The Effective UN

[ganeil]

Who was arguing that UN forces were effective??

UNIFIL finds Hezbollah arms; gunmen scatter peacekeepers
By Barak Ravid and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents
Tags: UNIFIL, south Lebanon

Armed Hezbollah militants warded off members of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) last month when the peacekeepers discovered a truck carrying weapons and ammunition belonging to the Lebanon-based guerilla group.

The incident was referred to briefly in a semi-yearly report submitted to the UN Security Council by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. The incident was the first time that UNIFIL forces were confronted by armed Hezbollah men south of Lebanon's Litani River, an area which Security Council resolution 1701 prohibits Hezbollah from entering....

[Jaws]

Yyyyawn.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Jaws

Yyyyawn.

What a perfect synopsis of the attitude of those who believe the UN should look to the UN to solve the world's problems.

Insist the UN be tasked and then when they fail, yawn.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

What a perfect synopsis of the attitude of those who believe the UN should look to the UN to solve the world's problems.

Insist the UN be tasked and then when they fail, yawn.

therefore, completely justified that the US (broke) should take care of all world problems (fine print: only if there is oil in question or involves Israels existence...)

[hks786]

Originally Posted by dr325i

therefore, completely justified that the US (broke) should take care of all world problems (fine print: only if there is oil in question or involves Israels existence...)

Couldnt have nailed it better myself, especially with the "fine print"...

What about Mugabe? US envoy Jendayi Frazer says that Mugabe lost the vote to Tsvangirai. Even the Church are against Mugabe:

Archbishop of York: "Mugabe is living on borrowed time"

Yet we see no US/UK lead force heading out to South Africa to deal with it. Hell, they went into Iraq on a LOT less! *cough* lies *cough*...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by hks786

Couldnt have nailed it better myself, especially with the "fine print"...

What about Mugabe? US envoy Jendayi Frazer says that Mugabe lost the vote to Tsvangirai. Even the Church are against Mugabe:

Archbishop of York: "Mugabe is living on borrowed time"

Yet we see no US/UK lead force heading out to South Africa to deal with it. Hell, they went into Iraq on a LOT less! *cough* lies *cough*...

It never ceases to amaze me how often this fallacious argument is made. What is the logic in arguing that unless you can solve all problems you should not try to solve any? Does anyone actually live their life this way? When in history has any nation operated in that fashion?

It is simply an empty argument.

Your underlying point that the US/UK had less justification to depose Saddam is simply false. Mugabee is a monster but as far as I am aware he has not invaded two of his neighbors, used WMD on multiple occasions, harbored international terrorists, financed suicide bombings, or breached a ceasefire agreement.

[hks786]

Originally Posted by ganeil

What is the logic in arguing that unless you can solve all problems you should not try to solve any?

I was simply agreeing with the "fine print" in the above post. I'm arguing against the US/UK's foreign policies, not some stupid logic about being selective about which problems to solve.

That logic is stupid for 2 reason:

1) its stupid
2) its based on the assumption that I agreed the US is trying to make the world a better place and solve problems. I didnt say any such thing

Originally Posted by ganeil

Your underlying point that the US/UK had less justification to depose Saddam is simply false.

Read what I said. I didnt mention Saddam's name once. I did mention Iraq however. Oh and please dont try to paint Saddam as the "bad guy" without mentioning the actions of other countries. The US is one of them...you're only fooling yourself.

Thanks for the history lesson but you've shown that you are biased in how you interpret history

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by hks786

I was simply agreeing with the "fine print" in the above post. I'm arguing against the US/UK's foreign policies, not some stupid logic about being selective about which problems to solve.

That is an even more ridiculous argument. Was their oil or an Israeli interest in Bosnia? Kosovo? Somalia? Afghanistan? Panama? Grenada?

Read what I said. I didnt mention Saddam's name once. I did mention Iraq however. Oh and please dont try to paint Saddam as the "bad guy" without mentioning the actions of other countries. The US is one of them...you're only fooling yourself.

Thanks for the history lesson but you've shown that you are biased in how you interpret history

Whether you mentioned Saddam or not is irrelevant as you did mention the US/UK justification for invading Iraq and deposing his regime.

Saddam was a bad guy. I am not sure how he can be defined otherwise.

How did what I said show a bias? Was any of it untrue?

[hks786]

Originally Posted by ganeil

That is an even more ridiculous argument. Was their oil or an Israeli interest in Bosnia? Kosovo? Somalia? Afghanistan? Panama? Grenada?

You are a hard guy to please Noone said the ONLY reasons the US invades countries are Oil/Israel's right to exist. It was a sarcastic comment to show that US motives are dirty.

Originally Posted by ganeil

Whether you mentioned Saddam or not is irrelevant as you did mention the US/UK justification for invading Iraq and deposing his regime.

Saddam was a bad guy. I am not sure how he can be defined otherwise.

How did what I said show a bias? Was any of it untrue?

No it IS relevant. We were told about WMD that didnt exist!!!!!! So let's not change the subject. I did NOT mention Saddams name or right to exist as head of state in Iraq OR the disposal of his regime! I merely questioned the UK/US motives for invading the country.

Yeah Saddam was a bad guy. He's not the only 1 though. I'm not giving you a history lesson, go check up on history with an unbiased frame of mind and you'll be suprised at how many "bad guys" there are.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by hks786

You are a hard guy to please Noone said the ONLY reasons the US invades countries are Oil/Israel's right to exist. It was a sarcastic comment to show that US motives are dirty.

"... only if there is oil in question or involves Israels existence..." How is this not saying. "the ONLY reasons the US invades countries are Oil/Israel's right to exist?"

No it IS relevant. We were told about WMD that didnt exist!!!!!! So let's not change the subject. I did NOT mention Saddams name or right to exist as head of state in Iraq OR the disposal of his regime! I merely questioned the UK/US motives for invading the country.

Yeah Saddam was a bad guy. He's not the only 1 though. I'm not giving you a history lesson, go check up on history with an unbiased frame of mind and you'll be suprised at how many "bad guys" there are.

It is not relevant since Saddam ruled Iraq as a dictator. The objective of the invasion was the removal of his regime from power. Iraq was a threat because of his actions.

To take a page from your book, no one said Saddam was the only bad guy.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

It never ceases to amaze me how often this fallacious argument is made. What is the logic in arguing that unless you can solve all problems you should not try to solve any? Does anyone actually live their life this way? When in history has any nation operated in that fashion?

It is simply an empty argument.

Your underlying point that the US/UK had less justification to depose Saddam is simply false. Mugabee is a monster but as far as I am aware he has not invaded two of his neighbors, used WMD on multiple occasions, harbored international terrorists, financed suicide bombings, or breached a ceasefire agreement.

Removing the dictator in one coutry that did not threaten us or our alies and creating (or allowing to) a new Nuclear nation (NK), allowing 2M refugies and dead in Darfur, having much more serious potential nuclear nation right there (Iran) is FAR, FAR from solving ANY of the problems.

Stupid argument above...

[hks786]

Originally Posted by ganeil

"... only if there is oil in question or involves Israels existence..." How is this not saying. "the ONLY reasons the US invades countries are Oil/Israel's right to exist?"

Reason: It's sarcasm.

I assume dr325i didnt mean those are the only reasons throughout history. We all know that no country has the same head of state, government, foreign policies, motives etc since the beginning of time. However, at the moment US/UK policies/motives are clearly dirty.

Originally Posted by ganeil

It is not relevant since Saddam ruled Iraq as a dictator. The objective of the invasion was the removal of his regime from power. Iraq was a threat because of his actions.

To take a page from your book, no one said Saddam was the only bad guy.

It is relevant. It isnt revelant...Fine. We have shown that we dont agree. Let the people decide what they want.

The fact is that we were presented LIES LIES LIES about WMD. The case of war wasnt just about him being an evil dictator. No, US/UK government and the media kept spinning us lies about WMD.

About the history, I didnt say that you said Saddam was the only bad guy, but you did give a little sweep of the things Saddam has been part of through history and used it to justify his removal.

You failed, however, to mention other "bad guys"

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

[It is not relevant since Saddam ruled Iraq as a dictator. The objective of the invasion was the removal of his regime from power. Iraq was a threat because of his actions.

The objective was correct, the premisses were -- LIES.
It is proven many times that he was NOT a threat to the USA, the end...

I and the world majority see Bush more as the peace threat than any other dictator alive...

[hks786]

Originally Posted by dr325i

The objective was correct, the premisses were -- LIES.
It is proven many times that he was NOT a threat to the USA, the end...

I and the world majority see Bush more as the peace threat than any other dictator alive...

+1

and to lighten up a little, the guy is just plain stupid. Remember the video about Bush on oil prices? DOH!

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by hks786

Reason: It's sarcasm.

I assume dr325i didnt mean those are the only reasons throughout history. We all know that no country has the same head of state, government, foreign policies, motives etc since the beginning of time. However, at the moment US/UK policies/motives are clearly dirty.

No, effective sarcasm has a modicum of truth to it. It is stupidity

The fact is that we were presented LIES LIES LIES about WMD. The case of war wasnt just about him being an evil dictator. No, US/UK government and the media kept spinning us lies about WMD.

Did Iraq under Saddam possess WMD? Yes, they used chemical agents against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. They admitted to the UN inspectors to having stores of chemical weapons.

Did Iraq agree to dispose of its WMD under international supervision? Yes, see the terms of the ceasefire as laid out in UNSCR 687.

Did Iraq dispose of the weapons they admitted having under the required international supervision? No

There was someone who lied repeatedly about Iraqi WMD and that was Saddam Hussein. He admitted after his arrest that he intentionally deceived the world into believing he retained stockpiles because he feared the loss of that deterrent against Iran more than he feared the US/UK reaction.

Intelligence organizations were wrong, Saddam's deception was successful. The only lies told were told by Iraq.

About the history, I didnt say that you said Saddam was the only bad guy, but you did give a little sweep of the things Saddam has been part of through history and used it to justify his removal.

You failed, however, to mention other "bad guys"

Because his actions DID justify his removal. If we decide to take out any of the other bad guys you seem so concerned with, I will evaluate whether that action was justified by their behavior as well.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

No, effective sarcasm has a modicum of truth to it. It is stupidity





Did Iraq under Saddam possess WMD? Yes, they used chemical agents against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. They admitted to the UN inspectors to having stores of chemical weapons.

Did Iraq agree to dispose of its WMD under international supervision? Yes, see the terms of the ceasefire as laid out in UNSCR 687.

Did Iraq dispose of the weapons they admitted having under the required international supervision? No

There was someone who lied repeatedly about Iraqi WMD and that was Saddam Hussein. He admitted after his arrest that he intentionally deceived the world into believing he retained stockpiles because he feared the loss of that deterrent against Iran more than he feared the US/UK reaction.

Intelligence organizations were wrong, Saddam's deception was successful. The only lies told were told by Iraq.



Because his actions DID justify his removal. If we decide to take out any of the other bad guys you seem so concerned with, I will evaluate whether that action was justified by their behavior as well.

DOes the US posses the WMD? Yes.
Did the US use them to kill 250k innocent in an instance (1945)? Yes.
Was it absolutely necessary? No.
Did the US use other WMD in other wars after that? Yes
When? Uranium war heads used in Bosnia and Kosovo (at least)...
Was it proven to affect local population and contaminate land? Yes.
DId the US use UN prohibited weapons in the last 10 years? Yes.
Did the US act against the SC approval to attack the sovereign countries? Yes.
When? Serbia 1999, Iraq 2003.
Was there a clear attack on innocent during these wars? Yes
When? April 19, 1999 -- 20 killed in Belgrade TV station, April 1999 bombing of the train in Kosovo, 200k+ innocend gone in Iraq, Marine murders in Iraq...

So, how is all that going to go unpunished??? WHy is all this allowed? How big is all that compared to 300 concealed rusty and empty old shells that SH did not turn in???

Ridiculous...