North Korea demanded that the UN nuclear inspectors leave....and they are.
Spineless jellyfish.
Why are we even part of the UN?
I'm finding it extremely difficult to support an organization that doesn't want to enforce their own resolutions......and I find it troublesome that other countries that are part of the UN just standby and let us do all of the dirty work for them.
The UN is falling apart
They are spineless, indeed.
In most cases, the U.N. is nothing more than a body of bureaucrats bent on redistribution of wealth at any cost, whether or not it's in the most efficient, prescient or intelligent fashion. The United States bankrolls the U.N. through both direct and monetary aid. If the U.S. ever withdrew its membership, it would shrivel up and die, though unfortunately many of the poorer countries would, too.
In most cases, the U.N. is nothing more than a body of bureaucrats bent on redistribution of wealth at any cost, whether or not it's in the most efficient, prescient or intelligent fashion. The United States bankrolls the U.N. through both direct and monetary aid. If the U.S. ever withdrew its membership, it would shrivel up and die, though unfortunately many of the poorer countries would, too.
Originally posted by Burke
They are spineless, indeed.
In most cases, the U.N. is nothing more than a body of bureaucrats bent on redistribution of wealth at any cost, whether or not it's in the most efficient, prescient or intelligent fashion. The United States bankrolls the U.N. through both direct and monetary aid. If the U.S. ever withdrew its membership, it would shrivel up and die, though unfortunately many of the poorer countries would, too.
I agree that their premise is valid, but, without enforcement, they are defunct imho.
Why the hell should the U.S. be made to bear the brunt of criticism, and military enforcement of U.N. rules.
Every permanent member who voted should pitch in. China, France, Britain, Russia, and the U.S.
All other members who voted (for) should have to pitch in with logistic support, use of thier land, overfly rights etc.
The U.N. needs an overhaul, a shakeup, or a stern wakeup call.
It's sanctions should be enforced equally on everyone. When the U.N. makes a decision, it is made by a majority vote, and therefore should be enforced, period.
All sanctions should be enforced, or they shouldn't even be made. Playing favorites should be banned.
Israel comes to mind, although there are plenty of others not being forced to comply.
Some kind of punishment should be enforced on any nation who disregards U.N. sanctions. The punishment should reflect the severity of the infraction.
The U.N. isn't 2 letters that we see in headlines.
The U.N. is the UNITED NATIONS.
Where is the unity?
If the U.N can't do it's job, it should be disolved.
Every permanent member who voted should pitch in. China, France, Britain, Russia, and the U.S.
All other members who voted (for) should have to pitch in with logistic support, use of thier land, overfly rights etc.
The U.N. needs an overhaul, a shakeup, or a stern wakeup call.
It's sanctions should be enforced equally on everyone. When the U.N. makes a decision, it is made by a majority vote, and therefore should be enforced, period.
All sanctions should be enforced, or they shouldn't even be made. Playing favorites should be banned.
Israel comes to mind, although there are plenty of others not being forced to comply.
Some kind of punishment should be enforced on any nation who disregards U.N. sanctions. The punishment should reflect the severity of the infraction.
The U.N. isn't 2 letters that we see in headlines.
The U.N. is the UNITED NATIONS.
Where is the unity?
If the U.N can't do it's job, it should be disolved.
-
YARDofSTUF
- Posts: 70006
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: USA
I don't believe N. Korea is a member of the U.N.. I think that we need to see what does happen with this before we decide that the U.N. is doing nothing. I don't think they should leave inspectors in there while we tell them we need to have access and if not we (U.N.) will invade. That would just provide hostages, or P.O.W.s. If we are going to do anything about it then they need to think it over and plan it out.
We need the U.N. to get support from other countries. It also provides a little reality check, otherwise Bush would just decide a country is doing something he does not like and that the U.S. has the power so he will make the other country do what he wants in the name of freedom.
Freedom through American domination is not the answer.
Something should probably be done about N. Korea but I dont think we should say if you kick out the inspectors we will invade that afternoon. We would need to have an invasion plan every time inspectors were sent some where.
We need the U.N. to get support from other countries. It also provides a little reality check, otherwise Bush would just decide a country is doing something he does not like and that the U.S. has the power so he will make the other country do what he wants in the name of freedom.
Freedom through American domination is not the answer.
Something should probably be done about N. Korea but I dont think we should say if you kick out the inspectors we will invade that afternoon. We would need to have an invasion plan every time inspectors were sent some where.
Oh by the way I do agree with most of what Norm said.
The part about about Unity though I think is a little over simplified. Each country is looking out for it's interest and wants to make sure it is not getting in over it's head. If you expect unity then the U.S. congress and Senate should be depressing enough before looking at the U.N.. I agree they need to contribute , what they can, and yes for a lot of countries it is WAY more then they do.
Basically I think that the U.N. is a good organization, it does have problems but it is neccessary. With the way technology is we need a forum for countries to get together and make sure no other countries are doing any thing wrong on a global scale. Which means we will have some checks in our own country, that we need to acquiesce to if we think we can tell other countries how to behave
The part about about Unity though I think is a little over simplified. Each country is looking out for it's interest and wants to make sure it is not getting in over it's head. If you expect unity then the U.S. congress and Senate should be depressing enough before looking at the U.N.. I agree they need to contribute , what they can, and yes for a lot of countries it is WAY more then they do.
Basically I think that the U.N. is a good organization, it does have problems but it is neccessary. With the way technology is we need a forum for countries to get together and make sure no other countries are doing any thing wrong on a global scale. Which means we will have some checks in our own country, that we need to acquiesce to if we think we can tell other countries how to behave
-
Lightstream
- Regular Member
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 6:48 pm
- Location: Okla.
War all the time? Other countries participate too. We have more people more and more money and we hear about what our country does when it is our men. Other countries have their own problems, just cause we don't hear what they are doing does not mean that they are just picking their butts.
The media knows we are more interested to what is happening to our citizens then what is happening to other countries. Therefore when there is a half hour to give the news we don't hear the international stuff as much as national.
The media knows we are more interested to what is happening to our citizens then what is happening to other countries. Therefore when there is a half hour to give the news we don't hear the international stuff as much as national.
Originally posted by De Plano
We need the U.N. to get support from other countries.
You have unknowingly validated every reason why the UN is defunct.
We=America
UN resolutions are not created solely by America...it is a joint effort from the nations that are part of the UN.
But the problem is this...while the UN as a whole creates resolutions/sanctions....we are left as the sole enforcer of such policies.
If anything...the UN desperately needs us.
The world also has a view because of this that the UN is really our puppet government. That is why actions by the UN are seen as American aggression and not multi-national compassion.
EDIT******
Almost forgot....these "other countries" pledged their support by entering the UN and signing resolutions jointly.
So why do we need to ask for their support again? It should be given.
We are not left as the sole enforcer of UN resolutions, yes they need us, but we are not the the sole enforcers. We are the "the sole enforcers" because we don't wait for the UN schedule, not saying that is right or wrong, just we get impatient and plow ahead and do it.
We are asking for their support because Bush is planning to go to war before the results of the inspections are in. Yes I believe the results are not going to be good for Iraq, but that does not mean we should be saying we are going to war before the inspection is complete. I don't think there is any doubt as to whether Bush is going to invade Iraq, well send U.S. troops in.
Where are we asking for support on a UN invasion and not getting it? Asking the UN to invade is not the same as being the only ones who enforce UN policies.
Yes it has its problems but if they did go along with everything we said then it would be a puppet government.
I admit I put it badly when I said we need the UN to get support from other countries, it would have been better to say that we need the UN because it makes it so it is understood that it is not just something that the US wants, it is an issue that most countries with seperate ideas about government believe is wrong for humanity
We are asking for their support because Bush is planning to go to war before the results of the inspections are in. Yes I believe the results are not going to be good for Iraq, but that does not mean we should be saying we are going to war before the inspection is complete. I don't think there is any doubt as to whether Bush is going to invade Iraq, well send U.S. troops in.
Where are we asking for support on a UN invasion and not getting it? Asking the UN to invade is not the same as being the only ones who enforce UN policies.
Yes it has its problems but if they did go along with everything we said then it would be a puppet government.
I admit I put it badly when I said we need the UN to get support from other countries, it would have been better to say that we need the UN because it makes it so it is understood that it is not just something that the US wants, it is an issue that most countries with seperate ideas about government believe is wrong for humanity
Originally posted by De Plano
We are not left as the sole enforcer of UN resolutions, yes they need us, but we are not the the sole enforcers. We are the "the sole enforcers" because we don't wait for the UN schedule, not saying that is right or wrong, just we get impatient and plow ahead and do it.
We are asking for their support because Bush is planning to go to war before the results of the inspections are in. Yes I believe the results are not going to be good for Iraq, but that does not mean we should be saying we are going to war before the inspection is complete. I don't think there is any doubt as to whether Bush is going to invade Iraq, well send U.S. troops in.
Where are we asking for support on a UN invasion and not getting it? Asking the UN to invade is not the same as being the only ones who enforce UN policies.
Yes it has its problems but if they did go along with everything we said then it would be a puppet government.
I admit I put it badly when I said we need the UN to get support from other countries, it would have been better to say that we need the UN because it makes it so it is understood that it is not just something that the US wants, it is an issue that most countries with seperate ideas about government believe is wrong for humanity
Just keep in mind DePlano....it has been over 10 years since the Un resoltions regarding Iraq were formulated. Iraq kicked out the UN weapons inspectors how many years ago? and the UN did nothing....so I don't think we are rushing a schedule.
Originally posted by UOD
Just keep in mind DePlano....it has been over 10 years since the Un resoltions regarding Iraq were formulated. Iraq kicked out the UN weapons inspectors how many years ago? and the UN did nothing....so I don't think we are rushing a schedule.
Well yeah, I can't really argue with that
We.......as so stated are only part of the UN....
So the world resents us. Why? And not the samo argument because of our wealth.........
Because it's more than that.
They don't just resent us.
Some hate us...
Some despise us...
And some still love us.
But the UN is leaderless......Why is that?
As far as toothless........what did anyone expect...It's been communism vs capitalism for a very long time.....Time for a new enemy. Only......what is it? Terrorism? It should be....Desposts? It should be....but therein lies some of the problems.
Too bad too. The UN truly has a mandate. But self interest destroys it.
So the world resents us. Why? And not the samo argument because of our wealth.........
Because it's more than that.
They don't just resent us.
Some hate us...
Some despise us...
And some still love us.
But the UN is leaderless......Why is that?
As far as toothless........what did anyone expect...It's been communism vs capitalism for a very long time.....Time for a new enemy. Only......what is it? Terrorism? It should be....Desposts? It should be....but therein lies some of the problems.
Too bad too. The UN truly has a mandate. But self interest destroys it.
/North Korean with gun: "Leave"
/Unarmed UN inspector: "Okie"
Spineless implies they have an ability to fight back and won't because they're afraid. That's simply not the case. The UN has a few (very few) forces donated by various nations to serve as peacekeepers on a rotational basis. They have no offensive capability to speak of and no permanent military force.
That's not their role.
They're not NATO or SEATO.
They're closer to the Red Cross in what they do. It'd be more productive to theink of them as a Red Cross with diplomatic ties to everyone.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
/Unarmed UN inspector: "Okie"
Spineless implies they have an ability to fight back and won't because they're afraid. That's simply not the case. The UN has a few (very few) forces donated by various nations to serve as peacekeepers on a rotational basis. They have no offensive capability to speak of and no permanent military force.
That's not their role.
They're not NATO or SEATO.
They're closer to the Red Cross in what they do. It'd be more productive to theink of them as a Red Cross with diplomatic ties to everyone.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Originally posted by Bouncer
/The UN has a few (very few) forces donated by various nations to serve as peacekeepers on a rotational basis. They have no offensive capability to speak of and no permanent military force.
Hmmmm...let's pick this apart for a few minutes shall we?
The UN has a few (very few) forces donated by various nations to serve as peacekeepers on a rotational basis.
Now why is that? Why is it only a few? Why are they called peacekeepers and we are not? We sign the same resolutions? NO?
They have no offensive capability to speak of and no permanent military force.
How convenient.
Spineless is exactly what they are Bouncer.....they have no follow through whatsoever. I guess you've been asleep at the wheel for the past 10 years while Iraq has been in CONSTANT defiance of the UN resolutions which, as you already knew, are multi-national in nature.
Yet, the UN is powerless you say? Russia is powerless? How many countries make up the UN? How many the security council????
Well they sure aren't powerless when they speak out against us and make us bend to their will........blah.....I'm sick of this already.
Forget I even said anything.
I just love the UN....they are my saviors.
I'm not getting the bend to their will part......
Rumsfield....what a diplomat...he just stated to N Korea...
We can kick your ass at the same time.........or words to that effect.
Diplomacy at it's best, eh?
It's a leaderless organization....an organization that was formed to keep peace.
If the view is, that it's falling apart, I'd agree.........
Not trying to pic an argument here..only stating my views.
Rumsfield....what a diplomat...he just stated to N Korea...
We can kick your ass at the same time.........or words to that effect.
Diplomacy at it's best, eh?
It's a leaderless organization....an organization that was formed to keep peace.
If the view is, that it's falling apart, I'd agree.........
Not trying to pic an argument here..only stating my views.
Originally posted by downhill
I'm not getting the bend to their will part......
Rumsfield....what a diplomat...he just stated to N Korea...
We can kick your ass at the same time.........or words to that effect.
Diplomacy at it's best, eh?
It's a leaderless organization....an organization that was formed to keep peace.
If the view is, that it's falling apart, I'd agree.........
Not trying to pic an argument here..only stating my views.
No...I completely agree with you DH.......the Gulf War was sanctioned by members of the UN. There was much support...during the diplomatic stages and the military phases from the MEMBERS of the UN. After the Gulf War it seemed to fall apart. Everyone became a backseat driver...a Monday morning QB. I don't know how we got pushed into being the worlds police force but that is what we have become. Desert Fox was the operation that signified to the world that diplomacy with Iraq was a failure. When the UN allowed, as a whole, to disband the weapons inspections teams, it signified to the world that the UN didn't have the resolve to follow through on it's resolutions. Every tyrant and radical regime saw this as a cue to act freely...look at North Korea for example. Is it any coincidence that they are doing this? Hell no! they see a weakness and are exploiting it. They see us as their only obstacle....but for us to act on anything...we are compelled to act within the guidelines set forth by the UN.....an organization that doesn't support it's own resolutions!!!!! Where is the support??? The French won't even fly combat missions over Iraq as part of Operartion Southern Watch...yet they sit on their asses over at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia....part of their pleadged support for the UN!!!! What a crock!
We are sending two messages to the world.....while we accept diplomatic channels with N. Korea....we are going after Iraq with full force. What do you think Saddam thinks about this? When will he stop the inspectors...again? What if he does? We will bomb
him for a third time...and then what?
I guess I'm just pissed that China and Russia aren't giving us support. I agree with Bouncer on one point...the UN is there to help keep the peace....but peace can't be achieved unless ALL the members agree to lend support when it is needed.
Well...I think it's needed.
Another question....why doesn't China or Russia feel the least bit threatened by these rogue countries?
I sometimes wonder if it isn't part of the grand plan.....to allow us to destroy ourselves by spreading us too thin.
We are the buffer for the world right now....maybe we need to back off a bit and allow the fire to lick them in their asses for a bit.
-
SeedOfChaos
- Posts: 8651
- Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: Comfortably Numb
I think some of the UN's problems stem from people defying them. Not the least among them, George W. Bush...
"We going to war with or without the UN". He said things to that effect numerous times in the present conflict with Iraq. Now if the leader of the most powerful nation on the earth basically says that he doesn't give a rat's arse what the UN does or says, why should the rest?!?
I do agree that resolutions should not be made if they aren't going to be enforced at all.
"We going to war with or without the UN". He said things to that effect numerous times in the present conflict with Iraq. Now if the leader of the most powerful nation on the earth basically says that he doesn't give a rat's arse what the UN does or says, why should the rest?!?
I do agree that resolutions should not be made if they aren't going to be enforced at all.
ex-WoW-addict
Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
I think some of the UN's problems stem from people defying them. Not the least among them, George W. Bush...
"We going to war with or without the UN". He said things to that effect numerous times in the present conflict with Iraq. Now if the leader of the most powerful nation on the earth basically says that he doesn't give a rat's arse what the UN does or says, why should the rest?!?
I do agree that resolutions should not be made if they aren't going to be enforced at all.
Seed...I think he is saying that because for 10 years...nothing has been done to diminish the threat of Saddam Hussein by the OTHER members of the UN.
-
SeedOfChaos
- Posts: 8651
- Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: Comfortably Numb
Originally posted by UOD
Seed...I think he is saying that because for 10 years...nothing has been done to diminish the threat of Saddam Hussein by the OTHER members of the UN.
That wasn't the issue... the issue is the (in)significance of the UN. All I wanted to point out was "if Bush defies it, why should anyone else accept what they have to say?", nothing more, nothing less. Regardless of how much justified Bush's defiance is.
The current administration is quick to make accusations, but I have yet to see them to provide any kind of proof.
For example, when Iraq offered that the CIA should tell the weapons inspectors where they suspect WOMD's, or even show the inspectors the locations, the USA refused. Why? On the ground's that the burden of proof lies with Iraq to show that it doesn't have any WOMD's. But what other proof could Iraq offer, if not the checking of suspect sites? Especially those that Western intelligence agencies claim have WOMD's? Why not go there and have a look?
I see the issue with the burden of proof differently. The USA is pushing for a war with Iraq. On the basis that Iraq has WOMD's. But offers no proof. How can you prove you DON'T have something? Also, what ever happened to "innocent until found guilty"? And I'm talking about current guilt and not past guilt. Iraq (not Hussein) has been punished enough by the sanctions for past trespasses, if you ask me.
Now, to me it seems like a good idea to be 100% sure when go and lay a country to ashes, and most likely kill thousands of innocent people (it happens in every war, even in "clean surgical wars"...).
What IF Hussein really thought that he'd be in a crapload of trouble should he be caught with WOMD's, and got rid of them... let's say in 1999. How would you then justify going to war when you don't find any WOMD's afterwards? "Oh, but we THOUGHT you still had 'em!"?
And why did the non-permanent members of the security council get a 3,000 pages version of the Iraq report? It was 12,000 pages, 75% of it are missing! How could the rest of the world confirm claims that it's incomplete, when you get a version that's only 25% (!!!) of the original report?!?
Look, I wanna see the bastard gone as much as anyone. But there are some rules we gotta do this by so it doesn't backfire. Half of the world has issues with the USA already, justified or not. What do you think the Arab world will do if a war starts without any reasonable proof of Iraq's current possesions being offered? Do you think they'll sit on the sidelines and cheer the US or something? If we don't stick to certain rules we lower ourselves to the level of the likes of Hussein, and wouldn't we be deserving of hate then?
Oh, and so far I heard no complaints of weapons inspectors being hindered since they got back in. Until now all you hear from them is that Iraq is cooperating fully, letting them access whatever they request. Of course, the threat of the war is a major factor in Iraq's compliance. Let's let them do their work first, no?
Whatever, just my 2c, and off topic anyway.
Ronald
ex-WoW-addict
Seed...I don't know if you realize this or not but prior to the weapons inspectors being expelled from Iraq back in 1998....they had accounted for and destroyed the following.
Inspectors have destroyed 38,537 chemical weapons, 690 tons of chemical warfare agents, 48 operational missiles, six missile launchers and 30 warheads for chemical and biological weapons. They also have accounted for 817 or 819 long-range missiles.
Still, UNSCOM has been unable to account for 4,000 tons of chemicals that can be used to produce weapons, 31,000 chemical warfare munitions, two Scuds and domestically produced missile engines, airframes and warheads.
That is your proof. Your proof is what UNSCOM was able to destroy. they were expelled before finishing the job. Mind you...the entire time that UNSCOM was operating inside Iraq...Saddam claimed that he had no WOMD. That is of course an outright lie.
Soooo...I don't know how much more black and white it needs to be for the international community to understand that Saddam has WOMD and is hiding them. If he were to destroy them himself...we would have seen it through our own intel channels.
Pretty hard to blow up a facility or a munitions storage without us knowing about it. We have multiple means of watching him.
If you doubt that we have the ability to watch anything at any time....allow me to give you a very little known example.
Years ago during the Cold War....the F-111 was considered the premier strike bomber. The pilots...very gung-ho, used to perform a little trick called a "flick your bic" for the retiring pilots. Keep in mind that they were doing this while being thousands of miles away from a place called NORAD. Well...one day, an outgoing pilot on his final flight decided to "flick his bic". The ensuing afterburner trail, augmented by the release of fuel, created a certain heat signature....one that was picked up as an incoming missile launch by NORAD. They thought that we were at war and scrambled the ground forces......needless to say it was called off and all "flick your bics" were banned.
That happened years ago with the technology of the day. We are far beyond that...so if Saddam was blowing up his own WOMD...we'd know about it.
Inspectors have destroyed 38,537 chemical weapons, 690 tons of chemical warfare agents, 48 operational missiles, six missile launchers and 30 warheads for chemical and biological weapons. They also have accounted for 817 or 819 long-range missiles.
Still, UNSCOM has been unable to account for 4,000 tons of chemicals that can be used to produce weapons, 31,000 chemical warfare munitions, two Scuds and domestically produced missile engines, airframes and warheads.
That is your proof. Your proof is what UNSCOM was able to destroy. they were expelled before finishing the job. Mind you...the entire time that UNSCOM was operating inside Iraq...Saddam claimed that he had no WOMD. That is of course an outright lie.
Soooo...I don't know how much more black and white it needs to be for the international community to understand that Saddam has WOMD and is hiding them. If he were to destroy them himself...we would have seen it through our own intel channels.
Pretty hard to blow up a facility or a munitions storage without us knowing about it. We have multiple means of watching him.
If you doubt that we have the ability to watch anything at any time....allow me to give you a very little known example.
Years ago during the Cold War....the F-111 was considered the premier strike bomber. The pilots...very gung-ho, used to perform a little trick called a "flick your bic" for the retiring pilots. Keep in mind that they were doing this while being thousands of miles away from a place called NORAD. Well...one day, an outgoing pilot on his final flight decided to "flick his bic". The ensuing afterburner trail, augmented by the release of fuel, created a certain heat signature....one that was picked up as an incoming missile launch by NORAD. They thought that we were at war and scrambled the ground forces......needless to say it was called off and all "flick your bics" were banned.
That happened years ago with the technology of the day. We are far beyond that...so if Saddam was blowing up his own WOMD...we'd know about it.
Seed...here is the official report from UNSCOM:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Achievem ... ments.html
1. UNSCOM has uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programmes, destroyed elements of these programmes so far identified, including equipment, facilities and materials, and has been attempting to map out and verify the full extent of these programmes in the face of Iraq's serious efforts to deceive and conceal. UNSCOM also continues to try to verify Iraq's illegal unilateral destruction activities. The investigation of such undeclared activities is crucial to the verification of Iraq's declarations on its proscribed weapons programmes.
2. Examples of what has been uncovered since 1991 include: the existence of Iraq's offensive biological warfare programme; the chemical nerve agent VX and other advanced chemical weapons capabilities; and Iraq's indigenous production of proscribed missiles engines. Following these discoveries, UNSCOM has directed and supervised the destruction or rendering harmless of several identified facilities and large quantities of equipment for the production of chemical and biological weapons as well as proscribed long-range missiles.
3. UNSCOM has supervised the destruction of the following proscribed items.
MISSILE AREA:
- 48 operational long-range missiles
- 14 conventional missile warheads
- 6 operational mobile launchers
- 28 operational fixed launch pads
- 32 fixed launch pads (under construction)
- 30 missile chemical warheads
- other missile support equipment and materials
- supervision of the destruction of a variety of assembled and non-
assembled "super-gun" components
CHEMICAL AREA:
- 38,537 filled and empty chemical munitions
- 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agent
- more than 3,000 tonnes of precursors chemicals
- 426 pieces of chemical weapons production equipment
- 91 pieces of related analytical instruments
BIOLOGICAL AREA:
- the entire Al-Hakam, the main biological weapons production facility
- a variety of biological weapons production equipment and materials
March 1998
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Achievem ... ments.html
1. UNSCOM has uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programmes, destroyed elements of these programmes so far identified, including equipment, facilities and materials, and has been attempting to map out and verify the full extent of these programmes in the face of Iraq's serious efforts to deceive and conceal. UNSCOM also continues to try to verify Iraq's illegal unilateral destruction activities. The investigation of such undeclared activities is crucial to the verification of Iraq's declarations on its proscribed weapons programmes.
2. Examples of what has been uncovered since 1991 include: the existence of Iraq's offensive biological warfare programme; the chemical nerve agent VX and other advanced chemical weapons capabilities; and Iraq's indigenous production of proscribed missiles engines. Following these discoveries, UNSCOM has directed and supervised the destruction or rendering harmless of several identified facilities and large quantities of equipment for the production of chemical and biological weapons as well as proscribed long-range missiles.
3. UNSCOM has supervised the destruction of the following proscribed items.
MISSILE AREA:
- 48 operational long-range missiles
- 14 conventional missile warheads
- 6 operational mobile launchers
- 28 operational fixed launch pads
- 32 fixed launch pads (under construction)
- 30 missile chemical warheads
- other missile support equipment and materials
- supervision of the destruction of a variety of assembled and non-
assembled "super-gun" components
CHEMICAL AREA:
- 38,537 filled and empty chemical munitions
- 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agent
- more than 3,000 tonnes of precursors chemicals
- 426 pieces of chemical weapons production equipment
- 91 pieces of related analytical instruments
BIOLOGICAL AREA:
- the entire Al-Hakam, the main biological weapons production facility
- a variety of biological weapons production equipment and materials
March 1998
UOD,
You want something for nothing. Okay, lets say the UN *ORDERS* The US to invade Canada? Do we do it?
Well?
Is the US a sovereign nation or not?
The UN is NOT a governmental organization. They collect no taxes from any populace. They make no laws truly binding on any citizenry. They are NOT a world government.
All they are is a collection of diplomats and aid workers. That's ALL they are. They can "demand" anything from anyone all day long. Heck they "demand" things from the US all day, and we plain ignore them when it's inconvenient.
Is it a real surprise when other countries follow our lead and do the same thing? You seem to think the UN has some ability to field armies. They don't. In NATO, an attack on one country is seen as an attack on all. In the UN, an attack on one country occurs on a daily basis!
And it's NOT seen as an attack on all.
I've not been asleep at any wheel for ten years. You, otoh, seem to have a deluded notion of what the UN can actually accomplish. The truth is they can only really bring diplomatic pressure to bear, and serve as a platform for various countries to try and build multinational coalitions.
They cannot *order* one single, solitary US Soldier into harms way. ONLY the United States can do that. Our military forces do not belong to the world or the UN. They belong to us. If we ELECT to become involved in a crisis in some other place then that is a choice we make. We cannot be forced to be involved or compelled to respond in any real way by the UN. The same is true for EVERY country. If they could, they'd probably first ORDER us to pay the 900million-1.6Billion (depending on who you ask) of back dues we owe. But they've not been very successful at using military force to make the US pay up, now have they?
Where they "spineless" in not *ordering* the US military to bomb Washington DC into submission?
Given the constraints they have to work under it's a near miracle they get anything done at all. And understand something. I've been to the UN. I've sat in the General Assembly. I've listened to them debate about which language the negotions over a grain agreement should be in.
I've very little respect for their ability to lead in anything serious at all. They are best equipped to deal with small matters of little consequence. But it is these small things that peaceful relationships between former enemies are built on. So in that sense, they are useful.
But they are not a military force to be reckoned with. At all. If Iraq orders them out tomorrow they'll get on a plane and leave. Because just like in North Korea, they have no guns to defend themselves with.
-Bouncer-
You want something for nothing. Okay, lets say the UN *ORDERS* The US to invade Canada? Do we do it?
Well?
Is the US a sovereign nation or not?
The UN is NOT a governmental organization. They collect no taxes from any populace. They make no laws truly binding on any citizenry. They are NOT a world government.
All they are is a collection of diplomats and aid workers. That's ALL they are. They can "demand" anything from anyone all day long. Heck they "demand" things from the US all day, and we plain ignore them when it's inconvenient.
Is it a real surprise when other countries follow our lead and do the same thing? You seem to think the UN has some ability to field armies. They don't. In NATO, an attack on one country is seen as an attack on all. In the UN, an attack on one country occurs on a daily basis!
And it's NOT seen as an attack on all.
I've not been asleep at any wheel for ten years. You, otoh, seem to have a deluded notion of what the UN can actually accomplish. The truth is they can only really bring diplomatic pressure to bear, and serve as a platform for various countries to try and build multinational coalitions.
They cannot *order* one single, solitary US Soldier into harms way. ONLY the United States can do that. Our military forces do not belong to the world or the UN. They belong to us. If we ELECT to become involved in a crisis in some other place then that is a choice we make. We cannot be forced to be involved or compelled to respond in any real way by the UN. The same is true for EVERY country. If they could, they'd probably first ORDER us to pay the 900million-1.6Billion (depending on who you ask) of back dues we owe. But they've not been very successful at using military force to make the US pay up, now have they?
Where they "spineless" in not *ordering* the US military to bomb Washington DC into submission?
Given the constraints they have to work under it's a near miracle they get anything done at all. And understand something. I've been to the UN. I've sat in the General Assembly. I've listened to them debate about which language the negotions over a grain agreement should be in.
I've very little respect for their ability to lead in anything serious at all. They are best equipped to deal with small matters of little consequence. But it is these small things that peaceful relationships between former enemies are built on. So in that sense, they are useful.
But they are not a military force to be reckoned with. At all. If Iraq orders them out tomorrow they'll get on a plane and leave. Because just like in North Korea, they have no guns to defend themselves with.
-Bouncer-
Bouncer,
Who in the hell is arguing with you? You are stating common knowledge. Once again, it seems that you are not addressing the real concern here....I'm speaking of the members of the UN...so when I say UN...I mean all the countries that make up the UN....ok? Is it OK for me to call the UN that? Maybe you can "learn" me real good and tell me what your definition is of the UN and who makes up the UN so that I can meet your expectations of the definition.
I think that you are purposefully failing to acknowledge the obvious which is this.......the members of the UN....when bound by resolution and multilateral commitment CAN make a serious difference. Look at the Gulf War coalition. That was a total team effort. Too bad we couldn't finish ther job.
So I'll ask again and keep asking until I'm blue in the face.....where is the support from the other countries that are members of the UN?????
Maybe I should just put this on repeat for about a week and maybe...just maybe it will sink in.
But then again....I could be wrong.
Doesn't really matter to me at this point because the UN has proven their insignificance through inaction. But damn us all to hell if we push forward in trying to cleanup the mess.
Thanks for replying...always a pleasure. Sorry to bother you. Have a nice day.
P.S.
Who in the hell is arguing with you? You are stating common knowledge. Once again, it seems that you are not addressing the real concern here....I'm speaking of the members of the UN...so when I say UN...I mean all the countries that make up the UN....ok? Is it OK for me to call the UN that? Maybe you can "learn" me real good and tell me what your definition is of the UN and who makes up the UN so that I can meet your expectations of the definition.
I think that you are purposefully failing to acknowledge the obvious which is this.......the members of the UN....when bound by resolution and multilateral commitment CAN make a serious difference. Look at the Gulf War coalition. That was a total team effort. Too bad we couldn't finish ther job.
So I'll ask again and keep asking until I'm blue in the face.....where is the support from the other countries that are members of the UN?????
Maybe I should just put this on repeat for about a week and maybe...just maybe it will sink in.
But then again....I could be wrong.
Doesn't really matter to me at this point because the UN has proven their insignificance through inaction. But damn us all to hell if we push forward in trying to cleanup the mess.
Thanks for replying...always a pleasure. Sorry to bother you. Have a nice day.
P.S.
They collect no taxes from any populace
If they could, they'd probably first ORDER us to pay the 900million-1.6Billion (depending on who you ask) of back dues we owe.
The dues are for the right to vote.
They are not taxes as they are voluntary. The US can not pay it's dues at all. If they choose to do that, they lose the right to vote.
"the members of the UN....when bound by resolution and multilateral commitment CAN make a serious difference. Look at the Gulf War coalition. That was a total team effort."
"the UN has proven their insignificance through inaction."
Regards,
-Bouncer-
They are not taxes as they are voluntary. The US can not pay it's dues at all. If they choose to do that, they lose the right to vote.
"the members of the UN....when bound by resolution and multilateral commitment CAN make a serious difference. Look at the Gulf War coalition. That was a total team effort."
"the UN has proven their insignificance through inaction."
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Originally posted by Bouncer
The dues are for the right to vote.
They are not taxes as they are voluntary. The US can not pay it's dues at all. If they choose to do that, they lose the right to vote.
"the members of the UN....when bound by resolution and multilateral commitment CAN make a serious difference. Look at the Gulf War coalition. That was a total team effort."
"the UN has proven their insignificance through inaction since the Gulf War."
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Get it right.
Since you aren't responding I might as well finish up.
BULL*****!!!!!
You have been asleep at the wheel haven't you????
Does the name Michael New ring a bell?????
It was through this case that the prosecution (United States) brought forth evidence that the President, can relinquish authority and power to the UN. That document was PDD 25.
Hope this clears it up for you Tom.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd25.htm
GENERAL CLARK: There has been a great deal of
discussion on the issue of command and control, and so let me begin
by laying out the definitions that are relevant here. First of all,
by command what we're speaking of is the constitutional authority to
establish and deploy forces: issue orders, separate and move units,
resupply, provide medical support, discipline. The President will
never relinquish command of United States forces; that is inviolable.
Operational control is a subset of command. Operational
control can be given for a specific time frame, for a specific
mission in a particular location. Operational control may be the
assignment of tasks to already-deployed forces led by U.S. officers.
We may place the U.S. forces under the operational control of foreign
commanders. That's the distinction that's in this peace operations
document.
Now the involvement with foreign commanders, I would
tell you is nothing new. In fact, that's the news of this document,
is that from the perspective of command and control, there is nothing
new. In World War I, World War II, throughout our experience with
NATO, in operation Desert Storm, we've always had the ability to task
organize and place some U.S. units under foreign operational control,
if it was advantageous to do so.
This PDD policy preserves our option to do that. We
will be able to place U.S. forces under foreign op con when it's
prudent or tactically advantageous. I would tell you that as we look
at it, the greater the U.S. military role, the more likely that the
operations involved entail combat, then the less likely we are to
place those forces under foreign operational control.
Even were we to do so, fundamental elements would still
apply. The chain of command will be inviolate. All of our
commanders will have the capability to report to higher U.S.
authority. They'll report illegal orders or orders outside the
mandate that they've been authorized to perform to higher U.S.
authority if they can't work those out with the foreign commander on
the ground.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd25_brief.htm
They cannot *order* one single, solitary US Soldier into harms way. ONLY the United States can do that. Our military forces do not belong to the world or the UN. They belong to us.
BULL*****!!!!!
You have been asleep at the wheel haven't you????
Does the name Michael New ring a bell?????
It was through this case that the prosecution (United States) brought forth evidence that the President, can relinquish authority and power to the UN. That document was PDD 25.
3. Defining clearly our policy regarding the command and control of American military forces in UN peace operations. The policy directive underscores the fact that the President will never relinquish command of U.S. forces. However, as Commander-in-Chief, the President has the authority to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander when doing so serves American security interests, just as American leaders have done numerous times since the Revolutionary War, including in Operation Desert Storm
Hope this clears it up for you Tom.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd25.htm
GENERAL CLARK: There has been a great deal of
discussion on the issue of command and control, and so let me begin
by laying out the definitions that are relevant here. First of all,
by command what we're speaking of is the constitutional authority to
establish and deploy forces: issue orders, separate and move units,
resupply, provide medical support, discipline. The President will
never relinquish command of United States forces; that is inviolable.
Operational control is a subset of command. Operational
control can be given for a specific time frame, for a specific
mission in a particular location. Operational control may be the
assignment of tasks to already-deployed forces led by U.S. officers.
We may place the U.S. forces under the operational control of foreign
commanders. That's the distinction that's in this peace operations
document.
Now the involvement with foreign commanders, I would
tell you is nothing new. In fact, that's the news of this document,
is that from the perspective of command and control, there is nothing
new. In World War I, World War II, throughout our experience with
NATO, in operation Desert Storm, we've always had the ability to task
organize and place some U.S. units under foreign operational control,
if it was advantageous to do so.
This PDD policy preserves our option to do that. We
will be able to place U.S. forces under foreign op con when it's
prudent or tactically advantageous. I would tell you that as we look
at it, the greater the U.S. military role, the more likely that the
operations involved entail combat, then the less likely we are to
place those forces under foreign operational control.
Even were we to do so, fundamental elements would still
apply. The chain of command will be inviolate. All of our
commanders will have the capability to report to higher U.S.
authority. They'll report illegal orders or orders outside the
mandate that they've been authorized to perform to higher U.S.
authority if they can't work those out with the foreign commander on
the ground.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd25_brief.htm
-
jeremyboycool
- Posts: 5042
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Montana
-
Perspective
- Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2001 4:08 pm
UOD,
Youve got to understand this. Like Bouncer so aplty put, the U.S. itself has decides to get involved in the operations it does, not the U.N. It makes its decisions with independance.
As well, if you were aware of all the good work the U.N does, (ie. peacekeeping, food programs, development work) you would see that the US is not the sole operator the U.N calls upon. Canada, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Germany, etc do more work on behalf of the U.N. than the U.S. ever has. In fact, if ya look it up, youll see that Canada has been involved in sustantially more peacekeeping missions that the U.S. easy. So, you see the U.S. as been the "world police" only cause its only the U.S. involvement that your exposed to, or that you care to see.
Youve got to understand this. Like Bouncer so aplty put, the U.S. itself has decides to get involved in the operations it does, not the U.N. It makes its decisions with independance.
As well, if you were aware of all the good work the U.N does, (ie. peacekeeping, food programs, development work) you would see that the US is not the sole operator the U.N calls upon. Canada, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Germany, etc do more work on behalf of the U.N. than the U.S. ever has. In fact, if ya look it up, youll see that Canada has been involved in sustantially more peacekeeping missions that the U.S. easy. So, you see the U.S. as been the "world police" only cause its only the U.S. involvement that your exposed to, or that you care to see.
Originally posted by Perspective
UOD,
Youve got to understand this. Like Bouncer so aplty put, the U.S. itself has decides to get involved in the operations it does, not the U.N. It makes its decisions with independance.
As well, if you were aware of all the good work the U.N does, (ie. peacekeeping, food programs, development work) you would see that the US is not the sole operator the U.N calls upon. Canada, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Germany, etc do more work on behalf of the U.N. than the U.S. ever has. In fact, if ya look it up, youll see that Canada has been involved in sustantially more peacekeeping missions that the U.S. easy. So, you see the U.S. as been the "world police" only cause its only the U.S. involvement that your exposed to, or that you care to see.
You're right. I'm just venting and I'm frustrated with the amount of time it has taken us to get to where we are.....and I don't really know where that is.
The Gulf War was developed to contain Saddam for 10 years. 10 years expired a while ago.
The UN can be useful in some circumstances, but unfortunately it has created expectations that go beyond its scope. Probably the worst effect of this has been the blow to the perception of national sovereignty. It seems to have evolved into an assumption that no nation should be able to act unilaterally. That's often been the central argument of those who oppose action in Iraq. They seem to feel no need to actually justify their position. To them, unless there's an international consensus (often among powers that do not share a common interest in the conflict) the action is a bad thing regardless of the merits. When the UN was formed, the idea was NOT to create a stagnant bureaucracy where urgent needs go unmet because of petty resentments, jealousy, and pointless bickering.
UOD,
I've been waiting for you to try and make that argument. Surprised it took you this long actually.
It is AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT that soldiers are placed under temporary command of another entity (Such as a UN Commander from another country).
They are not being ordered by anyone OTHER than the President. That is where the legal authority comes from. The UN has never and does not call up the President of the United States and say "Send troops to Liberia under our commander." The UN asks the President for assistance and the President (if inclined) tells the Army "Detach a Unit to Liberia under UN Command".
Once again, they are not being ordered into harms way by anyone other than the CINC.
Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the concept that diplomats with with no sealift capability, with no Air Force, with no Navy, with no Infantry, with no heavy armor, with no merchant marine, have no ability to invade anyone? Further, because they have no armed forces, they therefore no way to back up any requests or demands they make?
Frankly, it takes a lot of cojonnes for the UN to *demand* Iraq or North Korea do anything at all.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I've been waiting for you to try and make that argument. Surprised it took you this long actually.
It is AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT that soldiers are placed under temporary command of another entity (Such as a UN Commander from another country).
They are not being ordered by anyone OTHER than the President. That is where the legal authority comes from. The UN has never and does not call up the President of the United States and say "Send troops to Liberia under our commander." The UN asks the President for assistance and the President (if inclined) tells the Army "Detach a Unit to Liberia under UN Command".
Once again, they are not being ordered into harms way by anyone other than the CINC.
Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the concept that diplomats with with no sealift capability, with no Air Force, with no Navy, with no Infantry, with no heavy armor, with no merchant marine, have no ability to invade anyone? Further, because they have no armed forces, they therefore no way to back up any requests or demands they make?
Frankly, it takes a lot of cojonnes for the UN to *demand* Iraq or North Korea do anything at all.
Regards,
-Bouncer-