Shifting Sands

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@9 February 2004 - 16:33
I am sympathetic to the argument that we should be pro-active and prevent atrocities. However, I am unconvinced with the assertion that this particular war was necessary to prevent a significant level of wrong doing over and above say that of North Korea or Zimbabwe let alone the activities in Rwanda which either went are still going all but ignored.

Saddams main atrocities occurred when he was on our side 15 to 20 years ago. We said little and did nothing at the time. His second batch of atrocities occurred 12 years ago when he suppressed the Shi'ites, who had risen at our behest only to be ignored in their plight.

I find the moral high ground here uncomfortably low. I am sceptical that it is indeed this hallowed turf we are in the process of re-claiming - although on this matter I would happily be proved wrong. Nevertheless, political expediency may be a wind that blows some good to the ME; albeit by fortuitous accident. If it does not, then the whole party piece may not be easy to repeat even if the circumstances are direr and more pressing.

---

As usual, nicely stated, Biggles.

I wonder, though:

From it's lofty perch on the presumptive moral high ground, how cloudy is the outlook of the U.N., given it's pose of altruistic intent bastardized by it's awful conflicting admixture of international political pressures?

I believe if the U.N. didn't exist (in it's current form) some movement might have occurred to ameliorate these other situations (Rwanda, etc.).

As it is, most of the world looks to the U.N. for leadership, and what is the result?

A constipation of inaction and non-effect; the U.N. accomplishes nothing.

This, for some reason, fails to impress the true believers.

:lol:


My own view is that the UN not so much stands on the moral high ground but rather wanders the moral maze. This is not done with bad intent, but is simply a function of the dispirate aspirations and political groupings that such an organisation must necessarily accommodate.

The UN has been compared to a family. I would go along with this. However, as my own family is largely dysfunctional (Fugely is strangely reminiscent of my mother) I am perhaps looking at this from a different perspective than that which the person who coined the phrase meant (although I suspect not).

Although dysfunctional, I think the world is a better place with the UN than it would be without. It does a lot of work which is often dull, worthy, unreported, but is the difference between life and death to some poor child. Its report card should read "Could do better. More support at home would not go amiss"

I still strongly disagree that the Un's instincts to pursue "other means" was correct. Those little impotent toads had 12 years to get something done. Meanwhile sanctions are making life miserable in Iraq and Saddam is laughing at the silly resolution makers.

Either take a stand or stand down. How long is long enough? 12, 15, 20 years for a pathetic 3rd world country to comply. Imagine if they were dealing with a real power.

What "other means" would have been effective against a man whose sole agenda was to preserve the illusion of power? A man more interested in palaces and gold toilets than any interest in his people. It is really that simple. He was playing a bluff and calling it was the only solution.

The US acted in it's own self interest, no doubt, but the UN had been given 12 years to do something and had accomplished not just nothing, but less than that. The effect of the sanctions were borne by the citizens, not Saddam.

Blix was an annoying poser, almost as ridiculous as Donald Rumsfeld.

Just what i meant on page 2 Hobbes, i hate to think what would have happened if saddam had had some clout <_<

Quote:

---

Originally posted by billyfridge@11 February 2004 - 05:58
Just what i meant on page 2 Hobbes, i hate to think what would have happened if saddam had had some clout <_<

---

An American and a Brit in agreement, will miracles never cease? ;)

BTW, I am still on page 1.

Hobbes, I think Biggles has nailed it:

The U.N. doesn&#39;t suffer from malicious intent, it is afflicted with a paralytic condition born of it&#39;s construction; think of a field of freshly mown hay:

How many stalks in toto are aimed in precisely the same direction?

The U.N.&#39;s fecklessness is inherent in it&#39;s "structure". ;)

J2,

We both have great respect for Biggles and this is well deserved.

My appearance in this thread was to disagree, respectfully, with this post:

Biggles:

Quote:

---

The events as they have unfolded would confirm the UN&#39;s instincts to pursue other means was correct. The French and German intelligence agencies were unconvinced that Iraq posed an immediate threat and said so. A question should be asked regarding why their information was better than ours (although the German intelligence agencies may say "we ask ze questions" - I&#39;ll get me coat&nbsp; )

---

If you look at my first post in which I quoted him, you will realize that he went back and edited the post.

I never felt that the UN was malicious, just impotent.

You would have to read all of my threads to see my point.

Just what did Saddam not do for 12 years? He let inspectors in and they found nothing, but no-one believed there was nothing to find, so the sanctions stayed in place. He got the shits and kicked them out. Still the sanctions stayed. They were there to lead the people to revolt. Not very likely after the last US call to arms&#33; He insisted all along that he didn&#39;t have these weapons. The inspectors went back in and, again, found nothing. Still the sanctions stayed. Saddam got the blame for kids dying, he had the money they said, it&#39;s his fault, ignoring the fact that all the Iraqi money in the world was unable to buy the drugs needed to save the lives of tens of thousands of kids. Again the inspectors went in, again they found nothing, Bush cut them short and invaded. Where are the weapons? There are none. Doesn&#39;t this point to Saddam complying with UN resolutions? As has already been said here, if this excuse wasn&#39;t used, they would have thought of others. What does this point to? OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL.


B)

It was my understanding that, in the view of the inspectors the regime in Iraq was not being co-operative with their investigations. Failing to allow them ready access to locations and documentation. He was not in a position to get them and kick them out, as he did not have the power to do so. It was for these reasons that the sancions stayed in place. If there were no weapons and he wanted a peaceful and quick solution he would have complied totally with the resolutins, the fact that he did not raises the questions about his motives.

What did he not comply with? There are no weapons&#33; He supplied a 3,000 page document detailing what they had done. Weapons inspectors went everywhere they wanted, whether they were hindered or not.

Quote:

---

He was not in a position to get them and kick them out, as he did not have the power to do so.

---

What does that mean?

Quote:

---

If there were no weapons and he wanted a peaceful and quick solution he would have complied totally with the resolutins, the fact that he did not raises the questions about his motives.

---

And this? What does not complying mean? That he denied they had WMD? They didn&#39;t&#33;

What&#39;s the problem here? You just can&#39;t admit they went to war over oil&#33;


<_<