BBC- UK International Development Secretary Resigns

[Fencer128]

Hi,

Here is the link. This is probably of more interest to the limited Brits on this board - but IMHO she was right to go. If you argue that Blair is standing for his principles, you can apply the same with Short. It's just that IMHO Short happens to share a good deal more of the public's principles than Blair does on this issue of UN involvement in post-war Iraq.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[UltraQuiet]

Withdrawn

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I do love a quitter.

???

 

[Dari]

Even if she didn't leave, her reputation was already in the gutter---with all sides. Should have left when she had her reputation.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Dari
Even if she didn't leave, her reputation was already in the gutter---with all sides. Should have left when she had her reputation.

She did receive a lot of flak for not leaving at the beginning of the war. IMHO she stayed for her employment prospects. Her leaving now is overdue - but at least her principles finally got the better of her.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

'Clare Short has behaved recklessly'

Funny, she used the same term to describe Blair.....

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
'Clare Short has behaved recklessly'

Funny, she used the same term to describe Blair.....

Recklessly with respect to bringing these issues to the party and public foreground - possibly endangering Tony with an MP revolt :Q

How could she be so reckless with her principles?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

How is Blair and his standing in the party today?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
How is Blair and his standing in the party today?

Better than just before the war - but not as good as before the war in Iraq came to the fore. He is currently under increasing pressure to explain his reasoning for siding with the US in wanting no UN control for post-war Iraq when so far he's been giving everyone the impression that he advocates "the UN having an important role" - which most if not all reasonable people (and MP's ) took to mean that it had some meaningful influence over post-war Iraq.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
How is Blair and his standing in the party today?

Better than just before the war - but not as good as before the war in Iraq came to the fore. He is currently under increasing pressure to explain his reasoning for siding with the US in wanting no UN control for post-war Iraq when so far he's been giving everyone the impression that he advocates "the UN having an important role" - which most if not all reasonable people (and MP's ) took to mean that it had some meaningful influence over post-war Iraq.

Cheers,

Andy

The United Nations scheme is an utter joke. With outlaw regimes taking senior posts in the Disarmament (sic?) and Human Rights Department. You also have undemocratic middle eastern regimes talking about what the people of iraq want. And to top it off, you have weak nations like france and russia punching above their weights. The UN is in need of massive reform or outright dismissal. This organization has to look within itself and change from within or be forced into the pantheon of failed international organizations, a relic of the past.

 

[Alistar7]

"the UN having an important role"

Humanitarian aid is not important?

Look, the UN is still playing da foos ball over Iraq sanctions. They move as fast as your grandma on a vespa scooter. Great body, right intentions, horribly ineffectual. I hope what Bush alluded to during his deadline speech will come to fruition. The US will essentially "give" forces and equipment, along with other members, to the UN to create a UN controlled military force, long overdue in my book. It's one thing to have an international body sanction you when you can easily disobey them, to draft resolutions condeming you as if they are going to actually change anything including your actions or selfperception, to "force" you to comply with inspections, okay, they couldn't even do THAT.
It's another story when you put 500,000 of the best trained men and equipment on their A*S and make you obey.

EVERY nation has the moral right to fight to free those so brutally oppressed, I would suggest the WORLD has a moral DUTY to do the same. I take pride in the fact my country has done just that, freed TENS OF MILLIONS of people, more than Stalin or Hitler KILLED, even more Native Americans than we slaughtered. Do any of you really think the US could not have handled this entirely alone? Any efforts made at building international consensus was done so out of respect for the international community and the principles on which the UN were founded. Take a look at the UN "constitution", WHOSE does it parallel almost identically? American laws and liberties are those that are held as the standard most in the international world would like to see for all mankind. I defy anyone to suggest this WOULDN"T be a good thing. I for one would LOVE to see a UN army taking down dictators across the planet, especially those that sit idly by while their people starve to death.

Iraq is going to be split into 3 zones, each one being controlled by a different nation. Over 25 members of the coalition of the willing have pledged support from manpower to whatever, so there is already a multi-lateral group effectively playing roles in Iraq.
What is the UN doing in Haiti right now? The US restored a democratically elected leader then turned EVERYTHING over to the UN. Yes I know it is an impoverished "Black" nation with no oil, we have to do ones like that every so often just to keep you sleuths off the real truth, lol. Try a google search using the terms "Haiti UN lawsuit union" What about the UN and the Congo? They do have the French there as well trying to mediate, they have somehow gotten BOTH sides extremely pissed at them, such masters at international diplomacy. Maybe they should draft some UN sanctions against them regarding weaopons, then they and the German's, Russian's, and Chineese can all corner the market and funnel in some banned weapons, too bad they don't have any oil down there to buy some support from those 4. They didn't save Saddam, but they gave him every penny's worth of their souls in their efforts to keep him in power.

 

[jjones]

The UN seems very short on success in nation building and the US is really no better. Here's an interesting article about some of the failure in Kosovo with a very sad commentary on UN participation.

I don't think the US is prepared to handle nation building but we'll see what happens in Iraq. One thing I do feel confident about, the US couldn't do any worse than the UN and chances are it might do a bit better seeing as how there's direct US interests involved.

 

[Alistar7]

"No matter how many times they had been told that the United Nations was in charge in Kosovo, the townspeople believed the real power, resources and organization lay behind the barbed wire of the Army's nearby megabase, Camp Bondsteel."


From your article, why not go it alone if we are going to shoulder the blame singularily.

Kosovo, another example of how America is still the only UN member to ever ask for permission to wage war and get support from the body, that was following the Dayton Accords the US led which are the basis for the actions the UN took under our pleading. Until then the EU pretty much did nothing.

I would offer up Europe and Japan as examples of US rebuilding efforts, anything comparable by the UN?

Iraq is different than Bosnia though, they have an intact infrastructure, an educated populace, an immediately viable economy by comparision due to natural resource wealth, plus a people EQAULLY oppressed under one man.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"the UN having an important role"

Humanitarian aid is not important?

Would the US consider being made "an advisor" to the rebuilding of Iraq important?

Look, the UN is still playing da foos ball over Iraq sanctions. They move as fast as your grandma on a vespa scooter. Great body, right intentions, horribly ineffectual. I hope what Bush alluded to during his deadline speech will come to fruition. The US will essentially "give" forces and equipment, along with other members, to the UN to create a UN controlled military force, long overdue in my book. It's one thing to have an international body sanction you when you can easily disobey them, to draft resolutions condeming you as if they are going to actually change anything including your actions or selfperception, to "force" you to comply with inspections, okay, they couldn't even do THAT.
It's another story when you put 500,000 of the best trained men and equipment on their A*S and make you obey.

I agree here. (I have never said the UN does not need reform). The big question in my mind is "will the military of the UN allow contributing members, especially those with big muscle, to wield power and control in the UNSC".

EVERY nation has the moral right to fight to free those so brutally oppressed, I would suggest the WORLD has a moral DUTY to do the same. I take pride in the fact my country has done just that, freed TENS OF MILLIONS of people, more than Stalin or Hitler KILLED, even more Native Americans than we slaughtered. Do any of you really think the US could not have handled this entirely alone? Any efforts made at building international consensus was done so out of respect for the international community and the principles on which the UN were founded. Take a look at the UN "constitution", WHOSE does it parallel almost identically? American laws and liberties are those that are held as the standard most in the international world would like to see for all mankind. I defy anyone to suggest this WOULDN"T be a good thing. I for one would LOVE to see a UN army taking down dictators across the planet, especially those that sit idly by while their people starve to death.

Even taking down N.K.? Drop a nuke if they feel like they could retaliate? Maybe the S.K. won't mind the artillery bombardment if you unite them? Death doesn't seem to matter for freedom. 1,000 - 100,000, 1,000,000 are all just numbers. And what's killing a couple of million people if it free's 10 or 50 million? No one nation should be allowed to make that choice. No one nation should feel it has the "morality" to decide such things on their own. There is another side to every coin. Would I like a US style constitution? Some of it - yes. Do I want everyone owning a gun? No. Good and bad in everything. That's why more heads are better than one.

Iraq is going to be split into 3 zones, each one being controlled by a different nation. Over 25 members of the coalition of the willing have pledged support from manpower to whatever, so there is already a multi-lateral group effectively playing roles in Iraq.
What is the UN doing in Haiti right now? The US restored a democratically elected leader then turned EVERYTHING over to the UN. Yes I know it is an impoverished "Black" nation with no oil, we have to do ones like that every so often just to keep you sleuths off the real truth, lol. Try a google search using the terms "Haiti UN lawsuit union" What about the UN and the Congo? They do have the French there as well trying to mediate, they have somehow gotten BOTH sides extremely pissed at them, such masters at international diplomacy. Maybe they should draft some UN sanctions against them regarding weaopons, then they and the German's, Russian's, and Chineese can all corner the market and funnel in some banned weapons, too bad they don't have any oil down there to buy some support from those 4. They didn't save Saddam, but they gave him every penny's worth of their souls in their efforts to keep him in power.

The US does good things (how was the Haiti preseident restored?) - but it also does not. The same goes for the UN. The difference with the UN though is that it's internationally inclusive, whereas the US is a single country. Try buying some local rice in Haiti. You won't be able to very easily because the place is flooded with extremely cheap US imported rice (In the 1980's nearly all of Haiti's rice was grown domestically). This came about when Haiti was convinced to open its doors to "free trade". The result is that the 20% of the population who farm rice are in a dire situation economically. When they go out of business the country will be dependant on US imports for its stable food and so they will have no control over prices. There is good and bad with all.

Here is the Haiti rice link.

Your sarcasm on the Congo war disappoints me. Over 3 million dead and a UN brokered cease fire in effect. Tell me, what mediating was the US doing to stop the bloodshed? (I honestly don't know - but I can guess). Moral authority is dubious at best when coming from one source. Better to live with the double checks of an international body - even if it needs reform.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

From your article, why not go it alone if we are going to shoulder the blame singularily.

I agree because no matter what happens and who's in charge of rebuilding, all of the negatives, if any, will be blamed upon the US for the simple fact that the US initiated the war. By default, any and all problems will be placed at the feet of the US war initiative regardless of their origin. Might as well plow ahead as leader of the reconstruction. And, as I stated earlier, I really don't think the US could do any worse than what the UN would do, and chances are the US will do better.