Replies to post #10804 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Mr. Ed]

Peace?They keeep falling down on the job,look at Rwanda,now the Sudan,and doing nothing about N.Korea.

[sarai]

The UN does seem to have lost it's way. And not over Iraq, specifically, but over the atrocities it seems to ignore. I love to "debate"! Maybe I should apply for a job as "ambassador" to this, or that?.......

[integrivest]

Agree Tom ... they had every opportunity to show their relevance and stand behind their own resolutions.

The fact that the US contributes 34% to their outrageous $1.45 Billion annual budget should have also allowed them to see a little more clearly.

If I were DubYa, the second thing I would do (after Iraq has been secured) is pull all UN funding.

The 1st, would be to expose France, Germany and Russia as the duplicitous, self-interested frauds they are (by uncovering and showing all the weapons Iraq doesn't have with the "MADE IN <insert country>" labels all over them).

With allies like those clowns, who needs enemies?

[ergo sum]

Here's a few snips from George the First.


Incidentally, the Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had acceded the U.N. mandate and gone on on its own if the United States had gone on on its own, had gone into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces had surrendered and agreed to disarm. The coalition would have instantly shattered. And the political capital that we had gained as a result of our principle restraint to jumpstart the peace process would have been lost. We would have lost all support from our coalition, with the possible exception of England. And we would have lost all support from the smaller nations in the United Nations as well.
(snip)

I'm sure some of you may feel the same way. But, today's problems in view cry out for more statesman like King Hussein. And also Yitzhak Rabin of Israel, I knew him and worked with him. And he was willing to reach out for peace. And he was a wonderful man. Gunned down in a horrible way in his own country. These are bold and courageous leaders, enough to stand down the extremists, and commit themselves and people to dialogue.
My point in noting this well known chain of events is that if only for a time I have seen hope surmount hate in the Middle East itself. And I've seen a forward-looking vision, and a collective courage gain momentum, and break the truly tragic cycle of bloodshed. Most importantly, I've seen the people of the Middle East lift their own eyes to the horizon, and make a clear choice for peace, realizing that they have more to gain by choosing hope over hate, and seeking a common future forged by dialogue and direct negotiation.
(snip)

And it's going to require Israeli's and Palestinians to sit down and talk to each other. It's not going to be solved if those talks somehow can't be renewed, and somehow can't be moved forward.
(snip)
The United States is not looking for an opportunity to hurt the Iraqi people. Our goal there is not regional hegemony as some suggest. It is compliance with a wide array of the United Nations resolutions. It is for Iraq to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. And like every last protestor we've seen, the President shares the hope that this disarmament can be accomplished peacefully.
(snip)

It is amazing to me that just yesterday Saddam Hussein comes across with a weapon that was illegal for a long, long time. That the pressure brought him forth. And the more united that pressure is, the more chance there is that this matter will be resolved in a peaceful manner. And I hope that our allies abroad, and I hope our friends around the world understand that. And it is that we do not seek hegemony. What we seek, after the horror of 9/11, is that we want to protect our country, and other countries, as best we can against this man, Saddam Hussein, having nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. It is just that simple.

[AndrewL]

It only becomes irrelevant when people like yourself and Mr. Bush become bent on making it so. How can you agree to an international standard on a conditional basis, i.e., only when it fits your agenda?
It is like setting a condition on a vow of marriage: "I promise to honor & cherish, etc., except when I want to screw my secretary or the next door neighbor's wife". If you agree to the rules, then play by the rules.

[SoxFan]

I find it interesting that because the US did not get it's way the UN is irrelevant. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.