Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:32
VIEWED: 15590
PAGE 4 of 15
You have highlighted the problem with the U.N., the security council, specifically the permanent members of the security council.
Each has the power to veto anything which is not in their best interest. France had interest in Iraq hence their 'veto' (resolution withdrawn because we knew they would use it). China has interest in Sudan hence their threatened veto. America has interest in Israel so we veto anything negative against them.
As oil supplies tighten up we are going to see an ever increasingly ineffective U.N. as the big powers maneuver to get access and control over various reserves. No nation is going to risk their access to their favored sources.
Given how poorly the U.N. is set up I am surprised it has lasted this long. You are never going to have peace with a weak central government and nobody is going to give up autonomy voluntarily.
Might as well quote Heinlein in this thread too,
Quote:
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
I believe World War III is coming, not necessarily soon, but it is coming, about the time when China reaches the U.S. in energy consumption per capita.
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Because the UN works so well.
[snip]
Remind me how Sudan has anything to do with this thread. We're talking about Iraq. Stop trying to side track the discussion.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
You have highlighted the problem with the U.N., the security council, specifically the permanent membersof the security council.
And that problem is that they exist, or is it that they don't go along with what ever the US wants anymore? Specify.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
Each has the power to veto anything which is not in their best interest. France had interest in Iraq hence their 'veto' (resolution withdrawn because we knew they would use it).
This is here-say. France never said that they would veto any resolution. They just said that they would veto any solution that would immediately lead to war. I guess that the last part of that sentence never made it to the US, eh?
And you never know what they might have done. At least if the US tried to get the resolution passed they could say they tried. Now all they can say is that the other countries weren't playing nice (read as: had there own opinions and wouldn't move in the face of poor evidence) and then when off and had a bombing fit.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
China has interest in Sudan hence their threatened veto. America has interest in Israel so we veto anything negative against them.
Both are shameful.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
Given how poorly the U.N. is set up I am surprised it has lasted this long. You are never going to have peace with a weak central government and nobody is going to give up autonomy voluntarily.
It is only poorly setup for how things are today. This statement implies that it has always been this way, which isn't the case. In the beginning the structure was great for the small amount of countries that were members. But as the number increased, and no changes were made, problems started to arise. In this light, it is no surprise that it has lasted this long.
Quite frankly I don't see much of a problem with how things are running. Everyone seems to get things done (albeit slowly, inefficiently, yes things *need* to change, but no problems are there that aren't typical of politics that wouldn't exist without the UN). I believe that the major problem arose with the US acting like a child having a temper tantrum and went off alone to start a war (illegally).
I'm just happy that someone has finally said it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:Quote:
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
This is one of the stupidest statements that I've seen to date (which is saying something as I've done tech support for FedEx).
The only reason why this would be true is that in the past the world governments were (quite frankly), a little barbaric. They lacked the capacity to handle things by (and this is clearly a crazy idea to some) talking.
I'd like to think that we've evolved some since and that we can solve our problems diplomatically.
But, for those who thinking is along the lines of this quote. You are as barbaric as those from yester-year. You are dinosaurs. Please go off and get extinct before you kill those who would act in the name of peace and
us all.EDIT: Talking to the wife revealed a little tid-bit more.
There is a difference between solving a problem and ending it. The former is done by talking (ie by the civilized) and the latter is done by bombs and such (by the barbarians). But even then, the latter is typically an endless escalating cycle (note: no real end. That is until the former is completed by the civilized).
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem with the U.N. as I thought I indicated clearly in my post was that a single member of the security council can veto any proposal even if the rest of the U.N. is unanimous.
The U.N. has been poorly set up from the very beginning. The world powers have always had this power and it makes the U.N. impotent. Weak central governments with no authority can at best be ineffective.
The quote from Heinlein is an objection to the notion that violence solves nothing and that talking resolves problems from the previous poster.
Personally I haven't seen resolution of any human problems at any point in history. Human beings have either used force to make the dissenting position go away or have used technology to temporarily side step the issue. It is temporary because the technology deals with a symptom not the root of the problem that is human nature.
Your post assumes a great deal about me and attacks based on those assumptions, so now lets clear up a few things, SigmaNuki:
1. I don't support the war in Iraq. I never did.
2. I am generally considered liberal as the term is bandied about, enough so I am insulted by the notion of Kerry being liberal.
3. I believe American foreign policy has more to do with terrorism than any other factor.
4. I would actually support a strong world government.
Your post was hostile.
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't have time to go into detail right now, but I did want to speak to that ugly Heinlein quote. Women's sufferage and women's rights in general, have been gained entirely through peaceful means. Gay rights have advanced without a single shot fired (by gays, plenty of shots fired and lynchings and throat slittings and beatings from the other side, of course). I could go on. Human life has advanced plenty without coercive force.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I don't have time to go into detail right now, but I did want to speak to that ugly Heinlein quote. Women's sufferage and women's rights in general, have been gained entirely through peaceful means. Gay rights have advanced without a single shot fired (by gays, plenty of shots fired and lynchings and throat slittings and beatings from the other side, of course). I could go on. Human life has advanced plenty without coercive force.
In Nazi Germany, Gays and other "defectives" went to the gas chambers along with the Gypsies and Jews. Coercive force applied by the Allies to Germany ended that. Generally the rights you speak of exist only because someone is willing to defend, with violence if necessary, the political systems that make them possible.
Here's another quote you won't like, from George Orwell.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@Arawaen
You wrote:
"""
The problem with the U.N. as I thought I indicated clearly in my post was that a single member of the security council can veto any proposal even if the rest of the U.N. is unanimous.
"""
This only becomes a problem if the members with veto rights make a habit of using said right. As far as I know it's pretty much only the US that abuses this with vetoing any resolution against Israel (ie vetoing the resolution that basically just stated that the "security wall" that Israel was bring/did build was wrong). So, as far as I'm aware, this right is currently responsibly used by members not the US.
This is also where that crazy term, compromise comes in. Nobody, ever, will be happy with everything. It is a function of the needs of the different countries and what they find important. What one must do is find a balance and all the countries involved must be mature enough to accept it. I must point out at this time that this is exactly what the US doesn't do.
Currently I see only one large problem with the UN. It is that there is no repercussions for the actions for the members if they should do something horrible. This should be fixed and soon.
In the case of Iraq, the resolution stated that they would suffer dire consequences if they didn't, blah blah blah. Which the weapons inspectors where figuring out to what, if any degree, was said infraction.
Now at some point in time the US (among others) decided to "go it alone" and attack (illegally) Iraq because of things they thought that the rest of us knew not to be true.
Now at this point we have a member (the US and others) that have committed an major infraction against another state. So, then what consequences should befall the US (and others)? Clearly, they have done something wrong. Clearly, they have done some illegal. Clearly, something should be done to punish the US (and the others as well) for this horrible crime. So, let's fix this problem. What would your suggestions be?
You wrote:
"""
The U.N. has been poorly set up from the very beginning.
"""
I think you said this before. But just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Perhaps some justification is in order, eh?
You wrote:
"""
...the root of the problem that is human nature.
"""
Human nature only becomes a problem if we let our cave-man like qualities come out. So, as I stated before, humans have comes a long way. We now have the ability to control ourselves and act in the interest of the common good. To say that it is unavoidable and to say that it's only our "human nature" is to give up on order and delve into chaos.
Maybe you have, maybe not. But clearly some have. The civilized world would disagree. We are hear to talk and to find peaceful resolutions to problems. HkCavalier has provided some excellent examples of this that have been resolved in the not so distant past. Clearly we as humans are capable of this and to expect anything less is to temp us humans to go back to the cave.
To add to HkCavalier's list:
Canada got it's independence through diplomacy
Scotland is doing the same
The EU is another excellent example
You wrote:
"""
Your post was hostile.
"""
My post was hostile to the US and its policies. I have opinions that *many* people around the world have (and mine are based on experiences that I had *while living in the US*). Also, to say *many* is to put it lightly. Perhaps the administration in the US should take that as a clue to change its ways.
But, if you have taken things to heart that weren't directed explicitly at you personally, that is your problem. And that is how I gather you felt my "hostility."
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
with violence if necessary
stand ready to do violence
Perhaps you should read those quotes again. Or just read those few words that I have highlighted above.
You might notice that these statments imply that violence is used _*/only/*_ as a _*/last/*_ resort.
Kind of takes the bit out of your response, doesn't it.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I cannot believe that I forgot how inflammatory Heinlein is for some people. For that I apologize, it serves no purpose to rile people up, especially when you are trying to have a discussion.
I used the quote in response to this post:
Quote:
Originally posted by FlyingTams:
The alternative is world war 3 - we have to find a peacefull solution - force doesn't work (witness Iraq) you can't bomb your way to peace.
You have to talk your way to peace - and if someone dies along the way that is terrible, but the alternative might be even more people dying.
In Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers this particular line is offered in response to a character saying that, her mother says violence doesn't solve anything.
SigmaNuki seems to be of the opinion that violence = barbarism and that the civilized are above it.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I don't have time to go into detail right now, but I did want to speak to that ugly Heinlein quote. Women's sufferage and women's rights in general, have been gained entirely through peaceful means. Gay rights have advanced without a single shot fired (by gays, plenty of shots fired and lynchings and throat slittings and beatings from the other side, of course). I could go on. Human life has advanced plenty without coercive force.
I find it ironic that you (HKCavalier) chose a suffrage issue to decry the Heinlein quote about violence.
The irony stems from the fact that a theme of novel is that voting is the use of political force and should be limited to those who have demonstrated that they can put the needs of the group above their own needs and desires. While I think he raises interesting issues that have validity, I don't believe his solution would work {I think it would lead to fascism, as opposed to him advocating fascism}. Leo Tolstoy thought it such a violent act that he felt it conflcited with Christian teachings of pacifism. Thoreau thought that the act of voting made the voter an accomplice to the actions of the government and advocating abstaining.
Before I begin on the women's suffrage movement let me say that I support the right of a woman to vote, is interesting in that a small minority of women effected a change against the will of the majority of women. Those women opposed apparantly felt that voting was unwomanly, that it was an aggressive trait contrary to femininity {I say apparantly because I have only seen this information from secondary sources}.
Your post suggests that you limit violence to physical harm (though I cannot say if this is true) but what is violence but the use of force to have one's will realized over that another. The form that this force takes does vary from culture to culture, but the end result is that somebody gets his will realized and another gets his thwarted. The principle mode throughout history has been the threat of physical harm (as opposed to actually inflicting it), most people acquiesce and submit rather than incur that harm. If I violate the laws of my society, even those I think unjust, I risk punishment by the society as a whole.
You argue that progress has been made in the area of womens and gay rights without resorting to coercive force, but all government is inherently coercive. The act of voting is coercive as it is an attempt to shape the direction of the society according the will of the voter and in opposition to others. The use of courts to circumvent the will of the majority is also the use of force.
Quote:
The first essential element of government; coercion; a necessary but not a noble element... Government does not rest on force. Government is force; it rests on consent or a concept of justice. A king or a community holding a certain thing to abnormal, evil, uses teh general strength to crush it out; the strength is his tool, but the belief is his only sanction.
G.K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World
At no point have I advocated the moral correctness of the use of force, nor have I condemned it as morally wro
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Yeah, sometimes even Orwell was full of
. That is a hopelessly white, middle class statement. A lot of people sleep peaceably in their beds despite the armed men roaming the streets. Being a soldier must be a lot like being the king in The Little Prince. "I make the sun come up every morning!" "People sleep peaceably in their beds because I kill colored people in foreign countries! Yay me!" The rule of might is a logical fallacy. Six months of martial arts training can make you safe from a box cutter to the throat--not because you you can beat the guy's ass, but because you can get the silly knife out of his hand. Does anyone sign up? No, we'd rather have our poor go out and kill foreigners. It's the best and only way to be safe.
Actually, no. Ain't nothing but a choice, a style, a posture. We are the greatest military force in the world mainly because we like it that way, never because we have to.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME