Article

2004-03-15 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-03-15 3:54:37 PM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Steve, in your opinion (others can chime in as well)do you think enough pressure can be brought to bear to find out the true facts of UN involvement in the UN/Saddam oil scam? This should never be allowed to rest until the truth is found and published. TW

Posted by Chiner 2004-3-15 5:32:16 AM|| 2004-3-15 5:32:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I know ye didn ask for my opinion, buh here it is..

seriously doubt the info will get out any time soon, or if it does, it will get pushed down low, this sorta stuff could be useful when it comes to swinging votes in the un

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-3-15 5:47:59 AM|| 2004-3-15 5:47:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "They charge that veteran U.N. diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, the team's Algerian leader, toed the U.S. policy line "

and the Kurds want the UN in. Not sure reflexive hostility to the UN makes sense on this one (though i realize that for some hatred of the UN and all it represents is more important than success for US foreign policy)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-3-15 10:54:43 AM|| 2004-3-15 10:54:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The UN is not now, nor has it ever been, the "friend" of the Kurds. In fact, in UN forums, the historically recent screwing of the Kurds episodes have received the Official Stamp of Approval, Moral Rectitude, and International Legitimacy.

LH - give up, bro. The UN sucks like I wish my cheap little Hoover could. It is, in a fanciful way, a sort of futures market thugocracy. Mob Rule by the gamut, from Constitutional Republics to Brutal Dictatorships... and there sure are a lot more of the latter than the former. It is fatally structurally flawed - and the inmates have been running the institution for quite awhile, now, don't you agree?

The day you (finally - 'tis inevitable, methinks!) agree and we start designing a replacement that demonstrably "learns" from the failures of the League and the UN, will be a happy day here in RB! You can kick off the festivities any time you like! ;-)

Posted by .com 2004-3-15 11:19:54 AM|| 2004-3-15 11:19:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm going to have to lean toward siding with LH on this.

A continuing UN role in the transition has a number of pluses: it mandates more direct assistance from the UN (medicine, ag equipment, etc.), it allows a outside enemy that the various ethnic groups can talk to when things get too hot to talk to each other, it allows a vehicle to convey ideas indirectly, it allows certain govts. a cover to provide some assistance that would be hard to get otherwise and best of all, the continued presense of the UN in the transition makes for pressure on the UN to come clean in the 'oil for palaces' scandel. There are some downsides too but they are far less than the upsides.

Posted by mhw 2004-3-15 12:05:45 PM|| 2004-3-15 12:05:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 "I feel that there is coolness from my Shiite colleagues and from his eminence Ayatollah al-Sistani toward the United Nations," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish council member.

Kind of a "where the &#^$ were YOU for thirty friggin' years?" vibe there, maybe?

Posted by mojo 2004-3-15 4:31:42 PM|| 2004-3-15 4:31:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 mhw - Cool. Um, how about a refund? Lessee, instead of paying 1/4 of the UN budget, hows about we pay 1/160th or so? That'd be fair. We could still "vote" and "watch" the UN and remain aware of where they intend to fuck things up, but not have to pony up the cash to fund it. Would that work for you? Shit, I'd even give up that preciousssss UNSC chair for a fair deal... but that's just me. ;->

Posted by .com 2004-3-15 4:47:22 PM|| 2004-3-15 4:47:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 look dot com. The General assembly sucks - at least on most issues of international politics that i care about (though it doesnt suck as much now as it did 30 years ago - even the GA managed to repeal the Zionism is Racism resolution)

The UNSC is a different matter. Its largely run by the 5 great powers. ANY meaningful replacement would have to take into account the views of the great powers. Could I imagine a better, more geopolitically realistic UNSC - with less weight for France (but probably also less weight for Britain) and with Germany and Japan on it - sure - but that wouldnt materially change what the UNSC does and has done. Would i like a greater weight for the US - sure, but even that wouldnt get the UNSC that you want. Now given that do i think we give the UNSC a veto over our FP - NO I DO NOT. I DID NOT AND DO NOT think it was a mistake to defy the UNSC on Iraq. OTOH I also DONT think its a waste of effort to try to work with the UNSC.

And I would suggest that Kofi Annan is NOT always unresponsive to the US - he responds the UNSC perm5, but he also knows who pays the bills, and also responds to the institution needs of the UN. And i would look at the work of a Lashkar Brahimi, or Serge De Valeira, on its own - not EVERY UN official represents all UN officials, or the UN GA, or Libya and Myanmar.

I would like YOU to focus on how the UN actually works as an institution. Im certainly open to UN reform - Im not sure that any plan YOU would like to see could get support from any great powers other than the US.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-3-15 5:44:18 PM|| 2004-3-15 5:44:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 And in related news, neighbors debate welcoming child molester back into the neighborhood...

Posted by Hyper 2004-3-15 8:36:41 PM|| 2004-3-15 8:36:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I will crawl away to my deep dark den and lick my wounds... *whimper*

C'mon. It just does not work. The objections you raise to trying to replace it with something that does work are unconvincing as no one has tried it yet. You pull US funding - let the Saudis or someone else pick up the slack - and pull the "teeth" the US provides the UNSC and what is the UN? The nicest thing I can think of is pointless debating society.

Formulate something sensible that can work - a semi-permanent coalition. Put your money and muscle behind it. Per a new set of standards for membership, complete with the means of adding / upgrading / downgrading / removing a member state based upon objective criteria, offer membership to those who actually qualify. If nobody fitting the criteria wants to join, fine - we go it alone or build ad hoc coalitions where interests coincide. I suggest that would not be the case.

Most who understand and practice realpolitik would take up the offer, if extended. It would be a G7 or G8, or whatever, of Action States -- but not the absurd G199 of the UN.

Sorry we don't agree. Sorry if I give you heartburn - that's just an unintended bonus, since you continue to deny the obvious and set the RB standard for hard-headed-ness! So SUE ME. IN CAPITAL LETTERS! You're a good sport and I know you've make an even better ally in this worthy cause - you just have to get over the DEAD UN. It sucks like an F5, bro!

Grins & Best Regs! ;-)

Posted by .com 2004-3-15 10:55:36 PM|| 2004-3-15 10:55:36 PM|| Front Page Top

14:17 TerrorHunter4Ever
08:24 Raptor
03:33 parallel
01:10 Atomic Conspiracy
23:49 Jarhead
23:39 Lucky
23:39 Jarhead
23:28 Frank Martin
23:26 Frank Martin
23:21 anymouse
23:16 Barbara Skolaut
23:13 Lucky
23:13 .com
22:55 .com
22:38 sc88
22:29 .com
22:27 Lucky
22:20 .com
22:15 Anonymous
22:13 .com
22:12 Lucky
22:10 .com
21:56 Anonymous
21:53 .com