UN Council Unanimously Adopts Iraq Resolution

[Monte Smith]

A diplomatic victory. Those are in short supply these days. This is good news for Iraq.


UN Council Unanimously Adopts Iraq Resolution

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council voted 15-0 on Thursday to adopt a contentious resolution on Iraq's future, a victory for the United States which sought approval for its occupation of the country.

Russia, Germany and France, key opponents of the war, announced hours before the vote they would support the resolution, albeit with reservations. Syria, the last hold-out, then also came on board.

With President Bush under pressure from the growing cost of the Iraq occupation in U.S. lives and money, the resolution encourages nations to support the occupation with troops and cash. It also asks Iraqi leaders to draw up a plan for a new constitution and elections by Dec. 15.

Somewhat short of what the White House thugs originally wanted, don't you think?

Anyone catch 60 Minutes II last night? I'm sure it would have sent shivers up and down Powell's spine--if he had one!

[Monte Smith]

Just curious, Chris. What do you see?

[walto]

I don't know about Chris, but I'm certainly glad to have the UN involved in any international action of this kind. I'm glad the Bushites finally saw the light: I just wish they'd admit they were full of shit during their "The hell with the UN--we don't need those bastards and never will!" phase. But of course, how CAN they have ever been wrong about anything when (like Trot Nixon) they've got Jesus on their side?

The U.N. is a farce. Bunch of sniveling bureaucrats.

But hopefully it won't take them 12 years to make a positive change in Iraq this time around.

[MRS]

Chalk up four more to positive change today.

If it's Bush's glass, it's half empty--and that's being generous.

[walto]

"The U.N. is a farce. Bunch of sniveling bureaucrats."


Haven't you been told?! That was LAST week's propaganda! We love them, now! (Unlike the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which we loved last week, and now deride.)

Sorry Walto, as I've stated several times before, I've always hated them, and will continue to until they get off their lazy no good ass and actually start acting like the 'world leaders' that they like to prop themselves up as being.

Although I didn't support the war in Kosovo, I still, to this day, tip my hat to President Clinton for not even bothering with those worthless fucks at the U.N. for a war resolution.

[walto]

We've kind of beaten this subject to death, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself here, but I guess I look at this stuff a bit differently. I mean, suppose I take the position that my state legislature is populated by a pack of thugs/thieves. (More'n likely, they pretty much are, wherever I happen to be from.) Does that mean that I think my governor should just do stuff without their approval that the law actually requires them to pass on? I'd say, no.

So, when I say that, unless absolutely necessary for defending my homeland (or, as in the case of Afghanistan, as payback), wars must not be initiated without UN consent, I'm not saying that I think all the people at the UN are of the highest excellence in every way. I'm saying that waging war on people of other countries is a big enough deal to absolutely require a kind of process that might not turn out the way I like it.

So, like with a lot of stuff, I disagreed with Clinton about that. I will say, though, that there was a lot more support from the surrounding countries (and the world at large) for action in Kosovo than there was for war against Iraq.

[Monte Smith]

Scott, I am sick of you disparaging a noble and effective institution like the United Nations.



You need re-education.

[walto]

And is YOUR state legislature better?

[Monte Smith]

Well, they are elected. But never mind that. Let's all have a cookie and a hug.

[walto]

UN designates are mostly appointed by elected officials. But never mind. I agree that only Republican U.S. officials really know anything about anything going on in the universe.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by walto
We've kind of beaten this subject to death, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself here, but I guess I look at this stuff a bit differently. I mean, suppose I take the position that my state legislature is populated by a pack of thugs/thieves. (More'n likely, they pretty much are, wherever I happen to be from.) Does that mean that I think my governor should just do stuff without their approval that the law actually requires them to pass on? I'd say, no.

So, when I say that, unless absolutely necessary for defending my homeland (or, as in the case of Afghanistan, as payback), wars must not be initiated without UN consent, I'm not saying that I think all the people at the UN are of the highest excellence in every way. I'm saying that waging war on people of other countries is a big enough deal to absolutely require a kind of process that might not turn out the way I like it.

So, like with a lot of stuff, I disagreed with Clinton about that. I will say, though, that there was a lot more support from the surrounding countries (and the world at large) for action in Kosovo than there was for war against Iraq.

Your illustration is off target, Walter, because it would not be the legislature that the governor is ignoring, but some other quasi-authoritative body to whom the state had not ceded sovereignty. If we had the ability to elect our representatives to the UN and have some sort of say in what goes on there I would be more disturbed about the Bush administration's failure to include them in affairs of state. As it is, any moves in the UN are decided by, or subect to veto by, some guys from Germany or France or China or Russia or East Bongo-Bongo or wherever who operate under rules over which ordinary citizens have absolutely no say. Why should we be concerned about not adhering to the UN's wishes?

Anyone who professes horror that our current president was *appointed* by the judiciary should be incredulous at the idea that we are somehow beholden to the UN, whose head is appointed by, well, by who knows?

[Uli]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
Why should we be concerned about not adhering to the UN's wishes?

The most obvious, admittedly a bit formalistic reason, is that we have agreed to do so and our agreement has been ratified, afaik.

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph Anyone who professes horror that our current president was *appointed* by the judiciary should be incredulous at the idea that we are somehow beholden to the UN, whose head is appointed by, well, by who knows? [/B]

afaik the head of the UN is elected by the General Assembly.

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
If we had the ability to elect our representatives to the UN

You want the entire United States population to vote for UN representatives? This seems like overkill. Our representatives are appointed by an elected government, surely that's enough. The UN doesn't make laws. And besides, not much more than half the potential US electorate even votes for the President. You can imagine the turnout for UN-representative elections!

and have some sort of say in what goes on there

What do you suppose Security Council veto power is if not "some sort of say"?

I would be more disturbed about the Bush administration's failure to include them in affairs of state. As it is, any moves in the UN are decided by, or subect to veto by, some guys from Germany or France or China or Russia or East Bongo-Bongo or wherever

Well, by "some guys" from Germany or France or China or Russia or East Bongo-Bongo or by "some guys" from the United States. We're in there too - we're just not the boss. Why shouldn't other countries have veto power and participate in decisions? It sounds like you're saying "I'd love the UN if only we didn't have to worry about what the other countries want. That majority rule thing is just too big a constraint."

who operate under rules over which ordinary citizens have absolutely no say

Right. Citizens of the UN member countries should decide UN rules and procedures - like they do the rules and procedures of the United States Congress, for example? Come on. Not only would it be totally unworkable, do you think it would help make for rules and procedures the United States would prefer? I'm sure the UN has rules for changing its own rules, subject to vote by members, including the United States.

Anyone who professes horror that our current president was *appointed* by the judiciary should be incredulous at the idea that we are somehow beholden to the UN, whose head is appointed by, well, by who knows?

Isn't the UN Secretary General elected by the representatives of the member countries? What's wrong with that?

We are only beholden to the UN in the sense that we belong to it and agree to play the game according to the rules. Of course, rare is the country that really does that in all situations, I assume. Still, we should make a good faith effort to do so. That we are still a UN member implies there is some benefit for the United States, no?

[Uli]

Originally posted by Tom Storer
The UN doesn't make laws.

That's wrong by accepted international legal standards.

[jesus marion joseph]

The fact that more people don't vote is no reason to take that vote power away. I'm more concerned in principle than in actuality, since the UN has virtually no "teeth", although I fear the day (if it should ever arrive) when their decisions, ratified from the anonymous member from East Bongo-Bongo (metaphorically speaking, of course), becomes enforceable against me, and that decision is based upon what works for East Bongo-Bongo and has no relation to what works for the US of A. I don't mean to be xenophobic, it's just that, unlike the Congress, the UN general Assembly is not in the least answerable to anyone from my jurisdiction. It is a fine idea to have an institution for resolving disputes, but I think it is an impractical forum for passing laws without having been granted sovereingty over the subject members.

[Uli]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
The fact that more people don't vote is no reason to take that vote power away. I'm more concerned in principle than in actuality, since the UN has virtually no "teeth", although I fear the day (if it should ever arrive) when their decisions, ratified from the anonymous member from East Bongo-Bongo (metaphorically speaking, of course), becomes enforceable against me, and that decision is based upon what works for East Bongo-Bongo and has no relation to what works for the US of A. I don't mean to be xenophobic, it's just that, unlike the Congress, the UN general Assembly is not in the least answerable to anyone from my jurisdiction. It is a fine idea to have an institution for resolving disputes, but I think it is an impractical forum for passing laws without having been granted sovereingty over the subject members.

It sure looks for now like the biggest gun in the hands of some Texans is indeed "more practical". imho however it's much less desireable.

[walto]

It seems to me that the UN General Assembly is responsible to people in "my jurisdiction" (the U.S.) in much the same way the U.S. Congress is answerable to people in "my jurisdiction" (Arlington, MA).

I take it you'd like the U.N. more if it always did what you'd like. I feel the same way about the Mass. Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Scott, I am sick of you disparaging a noble and effective institution like the United Nations.



You need re-education.

Is that Kofi at the U.N. continuing education seminar?

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by Uli
That's wrong by accepted international legal standards.

You're quite right, the UN does make international law. Silly mistake on my part.

I agree with Walt's position - UN law-making is not unaccountable, since our elected government appoints representatives who are part of that law-making process.

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
I'm more concerned in principle than in actuality, since the UN has virtually no "teeth", although I fear the day (if it should ever arrive) when their decisions, ratified from the anonymous member from East Bongo-Bongo (metaphorically speaking, of course), becomes enforceable against me, and that decision is based upon what works for East Bongo-Bongo and has no relation to what works for the US of A.

I must say your references to East Bongo-Bongo rather stick in my craw. It's a way of ridiculing developing nations - not only are they distant and alien, it says, but they have outlandish names- how can they be taken seriously?

But the point is that the UN members vote, and we are one of them. I daresay if international law is ratified that is fine for industrialized nations but has no relation to what works for developing nations you'd be less worried - perhaps I'm mistaken. The way one hopes it would work - and can work only with more or less equal votes for each member - is negotiation and compromise to ensure that the needs of neither the US nor "East Bongo-Bongo" are ignored.

It is a fine idea to have an institution for resolving disputes, but I think it is an impractical forum for passing laws without having been granted sovereingty over the subject members.

True enough, the UN cannot be said to be a very practical institution. Historically speaking, I'd speculate that it's either in an early stage of development - just coming out of its first half-century - that will gradually move to an increased role and power of international institutions, or else it will fail to get anywhere at all and stay where it is or disappear. Each outcome would have its own set of benefits and dangers.

[jesus marion joseph]

I don't mean to suggest that developing countries have nothing to offer on the world stage, I just used it to make a rhetorical point, I guess.

"East Bongo-Bongo" is a fictitious third world banana republic invented by one of my history professors in college who used to rail against the more extreme manifestations of governmental intrusions by saying things like "What's next, special rights for left-handed lesbians from East Bongo-Bongo?" He once wrote an article in the school paper decrying a decision by the school's affirmative action officer (I can't remember if that was her actual title, but it's close) who rendered the decision that Spanish students (students of Spanish nationality, not students studying the Spanish language) were not to be considered "Hispanic" for the purpose of financial aid benefits.


I agree with your assessment of the UN, Tom. It will be interesting to see which way the UN develops. I am concerned that the imprimatur of the UN has become a political football in the US at a time when it is not clear how much sovereignty should or will be ceded to its decision making power. i suppose it's a chicken-or-egg situation at present.

[Monte Smith]

Wouldn't we need an amendment to the Constitution to establish an authority over the American people that is not state or federal? The Constitution is very explicit about the authorities that constitute government in the United States and neither the UN nor any foreign despot (enlightened or otherwise) is mentioned as holding title to our inalienable rights.

[Uli]

Sheesh indeed, Monte. The constitution may be giving inalienable rights in the US but hardly in Irak just to mention one example. Sheesh.

You really have to feel some sympathy for Monte and JMJ. Following the Bush trail so blindly can easily make one dizzy:

• Hate the UN, don't hate the UN--they're irrelevant...no, no, wait..we need them!
  
  We don't care about the oil, we're looking for WMDs--they gotta be there, somewhere...well, never mind, let's just say we're going in to liberate these poor people.
  
  They'll hand you roses in gratitude, they will...what? Where have all the flowers gone?
  
  Rush, rush, Saddam can assemble a nuclear device in 45 minutes...no, no, no, I didn't say imminent danger, I said 45 minutes!
  
  Oh, they hate our freedom, let's make them love us, let's reduce our freedom at home!
  
  We don't need the French and the Germans for our coalition...oh, the coalition is puny? Let's kiss us some French ass by sending the appointed one's old lady over there...hey, and let's call them greasy ones French fries again, eh Congress.
  
  Those tax cuts are restoring our economy, they really are...I mean it, they really, really are! You don't hear the rich complaining, do you?
  
  Hey, don't go out in Iraq without the personal armor that your family had to buy for you...some Iraqis still haven't learned that we love them--we are there for them!
  
  When will our beloved Iraqis understand? Let's take billions of dollars from our own people (but only the poor) and show the Iraqis our love and compassion.
  
  This stuff ain't workin' the way it should--must be some kind of a media filter. Let's find it, lets send Ricey out there to do what she does best--lie, baby, lie harder than ever. You, too, Powell, give them more of your fantasies.

They ain't buyin' the "Clinton is to blame" line anymore, boss...what's a poor lemming to do?

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Chris A
You really have to feel some sympathy for Monte and JMJ. Following the Bush trail so blindly can easily make one dizzy:
[list]Hate the UN, don't hate the UN....

Not actually. It is simply: don't respect the UN.

[jesus marion joseph]

If you're dizzy, Chris, perhaps some medication would help. Your post is as wildly off the mark regarding my position on the UN as you could possibly get. Nice try, though.