Simon Robbins
March 1st 04, 12:27 AM
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
> Actually, the UN depends wholly on our intelligence for nearly all of it's
> major policy decisions.
Well if that were true perhaps that's at the root of why it's become so
ineffective?
> That's total bull****. NOBODY at the UN or anywhere else had said that
> Saddam didn't have WMD's before the war. Everyone believed that he had
them,
> and everyone was wrong. Period. Hell, there's even evidence that Saddam
> himself thought he had them.
Not true. Everybody knew he once had the capability to produce them, and did
so. But even the inspectors were willing to except some time ago that there
were probably no more to be found and that bad accounting on the part of the
Iraqi's post-91 was an equally plausible reason for their absence as
deception. It's quite clear now that our own intelligence services didn't
believe he had anything more than battlefield munitions, certainly not the
vast arsenal of ballistic WMD material we were sold the war on.
> The arguments being made at the UN against the war were that Saddam (and
his
> sons after him) could be 'contained' in perpetuity (by our military and at
> our expense of course). We now know that most of those arguments were
being
> made by individuals and entities which were taking massive kickbacks to
the
> tune of several billion dollars per year by Saddam himself, through the
> horrendously corrupted 'oil for food' program. So they had just a tiny bit
> of a hidden agenda.
Sounds like a generalisation to me, but either way we've only succeeded to
replace the destination of all that Iraqi oil money, and gifted the
population a much more uncertain and potentially dangerous future than they
had before.
> Now that is truly laughable. The UN... which gives countries led by brutal
> dictators the same voice as liberal democracies, is a respectable
> organization? The UN, whose 'human rights' council is chaired by none
other
> than Lybia and Iran? Respectable? HA!
Did we vote against or veto on the human rights appointments? Maybe our
abstinence sought to undermine confidence in the organisation. Or perhaps
there's belief that involving offenders may help to rehabilitate them? It's
not like we don't have an equal voice in the forum, so it is what we make of
it. Funny how we embrace the UN when things go our way, and deride it when
they don't.
> What's wrong with that? And if at the same time we can stem funding to
> terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas (which Saddam openly funded),
save
> millions of people from a dictator, and possibly set up a working
democracy
> in the Middle East, why not? To me, that sounds like a major step towards
> making the world a better and more secure place.
Right.. Except it's only proved so far to be a step towards major regional
destabilization, civil war and a heightened threat of global terrorism.
> And for the record, bugging the UN has been going on since day one, by us
> and pretty much everyone else in the world:
I don't doubt it. I just find it amusing our governments brush it off as
acceptable when we all know how they'd have reacted if any of our opponents
over the war had been caught at it.
Si
...
> Actually, the UN depends wholly on our intelligence for nearly all of it's
> major policy decisions.
Well if that were true perhaps that's at the root of why it's become so
ineffective?
> That's total bull****. NOBODY at the UN or anywhere else had said that
> Saddam didn't have WMD's before the war. Everyone believed that he had
them,
> and everyone was wrong. Period. Hell, there's even evidence that Saddam
> himself thought he had them.
Not true. Everybody knew he once had the capability to produce them, and did
so. But even the inspectors were willing to except some time ago that there
were probably no more to be found and that bad accounting on the part of the
Iraqi's post-91 was an equally plausible reason for their absence as
deception. It's quite clear now that our own intelligence services didn't
believe he had anything more than battlefield munitions, certainly not the
vast arsenal of ballistic WMD material we were sold the war on.
> The arguments being made at the UN against the war were that Saddam (and
his
> sons after him) could be 'contained' in perpetuity (by our military and at
> our expense of course). We now know that most of those arguments were
being
> made by individuals and entities which were taking massive kickbacks to
the
> tune of several billion dollars per year by Saddam himself, through the
> horrendously corrupted 'oil for food' program. So they had just a tiny bit
> of a hidden agenda.
Sounds like a generalisation to me, but either way we've only succeeded to
replace the destination of all that Iraqi oil money, and gifted the
population a much more uncertain and potentially dangerous future than they
had before.
> Now that is truly laughable. The UN... which gives countries led by brutal
> dictators the same voice as liberal democracies, is a respectable
> organization? The UN, whose 'human rights' council is chaired by none
other
> than Lybia and Iran? Respectable? HA!
Did we vote against or veto on the human rights appointments? Maybe our
abstinence sought to undermine confidence in the organisation. Or perhaps
there's belief that involving offenders may help to rehabilitate them? It's
not like we don't have an equal voice in the forum, so it is what we make of
it. Funny how we embrace the UN when things go our way, and deride it when
they don't.
> What's wrong with that? And if at the same time we can stem funding to
> terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas (which Saddam openly funded),
save
> millions of people from a dictator, and possibly set up a working
democracy
> in the Middle East, why not? To me, that sounds like a major step towards
> making the world a better and more secure place.
Right.. Except it's only proved so far to be a step towards major regional
destabilization, civil war and a heightened threat of global terrorism.
> And for the record, bugging the UN has been going on since day one, by us
> and pretty much everyone else in the world:
I don't doubt it. I just find it amusing our governments brush it off as
acceptable when we all know how they'd have reacted if any of our opponents
over the war had been caught at it.
Si