The Ravings of Demented Rabbits

That is actually a fascinating read, I think. Make that link more visible or something. Put it at the top of the page. Here's my favorite part, taken from March 1, 2003:

"Many of the "human shields" begin to return to their home countries because the Iraqi government actually wanted to use them as human shields. The human shields that fled the country told reporters that the Iraqi government wanted them to sit at locations that were likely to be bombed by US allies if a war was to take place."

So yeah... reading through the timeline, it helps give you some sense of why we really did have legitimate grounds to beat the shit out of Saddam & Co. Mandates upon mandates. Mandates raining down from heaven.

Not to suggest we ever really need the UN's "legitimacy" or blessing to beat the hell out of someone. That's absurd. But for those people who care about such things, there it is. Mandates by the bucketful. Saddam playing his game. I think he'd do quite well at our little poker circle, he plays a decent bluff.

I'll say this again; there was plenty of reasons for the UN to support an invasion. That the US failed to get acceptance for such an approach however does not mean they should invade by themselves. Rather work on getting rid of the vetoing (I really hate vetoes...like, very much) and then invade. It's not like Iraq was an immediate threat.

Oh, and I forgot to say that it was interesting reading, especially seeing little the UN supposedly did.

Well. The "shouldn't invade without the legitimacy of the UN" thing...I dunno. On the one hand, there's something to be said about that as a factor in world peace.

On the other hand, and this is the lens through which I view our little Iraq adventure, it should be understood that it was substantially - and by substantially I meant that enforcement of the no-fly zones involved I believe the US and UK - American power is what made everything possible. I'm slightly leery of the UN saying "Ok US. Spend a lot of money and keep Saddam in check for us indefinitely." I can see why we eventually said "Er, no." Never mind the mass of resolutions which I think support the US position rather than the UN one.

*shrug*

The UN is a pretty flawed instrument. It's not the League of Nations, but...

Flawed is a massive understatement. The UN is an absolute joke. That whole mess in the link is pretty solid proof of just how inept and spineless they really are.

It's not the League of Nations, but its akin to Churchill's "Grand Alliance" during the War of Spanish Succession. Seriously, as far the UN is concerned, they can piss off when it comes to the national security of the Republic of the United States of America. Blah, blah, "that's the attitude that leads to the failure of such organizations" ... ja,ja,ja... which in my mind is indicative of the historic failure of such enterprises throughout history. Ja can do the whole military alliances for each new campaigning season, but beyond that, you're looking for trouble. So yeah, God Bless America!

Let's say...we remove the UN? What the heck would that do? Besides the loss of the Haag that is.

I mean, it's not like the US or any other country wants to be the world police (ok, the US is an exception, but that's mostly cause noone else wants to). So who's gonna enforce things like, human rights?

As it is now, it seems to me, the UN sucks (agreed), everyone loves to complain about it, but noone's got a reasonable solution, which makes the entire discussion pretty useless.

I'd love to hear of something that could be done though, seriously.

Well, seeing as how Western Civilization developed without the United Nations or anything even close to it, I'm pretty sure things aren't going to suck too bad without such an absurdly worthless institution.

Last time I checked, the UN really doesn't do much as far as enforcing human rights goes anyway. So I think that objection you raise is, well, silly. I mean, honestly, what was that one example recently ... Libya chaired the human rights committee? The PRC certainly doesn't catch a great deal of flak for their human rights accomplishments, right? Yeah, cuz, the UN right now is really a useful weapon against human rights abuses? MAYBE, MAYBE if the member of the UN had the BALLS to enforce human rights, then I'd concede that to you, but yeah, well, let's look at Saddam's stellar human rights achievements and the great pains the UN went through to ... scare Hussein with paper & words? Yeah ... um, the Republic had to go in and bash out Saddam's lights to get some human rights adjustments in Iraq.

I don't think we need a "solution" to the UN. If the UN wants to exist, fine, but I don't think we should have any part in it aside from diplomatic relations, since its dangerously unconstitutional for us to be subordinating any part of our national interests, security, etc. to ANY foreign institution (giving it sovereignty over our troops, lands, equipment, whatever the case may be).

I'm all about everyone having Foreign Ministries and diplomatic relations and treaties and all that jazz, but I don't think the UN is an effective forum for that. Period.

"Well, seeing as how Western Civilization developed without the United Nations or anything even close to it, I'm pretty sure things aren't going to suck too bad without such an absurdly worthless institution."

well yeah, sure. Slavery, imperialism and all that stuff was great... Not saying the world would turn into some dark age place but with better weapons, just that you basically don't have an argument there ;)

"Last time I checked, the UN really doesn't do much as far as enforcing human rights goes anyway. So I think that objection you raise is, well, silly. I mean, honestly, what was that one example recently ... Libya chaired the human rights committee? The PRC certainly doesn't catch a great deal of flak for their human rights accomplishments, right? Yeah, cuz, the UN right now is really a useful weapon against human rights abuses? MAYBE, MAYBE if the member of the UN had the BALLS to enforce human rights, then I'd concede that to you, but yeah, well, let's look at Saddam's stellar human rights achievements and the great pains the UN went through to ... scare Hussein with paper & words? Yeah ... um, the Republic had to go in and bash out Saddam's lights to get some human rights adjustments in Iraq."

Did I not just mention that the UN is quite clearly not doing as well as it should? Did I not say, that the UN should have supported and led the Iraq war (I'm not sure I did say that, but I think I did)?

"I don't think we need a "solution" to the UN. If the UN wants to exist, fine, but I don't think we should have any part in it aside from diplomatic relations, since its dangerously unconstitutional for us to be subordinating any part of our national interests, security, etc. to ANY foreign institution (giving it sovereignty over our troops, lands, equipment, whatever the case may be). "

Yet you claim that Iraq should be invaded. Since? On the idea of sovereignty Saddam was a great guy. He just followed the law :rolleyes: If you're gonna go on about sovereignty, atleast be sure to keep it going for all nations and don't just single out the US.

So once again, is there a way to improve the UN?

and I'm sorry for quoting entire passages, I just didn't feel like cutting and pasting more than I did...

Just because a nation exists doesn't mean it should have sovereignty or just because Saddam is in power does not mean he has legitimate sovereignty, Citizen Toast. Come on now. Don't go pull a Bernadotte or I'll be sad.

And will someone PLEASE tell me what is so wrong with imperialism???? Everyone is kicking around the "I" word like it was fascism or communism or some other repulsive, stupid ideological program of destruction. What the hell. I'm talking about the old school imperialism of Great Britain and France pre-1870s here. That's genuine, glorious, honorable imperialism in its purest and unadultered form. Imperialism post-1870s is more like neo-imperialism, tainted and not quite as wholesome as the old school.