UN reluctance

[Anamatar IV]

While reading the paper today (yup.....Anamatar reads other stuff than off the screen) I read a story saying the UN pushed America to agree for further inspection time. And it got me thinking, what do you think is the cause for all this UN reluctance for military action against Iraq? Surely they all know Saddam can't stay in power and surely they all know he isn't going to step down himself. And we didn't find a nuke there yet? Do we really need to find a bunch of bombs to know that we need to oust him?

People will argue against me that there is no need for war and no need to drop bombs. I agree. There is no need to drop bombs. We are not talking about Afghanistan here and Daisy Cutters and the such. I think that all is needed is ground attacks. Control the country city by city until they find [the real] Saddam Hussein.

But back to the point:

where is all this UN reluctance coming from?

[Beleg]

Regardless of any Debate I will try to answer your Question.

Since 3 Veto Power's of UN are against the War, How can UN give its unanimous approval from the Attack?

[Gloer]

One reason that makes UN reluctant to authorise "serioud consequences" against Iraq is the unilateralistic view President Bush has taken in world affairs ever since his inauguration.

USA under George W. Bush has pressed for UN resolution only after it was apparent that not all individual nations were behind the war without it. And then USA has acted as if UN resolution to grant a permit to attack sovereign nation can be obtained immidiately. Obviously North Korea is a more immidiate threat if there is one.

If UN resolution is given automatically it will just as well abandon itself as irrelevant stamping bureo for Pentagon. Same goes for NATO.

We need genuine and humble requests for help from USA backed with immidiate and obvious crisis.

So far USA has not needed anyone really, And the terror in USA is mainly manufactured by the news agencies.

[Bombadillo]

one of the reasons is that in some views, the US government thinks that they can make war whit whom they please...
there is much reluctancy to letting the US be the judges of the world, to decide whats right and whats wrong...

for example: the netherlands where really surprised and angry when they heard that america had an invation plan ready to invade our shores.....

[faila]

Un is reluctant because its the way they are. They are a pointless organization that never has served its purpose. THe US and the rest of the world needs to ignore the UN, and work on their own. Heck w need to attack Iraq and then North Korea, without the Uns approval. But either way the UN is proved pointless.

[Gloer]

UN has not been designed to legitimize the war the strongest memners want to start. It's purpose is to check that those wars are legitimite. UN is there to keep the most powerful nations from unilateral use of force.

[faila]

Originally posted by Gloer
UN has not been designed to legitimize the war the strongest memners want to start. It's purpose is to check that those wars are legitimite. UN is there to keep the most powerful nations from unilateral use of force. And THe US wil atack any way theifore proving their irrelevncey.
Their purpose was to avoide war.

[Ciryaher]

The UN is reluctant because they're all a bunch of pacifistic wimps that don't want to do anything that will make them look less in the eyes of the rest of the pacifistic-weenie-world. Frankly, I think that a majority of the organization is like the toadie in the movie A Christmas Story who hangs around with the Scud Farkus that is the US and other powerful nations. They want to ride while things are their way, but as soon as the road gets bumpy, they hop off the bus.

They ignore the fact that the Iraqi people have been subjected to horrors reminiscent of the Stalinistic-USSR, and that Saddam has used chemical and biological weapons on the Iranians and Kurds, to name just a few. To leave him in power is to show that this sort of leadership is acceptable and that the UN is nothing more than a second League of Nations that doesn't want to do anything more than appease the mob.

I'm not a pro-war person, but to do nothing of any use against the Hussein regime is to give dictators a basic stamp of approval.

[Beleg]

Un is reluctant because its the way they are. They are a pointless organization that never has served its purpose.*

Hehe! I agree with this part of your post faila. Un is just a group of thick-headed dorkish freaks who stick their nose is affairs where they are not needed.

[Arvedui]

In other words, the decision-makers in the UN are all diplomats!
Besides, the UN is a collection of 190 independant countries. Five of those have the right to veto any decision.

It will have to take more than a demand from George W. to make everyone agree to go to war.

And don't be too hasty about UN inability to act. They did in Kosovo, and they did in Afghanistan.

Maybe they just a better reason than USA is able to provide?

[Wolfshead]

I think France, Russia and Germany are reluctant because they are scared. They know what happens in war, it costs money and lives. And it has the potential to start a more active, larger war with the terrorists.

While not wanting to throw away Allied lives is admirable, we need to get rid of Hussein, he is a tyrant and should not be in power. War will happen whether the UN want it or not, it just depends if they want to break up the organisation or make it easy and just agree.

I don't know if anyone watches Bremner, Bird & Fortune or not? It's on in the UK on a Sunday on C4. But it's a great satirical look on the war and politics in general. Some of the things they work out are amazing! For example, if you have nuclear weapons, America won't attack you (North Korea), but if you don't, they will attack you (Iraq). And a few years back, an American organisation wrote to Clinton and told him they should get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, purely because he shouldn't be allowed to rule. That letter was signed by 18 people, 7 of them now work in the Bush administration! Anyway, I think the episode, Between Iraq And A Hard Place is available to watch on www.channel4.com so I would recommend watching that.

[Eriol]

Apart from the question of methods of war (which are the reasons I, personally, am opposed to any war), the results of this particular war are not favorable either to the UN or to the big three opponents of war (Russia, Germany, France). Make an imaginary experiment, imagine that the war is over, Saddam deposed, there was no 'rising of Islam' in response to it... imagine that all the critics of war are absolutely (as opposed to only relatively) wrong. What would be the position of these four actors, the UN and the big three?

UN -- it would continue to be irrelevant. No big change here, though you may suppose that the UN bureaucrats do want to become at least a bit relevant someday.

France, Germany, Russia -- They would see an enlarged US influence in the Middle East, meaning less leverage in economic deals -- The Great Game that you probably heard about. To prevent that they have two avenues: avoiding war or going full out (as Britain) on the side of the US. But then they would be reduced (as Britain) to the role of supporting actors, and would have to be content with whatever the US deemed appropriate of the spoils of war. Avoiding war is cheaper, economically and politically, and involves a greater profit.

(How I hate to analyze things cynically... there are people involved who would get killed!)

Anyway, this is probably the main reason for the reluctance to war. As for the "Saddam Hussein must be deposed" line, well, they simply do not agree with that. He has been there for decades. His neighbors, even vaunted enemies (Iran, Saudi Arabia), are not worried about him enough to urge a war (only Israel, in the region, supports the war). They do not believe the US evidence of a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam. If and when they go to war, they will do so only because they have been "bullied" to do so by the US. They simply do not think the "Saddam situation" is urgent, or warrants a war.

You probably disagree with them, but that's how they think... and it is subordinate to their positions on the Great Game, anyway.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
The UN is reluctant because they're all a bunch of pacifistic wimps that don't want to do anything that will make them look less in the eyes of the rest of the pacifistic-weenie-world. Frankly, I think that a majority of the organization is like the toadie in the movie A Christmas Story who hangs around with the Scud Farkus that is the US and other powerful nations. They want to ride while things are their way, but as soon as the road gets bumpy, they hop off the bus.


Excellent Grover Dill reference, Cir! A Randy comparison might be more apropos though;
Randy laid on the ground like a slug, it was his only chance.
Kidding. :cool:

Where does the fact that France, Germany, and Russia all have important oil supply contracts with Iraq belong in this debate?

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Arvedui
In other words, the decision-makers in the UN are all diplomats!
Besides, the UN is a collection of 190 independant countries. Five of those have the right to veto any decision.

It will have to take more than a demand from George W. to make everyone agree to go to war.

And don't be too hasty about UN inability to act. They did in Kosovo, and they did in Afghanistan.

Maybe they just a better reason than USA is able to provide?

China vetoed the UN SC resolution on Kosovo.

NATO attacked Serbia without a mandate.
The pardonable excuse was "immediate humanitarian crises".

The serbs had begun a genocide of the Albanians. But then the Albanianas were and are muslim terrorists just like palestinians.

[Ciryaher]

As a follow-up to my previous post, I think that Turkey should be outraged at the insolent treatment they have received from Germany, France, and Belgium. To be denied the ability to protect your people by ALLIES is just about the greatest insult to a nation I can conceive. Turkey requested chemical suits, gas masks, and Patriot missile-defense systems, and their request was blocked by three nations whose only interest is their own bloody economies. They would of course express their "deepest sympathies" if Turks were the target of an Iraqi SCUD strike, but they're not willing to aid in the prevention of casualties.

Turkey is a nation with a strong background, and they are an important ally and nation today. For allies to deny them the things they have requested is an insult, and the governments of those three nations should be ashamed.

[Gloer]

Are you seriously claiming that Iraq is going to invade Turkey?

Like right now? Today? This year?

Iraq has a reluctant population of 30 million and a battered army - thi Iraq is going to take on Turkey. Right.

Turkey has a population of 90 million people and the most advanced battle experienced army in the region.

Iraq will never dare attack Turkey alone and if it did it would be facing NATO.

NATO is strictly speaking irrelevant before there is legitimation for USA (and Turkey) to invade Iraq. That is a situation where Turkey is in threat because it is invading with USA.

Again - NATO involvement is probable but can not be required since it would not be a conflict illegally initiated by Iraq.

That's one good reason not to act within NATO in such a way that would give an impression that NATO will hold Iraq already responsible for the probable unilateral and illegitimate attack. Bush has threathened with such a move.

some NATO countries feel that they are unwillinglyi manipulated in the conflict on the side of Turkey and USA even without UN.

[Ciryaher]

You seem to forget that Iraq launched SCUD attacks on numerous nations, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, and namely, Israel. I doubt that they would be afraid to shoot missiles at an ally of the US.

[Gloer]

Sh shooting and giving the whole game to Bush for nothing...ridiculous.

Saddam is not going to do that. Iraq is not a threat to Turkey unless provoked to be.

Turkey is safe with Saddam.
They are almost best of friends what comes to some issues:

Good heavens! They kill the same enemies all the time: The kurdish people.

[Arvedui]

But still Cir has a major point:
Turkey are an equal member of a defence treaty organization and have the right, through their membership, to expect that, when they ask their allies for help when the circumstances are as they are at the moment, they get the support they ask for.
The actions of France, and Germany and Belgium, may be seen as an attempt to move the "schwerpunkt" of NATO to the eastern side of the Atlantic. Unfortunately, it would weaken NATO at the same time.
I live in a country which is very much in the same position as Turkey, positioned on the flank of the Alliance. I would feel a lot safer if I knew that if we needed help from our allies, that help would indeed come!

[Bombadillo]

the support has been given....
and do people forget? the UN are the reason and common logic and the mental break of the world!
if someaones is driving you mad its that little voice in your head thats says "shall we fight, has it a purpose??"
so you wont destroy yourself and others when youre not meaning to, and don't rush into battle too eagerly...!!

If anyone just started a war becouse their annoyed it would be chaos..

[Lantalasse]

the person who said that turkey and iraq are almost best friends is quite right. they've both launched an ethnic cleansing on the Kurds but no one really cares about that. even at this point, the us and britain are not going to war with iraq for humanitarian reasons. they're going there for their own interests. and they have been ignoring turkey's acts against the kurds because turkey is an "ally and friend" and does what it is told.

the UN are not "pacifist-weenies". just because you have never seen war or its consequences and think it's some kind of spielberg(sp?) movie doesn't mean that the one organisation that is supposed to keep the peace is useless. the truth is it is not working properly because only 5 out of 190something countries have the right to veto.

[Ciryaher]

the UN are not "pacifist-weenies". just because you have never seen war or its consequences and think it's some kind of spielberg movie

You are referring to me. You think I don't know about war? My parents were both in the military. If you think I'm ignorant about the consequences of war, you are direly mistaken. And yes, the UN and their lack of initiative to remove Hussein makes them all "pacifist-weenies" in my eyes.

If France, Belgium, and Germany had blocked the motion to send Turkey supplied because of ethnic cleansing, I would agree with them. However, since they are only interested in protecting their own economic arrangements with Iraq, they'll get no sympathy from me.

[Robin]

how du you uphold pice whit war?
If the U.S can go around the Un the are as bad as Hitler fighting for fun!:(

US hom of the Jack the Riper (Bush)

[Húrin Thalion]

Let us calm down a little Robin and not make an undue comparison. I don't like the American war palns either but the comparison to Hitler is more suitable to Saddam than to the US. I have talked a lot to you about this and see that this is not what you meant but some people MIGHT (quite rightly) be offended by this comment. Abotu fighting for fun, I don't think that anyone has doenthat in modern history, even if some people doubtlessly have enjoyed wars for some sick reason. I know what you mean though, it feels like: 'We ahve the world's greatest army, why not use it and build the rest of the world as WE want it.' Which is wrong to do too.

Húrin Thalion

[Legolam]

This war is in danger of making the UN completely irrelevant. It was set up as a protection against individual nations going to war against another without legitimate reasons in order to stop World War III. If the USA and the UK go to war without UN backing, no matter what you think of the legitimacy of the war, the UN becomes obsolete. The USA and UK are showing exactly what they think of the UN and are prepared to defy it - war will happen with or without UN backing.

I'm all for getting rid of Saddam. Heck, I think I may even be for getting rid of him by force. But if it means doing it illegally, against the wishes of the UN security counsel, then they do NOT have my backing. With UN backing, the possibility of further conflict in the region, and indeed the rest of the world, may be avoided. Without it, we're looking at the disintegration of the world order that we know now. And who know's what'll happen then?

A bit melodramatic, but that's how I see the importance of the UN.

[Gloer]

Praying for help aren't they, Cir. They really really desperately need NATO to send troops to secure their defense against foreign forces forcing themselves in the country.
:confused:

Seriously. Turkey is safe as ever. Saddam is their old friend against the kurds.

USA asking people choose sides is puting Turkish peace in jepardy.

Why can't you fight your war in USA? Close your borders, take your business out and keep away from other peoples affairs if you can't handle it.

[Gandalf White]

Legolam, I almost fully agree with your statements about the UN. However, they have lost much credibility in my eyes with their anti-US, anti-Israel stand.
Also, they have a really messed up ways of dealing with things. America's petition to disarm Iraq hinges on the votes of nations like Camaroon, who will sell their vote to the highest bidder. I mean, come on, they shouldn't be telling the US what or what not to do, especially in an important and dangerous situation like this. I agree with you on this; if the UN doesn't ship up and pass the US-led resolution, it will be pretty much history.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
However, since they are only interested in protecting their own economic arrangements with Iraq, they'll get no sympathy from me.

I don´t agree with Schröder´s Iraq-politics, but I don´t believe that any economic arrangements with Iraq are the cause of this policy.

I believe, that the German administration estimates the aftermath of a war against Iraq worse than the situation today.

If the USA wants to change the political situation in the Near East with this war, US-troops will have to stay there for a very, very long time - 50 years and more.

[Lúthien Séregon]

I think that there should be something down against Saddam, but it should not be war, to put it quite simply and restrict my view to less than 3 lines.:rolleyes:

Otherwise I'll be going on forever.

[Chymaera]

Ask yourself this.

'Could Iraq be contained for 9 or 10 months?'
If American Generals don't want to fight in the Iraqi summer. Then come back in the fall. Bill me!

'What exactly is the hurry?'

If Saddam is dealing with bin Laden then the biological and chemical weapons have been warehoused in the States since 1998 and they are just picking there next target.