Re: The Role of the UN
 

We have differences of opinions here about the definition of this, but that does not matter. Regardless of our disagreeing definitions, aren't these things prohibited for Iraq to have, according to UN resolutions?

Again, this is wrong. Both the scale and atrocities are different. Are you getting reports that American soldiers are cutting off Iraqi prisoners' limbs, raping them, and killing Iraqi prisoners in mass graves? I am not. Your comparison is not accurrate and insulting to 1.4 million American service men and women.

Agreed. All I was saying to that was that the jury is still out. We simply don't know if there is a connection or not.

Again, we don't know yet. It is early. I only refuted that Andy A. should not claim that there is "no moral victory". We will find out eventually. Sadly, I don't have a crystal ball.

We are not going to solve anything here with this debate. The "truth" about what is present in Iraq, what happened in Iraq and what will happen in Iraq it not known by anyone reading these boards, except those who have seen things for themselves. I don't claim to know what is happening over there, and I am not stupid enough to simply listen to one media outlet to form my opinion.

But... I will try to bring this back to the subject of the UN, and try to make this semi-productive: What should happen right now in Iraq? How should the UN be involved? Should they step in and help keep the peace?

My opinion is that we cannot pull out now. I wish that the fighting will decrease and the UN will step in and work side-by-side with the American-led forces. Eventually, the Iraqi people would be able to police themselves.

Andy B.

Re: The Role of the UN
 

My information is based on a number of news sources, some Canadian, but in fact more American (American news is just as easy to get in Canada as in America!). I didn't consult Fox News--are they an example of the unbiased standard against which all media should be judged. (I think that David Kelly's implication here is that any media outlet that does not overtly support the Americans is biased against them. This is foolish.)

I believe that you're referring to a case where the American is claiming refugee status. This entitles him to a fair hearing before an immigration board. If he is refused, he is sent back. Would you have it any other way? The American in question believes that he will be persecuted for some opinion of his, if he remains in the Army, and in the U.S.--whether or not this is indeed the case is undetermined.

The media certainly portrays some aspects of the occupation in a negative light. Then again, soldiers congratulating themselves doesn't constitute a conflict, and doesn't make for "entertaining" news. (An oxymoron, to be sure, but the media has an agenda too--to make money off people who are interested in, rather than bored with what they show.) So they show primarily the bad parts of the operation. It's not a dire situation everywhere, but at least they're addressing the problems, rather than denying that they exist (or ignoring them outright).

They are largely illicit, yes, but the U.S. was certainly not enforcing UN resolutions by declaring war. And speaking of prohibited weapons, the UN is trying to ban things like anti-personnel land mines, but the U.S. wants to keep using them. Is this the same sort of situation?

I'm getting reports that they sexually abused prisoners, subjected them to torture, in violation of international laws regarding the rights of prisoners. I specifically did not accuse the U.S. of murder. I accused the U.S. of employing some methods which were used by the Iraqis. Unless the prisoner abuse incidents are all hoaxes (who believes that, with videos and all?), I think it is perfectly valid to say that some American actions are "in keeping with some of the methods allegedly used by the Iraqis." [Quoting myself, in post #14, emphasis added]

Re: The Role of the UN
 

THIS IS A WAR!

I know that Canada has a hard time realizing what exactly a war is...what with all that French influence...but America is at war! :mad:

The truth is...things happen in war. I know it may be hard to realize that things like this happen...but they do.

Am I sorry that these things happened? Absolutely. Am I more sorry that the soldiers were dumb enough to take pictures of what happened? Bet your bottom dollar.

Things happen in war. That's why it is called war. It isn't a tea party or a chess match with clear cut rules and if you get checkmated you walk away and play another day. A checkmate in war=death. You don't walk away...therefore you do what you have to do to ensure survival. And if that means using different methods to get what answers to protect yourself...well...that's what you gotta do.

I support the men and women fighting for my safety and realize what they have to do. Go get them! As for the UN...there's a reason the League of Nations isn't around anymore.

True...but

Its raining...and the UN is on sand.

Re: The Role of the UN
 

Nope. The guy decided he didn't want to be in the army that he volunteered to be in so he just ran away like a chicken the day of his unit's deployment. The biggest chickens (there is more than one that ran away) on the face of the earth. I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who creates their own problems.Just a note but the army is investigating three cases of murder/mysterious deathes the last I heard on the news.Let me be the first to say that any type of biological/chemical weapon is a weapon of mass destruction. I really don't think any news media doesn't consider chemical or biological weapons weapons of mass destruction. They are probably more dangerous than any other weapon available to a terrorist (except for a nuke).

Re: The Role of the UN
 

This talk of America’s successes and failures in Iraq is definitely detracting from the subject of the UN. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to debate all things Iraq, but maybe we should start another thread? If someone has the ability to split this thread, can they please do so? I think we need to follow Andy’s lead and try to get this thread talking about the UN again.

I agree with Andy that what’s done is done, and now we have to adapt our future action to deal with the decisions that have already been made, no matter how opposed I was to them when they were taking place. We cannot just pack up and leave; otherwise we would fulfill the false threat of a terrorist laden Iraq. We cannot allow this to happen or else we would have a danger to America and other western nations festering in Iraq. I believe that it is in the US’s best interest to bring foreign troops into Iraq to help with peacekeeping and possibly army/police training. The only plausible way of accomplishing this is to set up some sort of board with representatives from all countries with troops in Iraq, and each of them has a proportionate vote to their number of troops in the country. Gen. Shinseki believed that it would take ~225,000 troops in Iraq to be able to effectively monitor the country. This means we need to scrounge up 45,000 troops (which is roughly equal to the number of British troops in Iraq last time I heard). It’s not an easy job, but it’d at least be a possibility on the horizon if we gave others a say in how military operations were run in Iraq. This is just a rough attempt and should be bounced off of others countries to see their opinions of it. I think it’s a better point to start more detailed negotiations than to demand US control over all troops in Iraq.

<edit>Crap. I meant to say that I would be fine with this being facilitated by the UN, but I don't feel strongly that it needs to be. There are pro's and con's to UN involvement.</edit>

Re: The Role of the UN
 

There is one reason the US did not sign the resolution to get rid of land mines. The Korean border between North & South Korea has several thousands of land minds planted (the last land mines in control by the United States. To go in and dig them up would be a safety hazard to our troops (wasting time finding them, diging them up especially that close to North Korea) If North Korea would decide to strike during the several years it would take to dig them all up, that would leave our forces very vulnerable and the safety of the South Korea would be in jeopardy also.

Re: The Role of the UN
 

Bill is right about the thread derailment...sorry. But! I do want to make clear a couple of things: (I promise that I'll get to the issue at hand...)

He's hardly a chicken for daring to have an ideological conflict with his superiors, at his own peril: see here, here (may need free registration), and here. (N.B. Canadian, American and British sources, there.) And I'm not disputing that he's in violation of American military law--that much is obvious.

A weapon of mass destruction causes mass destruction. (Is that obvious enough?) A small weapon of mass destruction is a contradiction in terms. These were small weapons, so by definition, there was no mass destruction to be had. For example, the bombs that were used by the U.S. to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki were massively destructive, since most of both of those cities were destroyed, and 110 000 people were killed instantly (with 130 000 others dying later from radiation). Contrast this with Aum Shinrikyo's chemical attack on the Tokyo subway (using sarin) in which 12 died. You're telling us that compared to the former, the latter is mass destruction?

No. The war is over. The U.S. won. Now America is an occupying/rebuilding force. Also, I should think that you might want to pay a little more attention to the French--after all, it was they that taught you much about war during your nation's fight for independence.

In 1946 the League of Nations transferred all of its assets to the UN. Do you care to describe for us why it no longer exists?

Also, those last two quotations (from Mr. Lincoln, and some individual in the Bible) are immaterial, and indeed rely solely on the name-recognition of both of those sources to purportedly reinforce the argument. That's an appeal to authority, and it's considered a logical fallacy.

This is a major reason why organizations such as the UN exist in the first place (back on topic!). They prevent the logical extension of this argument from becoming reality--namely the escalation of "different methods", to a point where carnage is indiscriminate. Is it fair to say that Palestinian suicide bombers are using "different methods", in order to protect themselves from Israel (which clearly occupies territory that was traditionally theirs, and restricts their freedoms)?
See the Hague Conventions, which define what is and is not allowed.

And D.J.--a valid point, however, would it be sufficient to renounce the further use of such mines (in an act of congress or some such binding document), if, even as non-signatories to the convention, they felt an obligation to the rest of the world? And would they pledge to duly sign the convention if the Korean situation were ever resolved?

Re: The Role of the UN
 

They do, a land mine hasn't been produced in this country or for this country in many years...the only remaining land mines this country has are the ones on the Korean border...if they would go ahead and sign that would just be a violation of the resolution until those land mines were removed.

Re: The Role of the UN
 

Nope they are most definately WMD's. Hehehe. I found it. The sarin gas attack that was averted. I knew the estimated number was large.

Re: The Role of the UN
 

One last thing to add in here, then Ill shut up.


Even though only 12 people died in that particular incident, if that same amount was released in Time Square of NYC during Rush Hour, several thousands of people would be dead right now. Just because it didn't kill mass amounts of people doesn't rule it out as a WMD, it has the ability to kill masses and thats what makes it a WMD.