I agree with you, that Saddam has to go. I think the case against Saddam is quite strong. Obviously, there are those who feel differently. You would like for those others to wake up. You'd like them to see the benefit associated with removing Saddam's regime by force. I feel the same way.

JK, I think the burden is upon us, the people who feel action against Saddam is justified. It's our burden to persuade others that our position is correct. If people aren't persuaded, we first have to look at our arguments and our rhetoric, to see if our message is being properly understood. Maybe there are some problems with our argument, and that's why it's not convincing other people. Maybe our rhetoric is failing to convey the spirit of our intentions. Maybe we need to learn a little more about our listeners, so we don't use words or gestures that give the wrong idea in other cultures (e.g., "crusade").

Perhaps Annan is not convinced that military action against Iraq at this time is the right thing to do. If that's the case, he's in no position to stand up for our cause.

Persuasion is an art. When trying to persuade someone, it helps to try to stand in the other's shoes, to see the world from his vantage point. If you can appeal to what your audience values and needs, your message will have greater impact.

One thing most people want is respect. A lot of people overseas don't like our president because they feel he does not respect their views. That's disturbing to me. I fault our president for failing to provide a message of partnership and caring to the rest of the world.

The pen truly is mightier than the sword, and our president no have way with pen.

Again, I simply want to see the UN Secretary General function in his position in the way his positon is mandated. The "bully pulpit" term was created to reflect how Presidents in the United States use the media to express their views and motivate populations to put pressure on other elected officials. That is not what I am talking about.

The Secretary General of the UN has the authority to stand up in front of the world body at the UN and use his UN-defined "extraordinary mandate for action" to inform member states of global security risks and desired changes of behavior. That is his job.

Annan has failed in that regard and his silence caused the new war against Iraq, and potentially an expansion of that war into Syria and Iran. It is all the UN's fault this has happened, under Annan's leadership (lack thereof)...

JK

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The Secretary General of the UN has the authority to stand up in front of the world body at the UN and use his UN-defined "extraordinary mandate for action" to inform member states of global security risks and desired changes of behavior.

OK. So you're not necessarily faulting Annan for his behavior at the moment; you're faulting him for not speaking up about the risks associated with failing to act against Iraq all along, over the course of his tenure.

I don't know enough about what Annan has said or done in this regard to pass judgment myself.

But perhaps in support of your position, there is evidence that Saddam stopped taking the U.N. seriously some time ago. Below is an excerpt from a speech Saddam gave 1/6/00. The original web page has been removed, but google has a cached copy at http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:wdprUNfbDW0C:www.uruklink.net/iraq/e2000/e6jan2000.htm+saddam+pledge+souls+to+you&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I've read a few of Saddam's speeches over the past few days. He is a serious windbag. He uses repetition and vague phrasing to excess. Makes him a dreary read. So, just to underscore his point (which might get lost as the hypnosis takes effect):

Saddam argues that Iraq had been given a choice. On the one hand, Iraq could have integrity and the international embargo; on the other hand Iraq could have a loss of integrity, loss of cultural identity, slavery to the U.S., and a lifting of the embargo. Iraq was right to chose the former. Why? Because Saddam was wise enough to know that politicians don't keep promises. With time, promises are forgotten. Already, the embargo was eroding, although Iraq had not compromised its position. Best of both worlds.

Brothers,

After this brief talk on this highborn occasion of ours, some of you may ask: What about politics and politicians? What about the embargo and those who impose it? How should it and what must be done for the present and future?

Here I will say, briefly too-- for we have already discussed this in details and elaborated on it on occasions other than this-- that very early, since 1991 and 1992, we have been reiterating that we should not expect the powers of evil and vice to fulfil a pledge or keep a promise. Pledge-fulfilling and promise-keeping are not characteristics of them. They have no other characteristics but treachery, aggression, breaking promises, cancelling covenants and doing everything that is vile and injurious. We have said it with certainty that the embargo will not be lifted by a Security Council resolution but will corrode by itself. Even if a Security Council resolution will one day be taken in this respect, after all evil attempts have failed and all nests of poisonous wasps have been shattered before the Will of the strong, faithful, truthful, just and honest Iraq-- such a resolution will come as an expression of this failure and not as the fulfilment of a promise or the discharge of an obligation.

This has become obvious to you generally and in detail after all that has passed by you and all that you have passed through.

As for now, it pleases us to say to you briefly and without going into details, that the stage of embargo corrosion is no longer something which we predict or wait for. It has actually started, thanks, after thanking the Almighty God, to your great fortitude and endurance. Therefore, and after having dismissed what is false in what has been presented to us as hopes to build upon, we have nothing before us but to keep on the path we have taken and cling to the spirit of fortitude and endurance we have been upholding in our state of becoming. Thus, God may grant us a great victory on every day and every while. On each flagstaff of this victory you will have a lofty banner of honour and an additional asset of potency to lead life successfully and to keep you the foremost model for the nation and for humanity at large.

In the field of politics and politicians, we say that, originally, we did not start with politics; rather, we started with principles. Principles have their own way, which is one of strife and struggle. Their basic means is justice, and their end, after pleasing God, is to please the People and the Nation. Therefore, we have never had any role in the world of acrobatic acts on tight ropes, and we have never participated and will never participate in the slave market of this world, bargaining away honour, virtue and the interests of the people and the nation.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DrBenway


OK. So you're not necessarily faulting Annan for his behavior at the moment; you're faulting him for not speaking up about the risks associated with failing to act against Iraq all along, over the course of his tenure.

I don't know enough about what Annan has said or done in this regard to pass judgment myself.

But perhaps in support of your position, there is evidence that Saddam stopped taking the U.N. seriously some time ago. Below is an excerpt from a speech Saddam gave 1/6/00. The original web page has been removed, but google has a cached copy at http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:wdprUNfbDW0C:www.uruklink.net/iraq/e2000/e6jan2000.htm+saddam+pledge+souls+to+you&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I've read a few of Saddam's speeches over the past few days. He is a serious windbag. He uses repetition and vague phrasing to excess. Makes him a dreary read. So, just to underscore his point (which might get lost as the hypnosis takes effect):

Saddam argues that Iraq had been given a choice. On the one hand, Iraq could have integrity and the international embargo; on the other hand Iraq could have a loss of integrity, loss of cultural identity, slavery to the U.S., and a lifting of the embargo. Iraq was right to chose the former. Why? Because Saddam was wise enough to know that politicians don't keep promises. With time, promises are forgotten. Already, the embargo was eroding, although Iraq had not compromised its position. Best of both worlds.



The point of this thread that I made was to point out that the senior UN leadership created the conditions which caused this war.

Then guys like Joshua stepped forward with the ridiculous claim that Annan was a "powerless" man regarding Iraq. That was laughable and needed to be addressed.

Then you said: "Saddam argues that Iraq had been given a choice. On the one hand, Iraq could have integrity and the international embargo; on the other hand Iraq could have a loss of integrity, loss of cultural identity, slavery to the U.S., and a lifting of the embargo. Iraq was right to chose the former. Why? Because Saddam was wise enough to know that politicians don't keep promises. With time, promises are forgotten. Already, the embargo was eroding, although Iraq had not compromised its position. Best of both worlds."

I completely agree. When you have an impotent organization like the UN ignoring their very charter, why on Earth wouldn't Saddam select the "endless" embargo?

The embargo was one of many tools designed to gain Iraqi compliance and reduce their dangerousness. 56 UN resolutions sprung from that and Saddam ignored every one of them. Not only did he ignore them, he shunned the UN by building new weapons with specifications that were banned from the very first series of UN resolutions. Saddam's forces fired at coalition aircraft every day in the last twelve years in the no-fly zone. Saddam supported terrorist operations. Saddam's scientists have been working with Camel Pox, the tools necessary to develop weaponized Smallpox.

That is why someone needs to hold Annan's feet to the fire and get him to do his job. If Annan doesn't shape up, the UN is going to be relegated into a humanitarian-only organization because the United States must have competent oversight of global security affairs and the UN body does not current have that competence.

JK

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

The point of this thread that I made was to point out that the senior UN leadership created the conditions which caused this war.


There's no such thing as a "UN leadership", there's only a UN administration. It is the member nations that decide policy, and the UN administration - including Kofi Annan - can only act within the limits of that policy.

To blame Kofi Annan for the UN's decisions when it comes to Iraq, is like blaming the sale of a corporation on the corporation's CEO.


Then guys like Joshua stepped forward with the ridiculous claim that Annan was a "powerless" man regarding Iraq. That was laughable and needed to be addressed.


Kofi Annan does not have the mandate to make any policy decisions - the most he can do is to bring a matter up for discussion in the security council. Since the matter of Iraq was already a matter of debate in the security council, there was nothing more he could do.


That is why someone needs to hold Annan's feet to the fire and get him to do his job.


It's not Kofi Anna's job to judge wether or not a nation is in violation of a resolution, and he does not have the authority to make that judgement.

[QUTOE]
If Annan doesn't shape up, the UN is going to be relegated into a humanitarian-only organization because the United States must have competent oversight of global security affairs and the UN body does not current have that competence.
[/QUOTE]

Again, this is a matter for the member nations, and not the UN administration.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
There's no such thing as a "UN leadership"

Oh, you are right. There is no leadership flowing out of the UN.

JK

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Oh, you are right. There is no leadership flowing out of the UN.

JK

And there is not supposed to be.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


And there is not supposed to be.

Of course there is supposed to be. You are just not used to seeing any from the organization as the US didn't see any in the last twelve years. That is why we are now at war with Iraq.

JK

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Of course there is supposed to be. You are just not used to seeing any from the organization as the US didn't see any in the last twelve years. That is why we are now at war with Iraq.

JK

No there isn't. The purpose and intent of the UN is not leadership - that's not the kind of institution the UN is, or is meant to be. The UN is a forum for cooperation and reaching agreements - to demand leadership from the UN is as misguided as to demand leadership from a parliament or congress.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Of course there is supposed to be. You are just not used to seeing any from the organization as the US didn't see any in the last twelve years. That is why we are now at war with Iraq.

JK

Annan has only been Secretary-General for 6 years. Who was at fault before then?

But let's get into the nitty-gritty. You've used the charter, so allow me to explain:

Article 1 of the charter seems on the surface to support your position, in that it says the UN's job is

From Article 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;

But the UN's impotence doesn't stem from a failure on the part of its leadership; rather, it stems from a clause within its own charter:

From Article 2
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

That means that inasmuch as the UN can call upon members to perform or desist certain actions - and inasmuch as it requires members to agree to follow the UN's mandates - it cannot effectively force any country, member or no, to do its bidding. All it can do is churn out resolutions and hope that the Member State honors that which it had agreed to do when becoming a Member.

As far as the way the UN works when it comes to "threats to the peace"; we have this:

From Article 2 of the Charter
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The UN did not protest the action against Iraq in 1991 because the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence" of another country was evident - in this case, against Kuwait.

The UN most likely did not vote to support a war against Iraq in this case because Iraq has issued no such threat or taken any such action - and as such, Iraq was not a "threat to international peace and security" - at least, no more of a threat than Pakistan or India, against whom the UN passed a resolution demanding the cessation of nuclear testing, which those countries refused to obey. You may feel that Iraq is a threat to international peace and security, and I certainly share that sentiment. But obviously the UN didn't feel that way (and it's not because Annan said "Iraq isn't a threat").

As far as authorizing or supporting the use of force against any country, that business is handled by Chapter 7 of the charter.

From Chapter 7
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.

That's what the resolutions (you say there have been 56; I can't find that many regarding Iraq) and the sanctions were intended to do. Sometimes, such measures don't always work.

From Chapter 7
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.

So the UN can use military force in certain ways. The problem is, the Security Council did not consider that the measures it had taken under Article 41 were inadequate - that's why they didn't vote for war. A few of the nations on the Security Council may have thought so - but it's not the "Security Council of the US and the UK", and they were voted down. Annan didn't tell them "don't vote for war".

As to your assertion that Annan claimed he would actively prevent any aid at all from reaching Iraq, I'd like to know where your source for this is, since every time you mention it you make it sound more forceful. Annan has issued a public statement that as long as war is going on in Iraq, he would not allow the humanitarian aid workers into the country, for their own safety - and that until it is safe, the US will have to provide the aid by itself. When the war is over, the UN has expressed a desire to restart operations - and Tony Blair has supported this - but the US publically refuses to allow the UN any place at all in post-war Iraq. Blair even tried to personally argue the case for the UN to Bush, who would have none of it. You're leaving off half the story.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


No there isn't. The purpose and intent of the UN is not leadership - that's not the kind of institution the UN is, or is meant to be. The UN is a forum for cooperation and reaching agreements - to demand leadership from the UN is as misguided as to demand leadership from a parliament or congress.

Huh?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Annan has only been Secretary-General for 6 years. Who was at fault before then?

But let's get into the nitty-gritty. You've used the charter, so allow me to explain:

Article 1 of the charter seems on the surface to support your position, in that it says the UN's job is



But the UN's impotence doesn't stem from a failure on the part of its leadership; rather, it stems from a clause within its own charter:



That means that inasmuch as the UN can call upon members to perform or desist certain actions - and inasmuch as it requires members to agree to follow the UN's mandates - it cannot effectively force any country, member or no, to do its bidding. All it can do is churn out resolutions and hope that the Member State honors that which it had agreed to do when becoming a Member.

As far as the way the UN works when it comes to "threats to the peace"; we have this:



The UN did not protest the action against Iraq in 1991 because the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence" of another country was evident - in this case, against Kuwait.

The UN most likely did not vote to support a war against Iraq in this case because Iraq has issued no such threat or taken any such action - and as such, Iraq was not a "threat to international peace and security" - at least, no more of a threat than Pakistan or India, against whom the UN passed a resolution demanding the cessation of nuclear testing, which those countries refused to obey. You may feel that Iraq is a threat to international peace and security, and I certainly share that sentiment. But obviously the UN didn't feel that way (and it's not because Annan said "Iraq isn't a threat").

As far as authorizing or supporting the use of force against any country, that business is handled by Chapter 7 of the charter.



That's what the resolutions (you say there have been 56; I can't find that many regarding Iraq) and the sanctions were intended to do. Sometimes, such measures don't always work.



So the UN can use military force in certain ways. The problem is, the Security Council did not consider that the measures it had taken under Article 41 were inadequate - that's why they didn't vote for war. A few of the nations on the Security Council may have thought so - but it's not the "Security Council of the US and the UK", and they were voted down. Annan didn't tell them "don't vote for war".

As to your assertion that Annan claimed he would actively prevent any aid at all from reaching Iraq, I'd like to know where your source for this is, since every time you mention it you make it sound more forceful. Annan has issued a public statement that as long as war is going on in Iraq, he would not allow the humanitarian aid workers into the country, for their own safety - and that until it is safe, the US will have to provide the aid by itself. When the war is over, the UN has expressed a desire to restart operations - and Tony Blair has supported this - but the US publically refuses to allow the UN any place at all in post-war Iraq. Blair even tried to personally argue the case for the UN to Bush, who would have none of it. You're leaving off half the story.

Iraq hasn't had member sovereignty in the UN since the end of the Persian Gulf War. That is why the UN approved 56 UN resolutions against Iraq. They were allowed to continue to send representatives to the UN representing their country, but the UN was the captain of their ship.

And the UN failed.

JK

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


How about it JK? You up for the challenge of defending the claim you made?

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Bush is the next Abraham Lincoln and Blair is the next Winston Churchill.

JK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please give a detailed outline of your thesis that demonstrates that:

- the personal lives and careers of
- events and challenges in the lives of
- qualities and character of
- folk stories and myths attributed to

Lincoln and Churchill parallel Bush and Blair respectively.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Iraq hasn't had member sovereignty in the UN since the end of the Persian Gulf War. That is why the UN approved 56 UN resolutions against Iraq. They were allowed to continue to send representatives to the UN representing their country, but the UN was the captain of their ship.

And the UN failed.

JK

That's not true. Nothing in any of the resolutions passed since 1991 (I still can't find 56, so I'm beginning to wonder where you arrived at that number) has revoked Iraq's sovereignty - the UN doesn't have the power to revoke any nation's sovereignty. The UN can pass resolutions against any country - sovereignty has nothing to do with it.

The fact of the matter is, once Iraq was stopped from invading Kuwait, peace had been restored as far as the UN was concerned, and Hussein was allowed to remain president - all the other requirements of the resolutions subsequent were esoteria, and the only real reason the Security Council kept after Iraq at all was to appease the United States, who felt compelled to bring the Iraq question up over and over again. The UN doesn't "take over" countries.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


That's not true. Nothing in any of the resolutions passed since 1991 (I still can't find 56, so I'm beginning to wonder where you arrived at that number) has revoked Iraq's sovereignty - the UN doesn't have the power to revoke any nation's sovereignty. The UN can pass resolutions against any country - sovereignty has nothing to do with it.

The fact of the matter is, once Iraq was stopped from invading Kuwait, peace had been restored as far as the UN was concerned, and Hussein was allowed to remain president - all the other requirements of the resolutions subsequent were esoteria, and the only real reason the Security Council kept after Iraq at all was to appease the United States, who felt compelled to bring the Iraq question up over and over again. The UN doesn't "take over" countries.

Joshua, you are selectively denying facts. I usually experience the deliberate denying of facts by leftists on the forum, but not by you. I do not understand why you are in denial of the facts, but maybe you have an interest in supporting the Marxist UN.

Beyond that, when a country has a UN resolution passed against it, it is a violation of their sovereignty. Since the UN told Iraq to disarm, that is a command circumventing their sovereignty. Are Iraqi instructions to disarm debatable by Iraq? No. Iraq has to accept that penetration of their sovereignty by foreign states because the UN collectively agreed. The UN collectively agreed because they recognized collectively that Iraq was destabilizing the region, creating conditions for dangerous escallations of war.

This fact alone is also part of what confuses me about you, Joshua. I thought you were smarter than this. You say that Iraq has complete sovereignty in the UN and that is untrue. If the UN passes a resolution against your country, they are lawfully violating your sovereignty.

The same thing happened to the United States when we lost our seat on the Human Rights chair at the UN and gave that seat to a terror state. It was a Marxist insult by the UN to do that to us, but US sovereignty in the human rights affairs of the globe was violated when we were removed briefly from that seat.

Follow-on actions by the UN regarding Iraq were to promote "peace". Ordering Iraq to disarm was part of that process. The 56 UN resolutions passed against Iraq were part of that process as the UN pursued peace. The UN mandate allows war, if it will prevent the horror seen during the first two world wars last century. That is why the United States is taking direct combat action against Iraq now because Iraq has ignored the UN resolutions and they have to be disarmed by force.

Your denial of these facts and denial of the true responsibilities of the UN and their authority sounds like some leftist rhetoric I read about from time to time. I am not saying you are a leftist, but the UN was created to lead global nations into a better, peaceful world. Any government/non-government organization leads. That is why they are created. That is basic political theory.

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Joshua, you are selectively denying facts. I usually experience the deliberate denying of facts by leftists on the forum, but not by you. I do not understand why you are in denial of the facts, but maybe you have an interest in supporting the Marxist UN.

Beyond that, when a country has a UN resolution passed against it, it is a violation of their sovereignty. Since the UN told Iraq to disarm, that is a command circumventing their sovereignty. Are Iraqi instructions to disarm debatable by Iraq? No. Iraq has to accept that penetration of their sovereignty by foreign states because the UN collectively agreed. The UN collectively agreed because they recognized collectively that Iraq was destabilizing the region, creating conditions for dangerous escallations of war.

This fact alone is also part of what confuses me about you, Joshua. I thought you were smarter than this. You say that Iraq has complete sovereignty in the UN and that is untrue. If the UN passes a resolution against your country, they are lawfully violating your sovereignty.

The same thing happened to the United States when we lost our seat on the Human Rights chair at the UN and gave that seat to a terror state. It was a Marxist insult by the UN to do that to us, but US sovereignty in the human rights affairs of the globe was violated when we were removed briefly from that seat.

Your message conflicts with itself, at least to my eyes. You consider that the UN should have the right to violate any nation's sovereignty, yet consider the violation of US sovereignty an insult. Should violating a nation's sovereignty be allowable as long as that nation is not the US? Did the UN violate the sovereignty of all those nations that weren't appointed the the Human Rights Commission at all?

The UN is a body of nations dedicating to settling differences and situations peacefully. It cannot, and was not meant to, supercede the authority of any government over its own citizens. The UN is not "superior" to the US government, the Iraqi government, or any other government. Your contention that UN resolutions cannot be contested by Iraq is purely academic, since Iraq has done just that - and won up to this point. And Iraq isn't alone - many countries, such as Russia, have disregarded the UN call for trade sanctions against Iraq, and have traded with Iraq anyway. The UN works when the nations that compose it are willing to work together. If there is dissent, the UN becomes a paper tiger, in essence - and that's exactly what happened with Iraq. Resolutions on top of resolutions have been passed, to be sure - but can you find any evidence that the UN has actually cared enough about Iraq to try and enforce its resolutions? The US/UK assertion that Iraq is a threat to international peace and security is simply not shared by the vast majority of nations in the organization.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Follow-on actions by the UN regarding Iraq were to promote "peace". Ordering Iraq to disarm was part of that process. The 56 UN resolutions passed against Iraq were part of that process as the UN pursued peace. The UN mandate allows war, if it will prevent the horror seen during the first two world wars last century. That is why the United States is taking direct combat action against Iraq now because Iraq has ignored the UN resolutions and they have to be disarmed by force.

Yes, that's what the US has been saying all along. Other nations disagree. That proves only that the US seems to care about those particular resolutions than the rest of the UN. How many other resolutions has the US felt compelled to so enforce? Iraq has neither been the first nor the last to violate a UN resolution. While you can hold any interpretation of the situation that you wish, all the evidence indicates that the majority of the UN doesn't care about Iraq. Apparently, they think there are more important things.

But besides that, you keep ignoring it, so I'll ask directly - what 56 resolutions?

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Your denial of these facts and denial of the true responsibilities of the UN and their authority sounds like some leftist rhetoric I read about from time to time. I am not saying you are a leftist, but the UN was created to lead global nations into a better, peaceful world. Any government/non-government organization leads. That is why they are created. That is basic political theory.

JK

Those aren't "facts", they're opinions on an issue. I don't believe any organization should have the right to violate any nation's sovereignty. That the UN should be some sort of "One-World Government" that supercedes the authority of all nations sounds more leftist than my position.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Your message conflicts with itself, at least to my eyes. You consider that the UN should have the right to violate any nation's sovereignty, yet consider the violation of US sovereignty an insult. Should violating a nation's sovereignty be allowable as long as that nation is not the US? Did the UN violate the sovereignty of all those nations that weren't appointed the the Human Rights Commission at all?

The UN is a body of nations dedicating to settling differences and situations peacefully. It cannot, and was not meant to, supercede the authority of any government over its own citizens. The UN is not "superior" to the US government, the Iraqi government, or any other government. Your contention that UN resolutions cannot be contested by Iraq is purely academic, since Iraq has done just that - and won up to this point. And Iraq isn't alone - many countries, such as Russia, have disregarded the UN call for trade sanctions against Iraq, and have traded with Iraq anyway. The UN works when the nations that compose it are willing to work together. If there is dissent, the UN becomes a paper tiger, in essence - and that's exactly what happened with Iraq. Resolutions on top of resolutions have been passed, to be sure - but can you find any evidence that the UN has actually cared enough about Iraq to try and enforce its resolutions? The US/UK assertion that Iraq is a threat to international peace and security is simply not shared by the vast majority of nations in the organization.



Yes, that's what the US has been saying all along. Other nations disagree. That proves only that the US seems to care about those particular resolutions than the rest of the UN. How many other resolutions has the US felt compelled to so enforce? Iraq has neither been the first nor the last to violate a UN resolution. While you can hold any interpretation of the situation that you wish, all the evidence indicates that the majority of the UN doesn't care about Iraq. Apparently, they think there are more important things.

But besides that, you keep ignoring it, so I'll ask directly - what 56 resolutions?



Those aren't "facts", they're opinions on an issue. I don't believe any organization should have the right to violate any nation's sovereignty. That the UN should be some sort of "One-World Government" that supercedes the authority of all nations sounds more leftist than my position.

You are being intellectually dishonest Joshua. Are you still in college? I thought you were an advanced thinker.

The UN formed as a collective of global nations with the sole purpose of preventing world wars. Part of the UN responsiblity in promoting peace is confronting regimes like Iraq and then "collectively" confronting them if necessary to prevent countries like Iraq from destroying global peace.

That is what the UN is about and it is not something "I created". You keep trying to say that my posts about the UN are self-perceived and that is just your leftist denial of the fact that my description of UN purpose was derived from the UN charter.

I think the UN does a good job at resolving disputes peacefully, but that is not the sole purpose of the UN. The UN Secretary General has a broad mandate to confront countries and sound the alarm if global peace is threatened. That is what this thread addresses--the lack of action by the Secretary General of the United Nations to the global threat that the terror state of Iraq presents. (well, not anymore...)

The Secretary General of the United Nations has a responsibility to keep the global UN body informed of such threats. It is the reason why the UN formed.

You do not understand that, or if you do, you are dishonestly trying to say that the purpose of the UN is other, but it doesn't matter.

Leftist appeasement at the UN, leftist appeasement from the Secretary General of the UN himself, leftist appeasement from the leftist gobal media, and leftist denial in general is not going to stop the liquidation of the leftist socialist Iraqi regime.

Iraq will be disarmed because the United States recognizes the impotent nature of the current UN leadership cell, led by the Marxist Annan who demonstrates no concern for global peace and certainly no concern for the security of the United States. That is unfortunate, but proves that the United States has the will to take the action necessary to defend itself without caving into the noisy left.

The UN passed 56 resolutions against Iraq. Your lack of knowledge about them is consistent with your opinion. You also haven't told me what the UN has done for "peace" in Iraq, a key point that decimates your position immediately. I am not picking on you; just letting you know that you may be listening to the leftist media a bit too much, or were taught faulty leftist propaganda information about the true purpose of the UN in college.

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You are being intellectually dishonest Joshua. Are you still in college? I thought you were an advanced thinker.

None of that. Let's not Frankolize this thread.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The UN formed as a collective of global nations with the sole purpose of preventing world wars. Part of the UN responsiblity in promoting peace is confronting regimes like Iraq and then "collectively" confronting them if necessary to prevent countries like Iraq from destroying global peace.

That's not the problem...the problem is that the UN doesn't think it's necessary to collectively confront Iraq at this time (not that it matters now).

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
That is what the UN is about and it is not something "I created". You keep trying to say that my posts about the UN are self-perceived and that is just your leftist denial of the fact that my description of UN purpose was derived from the UN charter.

They may be interpretations of the charter as it is written; my contention, however, that the UN considers all nations completely sovereign and equal involves no interpretation of the charter - because it is a direct quote from the charter.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I think the UN does a good job at resolving disputes peacefully, but that is not the sole purpose of the UN. The UN Secretary General has a broad mandate to confront countries and sound the alarm if global peace is threatened. That is what this thread addresses--the lack of action by the Secretary General of the United Nations to the global threat that the terror state of Iraq presents. (well, not anymore...)

The Secretary General of the United Nations has a responsibility to keep the global UN body informed of such threats. It is the reason why the UN formed.

You do not understand that, or if you do, you are dishonestly trying to say that the purpose of the UN is other, but it doesn't matter.

No, I'm saying again that if the UN doesn't consider Iraq a real threat, the Secretary-General won't keep lobbying for a war. But if it matters....Annan has certainly been doing his job as you describe it, since Iraq has had at least one resolution passed regarding it every year since Annan took office (with the exception of 1997). He's "keeping the council informed", isn't he? Granted, most of those resolutions involved humanitarian aid; but Annan is not the only person who can bring a matter before the council, and if the US was as concerned then as it is now, it could've brought the matter up anytime it liked.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Leftist appeasement at the UN, leftist appeasement from the Secretary General of the UN himself, leftist appeasement from the leftist gobal media, and leftist denial in general is not going to stop the liquidation of the leftist socialist Iraqi regime.

Iraq will be disarmed because the United States recognizes the impotent nature of the current UN leadership cell, led by the Marxist Annan who demonstrates no concern for global peace and certainly no concern for the security of the United States. That is unfortunate, but proves that the United States has the will to take the action necessary to defend itself without caving into the noisy left.

Well, the UN disagrees with the United States as far as whether Iraq is a "threat". This automatically makes Annan Marxist? That seems a rather hasty judgment, unless you can provide examples of Annan's Marxism besides his position on Iraq.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The UN passed 56 resolutions against Iraq. Your lack of knowledge about them is consistent with your opinion. You also haven't told me what the UN has done for "peace" in Iraq, a key point that decimates your position immediately. I am not picking on you; just letting you know that you may be listening to the leftist media a bit too much, or were taught faulty leftist propaganda information about the true purpose of the UN in college.

JK

The UN has passed more than 50 resolutions regarding Iraq. Most of those resolutions have been in regards to the humanitarian crisis caused by the refusal of Iraq to follow the Security Council's suggestions, and the subsequent sanctions. The humanitarian measures (including the "oil for food" program) promote peace in the middle east by curbing international problems that would be caused by an outflow of refugees seeking better conditions. The humanitarian aid reduces this flow. Besides that, Iraq has constituted no immediate "threat" to peace since a single incident in 1995 (which took place before Annan took office, and was solved within a week without the use of military force). Thus, besides the humanitarian crisis, the Security Council felt that it had no need to do anything for "peace" in Iraq.

Of the more than 50 resolutions regarding Iraq, exactly 20 were in any way related to WMD, Iraq's need to disarm, or Iraq's refusal to allow inspections. The relevant resolutions were 661, 678, 686, 687, 689, 707, 715, 833, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1153, 1154, 1175, 1194, 1242, 1266, 1284, and 1441. There were no "56 resolutions" passed against Iraq.

Interestingly, several of those 20 resolutions - including the most recent and relevant one, 1441 - contain a preambulatory clause that goes like this:

From Resolution 1441
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

This clause is not particular to Iraq resolutions either; it's been invoked in many different cases. The point is, it explicitly states that the UN has no intention to violate any nation's sovereignty (considering that all nations are equally sovereign according to the charter).

Also, the government of the United States doesn't share your criticism of Annan, considering that as one of Resolution 1441's sponsors, it included this preambulatory clause immediately following the above:

From Resolution 1441
Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Again, none of this is interpretation derived from documentation; it is specific and verbatim quoting of documentation.

[Crossbow]

To: Joshua Korosi

Thanks for clearing up that issue of the 56 UN Resolutions against Iraq that Jedi Knight kept harping on but would never substainate.

I poked around the UN web site and found about 18 anti-Iraq resolutions, but certainly not 56.

Now I finally see where JK is coming from, there is a total of 56 resolutions that deal in some way or another with Iraq, but there is only 20 of them that are actually anti-Iraq.

JK often does that thing where he just makes up whatever facts fit his arguments, then others have to come along to explain his facts after he repeatedly refuses to do so. By the same token, he likes to berate people for not going to college however he cannot even do grade school math, and of course he feels morally superior to everyone else just because of his Christian theology, combat experience, and ant--Communist beliefs.

Ugh!

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks much for all of your work in this thread, I have really appreciated it.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


None of that. Let's not Frankolize this thread.



That's not the problem...the problem is that the UN doesn't think it's necessary to collectively confront Iraq at this time (not that it matters now).



They may be interpretations of the charter as it is written; my contention, however, that the UN considers all nations completely sovereign and equal involves no interpretation of the charter - because it is a direct quote from the charter.



No, I'm saying again that if the UN doesn't consider Iraq a real threat, the Secretary-General won't keep lobbying for a war. But if it matters....Annan has certainly been doing his job as you describe it, since Iraq has had at least one resolution passed regarding it every year since Annan took office (with the exception of 1997). He's "keeping the council informed", isn't he? Granted, most of those resolutions involved humanitarian aid; but Annan is not the only person who can bring a matter before the council, and if the US was as concerned then as it is now, it could've brought the matter up anytime it liked.



Well, the UN disagrees with the United States as far as whether Iraq is a "threat". This automatically makes Annan Marxist? That seems a rather hasty judgment, unless you can provide examples of Annan's Marxism besides his position on Iraq.



The UN has passed more than 50 resolutions regarding Iraq. Most of those resolutions have been in regards to the humanitarian crisis caused by the refusal of Iraq to follow the Security Council's suggestions, and the subsequent sanctions. The humanitarian measures (including the "oil for food" program) promote peace in the middle east by curbing international problems that would be caused by an outflow of refugees seeking better conditions. The humanitarian aid reduces this flow. Besides that, Iraq has constituted no immediate "threat" to peace since a single incident in 1995 (which took place before Annan took office, and was solved within a week without the use of military force). Thus, besides the humanitarian crisis, the Security Council felt that it had no need to do anything for "peace" in Iraq.

Of the more than 50 resolutions regarding Iraq, exactly 20 were in any way related to WMD, Iraq's need to disarm, or Iraq's refusal to allow inspections. The relevant resolutions were 661, 678, 686, 687, 689, 707, 715, 833, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1153, 1154, 1175, 1194, 1242, 1266, 1284, and 1441. There were no "56 resolutions" passed against Iraq.

Interestingly, several of those 20 resolutions - including the most recent and relevant one, 1441 - contain a preambulatory clause that goes like this:



This clause is not particular to Iraq resolutions either; it's been invoked in many different cases. The point is, it explicitly states that the UN has no intention to violate any nation's sovereignty (considering that all nations are equally sovereign according to the charter).

Also, the government of the United States doesn't share your criticism of Annan, considering that as one of Resolution 1441's sponsors, it included this preambulatory clause immediately following the above:



Again, none of this is interpretation derived from documentation; it is specific and verbatim quoting of documentation.

You are quoting failed UN policy against Iraq. That is just one component of Annan's failed leadership that caused the war in Iraq.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow
To: Joshua Korosi

Thanks for clearing up that issue of the 56 UN Resolutions against Iraq that Jedi Knight kept harping on but would never substainate.

I poked around the UN web site and found about 18 anti-Iraq resolutions, but certainly not 56.

Now I finally see where JK is coming from, there is a total of 56 resolutions that deal in some way or another with Iraq, but there is only 20 of them that are actually anti-Iraq.

JK often does that thing where he just makes up whatever facts fit his arguments, then others have to come along to explain his facts after he repeatedly refuses to do so. By the same token, he likes to berate people for not going to college however he cannot even do grade school math, and of course he feels morally superior to everyone else just because of his Christian theology, combat experience, and ant--Communist beliefs.

Ugh!

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks much for all of your work in this thread, I have really appreciated it.

The usual Crossbow non-contribution to the forum--appeal to popularity logic fallacy. It is all you can do, absent the intellect to participate.

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Crossbow
To: Joshua Korosi

Thanks for clearing up that issue of the 56 UN Resolutions against Iraq that Jedi Knight kept harping on but would never substainate.

I poked around the UN web site and found about 18 anti-Iraq resolutions, but certainly not 56.

Now I finally see where JK is coming from, there is a total of 56 resolutions that deal in some way or another with Iraq, but there is only 20 of them that are actually anti-Iraq.

JK often does that thing where he just makes up whatever facts fit his arguments, then others have to come along to explain his facts after he repeatedly refuses to do so. By the same token, he likes to berate people for not going to college however he cannot even do grade school math, and of course he feels morally superior to everyone else just because of his Christian theology, combat experience, and ant--Communist beliefs.

Ugh!

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks much for all of your work in this thread, I have really appreciated it.

To be absolutely fair here, I don't think Jedi intentionally made the "56 resolutions" error. It may be safe to say there are 56 resolutions concerning Iraq, and he may have heard or read this somewhere and misunderstood, thinking they were all anti-Iraq. It's true that it took a bit of reading to find the truth about the resolutions, and I certainly didn't appreciate the "college" remarks, especially when such an error existed in his own arguments. Nevertheless, Jedi's debating tactics aren't especially underhanded or mean-spirited, so I treat him with more respect than I would treat some others.

And thank you! My pleasure.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You are quoting failed UN policy against Iraq. That is just one component of Annan's failed leadership that caused the war in Iraq.

JK

Actually the Oil for Food program and the Iraqi Disarmament procedures (including inspections) were both instituted by the UN and violated by Iraq many times before Annan was elected. When Annan became Secretary-General, he "inherited" an already-failed Iraq policy that couldn't be fixed or worsened. This policy was probably doomed to failure by the earlier failure of the Coalition forces to remove Saddam from power. That failure, in 1991, caused a "leak in the dike" so to speak that the UN resolutions have shrunk but been unable to plug despite the best efforts of all the member nations and three Secretaries-General (those would be Javier PÈrez de CuÈllar, whose term ended in December 1991, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose term ended in December 1996, and finally Kofi Annan). As much as we desire accountability, it is simply irresponsible to blame the failures of the last 12 years entirely on one man who's only been involved for half that time.

But to clarify, nobody's argued whether the UN policy on Iraq has failed - obviously it has - my purpose here has been to point out UN procedure and layout, in an attempt to show that no one person can take the blame for the Iraq mess.

Again, if it is Annan's leadership that's at fault, surely you can point out another instance besides Iraq where his leadership has caused such failure?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Actually the Oil for Food program and the Iraqi Disarmament procedures (including inspections) were both instituted by the UN and violated by Iraq many times before Annan was elected. When Annan became Secretary-General, he "inherited" an already-failed Iraq policy that couldn't be fixed or worsened. This policy was probably doomed to failure by the earlier failure of the Coalition forces to remove Saddam from power. That failure, in 1991, caused a "leak in the dike" so to speak that the UN resolutions have shrunk but been unable to plug despite the best efforts of all the member nations and three Secretaries-General (those would be Javier PÈrez de CuÈllar, whose term ended in December 1991, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose term ended in December 1996, and finally Kofi Annan). As much as we desire accountability, it is simply irresponsible to blame the failures of the last 12 years entirely on one man who's only been involved for half that time.

But to clarify, nobody's argued whether the UN policy on Iraq has failed - obviously it has - my purpose here has been to point out UN procedure and layout, in an attempt to show that no one person can take the blame for the Iraq mess.

Again, if it is Annan's leadership that's at fault, surely you can point out another instance besides Iraq where his leadership has caused such failure?

When Annan took the helm he knew the problems with Iraq. Annan has been involved in politics for decades before he assumed the role as Secretary General of the UN.

Don't you have a problem with Annan ignoring the US deployment to Iraq with military power which easily signaled the intentions of the US to invade while standing by as France, the new headquarters nation-state of radical Islam tried to stop US action?

The leader of the UN ignored the international threat and instead tried to put a wedge between the nations that are the staunchest supporters of the UN.

France has 6,000,000 radical Islamists that are radical left and radical right-wing in their country. They are no longer a European state, but a radical Islamic state bent on the destruction of Israel and the United States. I bet that Israel is beginning to recognize the danger that France represents, especially after this latest fiasco.

The UN secretary General is supposed to confront these problems, and as a minimum he is supposed to make these problems public. That is his job, why he has a broad mandate, and why he needs to act when international peace is threatened.

If he can't do that he should resign, and if he won't resign the least he can do is ensure humanitarian aid gets to the countries the US is forced to go clean up after the wars end there.

Annan is a leader. The instant he does not think he is he needs to step aside and let a real leader take his place. The world needs leadership out of the UN, not the status quo.

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


To be absolutely fair here, I don't think Jedi intentionally made the "56 resolutions" error. It may be safe to say there are 56 resolutions concerning Iraq, and he may have heard or read this somewhere and misunderstood, thinking they were all anti-Iraq. It's true that it took a bit of reading to find the truth about the resolutions, and I certainly didn't appreciate the "college" remarks, especially when such an error existed in his own arguments. Nevertheless, Jedi's debating tactics aren't especially underhanded or mean-spirited, so I treat him with more respect than I would treat some others.

And thank you! My pleasure.

Well Joshua Korosi, my experience with Jedi Knight is somewhat different in that I have found that he actually does create facts in order support his claims and that he often berates people for a lack of formal education. It is not a matter of minor misunderstanding and he often does engage in mean-spirited behavior when others do not accept his conclusions.

Some months ago I, and several others, challanged him on his practice of data creation the results of which can be seen at:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7099&highlight=creative

Please take a look at it when you get a moment especially the last one where his oft repeated assertions regarding paternity where he states (quote):

I stand fully behind the assertion that 30% of all children born in the United States are not the children of the "named" daddy.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well Joshua Korosi, my experience with Jedi Knight is somewhat different in that I have found that he actually does create facts in order support his claims and that he often berates people for a lack of formal education. It is not a matter of minor misunderstanding and he often does engage in mean-spirited behavior when others do not accept his conclusions.

Some months ago I, and several others, challanged him on his practice of data creation the results of which can be seen at:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7099&highlight=creative

Please take a look at it when you get a moment especially the last one where his oft repeated assertions regarding paternity where he states (quote):

I stand fully behind the assertion that 30% of all children born in the United States are not the children of the "named" daddy.

But what I said was fact. Those facts can be found here (http://www.paternityfraud.com/). When every single possible type of paternity testing was done in the United States, it was found that 30% of all of the results proved massive paternity fraud. That means that 30% of all those men tested were not the "named daddy" (which usually was the poor husbands). 3 out of 10 babies born in the United States are not the children of the "named" target-father by the mommy.

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


But what I said was fact. Those facts can be found here (http://www.paternityfraud.com/). When every single possible type of paternity testing was done in the United States, it was found that 30% of all of the results proved massive paternity fraud. That means that 30% of all those men tested were not the "named daddy" (which usually was the poor husbands). 3 out of 10 babies born in the United States are not the children of the "named" target-father by the mommy.

JK

Need I say more?

Where there is a paternity dispute, there may well be 30% of the children being fathered by someone other than the person named by the mother. By the way, that sounds about right in my own limited experience.

However, paternity questions do not come up all that often, so applying the 30% figure to all of the other cases where paternity is not in dispute, is at best an example of poor statistical research.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


When Annan took the helm he knew the problems with Iraq. Annan has been involved in politics for decades before he assumed the role as Secretary General of the UN.

Don't you have a problem with Annan ignoring the US deployment to Iraq with military power which easily signaled the intentions of the US to invade while standing by as France, the new headquarters nation-state of radical Islam tried to stop US action?

Absolutely not. Consider yourself in Annan's place for a moment: the US continues to deploy troops with the obvious intention of invading Iraq, despite the UN's objections. That means the US will likely go ahead with its plans no matter what you do - if you agree with the US, they will go to war, and if you disagree with the US, they will go to war. On the other hand, you have the ultra-conservative Chirac in France, who is as immovable as the United States, and who promises to veto anything that contains a whiff of the military. Meanwhile, the situation in Iraq hasn't changed much in the last 5 years. So, do you appease the US, or do you appease France? Either way, you're going to polarize and alienate a lot of people, and will be seen as a mere puppet of whichever country you appeased. Your credibility will be shot. Your only responsible choice is a third option - that is, remain neutral, implore the two sides to come to a compromise, and let the chips fall. If Annan had taken sides in this thing, the UN would've become like Congress....divided into two blocs, and absolutely nothing being accomplished. Even things like humanitarian aid programs would begin to suffer due to partisanship.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The leader of the UN ignored the international threat and instead tried to put a wedge between the nations that are the staunchest supporters of the UN.

The leader of the UN didn't "ignore" the international threat...he didn't consider it a threat at all; and Annan didn't "try" to put a wedge between France and the US, he remained neutral on the matter.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
France has 6,000,000 radical Islamists that are radical left and radical right-wing in their country. They are no longer a European state, but a radical Islamic state bent on the destruction of Israel and the United States. I bet that Israel is beginning to recognize the danger that France represents, especially after this latest fiasco.

The UN secretary General is supposed to confront these problems, and as a minimum he is supposed to make these problems public. That is his job, why he has a broad mandate, and why he needs to act when international peace is threatened.

What problem? That 6 million radical Muslims live in France, who don't like the US? The UN has passed many resolutions supporting religious tolerance; calling attention to France because 6 million radical Muslims live there is trifling. How many radical Christians bent on the destruction of the UN and the imagined "Zionist masters of the world" live in the United States? A country doesn't become an international threat simply because it doesn't like the US, or Israel, or both of them, and the Secretary-General's job isn't to make sure the entire world kisses the US' @$$.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If he can't do that he should resign, and if he won't resign the least he can do is ensure humanitarian aid gets to the countries the US is forced to go clean up after the wars end there.

Annan is a leader. The instant he does not think he is he needs to step aside and let a real leader take his place. The world needs leadership out of the UN, not the status quo.

Annan has pledged full humanitarian aid to Iraq as soon as the current conflict there ends; he has pledged that aid since the beginning. In fact, many UN agencies are trying to figure out ways to get the aid there now (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6618&Cr=iraq&Cr1=relief).

[Checkmite]

Well, this is off topic, but...

If somebody goes to have a paternity test done, that means they're already suspicious of their kids' parentage. If only 30% of those suspected are actually of fraudulent parentage, that's a good thing.

Now, what percentage of the American population actually has paternity tests performed on their kids...?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Need I say more?

Where there is a paternity dispute, there may well be 30% of the children being fathered by someone other than the person named by the mother. By the way, that sounds about right in my own limited experience.

However, paternity questions do not come up all that often, so applying the 30% figure to all of the other cases where paternity is not in dispute, is at best an example of poor statistical research.

Oh, I see where you are making your mistake. Most states require bood tests for paternity. In those millions of blood tests done and queried, 30% of all of them turned out not to match the daddy's blood type, thus proving they are not the "daddy".

At that paternity website they give free DNA tests to guys who want them. A full 50% of all the DNA tests the site has given came back as someone other than the "named daddy".

Paternty fraud (fraud is a crime) is out of control. Chicks get pregnant and then go father shopping. I recommend all men get DNA tests done on their so-called offspring just to protect themselves.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Well, this is off topic, but...

If somebody goes to have a paternity test done, that means they're already suspicious of their kids' parentage. If only 30% of those suspected are actually of fraudulent parentage, that's a good thing.

Now, what percentage of the American population actually has paternity tests performed on their kids...?

You are making the same mistake as Crossbow. That paternity fraud statistic of 30% is also from blood tests which almost all states require. It just goes to show the huge fraud perpetuated against men where women are allowed to go father-shopping and "name" daddy-big-bucks instead of the biological father.

Men are making progress against that criminal fraud, however. The guy who runs the paternityfraud.com website just won his case against a chick that named him as the daddy to a child that wasn't his.

JK

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You are making the same mistake as Crossbow. That paternity fraud statistic of 30% is also from blood tests which almost all states require. JK

You are either deliberately misrepresenting the statistics presented in the web site (the three pdf files) or you simply do not understand what the statistics are saying.

In the state of Georgia:
9,650 cases were tested with a 30.2% exclusion (i.e. erroneous) rate

Nationwide in 2001:
310,490 cases tested (not "millions") with a 29.25% exclusion rate.

What "state required" blood tests are you referring to? I have lived in 5 states as an adult and have never been "required" by any state government to take a blood test for any reason including getting a marriage license.

[Checkmite]

Certainly if Georgia required blood tests from every couple to determine paternity, there should be a larger pool than just over 9,000 tests to draw results from.

But again, this is off topic for this thread...so I'll let you two argue this one out.

[CapelDodger]

From JK
That paternity fraud statistic of 30% is also from blood tests which almost all states require.
This sounds absolutely crazy for a country where the population threatens mayhem if they can't own more than 50 guns. State-enforced paternity tests? Don't American women have the vote? Or the right to bear arms? Because if they're playing away that much ... Nah, this is just an attempt to promote tourism.

Something JK is missing is that the only way the UN could be created in the first place was by making it powerless. One of its two founding principles is that sovereignty remains, under all circumstances, with the member nations. Without that, forget it. When it comes to military action it simply provides a convenient venue for forming alliances. If that alliance is sufficient to get an un-vetoed majority of the Security Council - or a majority of the General Council (I think I'm right there: Joshua Korosi, love your work, you can put me straight there if you haven't already) - you get Korea, if not you get Vietnam.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by NightG1


You are either deliberately misrepresenting the statistics presented in the web site (the three pdf files) or you simply do not understand what the statistics are saying.

In the state of Georgia:
9,650 cases were tested with a 30.2% exclusion (i.e. erroneous) rate

Nationwide in 2001:
310,490 cases tested (not "millions") with a 29.25% exclusion rate.

What "state required" blood tests are you referring to? I have lived in 5 states as an adult and have never been "required" by any state government to take a blood test for any reason including getting a marriage license.

When you and your wife applied for your marriage license you had to give your blood type, right? When the baby is born blood is taken from the baby and then it is compared to the parents. Now it is possible that the baby could have the same blood type with the mother and a different "daddy", but that is only if the named daddy and the real daddy have the same blood type. That is one way to determine paternity.

The other way and the more accurate method is DNA testing.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


When you and your wife applied for your marriage license you had to give your blood type, right? When the baby is born blood is taken from the baby and then it is compared to the parents. Now it is possible that the baby could have the same blood type with the mother and a different "daddy", but that is only if the named daddy and the real daddy have the same blood type. That is one way to determine paternity.

JK Jedi, if the mother is blood type 'A' and the father is blood type 'B', what blood type do you think the child would be?











Answer: The child could be blood type 'A', 'B', 'AB', or 'O'.

I think you are inventing facts once again.

Please read a bit on the subject before you post more about it unless you want to make a fool of yourself. :p

[Crossbow]

While it is true that a few states do require blood tests prior to the marriage, the tests are used to check the applicants for some sexually transmitted diseases.

The tests are not used to check the paterinty of children that may be born of the wife.

There is not a state in the country that has mandatory paterinty checks.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


When you and your wife applied for your marriage license you had to give your blood type, right?

No. And no blood sample or test was required by the State of Texas.

When the baby is born blood is taken from the baby and then it is compared to the parents.

Not at either of the two hospitals (one in Dallas and one in Houston) where my children were born. I did not know what my blood type was until I applied for life insurance and requested the analysis then. There was no default test for paternity at the hospital. Are you fishing now?
Now it is possible that the baby could have the same blood type with the mother and a different "daddy", but that is only if the named daddy and the real daddy have the same blood type. That is one way to determine paternity.
What does this have to do with the 30% exclusion rate from the "millions" of samples you invented in an earlier post. This type of obfuscation is common in your "debating" style. Why don't you just admit you were wrong - for once.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Crossbow
While it is true that a few states do require blood tests prior to the marriage, the tests are used to check the applicants for some sexually transmitted diseases.

The tests are not used to check the paterinty of children that may be born of the wife.

There is not a state in the country that has mandatory paterinty checks.

Pssssst... Crossbow.... Lets see how he wriggles out of this one.