StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Before you answer that question, let me risk a little copyright infringement by quoting some excerpts from an article by Charles Krauthammer, which appears in today's Washington Post:

My son long ago introduced me to the joys of the Onion, the hilarious Web site that features such parodies of the news as "Clinton Deploys Vowels to Bosnia; Cities of Sjlbvdnzv, Grzny to be First Recipients." So when, on the night of the State of the Union address, my son handed me an Internet printout headlined "Iraq to Chair U.N. Disarmament Conference," I was sure he'd been dipping again into the Onion.

"It's better than that, Dad," he said. "It's off CNN."

I should have known. You can't parody the United Nations. It inhabits -- no, it has constructed -- a universe so Orwellian that, yes, Iraq is going to chair the May 12-June 27 session of the United Nations' single most important disarmament negotiating forum.

Iran will co-chair.

Defenders of the United Nations will write this off as a simple accident, pointing out that the chairmanship rotates alphabetically under the U.N. absurdity that grants all member states equal moral standing. Fine. How, then, do U.N. defenders explain the recent elevation of Libya to the chairmanship of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights?

You couldn't make this one up either. It was no alphabetical accident. Libya was elected, by deliberate vote, by overwhelming vote -- 33 to 3. The seven commission members from the European Union, ever reliable in their cynicism, abstained. They will now welcome a one-party police state -- which specializes in abduction, assassination, torture and detention without trial -- to the chair of the United Nations' highest body charged with defending human rights.

This is the United Nations. This is the institution whose support Democrats insist the United States must have to validate the legitimacy of its actions, such as the forcible disarming of Saddam Hussein. This is the institution to which they turn to test the worthiness of decisions taken by the president and Congress of the United States...

...How would the vote of Syria, member of both the Security Council and the State Department's list of terrorist states, confer legitimacy on America's actions? Or the vote of China? Or, for that matter, France, whose president called the president of Syria to coordinate Security Council strategy, and whose interest in stopping the war is a matter of finance (to protect its huge contracts with Saddam Hussein) and vanity (to be the one European ex-power that tames the American cowboy)...

There's a great deal more to the article, and I recommend you read the whole thing, but whether you agree with the apparently impending war with Iraq or not, you have to ask yourself, what is the worth of UN approval when terrorist states get to chair disarmament conferences and human rights commissions there, and the other member states allow or even engineer this?

I still laugh at the Cowboy remakes, Bush could not be going any slower if he was walking backwords, First he goes to Congress not once but twice, Teddy Kennedy wants him to come back a THIRD time, He gets two UN Resoultions and is getting a third
Its been over a blood year since he called on us to take out Saddam I don't see what else the European's want him to do
Besides not go to war at all of course...

Compare that with Clinton of 98 who simply bombed the shit out of Saddam when he made up his mind and got a quick resoultion from the UN to do so(And that did not do much BTW)

because France and Russia have already signed Oil extraction trade agreements with Saddam and they hope by bogging us down in the UN, we'd get pissed off and forget about the whole thing. You know what pisses me off? Where are the 'No blood for oil' people? They scream bloody murder at us for 'fighing a war for oil' but the Russians and French CAN PUMP BLOOD MONEY INTO IRAQ and not a peep is heard from them.

LA Weekly had an interesting piece on the 'Anti-War' group ANSWER a few months back, here's a summary. The executive board of the group is completely controlled by another group called the Workers World Party. the WWP is a radical offshoot of the International Communist Party. it seperated in 1954 in support of the Soviet Invasion of....Czechoslovakia or Hungary...i forget which (any history buffs?). Anyway these people are decidedly NOT against war. As a matter of fact, it has been suggested by many religious anti war groups, and Peace and nonviolence groups that the money raised by ANSWER is directly funneled to the WWP which in turn uses it to fund Marxist, Maoist and Stalinist groups in Sri-Lanka, Eastern Europe and Columbia.

What do we make of this? these people are not Anti War, they are anti American and Anti Free Market and manipulate the people who are genuinely anti-war to serve a concurrent agenda

the real reason france and russia oppose an iraq war

Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns ... 4_362.html

Actually the USA doesn't need the UNs approval at all.

But if you still intend to go around talking about the 'free world' and about the cooperation within NATO then you sure do need to get the approval of your allies, and those allies are intent on first getting UN approval and then going to war.
I think that the US gov is smart in trying to get more countries in the bandwagon before waging a large scale operation. Also because once it is over there is going to be a rebuilding to be done and that takes resources.

And besides the more the merrier.

I just want to point out that the assertion Bush made in his State of the Union that seemed to draw the most applause was when he assured us that we would go it alone if we had to. God I can't tell you the relief I felt when he said that. Afterwards ABC did an informal poll and several people mentioned this point as one of the better things he brought up in his speech.

Americans are sick and tired of having to justify every action to a world body that is riddled with hypocrisy and outright hatred (or is it envy?) of the US and its policies. There's a great Tshirt that says it all. Either Lead, Follow or Get out of the Way.

<waits patiently for the peace ninnies to show up on this thread>

RedImperator wrote:<waits patiently for the peace ninnies to show up on this thread>

watches the tumbleweeds blow across the thread in anticipation of the peaceniks

Also if the UN decides to go with the US, then it becomes a UN "operation", not an American "invasion". It'll give the US more legitimacy.


Also we should consider that if the UN goes with us, then after we've defeated Saddam and secured Iraq, we won't have to put as many US soldiers there for 10-15 years as garrison, meaning that more soldiers can come home after the war instead of staying there for another decade or so.

Makes me wanna go play some Outkast...."Bombs Over Baghdad"

What exactly is the UN supposed to do? It's like the modern day League of Nations.

HemlockGrey wrote:What exactly is the UN supposed to do? It's like the modern day League of Nations.

It doesn't actually DO much for the US to have UN approval, but having their approval does improve the US's IMAGE.

Image plays such a big role in international politics it's ridiculous. The US wants UN approval so that it'll look good in the eyes of the international public, and the international public wouldn't care if the US is invading Iraq for poor reasons---their image looks good, so the operation must be fully justifiable.

Now we will go in whether we have UN approval or not, but having their approval will help in international relations in the future---again image.

Shinova wrote:

HemlockGrey wrote:What exactly is the UN supposed to do? It's like the modern day League of Nations.

It doesn't actually DO much for the US to have UN approval, but having their approval does improve the US's IMAGE.

Image plays such a big role in international politics it's ridiculous. The US wants UN approval so that it'll look good in the eyes of the international public, and the international public wouldn't care if the US is invading Iraq for poor reasons---their image looks good, so the operation must be fully justifiable.

Now we will go in whether we have UN approval or not, but having their approval will help in international relations in the future---again image.

it's sad. really sad that image matters more than justice in world politics...the UN is now more than just 'like' a modern day leauge of nations...it has become it.

A UN resolution will actually not accomplish much for the war. France, Germany, Russia, and China will bitch a little bit less ... but they will still want a diplomatic solution.

Some states will use it to quell anti-US sentiment about the use of bases, but I doubt that will actually mean much to the anti-US sentiments the world over.

The radical Islamicists don't give a flying frik what the UN says and never will.

Now what would matter is commitments of cash (to fund the war and to fund rebuilding) ... not UN sanction. Militarily the EU has crap for force projection outside of the Brits and even France's aircraft carrier is nothing compared to what the US will field.

The UN is a feel good organization dominated by indignant countries who are pissed they are too inconsequential in world affairs. The only time the UN can do anything is when the major powers (read US, UK, China, Russia, EU collectively, Commonwealth collectively, possibly India) back it. Most of the UN's time is spent on worthless issues that have no effect on reality. Certain UN programmes are worthwhile ... but the actual governing body is moronic.

The fact of the matter is there has been enough fucking arround. The US army is mobilised and in position the UK army is in position. We both have our Carrier fleets in the area. FUCK THE UN. We need to go in and go in hard.

damn right they have no force projection. the continent of Europe has a grand total of 2 ships that would qualify as Fleet Carriers. France's DeGaulle and Italy's Garabaldi. The DeGaulle from what i understand is greatly in need of refit and was scheduled for drydock in Toulon, that has since been cancelled and it is now on alert. the Brits have a fair number of Invincible class carriers, but those are not much larger than escort carriers. The United States by comparason has 10 Nuke powered super carriers (enterprise, lincon, kennedy, rosevelt, nimitz, stennis, vinson, truman , eisenhower and washington) 2 steam turbine powered supercarriers (kitty hawk, constellation) and a couple dozen amphibious assault carriers.

Why does the US need the UN's approval? Maybe it's because without it, it's American and Britain invading another sovereign nation, kicking out the government, and taking over. And, this is going to surprise alot of the pro-war crowd, that looks alot like Imperialism.. Something that most people think is bad. Indeed, the only responsible thing to do would be to assume control of Iraq long enough to rebuild what we blow away, and yes, that is colonialism.

Americans have trouble with the idea of Empire. They were taught it's a naughty thing. If the UN agrees, it's no longer two nations ripping into a nation and plopping down on it, it's International Peacekeeping. Some people will demand that's just semantics, and they're right.. But in the world of politics, semantics has more weight that actual facts. Sad but true.

Well said.

tharkûn wrote:A UN resolution will actually not accomplish much for the war. France, Germany, Russia, and China will bitch a little bit less ... but they will still want a diplomatic solution.

Some states will use it to quell anti-US sentiment about the use of bases, but I doubt that will actually mean much to the anti-US sentiments the world over.

And others will just ignore it. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are good at saying they're our allies while the state-run newspapers consistently print anti-American stories. I'm not sure who our worst enemy in the Middle East is...Hussein or ben Saud.

Now what would matter is commitments of cash (to fund the war and to fund rebuilding) ... not UN sanction. Militarily the EU has crap for force projection outside of the Brits and even France's aircraft carrier is nothing compared to what the US will field.

Right...funding...because the USA doesn't already provide 27.3% of the UN's peacekeeping bill, and 22% of their total budget, and they bitch that we don't pay more . I also find the UN's claim that the US has 29% of the world's GNP somewhat suspicious, since Virginia Tech's numbers say that the US, Mexico, and Canada combined are only 30%. Unless the economies of Canada and Mexico combined are only 1% of the world's GNP, someone's not telling the truth. Unfortunately, I can't find any information on the estimated world-wide GDP. Plenty of growth percentage estimates, but no real numbers. All I can find is that the US's GDP is ~$10 trillion, and that in 1998 it was 27% of the world's GDP.

The UN is a feel good organization dominated by indignant countries who are pissed they are too inconsequential in world affairs. The only time the UN can do anything is when the major powers (read US, UK, China, Russia, EU collectively, Commonwealth collectively, possibly India) back it. Most of the UN's time is spent on worthless issues that have no effect on reality. Certain UN programmes are worthwhile ... but the actual governing body is moronic.

Quite true. And their willingness to place the worst offenders at the head of the committees that are supposed to be policing their offenses merely reduces the UN's credibility. I for one am surprised that the United States continues to support the United Nations. It has fairly clearly shown its inability to work and its biases towards extremism.

Shinova wrote:
Also we should consider that if the UN goes with us, then after we've defeated Saddam and secured Iraq, we won't have to put as many US soldiers there for 10-15 years as garrison, meaning that more soldiers can come home after the war instead of staying there for another decade or so.

This is perhaps the only real good thing a UN backing would do for us. We won't have to have so many of our soldiers over there in Iraq for decades if the UN helps us.


But we'll be going in no matter what the UN says.

The Dark wrote:Right...funding...because the USA doesn't already provide 27.3% of the UN's peacekeeping bill, and 22% of their total budget, and they bitch that we don't pay more

Isn't the UN complaining about the unpaid debt?

The US needs UN approval so that they can continue to tell themselves that they're not an overbearing imperialist state.

Americans as individuals can be nice people; don't get me wrong. But let's face it; if America the Nation wants to do something, and anybody else disagrees, there is no genuine discussion. America consults others so that they can say yes. If they say no, then America simply says "fuck you, we're bigger than you and we can kick your ass so shut the hell up". I'm not talking about Iraq in particular; I'm talking about their behaviour in general for decades now.

But of course, they tell themselves that they stand for freedom and democracy, and many of their citizens genuinely want to believe that they really do act like this on the international stage. Hence the need for UN approval; they know, and everyone else knows that they're basically the Roman Empire. But nobody wants to come out and say it, so they pretend to humour the rest of the world by seeking approval which they don't really give a shit about.

Assuming your correct Wong(And if you are or not shall wait for another day)


Was Rome that bad? And a better question is America's current stance/methods bad?

Or are you simply say "Guess what your an Empire, Fess up and admit it, just admit it"

Or?
"Gdamn American Imperlaists!"


Or somewhere in between?

SirNitram wrote:Indeed, the only responsible thing to do would be to assume control of Iraq long enough to rebuild what we blow away, and yes, that is colonialism.

Is that such a bad thing? We controlled the Phillipines from 1898 to 1946,
and take a look at what's happened to Rhodesia since the blacks took over

We most certainly are not the Roman Empire. There is no other power in the history of the civilized war that has acted as decently to both vanquished and ally as this one has. The Europeans were starving to death in the winter of 45-46. The US had won its war against Germany and they could have retreated back to their homes and left the world to rot, instead we created the Marshall Plan, the single biggest welfare check in the history of the world where the US in essence saved Europe from utter collapse and saved lives. When Rome conquered gaul, there was no rebuilding program for the slaightered enemy. There was simple occupation and annexation with treasure and booty carted back home.

The US FORGAVE the European powers' war debts, which if called on would have destroyed the collective governements of Europe.

Japan after fighting a horrendous war with awful casualties on both sides in a no quarters asked none given island hopping campaign was rebuilt by America, allowed to keep its traditions and Emperor. Revenge was not taken as in the Versailles treaty, an idea by Europeans to punish teh Germans for the war. Not an American idea. What would have the result been if it were the USSR? I seriously doubt we would have a Japan left anymore.

Look no further than afghanistan, a nation we would have every right to leave to rot but we're there, rebuilding and helping to introduce some sort of democracy to a land that has lived by organized anarchy for decades.

Does anyone seriously think the US is going in to annex Iraq? Iraq will be rebuilt, people fed and infrastructure craeted with a democratic government installed.

What some other nations need to come to terms with is the following:

#1 The US is a power unprecedented in this world in both scale of economy and military might.

#2 The US is and has been the most benign great power this world has ever seen.

Look at #1, and tell me how much more different this world would be if we had the aggressive expansionistic policies of the Romans or the Soviets. To those that bitch and moan about American unilateralism I say imagine if we had Casear as our leader and these were American legions, how fucked up would your world be then?

Great powers have the absoulte neccessity to look after their own interests, its what they do, it's what they've always done, but in terms of history, this has been the most progressive and orderly great power to come down the pike.

And if anyone else out there is willing to lead then let them. Most of the world seems to be made up of collective hand wringers that so love to stick their foot out and trip those that decide to get up and make stand.