I thought the U.N. was irrelevant...

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Great, yet another thread of Eurotwits on high horses extolling the virtues of sitting on one's hands in the face of uncertain options. Look, I have enough of a jaded view to have read these arguments (or similar ones) when you posted them before. I am just able to view both sides of the coin on this one. Maybe the US liberated Iraq in a VERY imperfect way. I will not, however, ever say it would have been better to do nothing. If your non-UK Euro nations could have offered up an option other than talk it to death, your nations would not have forced the US's hand.

The U.N. did not do nothing concerning Iraq. That is a load of poppycock. I would hardly call the weapons inspections, particularly the ones just before the war, as doing nothing. Otherwise perhaps we would have found some WMDs by now, or those WMDs would have been used against the coalition invasion force.

Also I would hardly call strict U.N. sanctions that saddly resulted in the deaths of innocent Iraqi's as doing nothing as well.

Further more to call practicing diplomacy as doing nothing is a ridiculous farce and demeans the meaning of the word civilized. The U.N. may not be perfect, like every other institution on the face of the earth, but implying they do and did nothing concerning the world's problems, particularly concerning Iraq, I wholly discredit.

Oh and I ain't no twit, Euro or otherwise.

[Timber Loftis]

Believe it or not, I didn't mean "eurotwit" in a derrogatory way. I didn't pen the term, I haven't been the first to use it on IW, and I only grabbed it because it is used so much -- even by some Euros. I won't, therefore, accept the any derrogatory implications in the term as an albatross around my neck.

Now, high horses were meant in a derrogatory way, I guess. It is my view that euros love to look down from their saddle-seats and tell their cro-magnon American brethren how they should be doing things the more intellectual way. To the extent this stereotypes, is prejudice, or violates TOS, so be it.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: The U.N. did not do nothing concerning Iraq. That is a load of poppycock. I would hardly call the weapons inspections, particularly the ones just before the war, as doing nothing. Otherwise perhaps we would have found some WMDs by now, or those WMDs would have been used against the coalition invasion force. True, they did inspect for weapons...where Saddam let them. Not to say that such weapons existed, mind you. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] Also I would hardly call strict U.N. sanctions that saddly resulted in the deaths of innocent Iraqi's as doing nothing as well. It would have been better had they done nothing, then. Furthermore to call practicing diplomacy as doing nothing is a ridiculous farce and demeans the meaning of the word civilized. The U.N. may not be perfect, like every other institution on the face of the earth, but implying they do and did nothing concerning the world's problems, particularly concerning Iraq, I wholly discredit. The Security Council has five permanent members, not all of whom like each other and any of whom may veto any action considered by the Council as a whole. It is designed specifically to accomplish nothing, so the UN is not only imperfect it is insanity which should end.

[ 09-09-2003, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Azred: Originally posted by Chewbacca: The U.N. did not do nothing concerning Iraq. That is a load of poppycock. I would hardly call the weapons inspections, particularly the ones just before the war, as doing nothing. Otherwise perhaps we would have found some WMDs by now, or those WMDs would have been used against the coalition invasion force. True, they did inspect for weapons...where Saddam let them. Not to say that such weapons existed, mind you. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

This line of reasoning doesnt hold water with regards to the last round of inspections, the ones left unfinished because of the war. Of course now that no weapons have turned up after regime change it can be arguerd that the U.N.'s inspections along with the threat of coalition military action were effective in detering an active WMD program.

Also I would hardly call strict U.N. sanctions that saddly resulted in the deaths of innocent Iraqi's as doing nothing as well. It would have been better had they done nothing, then.

And following this line of logic it would have been better for the U.S. and U.K. not to invade then eh?

Furthermore to call practicing diplomacy as doing nothing is a ridiculous farce and demeans the meaning of the word civilized. The U.N. may not be perfect, like every other institution on the face of the earth, but implying they do and did nothing concerning the world's problems, particularly concerning Iraq, I wholly discredit. The Security Council has five permanent members, not all of whom like each other and any of whom may veto any action considered by the Council as a whole. It is designed specifically to accomplish nothing, so the UN is not only imperfect it is insanity which should end.

The U.N. is made up of more than just the permanent security council. Gloss over all the other work that is done by this organization and call it insane if you want to, but that assessmant is just plain wrong.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: This line of reasoning doesnt hold water with regards to the last round of inspections, the ones left unfinished because of the war. Of course now that no weapons have turned up after regime change it can be arguerd that the U.N.'s inspections along with the threat of coalition military action were effective in detering an active WMD program. I think you misunderstood me. I don't really think that Iraq had fully active programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. That was, indeed, a useful smokescreen to use in sound bytes, though. Nevertheless, Hussein still didn't want inspectors nosing around in his business. And following this line of logic it would have been better for the U.S. and U.K. not to invade then eh? No. We were right to go in and kick him out because he was a bastard. We created the problem, we solved the problem, and now we are trying to put Iraq back together. The U.N. is made up of more than just the permanent security council. Gloss over all the other work that is done by this organization and call it insane if you want to, but that assessmant is just plain wrong. You're right; my assessment is rather short-sighted, because the UN is more than the Security Council. However, as the arm that is one of the most visible and the one that gets all the attention it fails pathetically. Of course, my opinion of the UN as a whole is extremely poor, to put it nicely. I would still like for the UN to disappear.

[Timber Loftis]

quote: Hey, why should us citizens of the World now pay the bill for the actions your country decided to undertake on its own ?

For the same reason you pay to build roads even though you didn't want them built -- they were needed actions, despite the fact other countries sat on their hands doing NOTHING. Of course, let us not forget that France and Germany had an economic interest in keeping Iraqis under the suffering of Saddam's rule -- that's another topic.

But, it's okay, looks like we're accomplishing quite a lot with or without the UN and its league of bureaons.

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...;f=10;t=017437

[ 09-09-2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Grendal]

I dont follow politics to much so I cant get as involved in these conversations as some do....but...In my unpolitically schooled way of looking at things...The US got themselves into this mess and now they are looking for help to get out. I say F*ck em. They decided to go against the rest of the free world to do a pre-emptive strike on a country on some questionable at best intelligence. They want help now but still want to run the show? Isnt that sorta like an executive running a company into the ground then asking for finacial relief but they still want to run said company? Would you invest in that company knowing the same dummy is running the show? Again..F*ck em. They were going into Iraq come hell or high water. They can get themselves out. Cant afford it?? maybe GB should have thought about that before snubbing his nose at the rest of the world. (freedom fries..what a childish joke) As for your whining TL about losing jobs to other countries, all I can say to that is it sure sucks when the shoe is on the other foot hey? Look to your northern nieghbors to see what kind of damage the US has done to OUR economy on the west coast and then come whine to me about international relationships and jobs.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Grendal: I dont follow politics to much so I cant get as involved in these conversations as some do....but...In my unpolitically schooled way of looking at things...The US got themselves into this mess and now they are looking for help to get out. I say F*ck em. They decided to go against the rest of the free world to do a pre-emptive strike on a country on some questionable at best intelligence. They want help now but still want to run the show? Isnt that sorta like an executive running a company into the ground then asking for finacial relief but they still want to run said company? Would you invest in that company knowing the same dummy is running the show? Again..F*ck em. They were going into Iraq come hell or high water. They can get themselves out. Cant afford it?? maybe GB should have thought about that before snubbing his nose at the rest of the world. (freedom fries..what a childish joke) As for your whining TL about losing jobs to other countries, all I can say to that is it sure sucks when the shoe is on the other foot hey? Look to your northern nieghbors to see what kind of damage the US has done to OUR economy on the west coast and then come whine to me about international relationships and jobs.

That's all well and good.. but ultimately it's the Iraqi's who suffer. The UN should get involved for their sakes and not stay out over a point of pride.

[Grendal]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: [/qb]

That's all well and good.. but ultimately it's the Iraqi's who suffer. The UN should get involved for their sakes and not stay out over a point of pride. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Everyone involved in this will (and are) suffering. The Iraqis, the american boys over there, the families over here of the boys over there, the countries that want to help but wont put up with US bullying. The world is suffering but the US wants it all their way (as usual) Yes the UN should help but the US should also admit to screwing things up and maybe even give a few countries an apology.

[Animal]

So Bush screws up, makes a bigger mess out of things and then asks the UN, the very same people he told where to go, for help in cleaning up his mess BUT under his terms?

Okay, all blame aside, the UN does need to help but certainly not under US control. Bush has demonstrated his inability to deal with the situation, so it's time to let the UN do it their way. The US/UK had their chance, they blew it so now it should be US troops under UN control, not vice versa.