Dear President Madame Clinton (from Saddam Hussein):

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Undertoad
<i>Finally, it's hypocritical to say we need to invade Iraq because they flaunt the UN (since none of the other arguments hold any water), then act without that body's authorization.</i>

I'm sorry, I just need a clarification on that last point. Is it hypocritical for the US, who would reinforce the terms of the UN-negotiated peace... or for the UN, who would NOT reinforce those terms?

Both.

[Xugumad]

Undertoad
so, to sum up, the UN is ineffective because all nations selfishly want to act only in their own best interests, but this is particularly offensive in a democracy because people hate to see their own getting killed and the media will selfishly remind them of the dangers and deaths involved.

I am not sure what you were summing up, but it wasn't what I wrote. What democracy is doing in the US is not "offensive", it's natural.

I demonstrated why the UN is ineffective, due to the "selfish"ness, as you call it, of its ruling member states, principally those with permanent seats on the Security Council.

You claimed that "The little nations can do whatever the fuck they want", and I demonstrated why, using the US as an example. You seemed to be attacking the UN for failing to enforce those small countries' lawfulness, and I told you why that was the case - because, amongst others, the US has no interest to do so.

As the US seems to use UN resolutions only when it's convenient and in its best interest, it explains why Iraq is in the crosshairs, but, say, Zimbabwe isn't. (dictators selectively murdering a minority of the population).

Please don't condemn the UN for failing to act when it's its member states, with the democratic US being as guilty of it as the dictatorial China, who are the true culprits.

X.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Xugumad

Please don't condemn the UN for failing to act when it's its member states, with the democratic US being as guilty of it as the dictatorial China, who are the true culprits.

X.

I'm on the same wavelength as you, but I don't think that's a proper argument. The UN is a democratic institution, and, as such, its actions are dependent upon the actions and intentions of its members - just as the actions of our elected officials are, in theory, dependent upon the intentions of the people. The difference is that the UN is a bit more of a direct democracy (with the states as the citizens) than a representative one (like we have).

[Xugumad]

hermit22
I'm on the same wavelength as you, but I don't think that's a proper argument. The UN is a democratic institution, and, as such, its actions are dependent upon the actions and intentions of its members - just as the actions of our elected officials are, in theory, dependent upon the intentions of the people. The difference is that the UN is a bit more of a direct democracy (with the states as the citizens) than a representative one (like we have).

No argument from me regarding the nature of the UN, but in these couple of threads there has been a lot of criticism of the UN contrasted with 'we will do what the UN wants as long as it's convenient' and 'we will buck the UN, as we have done before'. Similarly, there's been a lot of UN-bashing, completely ignoring the very significant US involvement in UN decision-making.

In fact, US involvement in the UN seems to have been focused on vetoing resolutions that aren't in the US' best interest. China, for instance, is known to change its stance on vetoing resolutions, if there is a lot of general criticism. (since 1966, the US has vetoed a total of 75 times; all others vetoes in that time period, including those of China, Russia, and the former USSR number 62. Even if you take the Cold War as a reason, US vetoes post-1991 still more than double non-US vetoes)

Calling the UN democratic would only be appropriate if all relevant decisions weren't made by permanent security council. It would also help if all of those countries were to regularly pay their membership fees. Or if they were part of some of the relevant sub-organizations, such as UNESCO. (Leave no child behind, remember?)

X.

[Undertoad]

Jag: If the US ignores the UN, everybody will ignore the UN.

UT: Everybody DOES ignore the UN. The UN is only used when the big countries want to take action.

Jag: I meant about shipping rights.

UT: I meant about war. Most of the time the UN isn't consulted.

X: The big countries don't do anything not in their own interest. In a democracy, that interest is determined by an easily-swayed public.

H22: It's useless because states ignore it, the US is bad in that regard. Also, in this case we're trying to use it in a hypocritical way.

X: It's not that the UN is useless, it's that the client states won't do anything that's not in their self-interest.

I'm not sure why I did this but I didn't want to waste it.

[hermit22]

That's really funny, UT.

One problem with it though, and I'm sorry if I've been unclear of my argument, is that I don't think the UN is irrelevant or useless. I think it's entirely relevant, and does so much good that it can't be considered useless. However, I do think that some states think they don't have to answer to it (the US included), and that detracts from its usefullness in certain respects. It doesn't, however, stop the WHO, for example, from doing its best to provide health care where there is little to none.

[jaguar]

UT you truely take the cake when it comes to misread what i'm saying i swear. Shipping rights was an example. Your 'summary' only proved to show your lack of understanding.

As hermit said, the UN does allot fo work in one hell of allot of countries and as i said, a mechanism for insitgating allot of other good, such as peacekeeping forces. Building in NY are irrelavent, those mechanisms are not.

You see this may come as a suprise but there are other people in the world other than the US and there are things that you may not see in your myopic media. They simply don't make good news compared to reeating footage of dogs dieing from white gas. The UN provides an important forum and does allot that never makes the news.

Of course none of this helps the 'War on Terror® '.

Like all international bodies, it weakness is its reliance on nations for its power, and therefore can be hijacked by the interests of the nations involved. most nations do things in the order of strategic security, economic security, being a good international citizen, international humanatarianism. While major powers can impact on the UN and control its direction, particuarly the US which is well known for screwing with pretty much anything in the end it exists for a reason, otherwise it would not.

[Undertoad]

Well that's why I still posted the summary, so that you all could correct my poor understanding of your points.

However, I meant about war.

[jaguar]

War is only one element, that is my point.

War endangers us tarring with a too wider brush. After all tehre are many levels of conflict. Secondly allot of the warfare these days is ethnonational stuff, gurrilas and terrorist stuff, not interstate conflict, thus is not the busienss of the UN, unless states are openly sponsering each side etc. Secondly UN authorisation has been an important part of many conflict, the first one that comes to mind is Korea - which was authrosied while Russia was boycotting the security council - the last time they tried that, and that resolution was used to ride a little roughshod over congress. It legitimies the conflict and gives other nation a forum for discussion about the possible conflict or attempts at resolution, military or otherwise. It can force nations to actually justify their actions, something the US is having great trouble doing because it cannot. I think the fact the US is looking seriously at getting Un approval is proof in itself. You cannot ignore the rest of the international community.

[jaguar]

I couldn't remember the thread i came up in but this article which details exactly what the US sent Iraq and how it was used, debunking the nice idea of 'medical research'. Some were sent straight to this lovely place.

I hope that finally settles that issue.

[jaguar]

THis washington post article is worth a looksy - questions from a retired marine colonel about a possible invasion of Iraq - interesting stuff from someone who would know.