----- Original Message ----- From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:19 AM Subject: Re: The UN
> At 00:07 27-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > Do you have a better suggestion? > > > >Yea, accept the reality of what the UN is, instead of pretending it is > >what it isn't. It is a forum for the countries of the world to talk, and > >occassionally express their collective will. The big 5 winning powers of > >WWII got veto powers on the Security Council, while the rest of the > >nations got the power to pass general resolutions in the UN. The fact > > The fact... what? Unfinished sentence. Sorry, I shouldn't post long complicated posts late at night. The fact the UN was founded on the realities of post-WWII politics should not be lost. There would be no way that the world powers would allow the small countries of the world to dictate to them. Especially in '46, when GB had about 40 votes or so in the UN General Assembly. > > > >It wouldn't have to be that strong. All they would have to do is figure > >out what actions would benefit all of them and get the UN to pass that > >action. For example, > > For example... what? Unfinished sentence. For example, if the UN was a real government, they could impose a tax on the rich democratic to support their regiem. Or, they could write international law requiring that their regiems be defended by the combined armies of the world declaring anyone who revolted against them would be stopped by all means necessary. There are plenty of things that would benefit most dictatorships that would be passed in a UN, if the rules allowed it. > > > > > The US should consider that a war against Iraq will have consequences > > > (in the form of terrorist attacks) not only within the US, but > > > throughout the world. If the US decides to go in alone, without support > > > from the rest of the world, other countries would get attacked by > > > terrorists because of a war they did not even support. > > > >Then, the question is why they didn't support it. > > Well, the usual reason for not supporting an idea is the belief that said > idea is a *bad* idea... Why is it a bad idea? I > >Considering the fact that N. Korea has surprised the US by admitting a > >nuclear weapons programs that may very well already have produced bombs, > >and considering the fact that the US is still very vulnerable to a > >nuclear device inside a shipping container, it seems reasonable to assume > >that there is a very good chance that Hussein is developing WMD. > > That is the whole problem: it is an *assumption*. I think that before you > go to war (and drag the rest of the world with you), you should have a hell > of a lot more than "assumptions", "suspicions" and "reasonable doubt". The only way to know for sure is if 1) Hussein publically tests a nuclear weapon 2) It is used on a population center. > >Further, given Iraq's history of playing cat and mouse, isn't it > >reasonable to have strict rules that will ensure that an inspection can > >be thorough? > > I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the US > wants military action to be the first option, not the last option. No, the US has publically stated that they were willing to have inspections first. When are you willing to have it as an option? Are you willing to support a resolution that says "We inspect thoroughly, and if we find no WMD, then you are off the hook. If we find them, you destroy them or else we will do whatever is needed to destroy them, including removing you from power. If you interfere with the inspections, then we will use force to remove you. My read of France's and Russia's position is that they think this is too strong. > > >What besides "talk about it some more" will the international community > >support. In Realpolitic terms, it makes sense for other countries to > >wait and see if the US loses 100k or 1m people before taking any risk on > >their own. > > That would assume that Saddam Hussein will use a WMD against the US. I do > not think he will; I think he will use it to drag as many people with him > when he is brought down, and in that case Israel will be a much more likely > target. Fair enough. So, Israel supports the US's action. The logical conclusion is that they are happy to see it resolved now, before his ability to kill people increases. Better to lose 10,000 that 1,000,000. > > > > If NY gets hit by an A-bomb instead of a > > Instead of a... what? Unfinished sentence. instead of a plane, I suppose we'll get the Netherland's permission. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect the US to give up hundreds of thousands of people because other members of the UN have an inherent right to back out of their agreements? > > > > >Considering the fact that your country kept its representative > > > >government only because the US was willing to put NY and Washington on > > > >the line to protect it, > > > > > > Huh? That requires some explanation. > > > >That was well explained by Steve Sloan. It was clear from the firs > >Berlin Crisis that the USSR had its eye on European expansion...at least > >the Finlandization of Europe at a minimum. > > America's promise was appreciated, but AFAIK the promise did not come with > a clause that we would have to support the US everytime they want to wage war. No. But, we were naive enough to suppose that our security would at least be on the radar screens of the Netherlands afterwards. That we'd be given some cooperation in defending other countries. Dan M _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
