And Bush said what’s quoted below before going to war in Iraq but then bypassing the UNSC certainly isn’t “showing commitment” nor does it show believe in them.
So Tigerman, is Bush a hypocrite or liar (or both)?
Quote courtesy of Tigerman (last post on this page)
[quote=“Rascal”]And Bush said what’s quoted below before going to war in Iraq but then bypassing the UNSC certainly isn’t “showing commitment” nor does it show believe in them.
So Tigerman, is Bush a hypocrite or liar (or both)?
Quote courtesy of Tigerman (last post on this page)[/quote]
And when the Security Council’s words no longer have meaning? Should we still believe in it?
Bush went to the UN Security Council and what happened? He got a 17th resolution and then they demanded that he get an 18th. Why? And given that we know the French and Russian governments were coopted at the highest levels and so was the UN administration and the Oil for Food program, why aren’t you angrier at the fact that
France unilaterally said that under no conditions would it agree to war in Iraq despite promising this to the US as a condition for the 17th resolution.
The UN Security Council was not acting in good faith but was a market of prostitutes.
The Bush administration did everything it could to go through the UN.
The UN ran at the first difficulty in Iraq. What makes you think that it is capable of providing effective leadership. Apparently, the French have not only had a corrupting influence on the UN Security Council but their much vaunted bravery seems to have taken hold in the UN as well.
Is this the kind of world that you want Rascal? Finally, you can maintain your “idealistic” albeit very selective “idealistic” position all you want but your own government is now warming up very quickly to the Bush administration and regardless of what you think, relations between the US are moving ahead while those with France are cooling. Now, why do you suppose that is? Hmmm? Irrelevant? Uninteresting?
Fair point but then to argue it doesn’t have a meaning because the UNSC didn’t bow to your request (demand) is questionable. *)
Otherwise I would expect that changes are sought - just bypassing them when you are not pleased with their decision is not the right way. What’s the point of the UNSC when everyone decides selectively when to respect and when to bypass the UNSC?
*) I can imagine what arguments will follow but please keep in mind that inspections were on-going, that there were plans for a watchdog to ensure Iraq would not get its hands on WMD after the inspectors had left and that I have said the world should have waited for the final verdict - if found guilty then, depending on he level of violation, I would have agreed to ‘serious consequences’ and hopefully the UNSC would have seen it the same way and approved such. Thus I do not agree that the US had a valid case at the time which would explain why they chose to bypass the UNSC.
As mentioned above I do not claim the UN/UNSC is perfect and I would agree that it needs an overhaul to prevent any abuse by it’s members.
Look Rascal:
I think that the UN Security Council does not work.
And because of this, there was no chance anyone could work with it.
Remember that it was coopted and corrupt.
Lies and immorality are the order of the day in the Security Council.
I hardly think that another resolution was going to make a difference.
Anyway, what’s over and done with is over and done with.
Relations between the US and Europe are improving. Hurray!
[quote=“Rascal”]And Bush said what’s quoted below before going to war in Iraq but then bypassing the UNSC certainly isn’t “showing commitment” nor does it show believe in them.
So Tigerman, is Bush a hypocrite or liar (or both)?
Quote courtesy of Tigerman (last post on this page)[/quote]
Hahahaha, Rascal strikes out again.
How in the fuck do you come up with your question? Did Bush not go to the UN? Did Bush not give the UN the opportunity to do the right thing (i.e., enforce its own resolutions)? Bush did that before invading Iraq. Its not Bush’s fault that the corrupt UN dropped the ball.
Rascal… 4 more years! You should be happy. This saves you from the obligation of having to think of a single idea… you can continue criticizing, using your double standards and contradictions, without ever having to offer an alternative plan.
Aren’t you relieved?
[color=red]
BINGO
[/color]
That’s nice. So, lets set up some committees to discuss such an overhual… and maybe some other committees to conduct some investigations, and still other committees to study the issues…
Meanwhile, to Hell with the people in Iraq and Rwanda and the Sudan whose rights are being abused. Much better to worry about alleged abuse by the US of the UNSC… What a pathetic load of shit. 
“and you won’t have Nixon to kick around any more.”
[quote]Hahahaha, Rascal strikes out again.
How in the fuck do you come up with your question?[/quote]
By looking at the fact that you questioned Gore based on his statement earlier and the contradiction to his later position compares very nicely to Bush’s statement and his later position which also contradicts.
And help me out here: when Gore made the statement you quoted, was he already aware that the result would be scrutinized?
So what? After he got his answer he should have accepted that, else you have to admit that his statement I quoted does not correspond to his actions.
The right thing in your view perhaps but as explained there was no need to enforce the resolutions yet, notwithstanding the fact that it remains questionable if the resolutions authorized such an enforcement. Given that the UNSC did not agree I rekon the answer is a big, fat ‘no’.
Bush made a statement and acted against it, he flip-flopped. And just because he went to the UN but didn’t get what he wanted does not mean he has the right to act as he pleases - that’s a pathetic attempt of an excuse.
Pray tell, if it’s so bad and the US does anyhow what it wants - why are they still a member?
How (insert profanity here yourself) do you come up with that? The overhaul does not mean all positive actions have to stop.
Let’s assume that Rascal really does care about the UN and international law. Then, Rascal, given the corruption in the highest leadership in the UN, should the US be bound by the actions of these types of individuals? How would you get rid of this corruption? How are you going to get reform of committee chairs so Sudan and Libya are not chairing human rights?
Would you also then say that given Germany’s many laws under Hitler that obeying them was most important rather than “reforming” the system first? Are you a “just following orders” kind of guy about all things? Just curious.
Horse shit.
What do you think?
In any event, are you saying that Gore should not accept the findings of two investigations conducted by Democrats? Are you saying that after the proces was completely exhausted, and the proces resulted in findings that completely negate the accusations made, that Gore should continue to make the discredited allegations?
Nonsense. Are you now arguing that Bush should have accepted the UNSC unwillingness to enforce its own resolutions in the same way that Gore accepted the findings of the two investigations of the allegations in Florida? One difference: The investigations of the allegations in Florida were conducted by Gore’s political friends. The decisions made at the UNSC were made by corrupt and in some cases, enemies of the US.
How can enforcing the UNSC’s 17 resolutions be the wrong thing? The US gave the UN a chance to be relevant. The UN decided then to be irrelevant (and continues today in irrelevance as the Sudan now languishes while the UN makes repeated threats that it will never back).
Many foreign nationals living in Taiwan frequently opine that one of the major problems with Taiwan’s legal system is simply the failure to enforce its laws. Does Rascal share this opinion? If yes, why do you think it OK for the UNSC to fail in its responsibility to enforce its resolutions?
You’re out in left field, as usual. Bush did not flip flop. He never said that he would put the US’s security at the whim of the UN. He stated that he would give the UN a chance to be relevant. He gave the UN that chance. The UN failed. Bush acted for the US. End of fucking story. Go cry about 4 more years.
I wonder the same. I wish we were not a member.
Same thing. In the current state, what “action” did the UN take in Rwanda? Iraq? The Sudan?
Duh.
Did he know the results of the investigation at the time he made his speech or not?
Of course Gore should accept the result of the investigation, in the same manner Bush should have accepted that of the UNSC.
To show the will to enfore or not enforce the resolutions was to be done after the inspections (that AFAIK have no relation to the corruption issue) had been completed, it was not for the US to take matters into their own hand. It was a decision by the US against the will of the UNSC.
Please Tigerman, there was no enforcement: you claim the UN is irrelevant, there is no international law and the US should quit it’s membership, and then suddenly it’s all about enforcing their resolutions. That kind of argumentation just doesn’t work for me.
You really should work on your analogies: the opinion that the failure of enforcing the law in Taiwan is a major problem with Taiwan’s legal system does not mean that you can take matters into your own hands nor does it mean you are right in doing so (if you actually take them into your own hands).
As to the UNSC: it did not fail (yet) because the inspections were not completed at the time the US went into war.
He said he believed in it and would be committed to the UNSC. He didn’t act in accordance with that. Flip-flop.
Is that a jibe at me or are you really comparing international law to Nazi-Germany? 
Rascal:
I mean it
Seriously. Is “obeying the law” always equal to justice.
Anyway, I don’t think so.
Let me say this. Second, your analogy regarding the UNSC
Is valid to an extent. The US cannot go and get these resolutions
And use them to justify force while disregarding the authority of the UN.
Really, I see that point. My point is that I don’t think,
Let me put it this way,
I don’t think that we should be in the UN
At all. It is the worst charnal house of corrupt tinpot dictators and
Rotten self-serving bureaucrats that the world has been able to
Lose by vomiting up in a long time.
I completely agree. That is why I would prefer that the US leave the UN
And say to all democracies: Let’s form an organization where
Real membership is contingent on respect for human rights, rule of
Law, capitalism and free markets etc. That would leave all the claptrap
Idiotic shit out and then maybe something might get done.
And if you believe in the UN so much, let me ask you why no
Relevant European nation has put their security at the whim of the UN
Likewise, but has developed long-serving strong
International ties with the US and NATO. Why? Because international law
And how it is administered is only as good as the police force to enforce
Related rules to it.
You can ban and legalize anything you want but if you don’t got enforcement, you don’t got shit. Got it?
The cease fire agreement and all resolutions called for IMMRDIATE compliance. Do we need to consult the dictionary again, or do you understand the meaning of IMMEDIATE?
Nothing works for you.
The UN became irrelevant. Bush gave it an opportunity to be relevant. What about this is too difficult for you to comprehend?
Ever hear of the concept of self defence?
Read the goddamned resolution, Rascal. Oh, that’s right, you don’t need to read statements and documents to know what is going on… The final resolution called for IMMEDIATE compliance… Even Blix stated that Saddam had not complied. It is irrelevant whether Blix believed that more time should have been given… it was not Blix’s place to revise the clear meaning of the resolution.
Yes, he did believe in the UN… that’s why he went to the UN to give the UN the opportunity to act per its own resolutions. After the UN failed to act per its own resolutions, Bush no longer believed in the UN, and he did the right thing, i.e., he acted in the interests of the US, not those of France and Germany.
Fred,
As one American to another, has the U.S. government really stood up for democratic governments when money or its own business interests are not involved? I’m not making a moral judgment, since all empires basically have the same goal, power. However, to claim that the U.S. stands up for democracy when it has openly overthrown a few as well as support dictators shows a high level of naivete.
Our country is going to hurt itself by isolating itself a la the Birch Society; in a modern world where everything we do affects our neighbor and the world economy, we need to develop positive relationships via an effective international organization rather than acting like the same ‘rogue states’ we decide to preemptively attack. By Bush’s argument, China has the right to spontaneously invade the U.S. should the U.S. have weapons threatening it. It’s clear we need to work together and not just lead by bravado. I say this not becausing I’m kissing foreign ass but because I want my family and my children to live in a safe world, which will not be achieved by preemptive attacks rather than diplomacy and, in a few cases, strategic military decisions. We cannot come out ahead by putting others ‘in their place.’ The better off the world is as a whole, the better off the U.S. will be.
[quote]I mean it
Seriously. Is “obeying the law” always equal to justice.[/quote]
It depends on what kind of justice you are talking about: Assume you take a guy to court you know to be guilty but for some reason the system let’s him of the hook - now do you argue that we can disobey the law and take matters into our own hands and enforce justice on that person or do we not need to accept the ruling made?
But comparisions to a dictatorship, and Hitler’s ruling was exactly that, do not compare IMHO.
As well consider that Hitler didn’t get there exactly by playing it fair and square, but rather seized power by deception and intrigue - and then went to abuse his powers to “enforce the laws” in any way he saw fit with the known result.
Got it but as I tried to explain it did IMHO not apply in the mentioned case, the time for enforcement wasn’t there yet.
We went over that before, didn’t we? Whatever word you pull up it was not Bush’s decision to make and neither does ‘serious consequences’ mean war - else please cite the part which says so.
If and what action to take was for the UNSC to decide as stated in the UN Charter.
Nothing, except that I don’t agree that this had anything to do with giving the UN the opportunity to be relevant.
And that works how in Taiwan for you? Whack the guy who nearly run you over while crossing the road?
Anyhow, I will save you further embarassment by citing the following related to ‘self-defense’:
[quote]Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence [color=red]if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[/color], until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security.
Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.[/quote]
un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law
It was neither Blix nor Bush’s decision to make - but obviously the UNSC disagreed with Bush and favoured Blix suggestion to let the inspection continue.
Bush and his believes - I think we are getting closer to the source of the problem …
WTF are you talking about? Of course the decision to use the US military was Bush’s decision to make. It sure as shit wasn’t the UN’s decision to make.
We’ve already been thru this and I’ve already cited and explained. You go back and read the damned resolutions… all of them…
[quote=“Rascal”]If and what action to take was for the UNSC to decide as stated in the UN Charter.
Maybe on planet Rascal. But the UN does not govern the US.
[quote=“Rascal”]Anyhow, I will save you further embarassment by citing the following related to ‘self-defense’:
[quote]Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence [color=red]if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[/color], until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security.
Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.[/quote]
un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm[/quote]
Only an idiot would fail to understand that 911 has changed everything. The nexus of rogue states and terrorists bent on doing serious harm with WMD has made it necessary for nations to consider the use of pre-emptive force. Even Germany and France now hhave adopted this notion.
So, you can blow your moaning crying out your backside.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law[/quote]
Saddam Hussein signed a conditional cease fire. He failed to comply with the same and with 17 additional resolutions for 12 years. Saddam was the aggressor. We were merely enforcing the terms of the cease fire agreement.
Too bad for you if Saddam is now gone. I see that as a good thing.
US security is Bush’s responsibility. Get a goddamned clue.
Tigerman, look at it this way. If Germany is really so concerned with Saddam and law, why don’t they just admit him as a political refugee and grant him German citizenship? After he becomes familiar with the culture and political system, he can then run for office and…well, maybe I shouldn’t go there. 