probably. If you are asking me if I can conceive of circumstances
where it might be necessary to move unilaterally because the UN is not
reaching a consensus, sure I can, but I can conceive of many things,
Andy. This does not mean that I think that Bush's actions were
justified.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:14:40 -0500
Subject: RE: The politicization of the Iraq War
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I believe there are many more instances of this than just WWII. But since
you've acknowledge that I might have a point, I will take that as a victory
and move on..... <g>
North's point on corruption probably has less to do with the UN than with
human nature when involved with large sums of money. So that was one of the
"extraneous" contacts that deserves studies, prosecution of those who broke
the law and new laws where needed. What I conveniently took from his article
is that the Committee has proven itself unable to act and that members must
take over after a certain point in time, without express permission of the UN,
since that could never happen.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 2:03 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: The politicization of the Iraq War
if you are referring to WW2 I suppose that you might have a point if
you take for granted that history repeats itself.
I say no because while Saddam was not a nice guy, I still see no
evidence he meant to harm the US and the life of the average Iraqi
appears to have gone markedly downhill.
As for the irrelevancy of the UN -- actually, North appears to be
saying that the UN is irrelevant because it is corrupt, though he
presents no evidence to support this. The current US administration is
perceived to be at least as corrupt however. Whether this perception
is correct I leave to the student as an exercise :) but in foreign
affairs isn't the perception what matters?
But ok, suppose his quarrel with it is "inability to act."
Well, duh. It's a committee. Committees are not known for blindingly
fast decision-making, nor is this their mission in life. The
importance of the UN is that it provides a forum where votes may be
taken that may provide *some* measure of world opinion. It's easy to
scoff at this if yoy dan't particularly care what Botswana or Fiji
thinks, but it is *some* sort of measure of what the nations of the
world think.
If you take the "inability to act" thinking a little further you come
to the conclusion that only military powers are relevant. While I can
see that this might seem true to a soldier, is it true as a blanket
statement? Would you want it to be?
So if the US were to invade Fiji only the opinion of the US (and
perhaps France) would matter, not Fiji's?
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:47:26 -0500
Subject: RE: The politicization of the Iraq War
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Actually, I asked:
1. Are North's his issues with the UN valid? By this I meant his central
theme that the UN's inability to act versus talk has made them irrelevant
both
historical and now
2. And doesn't his underlying theme of "waiting causes more harm" have
historical validity?
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 1:33 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: The politicization of the Iraq War
Your first question as I recall had to do with Annan "declaring" the
invasion illegal.
Your second was, is Iraq better off?
My answer (trying to make this specific for ya) is 1) did not happen
as presented and 2) No
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:25:27 -0500
Subject: RE: The politicization of the Iraq War
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dana, Dana, Dana...
I was much more specific than that on the North piece. Even the devil
throws
in some words of wisdom while trying to trick the innocent.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 1:11 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: The politicization of the Iraq War
::shrug:: CBS News has been mistaken. So have the Washington Post and
the New York TImes and no doubt other less-known papers. But hey, they
print a correction when they are mistaken, and there is a very big
step from being mistaken to the sort of distortion and unsupported
innuendo Andy asked me to critique the other day.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:58:21 -0400
Subject: Re: The politicization of the Iraq War
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I thought that was CBS News.
>reference them all you want, just don't expect anyone else to take
>them seriously.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: The politicization of the Iraq War
>To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I guess you didn't get the memo.
>
>Can't reference any of these no matter how true:
>
>Washington Times: it's owned by Rev Moon.
>Ollie North: He's a felon
>Rush Limbaugh: Was a drug addict
>Bill O'Reilly: They just don't like him
>NY Post: They listed the wrong Vice-Pres pick for
>Kerry
>Michael Savage: hehehe just kidding he really is a
>nut!
>Dick Morris: Talks too much to hookers
>Fox News: All lies, lies, lies.
>
>-sm
>
>
>
>--- Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
