RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


so it looks like the US needs the UN after all(18 posts)

so it looks like the US needs the UN after allMJ
Aug 21, 2003 12:42 AM
how is Bush gonna wriggle out of this one after mocking the international community and starting a war against SH on the basis of lies re WMD's? how does the seeking of international/UN help sit with all you rabid neo-cons who now call french fries freedom fries? hyppocritical anyone?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23276-2003Aug20.html
The US always wanted the UN involvedTJeanloz
Aug 21, 2003 5:34 AM
My memory indicates that the US repeated asked the UN to be involved, and they continuously refused. After a final rebuttal, the coalition that was assembled went without the UN.

I think the UN's help has always been desired, and I hope that they will offer it.
No - that's incorrectMJ
Aug 21, 2003 5:44 AM
the US always wanted the UN to do what it wanted it to do - it didn't - the US went without UN support and ridiculed the international community and its' institutions - conservative pundits and plenty of posters here rail against the UN at every chance they get

the rabid neo-con US attitude is that the UN is only worthwhile if it serves US purposes - it didn't in March but it does now - that's more than irony

the point is that if the US wants to have a credible relationship with the international community it must respect international opinion even when it doesn't agree with it - it would be nice for Iraq to come under the auspices of the UN - but it appears that the US has terms for this 'cooperation'
Has the USA paid its UN dues yet???african
Aug 21, 2003 5:51 AM
as I recall they owe a serious amount of dues to the UN but have yet to pay, in fact Ted Turner was so embarresed of "his" country he paid a part of the fee.

Lets get real - the US really should pay its dues to the UN.
as soon as the UN pays its parking tickets...nmmohair_chair
Aug 21, 2003 6:02 AM
The dues are RIDICULOUS.Matno
Aug 23, 2003 9:08 AM
I will never figure out why the US continues to pay such a huge percentage of the total budget to an organization that does nothing but criticize and deride America. Try sitting in on a UN meeting sometime (you won't see them on TV because they are almost universally closed to the public) and you will find that they are the worst US bashers around. And we're paying dues to them why? We get no benefit whatsoever from them, and arguably much harm. Much of our money goes directly to support programs that the American public would NEVER support. Could somebody please explain this to me?
That's disingenuous,TJeanloz
Aug 21, 2003 5:53 AM
The United Nations and the "international community" are not the same thing. The coalition forces included support from more than 30 nations - 15 of which were European - and the US invited the support of all.

It is true that the United States wanted the United Nations to do what it saw as the right thing. If you don't believe that the US wanted UN support from day 1, you were not paying attention. In the absence of UN support, the United States felt that it had to do what it saw as the right thing regardless. The United States has always wanted the UN to help and support its actions; whether the UN wanted to do so is a different story.
there's a good article on the un and the neo-cons viewrufus
Aug 21, 2003 6:13 AM
at i believe, the project for the new american century website. basically, the neo-cons believe the un is old and antiquated, weak and ineffective at solving world problems, and needs to be dissolved and replaced with some other body, of course, with the US playing a significantly greater role in the new organization.

what they did before the war was the first step toward that goal. they didn't seriously want the UN with them, but they knew world view largely supported that action. so they did go to the UN, but their requests and demands were such that the UN could not accept them. what the neo-cons did was manipulate the process to prove their point. the UN was ineffective and needs to be replaced, and the course they chose when dealing with the UN set out to prove that theory, by forcing the UN into a course of action that they knew the UN wouldn't take. like every other policy in this neo-con administration, first they develop the theory, and then force the action to confirm that theory.
"Neo-cons" are not "the US"; they are not the gov't...TJeanloz
Aug 21, 2003 6:28 AM
While there may be some "neo-con" activists in the government, they don't represent the government, and whatever garbage their think-tank spews should not be construed as US policy.

Show me something from the White House, or Senate Armed Service Committee, and it might be interesting. But I can probably find a KKK website, based in the United States, which, I think we would agree does not represent "our" views.
let's see: rummy, wolfy, perle, hadley, condi, cheneyrufus
Aug 21, 2003 7:24 AM
probably 20 or 30 more of them just in the pentagon alone, and you don't think they have any effect on what policies this administration enacts?

no, they don't represent the US, and they don't represent the views of most people in america. but they make up a huge number of the president's top advisors, and after 9/11, have basically hijacked the administration's foreign policy. what they say goes, which is why powell is so frustrated over at state, and will leave.
no that's disingenuousMJ
Aug 21, 2003 6:18 AM
the UN is the formal grouping of the international community - to portray it as something else is incorrect

the 'support' from most of the other 30 countries involved no troops, no aid and no money - not to mention that a number of the countries are difficult ot find on a map, not serious players and trying to curry favour with the US by supporting the war but not being forced to contirbute anything

of course the US wanted the UN to give in from day one - but it's more than disingenuous to approach it from that point of view

the US is either part of the UN and abdes by its' decisions - by the decisions of the international community - or it's not - the US is part of the UN not the other way around - you're on weak ground with this argument
not to mention.rufus
Aug 21, 2003 7:27 AM
instead of those coalition countries giving us money and resources, the US was paying them million to sign on the dotted line. the best support coalition money could buy. if our goal was so obvious and just, why did we have to pay people to go along with it?
pay. i should have said "bribe". nmrufus
Aug 21, 2003 7:29 AM
Find these on a map EinsteinLive Steam
Aug 21, 2003 7:25 PM
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Britain, Uzbekistan

Yeah I know they are hard to find unless you can read a map :O)
Kofi Annan's in a tough spotSpoiler
Aug 21, 2003 8:51 AM
If I were him, I'd be tempted to say, "No thanks, it's 100 percent your mess. You created it, you have a couple hundred thousand more kids you can afford to send them. Go for yourself."

If it works out, great. U.S. can take all the credit and say "We were right." Bush is a hero and Iraq is a safe and productive democracy. And the Cubs win the pennant.

US troops are a magnet for bombings, snipers, sabotage, and pot-shots. Who knows how many militant Arab terrorists there are. The militants they have a deck of cards of their own. Their deck contains about 150,000 cards, all of them have US troop faces on them. Conveniently enough, all the cards have been placed right on the Arabs home turf.

I'm guessing a greater number of them will come home in coffins AFTER the defeat of the Iraqi army than before.

Any UN or international "peacekeepers" caught within spitting distance will meet the same fate. What "peace" now exists that they can hope to "keep"? I always thought they came in after peace has been established, to replace military troops, not become them.
what country in their right mind.....rufus
Aug 21, 2003 9:58 AM
after being bullied and snubbed by this administration, and seeing the shooting gallery that iraq is fast becoming, is gonna want to send their own kids into that country when powell comes begging them to do so? especially if the situation continues to grow worse?

we had our chance to ask for other countries' help. and our belligerent and arrogant administration blew that chance. now those seeds are coming home to rest.
Israel? It's all part of a brilliant plan.Spoiler
Aug 21, 2003 8:56 PM
That is a sick joke. Could you imagine the all-out gall. What the hell? Us and Israel. They take the north and we take the south. We just drop all pretense, set up the most explosive possible atmosphere and create a suicide bombers Candyland.

Next thing you know, they start fighting each other for the chance to make headlines. They start suicide bombing other suicide bombers.

Man, this is genius.
NO WE DON'T!Matno
Aug 23, 2003 9:03 AM
Don't get what Bush wants confused with what the US needs. Let's not forget who his friends are.

The U.N. is kind of like thalidomide. It may seem to relieve a few symptoms, but doesn't get to the root of the problem, and has devastating long-term consequences for anyone who uses it. Unfortunately, it may take a lot longer for a lot of people to realize the danger than it did with thalidomide...