Iraqi Minister scolds UN for Inaction...

[351Cleveland]

Iraqi Minister is not happy with UN.

 

[miguel]

LOL, finally:

"Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people," Mr. Zebari said in language unusually scolding for an occupant of the guest seat at the end of the curving Security Council table.

"Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold," he said.

Taking a harsh view of the inability of quarreling members of the Security Council to endorse military action in Iraq, Mr. Zebari said, "One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable.

"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."

He declared, "The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again."

You tell 'em, Zebari.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: miguel
LOL, finally:

"Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people," Mr. Zebari said in language unusually scolding for an occupant of the guest seat at the end of the curving Security Council table.

"Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold," he said.

Taking a harsh view of the inability of quarreling members of the Security Council to endorse military action in Iraq, Mr. Zebari said, "One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable.

"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."

He declared, "The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again."

You tell 'em, Zebari.

Just to check - do you think that, say the UN, should go around the world with a multinational force (of which no doubt the US would be a large contingent part) "taking out" oppressive, tyrannical regimes?

US lives will be lost and they'll always be another "Saddam" to oppose - at least in the short term. It's an admirable position to take, I just want to be sure you know that's the route Zebari (according to your quote) wishes to take us down.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: miguel
LOL, finally:

"Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people," Mr. Zebari said in language unusually scolding for an occupant of the guest seat at the end of the curving Security Council table.

"Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold," he said.

Taking a harsh view of the inability of quarreling members of the Security Council to endorse military action in Iraq, Mr. Zebari said, "One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable.

"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."

He declared, "The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again."

You tell 'em, Zebari.

Just to check - do you think that, say the UN, should go around the world with a multinational force (of which no doubt the US would be a large contingent part) "taking out" oppressive, tyrannical regimes?

US lives will be lost and they'll always be another "Saddam" to oppose - at least in the short term. It's an admirable position to take, I just want to be sure you know that's the route Zebari (according to your quote) wishes to take us down.

Cheers,

Andy

Yes, I think the UN should do good around the world. What is it supposed to do while a government is killing hundreds of thousands of its own citizens? COme to think of it, what exactly is the UN for anyway?

 

[Fencer128]

Yes, I think the UN should do good around the world. What is it supposed to do while a government is killing hundreds of thousands of its own citizens? COme to think of it, what exactly is the UN for anyway?

I thought one of the aims of the UN was to prevent further global war. i.e. war between countries, as opposed to within them. I'm sure you/I/someone can link to the UN charter. It's all there.

Cheers,

Andy

EDIT: Do you think as many people would sign up for the military if they thought they would die defending someone in a foreign land who - most probably - wasn't a threat to them, their family or their country? I don't think they would.

That force would have to be staffed by people such as yourself. I admire you if your conviction is that strong.

EDIT2!: Your idea may work for the first war or two IMHO. But IMHO after a bloody nose or a series of wars, support will fall real quick.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Yes, I think the UN should do good around the world. What is it supposed to do while a government is killing hundreds of thousands of its own citizens? COme to think of it, what exactly is the UN for anyway?

I thought one of the aims of the UN was to prevent further global war. i.e. war between countries, as opposed to within them. I'm sure you/I/someone can link to the UN charter. It's all there.

Cheers,

Andy

Is that why the UN didn't do anything about the Rwanda situation? Because it was internal? Would it also be safe to assume that the UN would have done nothing about the Jews being slaughtered in Germany or the Cambodian "cleansing"?

Alas, I think you are right. Here's a link to the UN charter, and quoted below. Too bad, it sounds like a situation where the police gave Jeffrey Dahmer back his beaten and bleeding teenage victim because it was a "domestic issue."

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.

 

[Fencer128]

Miguel, what do you think of the practicalities I highlighted in my editing of my previous post, namely:

EDIT: Do you think as many people would sign up for the military if they thought they would die defending someone in a foreign land who - most probably - wasn't a threat to them, their family or their country? I don't think they would.

That force would have to be staffed by people such as yourself. I admire you if your conviction is that strong.

EDIT2!: Your idea may work for the first war or two IMHO. But IMHO after a bloody nose or a series of wars, support will fall real quick.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Miguel, what do you think of the practicalities I highlighted in my editing of my previous post, namely:

EDIT: Do you think as many people would sign up for the military if they thought they would die defending someone in a foreign land who - most probably - wasn't a threat to them, their family or their country? I don't think they would.

That force would have to be staffed by people such as yourself. I admire you if your conviction is that strong.

EDIT2!: Your idea may work for the first war or two IMHO. But IMHO after a bloody nose or a series of wars, support will fall real quick.

Cheers,

Andy

I don't think you understand how real American soldiers feel and think. Ask anyone who survived WWII your first question. It was the right thing to do is the answer you'll probably get.

I respectfully disagree with your humble opinion. I have more faith in humanity than that. Actually, I also feel that once a tyrant or two is tumbled and their country turned around, you'll see more and more support.

 

[Fencer128]

I don't think you understand how real American soldiers feel and think. Ask anyone who survived WWII your first question. It was the right thing to do is the answer you'll probably get.

True. But the US was under a real threat of invasion and occupation by the axis powers. The intervention wasn't purely on "moral" grounds.

I respectfully disagree with your humble opinion. I have more faith in humanity than that. Actually, I also feel that once a tyrant or two is tumbled and their country turned around, you'll see more and more support.

I have a great deal of faith in humanity also. I still believe though that the "ultimate sacrifice" is called that for a reason. It takes a special kind of person to put their life on the line for another. An even more special one to do it repeatedly knowing that they could just go home and nothing negative would come of it to them.

Cheers and I appreciate your arguement.

Andy

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

I don't think you understand how real American soldiers feel and think. Ask anyone who survived WWII your first question. It was the right thing to do is the answer you'll probably get.

True. But the US was under a real threat of invasion and occupation by the axis powers. The intervention wasn't purely on "moral" grounds.

I'm sure it's debatable in regards to germany. Remember that the US didn't jump in until Japan attacked. After that, it was full throttle.

I respectfully disagree with your humble opinion. I have more faith in humanity than that. Actually, I also feel that once a tyrant or two is tumbled and their country turned around, you'll see more and more support.

I have a great deal of faith in humanity also. I still believe though that the "ultimate sacrifice" is called that for a reason. It takes a special kind of person to put their life on the line for another. An even more special one to do it repeatedly knowing that they could just go home and nothing negative would come of it to them.

Isn't that why the US WWII veterans are often referred to as the greatest generation?

You have not addressed the UN questions I posted earlier:

Is that why the UN didn't do anything about the Rwanda situation? Because it was internal? Would it also be safe to assume that the UN would have done nothing about the Jews being slaughtered in Germany or the Cambodian "cleansing"?

 

[Fencer128]

I have a great deal of faith in humanity also. I still believe though that the "ultimate sacrifice" is called that for a reason. It takes a special kind of person to put their life on the line for another. An even more special one to do it repeatedly knowing that they could just go home and nothing negative would come of it to them.

Isn't that why the US WWII veterans are often referred to as the greatest generation?

Yes. But the point I'm trying to show is that they had fear for their families and country to drive them - if you like, a reason for them to stamp out the axis. The situation you advocate is nothing like that.

You have not addressed the UN questions I posted earlier:

Sorry - I thought it was rhetorical.

Is that why the UN didn't do anything about the Rwanda situation? Because it was internal? Would it also be safe to assume that the UN would have done nothing about the Jews being slaughtered in Germany or the Cambodian "cleansing"?

Quite possibly.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[miguel]

the UN sux.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: miguel
the UN sux.

I think to get a subjective opinion we should involve some of the serving anandtech members. Anyone?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Fencer128

I don't think you understand how real American soldiers feel and think. Ask anyone who survived WWII your first question. It was the right thing to do is the answer you'll probably get.

True. But the US was under a real threat of invasion and occupation by the axis powers. The intervention wasn't purely on "moral" grounds.

I'm sure it's debatable in regards to germany. Remember that the US didn't jump in until Japan attacked. After that, it was full throttle.

I respectfully disagree with your humble opinion. I have more faith in humanity than that. Actually, I also feel that once a tyrant or two is tumbled and their country turned around, you'll see more and more support.

I have a great deal of faith in humanity also. I still believe though that the "ultimate sacrifice" is called that for a reason. It takes a special kind of person to put their life on the line for another. An even more special one to do it repeatedly knowing that they could just go home and nothing negative would come of it to them.

Isn't that why the US WWII veterans are often referred to as the greatest generation?

You have not addressed the UN questions I posted earlier:

Is that why the UN didn't do anything about the Rwanda situation? Because it was internal? Would it also be safe to assume that the UN would have done nothing about the Jews being slaughtered in Germany or the Cambodian "cleansing"?

Man, there is too many naive people in this forum.

Why should anyone fight and die for someone else's freedom? I have a wife and two sons and who is gonna take care of them if I fight and die for someone else? Get real, this is the real world we are talking about.

American fought the Brits for thier freedom; through out the history, people who wanted their freedom fought and die for it. Why should Iraqi be any different and have someone else fight and die for them? the minister should grow some back bone and instead of blaming everyone else, why not blame his own people for not fight hard enough and get rid of Hussein themselves. Yeah Saddam killed a few thousand a year who opposed him, but can he kill all 20 million Iraqis if they all stand up and oppose him?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Man, there is too many naive people in this forum.

Why should anyone fight and die for someone else's freedom? I have a wife and two sons and who is gonna take care of them if I fight and die for someone else? Get real, this is the real world we are talking about.

American fought the Brits for thier freedom; through out the history, people who wanted their freedom fought and die for it. Why should Iraqi be any different and have someone else fight and die for them? the minister should grow some back bone and instead of blaming everyone else, why not blame his own people for not fight hard enough and get rid of Hussein themselves. Yeah Saddam killed a few thousand a year who opposed him, but can he kill all 20 million Iraqis if they all stand up and oppose him?

There has never been a more powerful country on this planet than the US, and you are saying we should never help? Even the french helped the US fight the brits.

 

[Fencer128]

There has never been a more powerful country on this planet than the US, and you are saying we should never help? Even the french helped the US fight the brits.

Were the French at war with the English at the time (my history on that period isn't too good)? Is so, isn't it just a case of thwarting your enemies plans, interests of national security, etc. Not really selfless.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: miguel

COme to think of it, what exactly is the UN for anyway?

Oil-for-food?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: miguel

COme to think of it, what exactly is the UN for anyway?

Oil-for-food?

Why not look them up at un.org they're more than just the UNSC.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

No thanks; the UN has marginalized itself, so I would rather not read their political propaganda on how they are such an important organization that does so much for the world. Thanks anyway.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
No thanks; the UN has marginalized itself, so I would rather not read their political propaganda on how they are such an important organization that does so much for the world. Thanks anyway.

Propaganda with numbers to back it up though.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Do they show how the oil-for-food program benefited the UN $18 billion since the start of the program, while Iraq received only $16 billion (in goods), at $3 billion a year?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

The Times of London has calculated that over the last seven years, Russian companies received $7.3 billion of business through oil for food; French firms earned $3.7 billion.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Do they show how the oil-for-food program benefited the UN $18 billion since the start of the program, while Iraq received only $16 billion (in goods), at $3 billion a year?

I really don't know.

If someone wants to bother. I don't. (bored with it all).

Cheers,

Andy

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Are these the numbers they are purporting?

The U.N. has collected a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel of oil sold...

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Are these the numbers they are purporting?

The U.N. has collected a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel of oil sold...

really don't know.

If someone wants to bother. I don't. (bored with it all).

Cheers,

Andy