Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Some conservatives seem to want to ignore them when they go against us but still push for them when another country does something we don’t like.> I'm not aware of us ignoring any UN security counsel resolutions.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'm not aware of us ignoring any UN security counsel resolutions.>> Well, if you want to engage in some word play you are probably correct. We did not ignore a security counsel resolution. When Bush wanted to ask for a resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion he ended up pulling it because he knew he did not have the votes. The fact remains the United States knowingly disregarded the wishes of the U.N. Security Council. As I said before... why should North Korea respect the wishes of the Security Council when we did not?
Originally Posted By DAR Here's what should happen. China, Russia, South Korea and Japan should step in figure out this problem with North Korea. Maybe if these other countries grew a pair, we wouldn't have to be the world's police.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<<I'm not aware of us ignoring any UN security counsel resolutions. >>> I was waiting for someone to make this claim, but I'm surprised that it's you, DouglasDubh. I would have bet money that you knew enough to know that the US has veto power on the security council. What this means is that no resolution can pass the Security Council if the US votes against it, even if every other member votes for it. So, it would be highly unusual for the US to find itself in a position of violating a security council resolution, now wouldn't it? <rant> In personal conversations, every time someone brings up the issue you brought up above, and I point out the fallacy of the argument based on the US veto power, in every single instance the person that made the point to me did not know that the US had veto power for security council resolutions. This is true despite in most cases them considering themselves very informed on the issues (no doubt to the hours and hours of noise machine media that they consume daily). These outlets in many cases have a fixation with the UN and talk about it constantly but don't seem to effectively get across to their viewers/listeners the situation with the US veto - I wonder why that is? </rant>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <When Bush wanted to ask for a resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion he ended up pulling it because he knew he did not have the votes.> That's not an accurate summary of what happened. <The fact remains the United States knowingly disregarded the wishes of the U.N. Security Council.> I don't believe that's an accurate statement either.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<That's not an accurate summary of what happened.>> Yes it is. <<I don't believe that's an accurate statement either.>> Then you would be wrong.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I would have bet money that you knew enough to know that the US has veto power on the security council.> You'd have won that bet. <So, it would be highly unusual for the US to find itself in a position of violating a security council resolution, now wouldn't it?> Yes, it would be. Which is why I took issue with Roadtrip's claim that we ignored the Security Counsel. We didn't. We simply don't know how each member would have voted if another resolution would have been brought up, or whether a majority of the Security Counsel was against our going into Iraq. We do know, however, that they unanimously agreed to 1441, which allowed what we did, even if it didn't explicitly approve of it.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Word games. The United States knowingly disregarded the wishes of the U.N. Security Council. I know it. You know it. Bush knows it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Please show me the evidence that a majority of the UN Security Council was opposed to our removing of Saddam.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Please show me the evidence that a majority of the UN Security Council was opposed to our removing of Saddam>> The majority of the Security Council, as you know, makes no difference. The five permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) all have veto power - any one of them could block a resolution. In fact, a majority of the members with veto power, China, France and Russia) all stated that they were opposed to the U.S. taking military action against Iraq.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<The United States knowingly disregarded the wishes of the U.N. Security Council.>> I thought we were talking about UN Resolutions. Now we are talking about the "wishes" of the UN Security Counsel? If the "wishes" of the UN Security Cousel are so important, perhaps you can explain to us why the former Soviet Union had three votes in the UN meanwhile everyone else ( including the US had only one ). <<Ultimately two Soviet Republics (Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR) were admitted as full members of the UN, so between 1945 - 1991 the Soviet Union was represented by three seats in the United Nations.>> <<A major watershed in Soviet UN policy occurred in January 1950, when Soviet representatives boycotted UN functions in protest over the occupation of the seat of China by the Republic of China (which government had been relocated to Taipei in December 1949) and the corresponding exclusion of the newly declared People's Republic of China. In the absence of the Soviet representatives, the UN Security Council was able to vote for the intervention of UN military forces in what would become the Korean War.>> <<By the 1970s, the UN deliberations had generally become increasingly hostile toward the West and toward the United States in particular, as evidenced by pro-Soviet and anti-United States voting trends in the General Assembly. Although the Soviet Union benefited from and encouraged these trends, it was not mainly responsible for them. Rather, the trends were largely a result of the growing debate over the redistribution of the world's wealth between the "have" and "have-not" states.>> In general, the Soviet Union used the UN as a propaganda forum and encouraged pro-Soviet positions among the nonaligned countries. The Soviet Union did not, however, achieve total support in the UN for its foreign policy positions. The Soviet Union and Third World states often agreed that "imperialism" caused and continued to maintain the disparities in the world distribution of wealth. They disagreed, however, on the proper level of Soviet aid to the Third World, with the Soviet Union refusing to grant sizable aid for development[citation needed]. Also, the Soviet Union encountered opposition to its occupation of Afghanistan and the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia and got little support (as evidenced by Third World abstentions) for its 1987 proposal on the creation of a "Comprehensive System of International Peace and Security." <<The Soviet Union by the late 1980s belonged to most of the specialized agencies of the UN. It resisted joining various agricultural, food, and humanitarian organizations of the UN because it eschewed multilateral food and humanitarian relief efforts[citation needed]. During 1986 Western media reported that East European and Asian communist countries allied with the Soviet Union received more development aid from the UN than they and the Soviet Union contributed.[citation needed] This revelation belied communist states' rhetorical support in the UN for the establishment of a New International Economic Order for the transfer of wealth from the rich Northern Hemisphere to the poor Southern Hemisphere nations. Partly because of ongoing Third World criticism of the Soviet record of meager economic assistance to the Third World and of Soviet contributions to UN agencies.>>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The majority of the Security Council, as you know, makes no difference.> Now who's ignoring the Security Council? <In fact, a majority of the members with veto power, China, France and Russia) all stated that they were opposed to the U.S. taking military action against Iraq.> But a majority of the Security Council, apparently, did not.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It's possible North Korea is outsmarting itself here. No one has been able to confirm they actually did a nuclear test. What news reports are saying is that there was an underground explosion equivalent to about 500 metric tons of TNT, which is a lot of explosives, but nowhere near a nuclear explosion, which is at least 25 times greater than that. This morning, North Korea is threatening to fire a missile, but their last attempt to do something like that in July literally fell flat. And, even if they could fire a missile, no one believes they have the capability of attaching a nuclear warhead. China, which was considered an ally, apparently is reaming North Korea's Nut Case in charge right now right now behind the senes, no pun intended, and publicly they're calling for sanctions as well. It could be this is what starts the end of Nut Case's regime.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip OK. Apparently I'm not explaining this properly at all because our resident conservatives appear to have NO CLUE as to what I'm saying. I'm not saying the U.N. is a great organization. In fact as presently structured it is pretty worthless. I'm not saying representation on the Security Council is fair because it more than likely isn't. I am saying: 1) The United States clearly did not abide by the wishes of the Security Council when we invaded Iraq. <<Kofi Annan told the BBC the decision to take action in Iraq contravened the UN charter and should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.>> Source: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664234.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mid dle_east/3664234.stm</a> 2) I want consistency. If we expect others to take the U.N. seriously WE must take the U.N. seriously. If we don't, let’s just recognize its irrelevance and be done with it.
Originally Posted By DlandJB I heard that "can't confirm" spin on the news this morning. Is that really how this administration is going to play this? Isn't that like poking the little rabid animal with a stick? Why aren't we taking a harder line instead of just using "harder" language?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I heard that "can't confirm" spin on the news this morning. Is that really how this administration is going to play this? Isn't that like poking the little rabid animal with a stick?" Well, they've been burned once before by a despot who was blowing smoke up their backsides. Hussein kept making noises about having WMDs, and look what happened there. If Nut Case is simply playing games, then while he needs to be called on it, and if some other government wants to take him on, then fine, it's prudent for the U.S. to make sure what happened before doing anything.
Originally Posted By ecdc "it's prudent for the U.S. to make sure what happened before doing anything." Since when? I say, invade now!
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>we'll see just how opposed in the next 48 hours, my guess is this is only words from China.<< True. No doubt China enjoys seeing NK being a thorn in our side.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Apparently I'm not explaining this properly at all because our resident conservatives appear to have NO CLUE as to what I'm saying.> This resident conservative understands exactly what you're saying. It's just wrong. It's not clear at all that the US and the UK did not abide by the wishes of the Security Council.
