OT: U.N. failing again?

[Dutch]

Iran puts a halt to UN Nuclear Inspections for 6-weeks. The UN is inspecting to see if Iran is making nuclear power for civilian or military reasons. I guess Iran wasn't quite as cleaned up as they wanted to be.

I doubt the UN will do anything but obey Iran while they clean up their clandestine ops a little better.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iran

[sabotai]

Welp, that settles that. Time to pack up the troops and go invade Iran.

[Dutch]

I don't think that's a very good idea.

I would propose that the UN tells Iran to go fly a kite, because they have authorization to inspect on the UN timeframe.

[The Afoci]

Welp, that settles that. Time to pack up the troops and go invade Iran.

Yeah, this is exactly the same situation. :rolleyes:

That is right, I rolled my eyes at you.

[sabotai]

I was only kidding people...geez...

[Bubba Wheels]

Iran technically invaded the United States when they took over our embassy in 1979. See, the whole point to an embassy is that it is a little plot of territory belonging to the country of whom the embassy belongs to. And since invading another country is technically an act of war, we really need no further justification to invade it. Now troop numbers, logistics, ect., are another matter entirely, but unless some treaty/apology/compensation has been made since 1979 by Iran unto us then they still owe us.

[The Afoci]

I was only kidding people...geez...

As was I.

I got nothing.

[sabotai]

I would LOVE to see Bush use the excuse that Iran took over our embassy in 1979 as justification to go to war. I would laugh my ass off.

[The Afoci]

I would LOVE to see Bush use the excuse that Iran took over our embassy in 1979 as justification to go to war. I would laugh my ass off.

I guess it would be better than using the excuse that he can beat his daddy in blown shit up wasn't funny enough.

[Crapshoot]

So Im going to play devil's advocate here- why should nuclear weapons be limited to 5 countries by treaties like the NPT, including the only one that has ever used them ? I have my biases clearly- Im an Indian citizen, and the party line is that none of the other's can have them to avoid proliferation. Having said that- if having nuclear weapons can guarentee you safety from an invasion from a foreign power ?

[Bubba Wheels]

So Im going to play devil's advocate here- why should nuclear weapons be limited to 5 countries by treaties like the NPT, including the only one that has ever used them ? I have my biases clearly- Im an Indian citizen, and the party line is that none of the other's can have them to avoid proliferation. Having said that- if having nuclear weapons can guarentee you safety from an invasion from a foreign power ?

You make a common mistake, and that is seeing everything in the light of 'equivalency', the thinking that everybody and everything is more or less equal in morality, ect. That is wrong. You also make the simplistic and uninformed (not calling you simplistic, just your statement, and your not alone in making it) statement that the U.S. is the only one to ever use nuclear weapons.

The U.S. has never used nuclear weapons other than in testing. Two atomic bombs were used on Japan that ended the war. The difference between atomic and nuclear devices is like the difference between a .22 caliber and a bazooka. Experts agree that the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo were more devastating than the atomic bombs other than for the radiation afterwards.

At the time of the Manhatten Project, the United States was in an arms race along with Nazi Gemany and Japan to be the first to develope and use atomic weapons. All involved knew that whoever developed them first would not only win the war but would control world politics for years to come. The atomic bombs were not known if they would work or not until dropped (actually two different types were used) and part of the use was to convice the Soviet Union not to keep expanding after the war ended (Japan still claims some islands held by Russia in the Pacific I believe.)

If the United States were ever to use nuclear weapons it would have done so after China invaded Korea and attacked U.S./U.N. troops in that conflict. McAurther wanted to use them and he was replaced. Alot of good American soldiers died being ambushed by Chinese troops that might have lived if America had used Atomic weapons then, so that in itself shows the self-control of the U.S.

Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, and it is in our interest to deny them ever having them. As long as we can deny them, we will. Iran has shown they cannot be trusted with something as small as respect of a foriegn embassy, and they contribute to terroritism all around the world. They have shown that they not only lack self-control, but may well welcome the opportunity to use nuclear weapons on others as soon as possible. The burden is really on other countries to show why they should be trusted with nukes, not on us to show why they should not. :eek:

[ISiddiqui]

I would propose that the UN tells Iran to go fly a kite, because they have authorization to inspect on the UN timeframe.

The UN has no troops. How do you think they would make Iran comply with IAEA inspections?

[Buccaneer]

The UN has no troops. How do you think they would make Iran comply with IAEA inspections?
They'd go call the US again (like they do countless of times) and then turn around and wail loudly that the US is using its superior military in a foreign country.

[ISiddiqui]

They'd go call the US again (like they do countless of times) and then turn around and wail loudly that the US is using its superior military in a foreign country.

:rolleyes: Like they did in Gulf War 1 or Somalia? Face it, the UN definetly doesn't 'wail' when the US goes on a UN mission.

[clintl]

Nor did it wail when when the US went on a non-UN NATO-sponsored mission to end the genocide campaign in Kosovo. The wailing mostly occurs when we have knuckleheads like W in the White House who believe that raising your middle finger to the rest of the world is a form of diplomacy.

[Buccaneer]

Nor did it wail when when the US went on a non-UN NATO-sponsored mission to end the genocide campaign in Kosovo. The wailing mostly occurs when we have knuckleheads like W in the White House who believe that raising your middle finger to the rest of the world is a form of diplomacy.
Esp. when the UN refuses to call because they are too political to enforce there own resolutions.

Imran, yes many countries do wail because 1) there should be no police action at all only humanitarian action, 2) US should shouldn't have a superior military force and 3) it should be a blue-hat mission, not a US-led mission. Problem is, no one else wants to lead or do the dirty work. They wanted to go into Bahgdad after the brief war to start acting as peacekeepers but immediately pulled out when they get hit the first time.

[ISiddiqui]

yes many countries do wail because 1) there should be no police action at all only humanitarian action, 2) US should shouldn't have a superior military force and 3) it should be a blue-hat mission, not a US-led mission.

I don't remember any of that during Gulf War 1. Or Korea, for example. No one cares that the US has a superior military force (ok, except for China, perhaps), it is just how we use it.

[Dutch]

The wailing mostly occurs when we have knuckleheads like W in the White House who believe that raising your middle finger to the rest of the world is a form of diplomacy.

You need to read past the Yahoo! News headlines to get the story straight.

[famatu]

You make a common mistake, and that is seeing everything in the light of 'equivalency', the thinking that everybody and everything is more or less equal in morality, ect. That is wrong. You also make the simplistic and uninformed (not calling you simplistic, just your statement, and your not alone in making it) statement that the U.S. is the only one to ever use nuclear weapons.

The U.S. has never used nuclear weapons other than in testing. Two atomic bombs were used on Japan that ended the war. The difference between atomic and nuclear devices is like the difference between a .22 caliber and a bazooka. Experts agree that the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo were more devastating than the atomic bombs other than for the radiation afterwards.

At the time of the Manhatten Project, the United States was in an arms race along with Nazi Gemany and Japan to be the first to develope and use atomic weapons. All involved knew that whoever developed them first would not only win the war but would control world politics for years to come. The atomic bombs were not known if they would work or not until dropped (actually two different types were used) and part of the use was to convice the Soviet Union not to keep expanding after the war ended (Japan still claims some islands held by Russia in the Pacific I believe.)

If the United States were ever to use nuclear weapons it would have done so after China invaded Korea and attacked U.S./U.N. troops in that conflict. McAurther wanted to use them and he was replaced. Alot of good American soldiers died being ambushed by Chinese troops that might have lived if America had used Atomic weapons then, so that in itself shows the self-control of the U.S.

Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, and it is in our interest to deny them ever having them. As long as we can deny them, we will. Iran has shown they cannot be trusted with something as small as respect of a foriegn embassy, and they contribute to terroritism all around the world. They have shown that they not only lack self-control, but may well welcome the opportunity to use nuclear weapons on others as soon as possible. The burden is really on other countries to show why they should be trusted with nukes, not on us to show why they should not. :eek:

Very well said. That was actually kind of a history lesson for me. Thanks!

[Crapshoot]

You make a common mistake, and that is seeing everything in the light of 'equivalency', the thinking that everybody and everything is more or less equal in morality, ect. That is wrong. You also make the simplistic and uninformed (not calling you simplistic, just your statement, and your not alone in making it) statement that the U.S. is the only one to ever use nuclear weapons.

The U.S. has never used nuclear weapons other than in testing. Two atomic bombs were used on Japan that ended the war. The difference between atomic and nuclear devices is like the difference between a .22 caliber and a bazooka. Experts agree that the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo were more devastating than the atomic bombs other than for the radiation afterwards.

At the time of the Manhatten Project, the United States was in an arms race along with Nazi Gemany and Japan to be the first to develope and use atomic weapons. All involved knew that whoever developed them first would not only win the war but would control world politics for years to come. The atomic bombs were not known if they would work or not until dropped (actually two different types were used) and part of the use was to convice the Soviet Union not to keep expanding after the war ended (Japan still claims some islands held by Russia in the Pacific I believe.)

If the United States were ever to use nuclear weapons it would have done so after China invaded Korea and attacked U.S./U.N. troops in that conflict. McAurther wanted to use them and he was replaced. Alot of good American soldiers died being ambushed by Chinese troops that might have lived if America had used Atomic weapons then, so that in itself shows the self-control of the U.S.

Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, and it is in our interest to deny them ever having them. As long as we can deny them, we will. Iran has shown they cannot be trusted with something as small as respect of a foriegn embassy, and they contribute to terroritism all around the world. They have shown that they not only lack self-control, but may well welcome the opportunity to use nuclear weapons on others as soon as possible. The burden is really on other countries to show why they should be trusted with nukes, not on us to show why they should not. :eek:

Cute- but I am not a relativist by any means. At some point, one has to differentiate between equivalency (as you call it)- and a perspective that one country is morally sound in a way no one else is, which is what you're doing. The islands you are referring to are the Kirarly I believe, and you're right- the use of the bomb did provide an end to the war, but as much of a Republican as I may be- you're not going to convince me that Nagasaki was neccessary - it was a massacre of civilians, not soldiers. Did it save American lives ? absolutely - but war is meant to be between soldiers.

As for the Korean war, are you actually arguing that McArthur should have been left in charge ? The man wanted to bomb Chinese cities- and for what ? It was a war where the Chinese came in as a self-defense maneuver, after repeated warnings to the UN troops not to come near the US border. Furthermore- they were defending a sovereign nation- North Korea, and the US was supporting A south Korean dictator. To argue that not using nuclear bombs was a positive for the Americans is akin to what Chris Rock once said about people wanting credit for having a job- you're damn well supposed to. And if that is self-control, China didn't use them against Vietnam- Russia didn't in Afghanistan, the UK didnt in the Middle East - and among the non NPT- India didnt use them against pakistan despite the Kargil incursion. By that line of thought, they've all practiced self-control.

Fundementally, people want nuclear weapons for one reason- as a deterrent- as one person put in The Clash of Civilizations, the U.S would not invade a nuclear nation. I probably would not want Iranian nukes- but their primary interests in getting them are as an Israeli deterent, and down the line, as an American one. My general beef is with the American stance on the NPT- I'll be damned if the Americans should tell the Indians and/or the Pakistani's that they shouldn't have nukes, while glossing over the Israeli arsenal.

[Taur]

Fundementally, people want nuclear weapons for one reason- as a deterrent- as one person put in The Clash of Civilizations, the U.S would not invade a nuclear nation.
Have to agree with you there. Not only will the US put on the blinders for countries that have become Nuclear, but they will also roll out the red carpet and present you with the "Most Favored Nation" award.

As long as your one of the in crowd, and where that nuclear pen for everyone to see, you can break treaties, throw out UN inspectors, commmit genocide, and even have the occasional tank run down protesters and the US will gladly look the other direction.

Yes the phrase "nuclear Deterrent" is beginning to take on a completely different meaning for the US.

[wig]

I don't see the problem in letting our allies have nukes, and keeping our enemies from getting them.

Sounds like basic strategy to me.

[Dutch]

Not only will the US put on the blinders for countries that have become Nuclear, but they will also roll out the red carpet and present you with the "Most Favored Nation" award.

So with your logic, you basically are agreeing that more countries should be stopped from getting nuclear weapons to avoid this, correct? I agree 100%.

[clintl]

You need to read past the Yahoo! News headlines to get the story straight.

I do. From the day Bush entered the White House, he has treated the rest of the world with contempt. That didn't start with Iraq. I was hopeful for a while after 9/11 that he had learned that it's good to have friends elsewhere in the world, but unfortunately, that lesson did not penetrate his thick skull. As soon as the Taliban were taken care of, he went back to belligerence and threats as his preferred methods of dealing with those outside US borders.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't see the problem in letting our allies have nukes, and keeping our enemies from getting them.Sounds like basic strategy to me.
Sometimes the simplest concepts are the most difficult for some to grasp.

[Dutch]

I do. From the day Bush entered the White House, he has treated the rest of the world with contempt.

I would argue that France, Germany, Russia and China showed contempt towards the USA, Britain, Australia, Spain, and Poland. But it really just matters which side of the fence you or I sit on.

That didn't start with Iraq. I was hopeful for a while after 9/11 that he had learned that it's good to have friends elsewhere in the world, but unfortunately, that lesson did not penetrate his thick skull.

Who was in disagreement with us because of 9/11? The Palestinians? The Baath Party?

As soon as the Taliban were taken care of, he went back to belligerence and threats as his preferred methods of dealing with those outside US borders.

What threats? The one's made to Iraq and Iran and North Korea? Being belligerent towards those nations isn't new with President Bush and certainly a vast majority of the blame should rest with those nations, not with our Presidents.

[Bubba Wheels]

Cute- but I am not a relativist by any means. At some point, one has to differentiate between equivalency (as you call it)- and a perspective that one country is morally sound in a way no one else is, which is what you're doing. The islands you are referring to are the Kirarly I believe, and you're right- the use of the bomb did provide an end to the war, but as much of a Republican as I may be- you're not going to convince me that Nagasaki was neccessary - it was a massacre of civilians, not soldiers. Did it save American lives ? absolutely - but war is meant to be between soldiers.

As for the Korean war, are you actually arguing that McArthur should have been left in charge ? The man wanted to bomb Chinese cities- and for what ? It was a war where the Chinese came in as a self-defense maneuver, after repeated warnings to the UN troops not to come near the US border. Furthermore- they were defending a sovereign nation- North Korea, and the US was supporting A south Korean dictator. To argue that not using nuclear bombs was a positive for the Americans is akin to what Chris Rock once said about people wanting credit for having a job- you're damn well supposed to. And if that is self-control, China didn't use them against Vietnam- Russia didn't in Afghanistan, the UK didnt in the Middle East - and among the non NPT- India didnt use them against pakistan despite the Kargil incursion. By that line of thought, they've all practiced self-control.

Fundementally, people want nuclear weapons for one reason- as a deterrent- as one person put in The Clash of Civilizations, the U.S would not invade a nuclear nation. I probably would not want Iranian nukes- but their primary interests in getting them are as an Israeli deterent, and down the line, as an American one. My general beef is with the American stance on the NPT- I'll be damned if the Americans should tell the Indians and/or the Pakistani's that they shouldn't have nukes, while glossing over the Israeli arsenal.

First off, you need to read a history book. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both picked because they were both relatively undamaged (admittedly to show more effect from the bomb) but also because both had high military value (Nagasaki was the army HQ, I believe). Nagasaki was actually a secondary target, the first target (for the second bomb) was obscurred by clouds (cannot remember the name of it.)

No, I am NOT advocating allowing McAurther to use the bomb in Korea, just pointing out that even though the U.S. did use the bomb in Japan to prevent U.S. casualties from an invasion Truman did NOT follow his own precedent when he did not allow the same action again in Korea for the same reason. So many U.S. soldiers did die (watch History channels Korea: Fire and Ice) for a great overview on what happened there. This is nothing short of American self-control. What else would you call it?

North Korea was being funded, trained and provoked towards South Korea by BOTH the U.S.S.R and China, the U.S. made the mistake of believing that China would not act independently of the U.S.S.R. (which it did when it advanced.) The whole conflict in itself, though mostly forgotten by many, is fascinating in that it was probably the closest thing to WW3 between the U.S.-led allies, the U.S.S.R. and China (U.S.S.R. pilots fought U.S. pilots in the air flying North Korean planes, this was documented by Russia after the Soviet Union fell.)

America supported a dictator in the south while the freedom-loving north was helped by the Communist Chinese to fight American Imperial Invasion? LOL, I won't even attempt to argue with that logic comrade. ;)

Finally, Japan's Emperor wanted to surrender prior to the bombs being dropped but the military rulers in charge (Tojo, ect...) would not allow it and were actively training civilians (including women and children) to fight with sharp sticks when the invasion took place (Plan was called Operation Olympic)
To think that many more innocent Japanese civilians themselves were not killed due to the use of the bombs is to just want to ignore facts. (Japanese civilians in Okinawa were so indocrinated by the government about Americans raping, torturing them, ect... that whole families threw themselves off of cliffs when the U.S. invaded there.)

[Dutch]

Bubba Wheels,

I think you got it about right. Nice job.

The only thing I would argue is whether Nagasaki was a military target or not. It was clearly an un-damaged target that provided the most bang for it's buck to *help* the Japanese leaders make up their minds a little quicker, but I don't think it had much military value.

We all have to remember that the Bomb wasn't dropped to determine the winner (such as it's use in Korea would have been), but to simply stop a lot more people from dying. Dropping the bomb or not dropping the bomb didn't change the fact that hundreds of thousands of people were going to die in Japan in 1945. So with that in mind, I think we mostly all agree it was saving lives in the long run.

[clintl]

I would argue that France, Germany, Russia and China showed contempt towards the USA, Britain, Australia, Spain, and Poland. But it really just matters which side of the fence you or I sit on.

They had disagreements with the policy we wanted to pursue. It's their right to have those disagreements. And as it turned out, what they were arguing for (more time for Hans Blix and his team to look for WMDs before going to war) is almost EXACTLY what David Kay said he needed six months after the war. However, when Blix was saying this, the Bush Administration made a huge point of attacking Blix's competence and his integrity. As far as I'm concerned, Blix was completely vindicated, but that was one of the more egregious examples of Bush's total contempt for other views around the world.

Who was in disagreement with us because of 9/11? The Palestinians? The Baath Party?

What I meant by that remark was that almost the entire world rallied around the US after 9/11, and offered the US massive amounts of assistance. And I thought, for a while, that Bush would learn from this the importance of cultivating foreign friendships. And unfortunately, what happened instead, is that as soon as the situation in Afghanistan was somewhat stable, he started making demands that other countries support further military adventures, as if we were entitled to the approval and the lives of soldiers from other countries whenever it was our whim to demand it. And that's just not the case. Americans would be extremely offended if Russia demanded American troops to help them with Chechnyan terrorists, and threatened the sort of things the US threatened other countries with for not supporting the Iraq war.

What threats? The one's made to Iraq and Iran and North Korea? Being belligerent towards those nations isn't new with President Bush and certainly a vast majority of the blame should rest with those nations, not with our Presidents.

There were economic threats, among other things, toward those who did not support the war. There were questions about whether our long-standing alliances should survive. There was a huge propaganda campaign to ridicule everything French.

[Dutch]

They had disagreements with the policy we wanted to pursue. It's their right to have those disagreements.

And all I am saying is that we had disagreements with their policy and we also have a right to disagree with them.

And as it turned out, what they were arguing for (more time for Hans Blix and his team to look for WMDs before going to war) is almost EXACTLY what David Kay said he needed six months after the war. However, when Blix was saying this, the Bush Administration made a huge point of attacking Blix's competence and his integrity. As far as I'm concerned, Blix was completely vindicated, but that was one of the more egregious examples of Bush's total contempt for other views around the world.

What most people are going to fail to remember is the only reason Hans Blix was even there was because the USA/UK/Poland mobilized 300k troops on Iraq's southern border. That American planes were being shot at by Iraqi artillery every single day for a year prior and would continue to shoot at American/UK/Australian planes during Hans Blix inspection process. And that was obviously, in retrospect a huge waste of time because Saddam Hussein wasn't going to show Hans Blix anything, and when Hans Blix ended his 6-month masquerade he would have never been able to successful sell to anyone that Iraq had no WMD, because Saddam Hussein wouldn't allow that for fear his regional enemies would start fighting him or his internal enemies would start fighting him. Sanctions would not cease as long as Saddam Hussein rejected 15 or 16 of the other UN Resolutions. And American pilots would still be getting shot at protecting the Kurds and the Shiites. America and the UK and Australia would still be spending millions upon millions of dollars containing Iraq in support of UN Sanctions. And we don't really need to go into all the evil that Saddam Hussein endorsed and acted upon that would still be in place today.

Hans Blix did his job as best he could. I don't remember any comments by the Bush Administrations that he was incapable. I do remember the Administration saying the task was impossible because Saddam Hussein was playing a game of cat and mouse with Hans.

We made clear who the bad guy was. If Hans Blix or you took that as a person insult to Hans, you read into it what you wanted to.

[Taur]

more devastating than the atomic bombs other than for the radiation afterwards.
Do you honestly believe this?

Can you actually say that those people who died days, weeks, months, and even years afterwards of radiation poisoning did not die from the atomic bomb?

diplomat: Did they die from the US atomic bomb doctor?
Doctor: No, according to US policy they died from unrelated radiation problems.


Reminds me of that freak breakout of pneumonia that happened when they were building the Hoover Dam. Actually it only affected the workers who were assigned to work inside the tunnells that were used to divert the Colorado River. With no ventialation systems of any kind and trucks running inside these tunnells all day, 8-12 workers a week were dying of a sudden outbreak of pneumonia. You see if these workers were dying from exhaust poisoning the company and the US government would of been held liable for their deaths.

[druez]

They had disagreements with the policy we wanted to pursue. It's their right to have those disagreements. And as it turned out, what they were arguing for (more time for Hans Blix and his team to look for WMDs before going to war) is almost EXACTLY what David Kay said he needed six months after the war. However, when Blix was saying this, the Bush Administration made a huge point of attacking Blix's competence and his integrity. As far as I'm concerned, Blix was completely vindicated, but that was one of the more egregious examples of Bush's total contempt for other views around the world.



First of all France and Germany both can kiss my ass. As many of us can probably say, our parents or grandparents fought in World War II. A war in which France rolled over and played dead and we saved there ass, then invested a ton of money rebuilding them. For what? The contempt and snubbing they give us? All the french do well is surrender.

Germany started both wars and after the second world war, we rebuilt west germany and put them on the road to prosperty again. The same thing we did with South Korea btw.

Anyway the reason why France and Germany were so opposed to the war was money. Don't be a foolish. Iraq owed France a TON OF MONEY and they were making out on the oil for food program. Russia was selling them banned equipment which we discovered on the invasion.

God I'm so sick and tired of people who don't understand history and polotics talking about this kind of crap. You know what Thank God it was our nation that was bombed on 9-11 and not another nuclear power. We showed restraint amazing restraint. We should be applauded for how we handled things. We could of very easily went into IRAQ, IRAN, Syria, Afghanastan, Libya and claimed it was all in the name of anti terror and to put an end to it. It could of lead to the next world war.

What do you think Russia would of done if they were bombed? Or how about China?

Iraw was a nation that invaded a country 10 years before. We had to go and save Kuwait and the only mistake is we didn't finish the job the first time.

Guess what?

We fund 25% of the United Nations and give them the land. Japan is second with 20 or 21% funding I think. Amazing isn't it. Our allies make up the largest funding for the UN.

[Desnudo]

Has the UN ever succeeded in anything it's ever attempted? A better OT thread would be: UN succeeds, for once. But you'll never see that. Unless success counts as acting as a clog in the drain and a whining voice for Socialism. Or getting nations' soldiers killed due to ineffective rules of engagement.

[clintl]

OK, let's get something straight here. The UN's purpose is not to fight wars, and it is not set up as an enforcement body. If it was, it would have its own forces. But it purposely was not designed to have that function. What it was designed to be is a forum for nations to work out their difference peacefully. How often it has been successful at that would take a great deal of study, but that's really the only valid measure of success - how often did it prevent wars that might have happened.

[Dutch]

Exactly, the UN has no teeth. So when a rogue nation that is violating the UN ignores the UN, what does it do? It's mission has failed.

[clintl]

Exactly, the UN has no teeth. So when a rogue nation that is violating the UN ignores the UN, what does it do? It's mission has failed.

Bullshit. The UN has taken many different actions (not always military) against many different nations when the consensus to act has been achieved. But military action is not its purpose, and whatever weaknesses it might have in that area, the US is just as responsible for as any of the other major powers. The US has never wanted the UN to have the kind of power and authority you are condemning the UN for not having.

[Desnudo]

OK, let's get something straight here. The UN's purpose is not to fight wars, and it is not set up as an enforcement body. If it was, it would have its own forces. But it purposely was not designed to have that function. What it was designed to be is a forum for nations to work out their difference peacefully. How often it has been successful at that would take a great deal of study, but that's really the only valid measure of success - how often did it prevent wars that might have happened.

If it's not set up as an enforcement body then how do you explain the blue helmets? It's great to talk theory, but the reality is that the UN often does send in military assistance in a peacekeeping role, aka an enforcement body.

[Dutch]

Bullshit. The UN has taken many different actions (not always military) against many different nations when the consensus to act has been achieved. But military action is not its purpose, and whatever weaknesses it might have in that area, the US is just as responsible for as any of the other major powers. The US has never wanted the UN to have the kind of power and authority you are condemning the UN for not having.

Actually, the only times the UN has been truly successful is with the support of all the members of the permanent security council and their resolutions to back the UN up with their own money and military (Gulf War I is a good example of this). So I agree that the primary reason it is so unsuccessful is because of it's inherent flaws that were built into it in 1948. Those flaws are clearly visible, and can be taken advantage of, seemingly at will.

We saw UN's power in South Africa and now in Libya when all sides understand and agree with the UN. And we see it's failures in Iraq, North Korea, and Iran when the disgruntled parties show no interest in working with the UN.

[Bubba Wheels]

Do you honestly believe this?

Can you actually say that those people who died days, weeks, months, and even years afterwards of radiation poisoning did not die from the atomic bomb?

diplomat: Did they die from the US atomic bomb doctor?
Doctor: No, according to US policy they died from unrelated radiation problems.


Reminds me of that freak breakout of pneumonia that happened when they were building the Hoover Dam. Actually it only affected the workers who were assigned to work inside the tunnells that were used to divert the Colorado River. With no ventialation systems of any kind and trucks running inside these tunnells all day, 8-12 workers a week were dying of a sudden outbreak of pneumonia. You see if these workers were dying from exhaust poisoning the company and the US government would of been held liable for their deaths.

Geez, can't believe the stuff someone will pull out of a post, not even based in reality. I said that the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were much more devasting to the immediate populance (scholars and experts say this, not me though I do believe them) than the initial damage done by the atomic bombs...now read carefully...EXCEPT (OTHER THAN) the effects of radiation that the atomic bombs had longterm. These effects were obviously more damaging than the longterm effects of the firebombings. However, these effects were not even anticipated at that time (desert testing into the 1950s had U.S. soldiers walk unprotected into newly made craters from atomic bomb tests only to have massive health problems later). Some good old black and white documentaries on this. :confused:

[clintl]

If it's not set up as an enforcement body then how do you explain the blue helmets? It's great to talk theory, but the reality is that the UN often does send in military assistance in a peacekeeping role, aka an enforcement body.

The UN does not have a permanent peacekeeping force. The "blue helmets" are troops loaned to the UN by member countries for specific peacekeeping missions.

[clintl]

Actually, the only times the UN has been truly successful is with the support of all the members of the permanent security council and their resolutions to back the UN up with their own money and military (Gulf War I is a good example of this). So I agree that the primary reason it is so unsuccessful is because of it's inherent flaws that were built into it in 1948. Those flaws are clearly visible, and can be taken advantage of, seemingly at will.

We saw UN's power in South Africa and now in Libya when all sides understand and agree with the UN. And we see it's failures in Iraq, North Korea, and Iran when the disgruntled parties show no interest in working with the UN.

Did it fail in Iraq? I don't think it did. Until someone finds some WMDs, I think the conclusion must be that the UN did, in fact, force Iraq to disarm, which was the purpose of the sanctions. The fact that Iraq did not want inspections, and did not do all it was supposed to do to clear itself, does not negate the fact that it now appears that Iraq disposed of the WMDs it had years ago. I would call that a success. The failure was in US and British intelligence, not the UN.

[rdo]

You also make the simplistic and uninformed (not calling you simplistic, just your statement, and your not alone in making it) statement that the U.S. is the only one to ever use nuclear weapons.

The U.S. has never used nuclear weapons other than in testing. Two atomic bombs were used on Japan that ended the war. The difference between atomic and nuclear devices is like the difference between a .22 caliber and a bazooka.

The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan were nuclear weapons.

nuclear

adj 1: (of power and warfare and weaponry) using atomic energy; "nuclear (or atomic) submarines"; "nuclear war"; "nuclear weapons"; "atomic bombs" [syn: atomic] [ant: conventional] 2: (physics) "nuclear physics"; "nuclear fission"; "nuclear forces" 3: (biology) "nuclear membrane" 4: constituting or like a nucleus; "annexation of the suburban fringe by the nuclear metropolis"; "the nuclear core of the congregation"

From dictionary.com

Little Boy and Fat Man were both fission bombs

"Fission bombs derive their power from nuclear fission, where heavy nuclei (uranium or plutonium) split into lighter elements when bombarded by neutrons (producing more neutrons which bombard other nuclei, triggering a chain reaction). These are historically called atom bombs or A-bombs, though this name is not precise due to the fact that chemical reactions release energy from atomic bonds and fusion is no less atomic than fission. Despite this possible confusion, the term atom bomb has still been generally accepted to refer specifically to nuclear weapons, and most commonly to pure fission devices. " From Wikipedia //en.wikipedia.org/wiki

While they not as powerful as todays fusion based nuclear weapons ( modern devices ~O(10^3) more powerful ) they were undoubtably nuclear weapons. So your assertion that USA has never used nuclear weapons outside of testing is false.

[Crapshoot]

First off, you need to read a history book. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both picked because they were both relatively undamaged (admittedly to show more effect from the bomb) but also because both had high military value (Nagasaki was the army HQ, I believe). Nagasaki was actually a secondary target, the first target (for the second bomb) was obscurred by clouds (cannot remember the name of it.)

No, I am NOT advocating allowing McAurther to use the bomb in Korea, just pointing out that even though the U.S. did use the bomb in Japan to prevent U.S. casualties from an invasion Truman did NOT follow his own precedent when he did not allow the same action again in Korea for the same reason. So many U.S. soldiers did die (watch History channels Korea: Fire and Ice) for a great overview on what happened there. This is nothing short of American self-control. What else would you call it?

North Korea was being funded, trained and provoked towards South Korea by BOTH the U.S.S.R and China, the U.S. made the mistake of believing that China would not act independently of the U.S.S.R. (which it did when it advanced.) The whole conflict in itself, though mostly forgotten by many, is fascinating in that it was probably the closest thing to WW3 between the U.S.-led allies, the U.S.S.R. and China (U.S.S.R. pilots fought U.S. pilots in the air flying North Korean planes, this was documented by Russia after the Soviet Union fell.)

America supported a dictator in the south while the freedom-loving north was helped by the Communist Chinese to fight American Imperial Invasion? LOL, I won't even attempt to argue with that logic comrade. ;)

Finally, Japan's Emperor wanted to surrender prior to the bombs being dropped but the military rulers in charge (Tojo, ect...) would not allow it and were actively training civilians (including women and children) to fight with sharp sticks when the invasion took place (Plan was called Operation Olympic)
To think that many more innocent Japanese civilians themselves were not killed due to the use of the bombs is to just want to ignore facts. (Japanese civilians in Okinawa were so indocrinated by the government about Americans raping, torturing them, ect... that whole families threw themselves off of cliffs when the U.S. invaded there.)

Firstly, I hardly argued that the North Koreans were a democracy or anything close to it- but the South Koreans were a dictatorship as well, something that's usually forgotten. Comrade ? Actually- Im moreoften called a facist or a republican bastard by people who argue with me- but comrade is probably worse :D. Secondly, with regards to history- don't worry about me- I know what Im talking about.

You are correct about the WW3 remark- I think Vietnam had the potential to be, but Korea was the closest thing to it- the involvement of East vs West was never so defined along those lines as in that war. The Soviets were damn well backing the North Koreans- a unified Korea might well have meant US troops on the Chinese border, something that was not in Chinese or Russian interests.

Regarding the Japanese populace- Okinawa is a common and true story. The point however, is not that no nuclear bomb should have been dropped- it is that the second nuclear bomb should not have been dropped (even though there is some merit to this- like it or not, the Japanese were seeking a meeting with the Russians about a possible surrender in July 1945- hell, even Truman's chief of staff and the Joint Chief of Staff made it clear that '"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." "). Hiroshima was the industrial base- Nagasaki was a miliatry port, which is greatly different from being the military hedquarters. Also- the secondary target was Kokura. I believe you need to read the history before accusing me of a lack of knowledge on the issue.

[The Afoci]

Did it fail in Iraq? I don't think it did. Until someone finds some WMDs, I think the conclusion must be that the UN did, in fact, force Iraq to disarm, which was the purpose of the sanctions. The fact that Iraq did not want inspections, and did not do all it was supposed to do to clear itself, does not negate the fact that it now appears that Iraq disposed of the WMDs it had years ago. I would call that a success. The failure was in US and British intelligence, not the UN.

So did the UN force them to disarm when the were kicked out of the country or when they weren't allowed access to certain areas?

Just wondering.

[clintl]

So did the UN force them to disarm when the were kicked out of the country or when they weren't allowed access to certain areas?

Just wondering.

Inspections were a tool to verify compliance, not a tool to force compliance. The trade sanctions were the tool that forced compliance, and so far, it appears they worked. And the no-fly zones, which pretty much made Saddam no longer a threat even to the Kurds, and thus rendered the whole "imminent threat" justification for going to war completely ludicrous.

[Bubba Wheels]

The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan were nuclear weapons.

nuclear

adj 1: (of power and warfare and weaponry) using atomic energy; "nuclear (or atomic) submarines"; "nuclear war"; "nuclear weapons"; "atomic bombs" [syn: atomic] [ant: conventional] 2: (physics) "nuclear physics"; "nuclear fission"; "nuclear forces" 3: (biology) "nuclear membrane" 4: constituting or like a nucleus; "annexation of the suburban fringe by the nuclear metropolis"; "the nuclear core of the congregation"

From dictionary.com

Little Boy and Fat Man were both fission bombs

"Fission bombs derive their power from nuclear fission, where heavy nuclei (uranium or plutonium) split into lighter elements when bombarded by neutrons (producing more neutrons which bombard other nuclei, triggering a chain reaction). These are historically called atom bombs or A-bombs, though this name is not precise due to the fact that chemical reactions release energy from atomic bonds and fusion is no less atomic than fission. Despite this possible confusion, the term atom bomb has still been generally accepted to refer specifically to nuclear weapons, and most commonly to pure fission devices. " From Wikipedia //en.wikipedia.org/wiki

While they not as powerful as todays fusion based nuclear weapons ( modern devices ~O(10^3) more powerful ) they were undoubtably nuclear weapons. So your assertion that USA has never used nuclear weapons outside of testing is false.

Informative. I will not dispute your point on atomic vs nuclear. I do know the difference in the two bombs dropped was that one was uranium and the other was plutonium. I also stand by what I said about the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo being worse in terms of initial damage, and the fact that U.S. soldiers walked the craters after atomic testing in the 1950s tells me that the U.S. might have suspected but was not definate about radiation effects hence cannot be accused of deliberating radiating the populance.

[Dutch]

Inspections were a tool to verify compliance, not a tool to force compliance. The trade sanctions were the tool that forced compliance, and so far, it appears they worked. And the no-fly zones, which pretty much made Saddam no longer a threat even to the Kurds, and thus rendered the whole "imminent threat" justification for going to war completely ludicrous.

Who said "imminent threat"? Don't make me beg you to read Tony Blair's speech that was shunned by the news media! ;)

[Crapshoot]

Informative. I will not dispute your point on atomic vs nuclear. I do know the difference in the two bombs dropped was that one was uranium and the other was plutonium. I also stand by what I said about the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo being worse in terms of initial damage, and the fact that U.S. soldiers walked the craters after atomic testing in the 1950s tells me that the U.S. might have suspected but was not definate about radiation effects hence cannot be accused of deliberating radiating the populance.

No,you're right about the radiation effects- the after effects of Hiroshima were unexpected, and it didn't happen in Nagasaki.

[clintl]

Who said "imminent threat"? Don't make me beg you to read Tony Blair's speech that was shunned by the news media! ;)

If there was no imminent threat, and the war was not authorized by the UN (which it clearly wasn't), then by international law, it was an illegal war. Which way do you war supporters want it - the ludicrous "imminent threat" argument, or acceptance that the US is an international scofflaw?

[Dutch]

I'm glad you asked! The Blair speech that was ignored in favor of full coverage for Hans Blix.

Tony Blair - It is said we claimed Iraq was an imminent threat to Britain and was preparing to attack us.

In fact this is what I said prior to the war on 24 September 2002: "Why now? People ask. I agree I cannot say that this month or next, even this year or next he will use his weapons."

Then, for example, in January 2003 in my press conference I said: "And I tell you honestly what my fear is, my fear is that we wake up one day and we find either that one of these dictatorial states has used weapons of mass destruction - and Iraq has done so in the past - and we get sucked into a conflict, with all the devastation that would cause; or alternatively these weapons, which are being traded right round the world at the moment, fall into the hands of these terrorist groups, these fanatics who will stop at absolutely nothing to cause death and destruction on a mass scale.

"Now that is what I have to worry about. And I understand of course why people think it is a very remote threat and it is far away and why does it bother us. Now I simply say to you, it is a matter of time unless we act and take a stand before terrorism and weapons of mass destruction come together, and I regard them as two sides of the same coin."

The truth is, as was abundantly plain in the motion before the House of Commons on 18 March, we went to war to enforce compliance with UN Resolutions.

Had we believed Iraq was an imminent direct threat to Britain, we would have taken action in September 2002; we would not have gone to the UN.

Instead, we spent October and November in the UN negotiating UN Resolution 1441. We then spent almost 4 months trying to implement it.

Actually, it is now apparent from the Survey Group that Iraq was indeed in breach of UN Resolution 1441. It did not disclose laboratories and facilities it should have; nor the teams of scientists kept together to retain their WMD including nuclear expertise; nor its continuing research relevant to chemical weapons and biological weapons.

As Dr Kay, the former head of the ISG who is now quoted as a critic of the war has said: "Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441". And "I actually think this [Iraq] may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought."

It means reforming the United Nations so its Security Council represents 21st century reality; and giving the UN the capability to act effectively as well as debate.

It means getting the UN to understand that faced with the threats we have, we should do all we can to spread the values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, religious tolerance and justice for the oppressed, however painful for some nations that may be; but that at the same time, we wage war relentlessly on those who would exploit racial and religious division to bring catastrophe to the world.

But in the meantime, the threat is there and demands our attention.

That is the struggle which engages us. It is a new type of war. It will rest on intelligence to a greater degree than ever before.

It demands a difference attitude to our own interests. It forces us to act even when so many comforts seem unaffected, and the threat so far off, if not illusory.

In the end, believe your political leaders or not, as you will. But do so, at least having understood their minds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3536131.stm

[ISiddiqui]

Has the UN ever succeeded in anything it's ever attempted?

Yes, many, many, many things. Education and food initiatives in Africa for example. Helping out victims of famine around the world. Medicine in impoverished third world countries. By most accounts the UN is/has been a great success.

the thinking that everybody and everything is more or less equal in morality, ect. That is wrong.

Why, because you say so? And yes, I am a moral relativist. And yes, I supported the Iraq war (based on the morality of American society, of which I am a part. Of course this doesn't mean I think American morality in inherantly better than Iraqi morality).

[Bubba Wheels]

Morality based on nothing is worthless. Secular Humanists like to point to American democracy as the basis of modern morality. This is, I believe, a mistake. American morality has always been, until recently, based upon Judeo-Christian ethics and values. America itself was not founded as a democracy but as a Republic.

The difference is important. Democracy is mob rule. A Republic is a governance based on the rule of law. As the intellectuals have undermined our Judeo-Christian heritage in favor of the mystically good 'democracy' for the basis of modern morality we can expect more and more Haitis, Panamas, Valenzualas, ect... Socialism will become the common uniting force and individual rights will all but cease to exist. Already in California the American Psyciatric Association wants to tax those making $1,000,000 or more a year to subsidize mental health in that state. While it sounds good on the surface, soon all interest groups will be looking to tax anyone over a certain amount to seek its own ends.

The movie 'Time-Changer" starring, among others Gavin Mcloud and Jennifer O'Neil makes a very important and dramatic point: That by removing Jesus Christ as the source of morality, that opens morality up to relativism and will sooner or later degenerate society into nothing more than mob rule with competing interests. This we see coming to pass.

[NoMyths]

The movie 'Time-Changer" starring, among others Gavin Mcloud and Jennifer O'Neil makes a very important and dramatic point: That by removing Jesus Christ as the source of morality, that opens morality up to relativism and will sooner or later degenerate society into nothing more than mob rule with competing interests. This we see coming to pass.Two thoughts:

1) I can't believe you're making a point using the movie "Time Changer", especially as it stars Gavin McCloud and Jennifer O'Neil ("among others"!).

2) Interesting, then isn't it, how a majority of the people in this country identify themselves as allied with a Judeo-Christian ideology--including nearly everyone who is in a position of any kind of major political power? Hmmmmmm.

[Easy Mac]

Its only considered mob rule if you're the one being ruled... many would believe Christianity is the current mob rule.

[Bubba Wheels]

Two thoughts:

1) I can't believe you're making a point using the movie "Time Changer", especially as it stars Gavin McCloud and Jennifer O'Neil ("among others"!).

2) Interesting, then isn't it, how a majority of the people in this country identify themselves as allied with a Judeo-Christian ideology--including nearly everyone who is in a position of any kind of major political power? Hmmmmmm.

So if its a movie it cannot make a valid point? What planet are you living on? Our modern-day pop-culture is driven almost exclusively by media including movies. Hear of one called 'The Passion?" Time-Changer is a Christian movie that carries a Judeo-Christian (Bible-based) point of view. Sorry if you don't like it or agree with it, but slamming something without seeing it is very typical of those who scoff at such things these days. "Professing themselves wise, they became as fools." My, aren't you the arrogant expert on all things worth reporting!

[Easy Mac]

Yes, because Christians are the accepting ones who experience everything in life before condemning people :rolleyes:

[NoMyths]

So if its a movie it cannot make a valid point? What planet are you living on? Our modern-day pop-culture is driven almost exclusively by media including movies. Hear of one called 'The Passion?" Time-Changer is a Christian movie that carries a Judeo-Christian (Bible-based) point of view. Sorry if you don't like it or agree with it, but slamming something without seeing it is very typical of those who scoff at such things these days. "Professing themselves wise, they became as fools." My, aren't you the arrogant expert on all things worth reporting!More points:

1) No, movies can certainly make valid points. I was pointing out that you were holding up "Time Changer" as an example of such a film, and I was laughing at it.

2) Who says I haven't seen it?

3) Keep hiding behind your 'since I don't profess myself wise, i'm secretly wise!' attitude. You're obviously uninterested in ever learning anything ever again, since you've got it all figured out.

4) So because I tee-hee a bit at a stupid film and then point out an obvious fact about religious ideology amongst the powerful in our country--a fact that unfortunately refutes your position, oh wise one--I'm an arrogant expert? Well, if that's your feeling about folks that actually learned a thing or two outside of church, you're welcome to it.

4) So there, Christina...er, I mean Christian. :D

[Crapshoot]

Wow- So it seems that Bubba is now arguing that if the Jesus Christ should be the source of all our morality- I guess I should have recognized this from the earlier arguement. Those of us who recognize morality from a different, humanistic basis must all be a mob...

[clintl]

Secular morality is NOT based on nothing. Just because someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean he or she doesn't have a clear vision of what is right and wrong. If you really believe they don't, Bubba, then you don't have even a remote understanding of secular thought.

[JeffNights]

HALT! Thread-jack in progress!!!

[clintl]

Morality based on nothing is worthless. Secular Humanists like to point to American democracy as the basis of modern morality. This is, I believe, a mistake. American morality has always been, until recently, based upon Judeo-Christian ethics and values. America itself was not founded as a democracy but as a Republic.

Dola...

If the Founding Fathers had used Biblical principles as the foundation of the fledgling US government, they would have chosen a monarchy. Virtually every Biblical reference and metaphor about government assumes monarchies are the ideal form of government. Instead, the Founding Fathers thought that monarchies were among the worst forms of government, and turned to the the ancient Greeks and the philosophers of the Enlightenment for inspiration, and we should all be grateful that they did.

[Bubba Wheels]

Dola...

If the Founding Fathers had used Biblical principles as the foundation of the fledgling US government, they would have chosen a monarchy. Virtually every Biblical reference and metaphor about government assumes monarchies are the ideal form of government. Instead, the Founding Fathers thought that monarchies were among the worst forms of government, and turned to the the ancient Greeks and the philosophers of the Enlightenment for inspiration, and we should all be grateful that they did.

Wrong! Founding Fathers based much upon classical liberals (would now be called 'conservatives') like Thomas Locke who promoted INDIVIDUAL rights and this was totally in line with Judeo-Christian values and ethics as stating that these self-same rights were endowed by the CREATOR and do not come from the STATE (which is what modern-day liberals contend, hence their Marxist roots). Again, the United States was founded as a REPUBLIC, with its citizenry ruled by LAW and NOT popular opinion, which is the way things are devolving into today. Ben Franklin stated that once 'the mob' realized they could vote money out of other people's pocketbooks our Republic was finished. Already today we see minor politicians (city mayors) creating laws independently on their own (Gay marriage) why not on taxes next? And activist judges are clearly violating the checks and balances of government by usurping legislative powers when they create law but since they interpret the constitution (John Marshall gave them this power, not congress) no one will stand up to them hence activist justices have become defacto dictators.

[ISiddiqui]

Morality based on nothing is worthless.

Morality in general is worthless. What's your point?

do not come from the STATE (which is what modern-day liberals contend, hence their Marxist roots)

Incorrect. Most modern-day liberals contend that rights come from special characteristic of humanity.

And activist judges are clearly violating the checks and balances of government by usurping legislative powers when they create law

Incorrect. The Constitution has never struck down the common law, which has been used for centuries in England and the US in the creation of law, by judges.

[rkmsuf]

Morality in general is worthless. What's your point?



Incorrect. Most modern-day liberals contend that rights come from special characteristic of humanity.



Incorrect. The Constitution has never struck down the common law, which has been used for centuries in England and the US in the creation of law, by judges.

This reminds of the SNL McLaughlin Group skit...

Wrong!!! Wrong!!! Wrong!!!

[rkmsuf]

Announcer: From the nation's capital, "The McLaughlin Group", an unrehearsed, hastily assembled program presenting inside opinions and forecasts on major issues of today. With Jack Germonde of the Baltimore Sun, syndicated columnists Pat Buchanan and Eleanor Clift, and Morton Kondracke of the New Republic. Now, here's the moderator, John McLaughlin.

John McLaughlin: Issue number 1: the commander-in-chief in Mexico. Bush wants a free trade agreement, what does President Salinas want? Pat Buchanan!

Pat Buchanan: John, Salinas is playing up his recent economic success and steering his..

John McLaughlin: Jack Germonde!

Jack Germonde: I don't think it's so much what Salinas wants, it's what..

John McLaughlin: Eleanor Clift!

Eleanor Clift: John, this is just another case of President Bush trying to push a policy..

Pat Buchanan: I'm not sure Bush has a policy..

John McLaughlin: Excuse me Pat, I believe Eleanor has the floor.

Eleanor Clift: Thanks, John. The hard truth is that Bush needs Salinas more than Salinas..

John McLaughlin: Morton Kondracke!

Morton Kondracke: I think this agreement talk is basically a..

John McLaughlin: Wrong! There will be a free trade agreement; it will take place within one year. Issue number 2: Maggie out, Major in. The new British prime minister, some believe he's a Thatcher clone. Will he carry out her policies? Jack Germonde!

[ISiddiqui]

LOL