[Oleg Volk]

For years, I've seen every mention of the UN resolution followed by "and when the blue helmets come here, we'll kill the lot of them". UN disarmament efforts in the Balkans and elsewhere were certainly not appreciated.

Now I hear "violation of the UN resolutions" being cited as a strong reason for attacking Iraq in force. Doesn't really fit with the earlier sentiments...

[Ian]

The exact same thing has crossed my mind. Remember the uproar over the UN small arms conference in New York a year or two ago?

[DeltaElite]

Oleg, how dare you confuse our brethren on the forum by confronting them with the facts and their own words.
For shame. :D

I agree, hypocrisy is an amazing process. :D

[cheygriz]

Oleg,

With all due respect to you ,sir, I firmly believe (and always have believed) that the U.N. is a dirty joke!

A super expensive, anti-American debating society.

Have we used them on occasion as useful fools? Of course we have. Why not?

They "stick it" to us every chance they get. What's wrong with us "sticking it" to them when we get the chance?

[Hutch]

Concur with the above, mostly. When they agree with us, or their interest coincides with our own, we can exploit that. Truthfully and honestly, I wish they'd move to Yurp and we would withdraw from the General Assembly and Security Council. As a sort-of super Red Cross, they have some use, the WHO and UNESCO, etc. Even those orgs are not worth what they cost, but they are certainly the best of the lot.

[tyme]

The origin of the authority under which we're attacking Iraq doesn't matter. We went through the U.N. because the world community accepts it. We could just as easily have issued repeated warnings to Iraq unilaterally or with just our close allies. It's not the U.N. that's unacceptable to me, just certain operations the U.N. has carried out in other countries, and that it could theoretically carry out in ours.

I don't care whether they're blue helmet, French, German, Russian, or Chinese. If they were to invade this country (on a "peace mission" or whatever else), bullets would start flying. I'd expect the citizens of any other country to do the same.

[Skunkabilly]

Going to the UN is a formality. Hey, we tried diplomacy. This ain't getting anywhere.

IMO the UN is a debate club with tanks.

[atek3]

Worst part is right now its the brits who are disarming the iraqi civilians. I say one or two years before iraq has a massive genocide.

atek3

[ahenry]

If a reason that plays into the liberal mindset falls into your lap it seems only prudent to use it. Only a fool dismisses opportunity when it comes knocking. Besides, giving the UN some rope has worked wonders for showing the world (and most importantly, America) what they are really worth.

[Thumper]

Agree with the above: I see no conflict in the two ideas.

[Poodleshooter]

The UN is a tool to be used. A rather useless tool when unaccompanied by military force, but a tool nonetheless. We ignore it when it suits us, and use it when it is usefull. Everyone else in the world seems to.

[labgrade]

Oleg,

It's merely the "good cop/bad cop" play on us all.

Everything else falls into place when that becomes more clear.

[yucapote]

Now I hear "violation of the UN resolutions" being cited as a strong reason for attacking Iraq in force.


I have nothing against Israel, but this is outrageous.


United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Israel

Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.

267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.

298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.

484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syri573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."

607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.
an Golan region.

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

694 (1991) Israel
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."

726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."

904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."

1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."

1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.

1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."

1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.

[atek3]

wow, good thing israel is politically popular or we might invade it too :)

atek3

[Gary H]

Every country uses the U.N. to forward their own agenda. For the most part, it is an anti-U.S. organization that needs our money and military to enforce their willy-nilly.

Oleg.. You simply point out that politics and politicians are not always fully truthful, nor consistant. I would guess that many of the members of THR thought that going to the U.N. was a mistake, but that is the past. We dislike the U.N, except for providing emergency aid. It is just a debating society. We might support it when it goes our way and ignore it when it doesn't. Justification is just political cover.

[trapshooter]

The UN is, increasingly, a useless bunch of diplospeaking fops who are busily feathering thier own nest, at the expense of everyone else. Example: Cough-up Anan. Annual salary: 250k+, before perks. Annual income of his home countrymen? Probably ten bucks per. What a man.

In the recent arguments, we've heard from probably 50-60 countries, all told, on both sides, in public. Where are the rest? Keeping thier heads down, checking out the buffet, the bar, and the waitresses, apparently. (Trust me, this is much closer to the truth than mere humor would infer. I've seen these weasels in action).

The UN is like the road to hell. Paved with...well, you know. Something for the syncophants to walk on. The Useless Nations.

[grampster]

.....Or another way of looking at it (Israel and UN resolutions) is it just goes to show you how toothless and unable the UN is to be able to do anything. America supports Israel's right to exist, emphasis on right to exist. The rest of the world is having a little problem with that small item. America is powerful and the rest of the world is not. I think Israel has a right to exist so I support that. I also believe the Palestinians also have the same right and I think that can be accomplished given some time. 50 years is not much time in the vast scope of things.
Anyway, I can see it now, fast forward to Iraq 2023 AD, resolution 19741 strongly advising Iraq to disarm and to disclose WMD. Two pages are devoted to the myriad resolutions on the HighRoad.Org, the definitive firearm web sight inhabited by the intellectual elite of the free world. Inhabitants are still debating the merits of "The New World Order" vis a vis the new Smith and Wesson .75 cal wheel gun.
Iraq responds by selling nukes to 22 rogue states in the Middle East, Central America and Africa and lobs a dirty 6 megaton nuke into downtown Jerusalem, ending forever the argument over who gets to control same. The Kurds in the North and the Shia in the south suddenly all fall down while bleeding from every pore in their bodies. Udai Hussien says its the worst case of Swine Flu he ever saw.
As far as Israel and the Palestinians are concerned, until radical religious veiws stop being the driving force behind politics (which it has in many ways in Israel, and is beginning to dawn on the Palestinians as well) nothing will settle their differences. No UN, no nothing. They need to figure it out for themselves. The hate has to stop being preached in the radical mosques and synagogues. Middle of the road people who desire to work and sleep and live in relative safety will begin to demand it. I see that process at work at this time in Palestine and Israel, believe it or not.
:banghead: grampster

[Giant]

The United Nations is a nearly useless anti gun debating society. The UN exist in the United States at our pleasure. It is possible, but doubtful the UN would be asked by the US to vacate New York.

The United Nations is not a relevant world organization in it's present configuration, with many of it's key post held by dictators and despots! They deserve the respect of no one on the planet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel has a right to exist as a state in Palestine. Before the State of Israel was formed, the Jews in Palestine were! the Palestinians! The Jews have occupied the land where Israel now exist since the beginning of recorded history. The people now calling themselves Palestinians are Arabs from countries throughout the Arab World, they have sworn to destroy the Jewish State and all Jews!

Israel has offered in the past to create a State for the Palestinians and to coexist in peace, the the Palestinians have refused time and again. The Palestinians want it all! And no Jews in the area as well!

No, I am not a Jew, but I would be proud to be one! Coexistence is not easy -- time may help, although the argument has been boiling or simmering for more than a thousand years... Could the UN help resolve the arguement(s)? Not likely!

Giant

[Justin Moore]

It's merely the "good cop/bad cop" play on us all.
Everything else falls into place when that becomes more clear.

lab, I 'think' I know what you meant there, but would you care to elaborate? Kind of like the mostly phony left vs. right debate that constantly goes on here in Amerika?

Oleg,

I totally agree with your contentions. There is no intellectual consistency in the "Iraq is violating UN resolutions" and "We don't need UN support" at the same time.

We just don't need the UN for anything, PERIOD ;)

Here's Ron Paul's (excellent) take on the whole mess:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst031703.htm

Our anticipated war in Iraq has been condemned by many around the world for the worst of all reasons: namely, that America is acting without United Nations approval._ The obvious implication is that an invasion of Iraq is illegitimate without such approval, but magically becomes legitimate when UN bureaucrats grant their blessing._ Most Americans rightfully resent this arrogant attitude toward our national sovereignty and don’t care what the UN thinks about our war plans._ Perhaps our heritage as a nation of people who do not take kindly to being told what to do is intact._ Still, only the most ardent war hawks connected with the administration have begun to discuss complete withdrawal from the UN._ I have advocated this for twenty years, and have introduced legislation to that effect.

The administration deserves some credit for asserting that we will go to war unilaterally if necessary, without UN authorization._ But it sends a mixed message by doing everything it can to obtain such authorization._ Efforts to build a “coalition” through the promise of billions in foreign aid dollars only reinforce the perception that we’re trying to buy support for the war._ The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding._ The bizarre irony is while we may act unilaterally in Iraq, the very justification for our invasion is that we are enforcing UN resolutions!
__
Our current situation in Iraq shows that we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus._ We don’t need UN permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under the Constitution._ The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies._ It’s bad enough when Congress relinquishes its warmaking authority to the President, but disastrous if we relinquish it to international bureaucrats who don’t care about America.

Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however._ The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws._ Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army._ This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website._ UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it._ They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans._ They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance._ American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body._ This needs to be stated publicly more often._ If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.”_ Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution._ As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government._ The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people._ We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties._ They do not.
The UN is neither wise nor neutral._ All of the member nations have national interests that don’t simply disappear when their representatives enter the UN general assembly hall._ Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals._ Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism._ Perhaps the time has finally come when more Americans will choose to rethink our participation.

[labgrade]

Easily enough, Justin.

The UN will play both sides against the middle so as to further their own agenda.

Has nothing to do with what's good for USofA, nor the world. They've their own agenda to do what they will, & as it suits 'em -= another whole entity reagrdless of what any of us has set up as any governmental agency - it's THe UN, afterall.

They will play "good cop, bad cop" as it suits their agenda, & simply as that.

Play against the middle & all the sides.

I have no doubt that they will play "for, or against" any that they'd perceive to be in, or agains = their best interest.

Somewhat cryptic, I know, but that's where they're at & I haven't anything better to offer, sad to say.

They will do what will work the best for them.