NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4365236.stm

Note that the investigator was not an American.

Looks like the Syrians did it. I expect Ocean to step up and say that Syria had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, we knew it was going to happen, I'll wait to see what evidence they based their conclusions on though.

Yeah, we knew it was going to happen, I'll wait to see what evidence they based their conclusions on though.

I believe that in investigation a police state, such as Syria, that it would be absolutely impossible to come up with the evidence that would satisfy you, Stephistan. And since you give equal moral authority to Syria as you do any other nation, in your eyes they will always be innocent of any involvement.

Short of Assad stepping forward and saying, "I ordered it."

Yeah, we knew it was going to happen, I'll wait to see what evidence they based their conclusions on though.
Excuse me for the double standard but if something happens with the US you jump to conclusions that the evil US is trying to cause hell. When a rogue terrorist nation (they support Islamic Jihad) like Syria does something, you doubt their guilt. Real nice. And you claim you aren't anti-American?

I believe that in investigation a police state, such as Syria, that it would be absolutely impossible to come up with the evidence that would satisfy you, Stephistan. And since you give equal moral authority to Syria as you do any other nation, in your eyes they will always be innocent of any involvement.

Short of Assad stepping forward and saying, "I ordered it."

No, if they have real evidence then up it. If they don't, it's just another example of the UN sucking America's d*ck.

Excuse me for the double standard but if something happens with the US you jump to conclusions that the evil US is trying to cause hell. When a rogue terrorist nation (they support Islamic Jihad) like Syria does something, you doubt their guilt. Real nice. And you claim you aren't anti-American?

I live next door to America, I have a lot more knowledge on America and what they do. I don't get Syrian TV, do you? I don't get UN TV, do you? I'll wait for the report. Same as I would with the Americans.

No, if they have real evidence then up it. If they don't, it's just another example of the UN sucking America's d*ck.

Where's your evidence of that? As I recall, Kofi and his friends were sucking Saddam's d*ck through Oil for Food. And they weren't interested in authorizing action in Iraq.

Evidence please?

No, if they have real evidence then up it. If they don't, it's just another example of the UN sucking America's d*ck.


Since when does the UN gag on US schlong? As far as I can tell, it's the exact opposite -- and has been for a long, long time.

Where's your evidence of that? As I recall, Kofi and his friends were sucking Saddam's d*ck through Oil for Food. And they weren't interested in authorizing action in Iraq.

Evidence please?

Oh you don't have to go back too far, or do you forget when Butros-Butros Gali was Sec-Gen of the UN? Every country supported him and wanted him to stay in the position except the Americans, they wanted Kofi, guess who won? The world or the Americans? Lets see, who is Sec-Gen of the UN now? Say what you want about the UN, but Kofi was your guy.

Oh you don't have to go back too far, or do you forget when Butros-Butros Gali was Sec-Gen of the UN? Every country supported him and wanted him to stay in the position except the Americans, they wanted Kofi, guess who won? The world or the Americans? Lets see, who is Sec-Gen of the UN now? Say what you want about the UN, but Kofi was your guy.

If that's true, then he's done an impeccably bad job of being the America First guy in the UN.

We couldn't have picked anyone worse. Oh, that's right - Madeline Albright probably had something to do with that.

If that's true, then he's done an impeccably bad job of being the America First guy in the UN.

We couldn't have picked anyone worse. Oh, that's right - Madeline Albright probably had something to do with that.

I do believe it was in fact under the Clinton administration , yes.

I do believe it was in fact under the Clinton administration , yes.

Then it's not my problem. I didn't vote for him.

You'll notice that Kofi was not willing at all to suck US d*ck - I can't point to anything under Bush that he went along with.

Then it's not my problem. I didn't vote for him.

You'll notice that Kofi was not willing at all to suck US d*ck - I can't point to anything under Bush that he went along with.

Yeah, but I think it's been fairly well established that Bush Jr. is a moron. I'm not saying that because he's a Republican either. You've had good Republican leaders in the past, GW just isn't one of them. I mean it was fairly obvious that no matter what Saddam did GW was going to invade Iraq, if I knew that, you can bet your ass people in the know knew it too.

But Kofi pretty much backed up Clinton on everything. UN never gave Clinton a hard time.

Also, the UN shouldn't be sucking up to any one country.

Can we drop the dick metaphors, please?

Can we drop the dick metaphors, please?

Hehe, sorry Fris. I will.

No, if they have real evidence then up it. If they don't, it's just another example of the UN sucking America's d*ck.
Wait, since when did the UN start sucking up to us? I never really thought we were welcome there...in any case, so it's the UN that is investigating and the US that is pushing for accountability, if I've got my facts straight?

Wait, since when did the UN start sucking up to us? I never really thought we were welcome there...in any case, so it's the UN that is investigating and the US that is pushing for accountability, if I've got my facts straight?All the rogue states view the UN as an American puppet. The UN is caught smack in the middle.

All the rogue states view the UN as an American puppet. The UN is caught smack in the middle.

France and Russia and China don't view the UN as an American puppet.

In fact, all those French and Russian diplomats that made money from Oil for Food probably view the UN as a cushy job where the Americans ask for resolutions, the other Security Council members insert loopholes, and all the diplomats except the US ones make money hand over fist while all over the world, the massacres continue.

Did I miss anything?

I live next door to America, I have a lot more knowledge on America and what they do. I don't get Syrian TV, do you? I don't get UN TV, do you? I'll wait for the report. Same as I would with the Americans.

And I have more knowledge about America than you do. I also know our history abit better than you do too. I also know that anything America does you jump up and down crying they violated international law but when hit over the head about Canada's involvement WITHOUT UN permission you said that it isn't a violation of international law.

Get off your high horse Stephistan! No one is buying it anymore. As for the investigation, it proves what we already knew.

France and Russia and China don't view the UN as an American puppet.

In fact, all those French and Russian diplomats that made money from Oil for Food probably view the UN as a cushy job where the Americans ask for resolutions, the other Security Council members insert loopholes, and all the diplomats except the US ones make money hand over fist while all over the world, the massacres continue.

Did I miss anything?

Hehe.

Did I miss anything?Wow. France, Russia, and China properly represent all 191 nations in the UN. [/Sarcasm]
Iraq most certainly didn't view the UN as a friend.
Neither does Syria.
What about Iran?
North Korea?
Sudan is fighting vehemently against having UN inspectors sent.

Yes. You missed what goes on in other countries (i.e. those that are not the USA).

t Canada's involvement WITHOUT UN permission you said that it isn't a violation of international law.




hmm? when was that?

France and Russia and China don't view the UN as an American puppet.

In fact, all those French and Russian diplomats that made money from Oil for Food probably view the UN as a cushy job where the Americans ask for resolutions, the other Security Council members insert loopholes, and all the diplomats except the US ones make money hand over fist while all over the world, the massacres continue.

Did I miss anything?

Well said Second Amendment.

*hands you a M-16 for the comment*

hmm? when was that?

The action on Serbia. It was NATO approved but it was never UN approved. Stephistan thinks that anything that isn't UN approved is a violation of International Law forgetting that the UN doesn't make the law but has the power of law and enforces International Law.

ahhh... I see

The action on Serbia. It was NATO approved but it was never UN approved. Stephistan thinks that anything that isn't UN approved is a violation of International Law forgetting that the UN doesn't make the law but has the power of law and enforces International Law.Not quite true. The UN did approve of it afterwards, once China and Russia backed down. So "never UN approved" is wrong.

Not quite true. The UN did approve of it afterwards, once China and Russia backed down. So "never UN approved" is wrong.

But notice that it was Afterwards. That means jack. They didn't approve it BEFORE it happened. That was when it really mattered. They did it after the fact because Russia and China realized that dispite their blockage, it occured anyway.

Almost like the fact that the US, Britain, and allied forces attacked Iraq without UN permission. Of course, we did it because of a violation of the UN approved Cease-fire among other reasons.

But notice that it was Afterwards. That means jack.Not when you claim it was never approved. :p

Not when you claim it was never approved. :p

Actually what I said is true for a different point of view.

Now think! The NATO attack went without permission from the UN. The attack then was never approved. After the attack, UN approves it therefor, it became approved. Prior to that however, the attack itself was never approved. Therefor, what I said was indeed correct.

no Never means just that NEVER it might have 1000 year and the finaly approved and the you can not call the action never approved.

no Never means just that NEVER it might have 1000 year and the finaly approved and the you can not call the action never approved.

It all depends on point of view so what I said was indeed correct. The attack was never approved until after the fact.

Actually what I said is true for a different point of view.

Now think! The NATO attack went without permission from the UN. The attack then was never approved. After the attack, UN approves it therefor, it became approved. Prior to that however, the attack itself was never approved. Therefor, what I said was indeed correct.Different point of view? Do you not realise how stupid you are sounding arguing that never might mean something other than never? What is the definition of "is"?

It all depends on point of view so what I said was indeed correct. The attack was never approved until after the fact.


well I guess, its all sumatics anyway.

Different point of view? Do you not realise how stupid you are sounding arguing that never might mean something other than never? What is the definition of "is"?

Apparently your the one that doesn't realise how stupid you are to figure out that the Serbian didn't have UN Approval till after the fact.

Apparently your the one that doesn't realise how stupid you are to figure out that the Serbian didn't have UN Approval till after the fact.Quote me where I denied that.

Quote me where I denied that.

Likewise!

I just have a small point to make. The U.N dosn't suck up to the U.S. , however, they do know that they need to watch themselves considering they are 1) Based on our soil 2) Funded over 25% by us 3) Worthless without us.

Likewise!Right. I assume you mean the bit where you deny that the action was ever approved. Here:
The action on Serbia. It was NATO approved but it was never UN approved.Source (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9818685&postcount=24)
Now it's your turn. Quote me where I said that the UN gave its approval before the attacks.

Not quite true. The UN did approve of it afterwards, once China and Russia backed down. So "never UN approved" is wrong.

They authorized a peacekeeping mission after the airstrikes and NATO troops had deployed. They never authorized the airstrikes and bombing of civilians, or the initial deployment (invasion-?).

By your logic, all that it would require to make the US/UK effort in Iraq legal now, would be a UN sec. council. resolution for peacekeeping in Iraq.

Edit: Which of course would not change the fact that "agressive" millitary action was taken in direct contravention of the UN charter. Fortunately, that seperable provision of the charter has been in suspension since forever.

They authorized a peacekeeping mission after the airstrikes and NATO troops had deployed. They never authorized the airstrikes and bombing of civilians, or the initial deployment (invasion-?).

By your logic, all that it would require to make the US/UK effort in Iraq legal now, would be a UN sec. council. resolution for peacekeeping in Iraq.

Thank you for proving me right :D

They authorized a peacekeeping mission after the airstrikes and NATO troops had deployed. They never authorized the airstrikes and bombing of civilians, or the initial deployment (invasion-?).

By your logic, all that it would require to make the US/UK effort in Iraq legal now, would be a UN sec. council. resolution for peacekeeping in Iraq.I've been reading through the resolutions on the issue, and, since the UN adopted the General Principles that the G-8 came up with, it authorised the use of force.
1. Decides that a political solution to the Kosovo crisis shall be based
on the general principles in annex 1 and as further elaborated in the principles
and other required elements in annex 2;S/RES/1244 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/172/89/PDF/N9917289.pdf?OpenElement)

I've been reading through the resolutions on the issue, and, since the UN adopted the General Principles that the G-8 came up with, it authorised the use of force.
S/RES/1244 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/172/89/PDF/N9917289.pdf?OpenElement)
Still doesn't fly. Unless they passed a resolution specifically excusing the previous use of force, which they did not do, they can't have authorized the original invasion. They authorized the peacekeepers to use force, completely different matter.

2) Funded over 25% by us

Except that the US never pays what it owes.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/info/usdebt.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/finance/usfin1.htm
http://www.un.int/usa/99bud927.htm
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200108/22/eng20010822_77973.html


Moreover, the United States makes many of its payments at the end of each year, months later than the United Nations would like. Already, the financial crunch has jeopardized one UN organ, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Congressional leaders turned down a request in July for a supplemental expenditure of $107 million for U.N. missions in Kosovo and East Timor. They also told administration officials to plan on getting by in 2001 with the same amount--$498 million--appropriated for peacekeeping this year. But next year's US obligation, combined with this year's $250 million shortfall, could top $1 billion.



United Nations -- A bipartisan U.S. Congressional delegation visited
the United Nations September 27 to tell the international body that
they are frustrated but not finished in their efforts to end the U.S.
status as one of the UN's biggest members in arrears.

"Here we are, in the closing days of another Fiscal Year still
outraged, still embarrassed and still trying to get the United States
to live up to its commitments," said Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-New
York) at a press conference on U.S. debts to the UN.

[...]

Lowey said that "my colleagues in Congress need a wake-up call. The
United States has earned the reputation as the United Nations' number
one deadbeat and if my colleagues want to help restore our good name
and regain our influence in the UN, they need to join me today in
supporting immediate and full payment of our UN arrears."

[...]

The United States is in danger of losing its vote in the General Assembly within 100 days if it does not substantially reduce its debt. UN Article 19 of the UN Charter says if a country's arrears total more than its
assessment for the two preceding years, it automatically looses its
vote in the General Assembly. In December 1998, the U.S. paid just
enough money to avoid losing voting privileges.

[...]

Talking with journalists September 22 during the opening week of the
54th General Assembly, Albright said that during her numerous
bilateral meetings with other Foreign Ministers "a constant theme here
is the irritation that all the other nations have at the United States
for nonpayment" of its financial obligations to the United Nations.

[...]

"Congress needs to understand that we have to have the money if the
United States is going to do its job," Albright said. "If (the United
States) is going to be able to get other countries do their share of
the work, then we have to be able to put our money on the table."

[...]

"The UN is a cost-effective way for us...to make a difference around
the world. Our continued participation in the United Nations is
critical to the United States' global leadership, which, in turn, is
critical to our national security," said Lowey.



The debt owed by the United States to the United Nations has reached a record high of 2.33 billion U.S. dollars as of July 31 [2001], a UN spokesman said Tuesday.

Spokesman Fred Eckhard told a briefing that "the United States, the biggest debtor, now owes more than 2.33 billion dollars, including more than 462 million for the regular budget and more than 1.8 billion for peacekeeping debt."

[...]

Last week, the U.N. said its cash flow was "extremely precarious," and it would be forced to cross-borrow from the peacekeeping account to pay staff salaries this month.


You mess the UN up, then blame it for the problems you've caused... Delightful tactic.

Still doesn't fly. Unless they passed a resolution specifically excusing the previous use of force, which they did not do, they can't have authorized the original invasion. They authorized the peacekeepers to use force, completely different matter.They implemented a resolution that said it would follow what the G-8 were doing. Most of the G-8 were bombing the Serbs at the time. That is an authorization.

Except that the US never pays what it owes.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/info/usdebt.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/finance/usfin1.htm
http://www.un.int/usa/99bud927.htm
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200108/22/eng20010822_77973.html







You mess the UN up, then blame it for the problems you've caused... Delightful tactic.

Oh boy oh boy where to begin with this. Oh I know...

When the begin to live up to what their charter, then maybe we'll start to pay what we owe. :D

Except that the US never pays what it owes.


That's old news. As soon as Clinton was out of office, the Congress was most forthcoming.

Delaying the money was more about making Clinton look bad than anything else.

They implemented a resolution that said it would follow what the G-8 were doing. Most of the G-8 were bombing the Serbs at the time. That is an authorization.

Actually.... no it doesn't mean they authorized it.

Oh boy oh boy where to begin with this. Oh I know...

When the begin to live up to what their charter, then maybe we'll start to pay what we owe. :DWow. That's saying they won't get what they need to live up to the charter until they do.

Actually.... no it doesn't mean they authorized it.You no, instead of just one sentence replies, you could start using real arguements...

You no, instead of just one sentence replies, you could start using real arguements...

Actually, I have used real arguements in the past. However, I have learned that no matter what facts I bring, it doesn't do any good.

Actually, I have used real arguements in the past. However, I have learned that no matter what facts I bring, it doesn't do any good.You'll have to learn to cope with people disagreeing with you. ;) (And two wrongs don't make a right)

You'll have to learn to cope with people disagreeing with you. ;) (And two wrongs don't make a right)

I already know people will disagree with me. I don't care about that. However, its when all the evidence points against someone and they still cant see reason is when I get really annoyed.

I already know people will disagree with me. I don't care about that. However, its when all the evidence points against someone and they still cant see reason is when I get really annoyed.You've just perfectly described how I feel when debating with some people...:D

I've been reading through the resolutions on the issue, and, since the UN adopted the General Principles that the G-8 came up with, it authorised the use of force.
S/RES/1244 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/172/89/PDF/N9917289.pdf?OpenElement)

Alright, lets be perfectly clear here. The NATO* bombing campaign ended on June 9th 1999, (after causing the displacement of a million civillians and untold deaths), when a finnish-russian negiotion team persuaded Milošević to back down and accept a UN headed peace keeping force.

Resolution 1244, passed by the UN Sec. Council. June 10th 1999, only specifies that a rapid deployment of peacekeepers should be made to serbia. It in no way authorizes the bombing campaign. Further, it adopts the principals of the G8 resolution on serbia, not NATO or NATOs actions. As such, it can in no way be viewed as an after the fact ratification of NATOs actions, did not putatively arise from NATOs actions and nor was it patterned upon the then existing NATO plans or command structure.

As the dates and the wording of the resolution plainly show. The UN never authorized, nor even attempted to authorize the bombing of Serbia in 1999.

Ergo, Warcriminal Chretien, Warcriminal Martin.

*Ironically, NATO is a purely defensive organization. As such, some leftwing groups have argued that because it has been such a strong alliance over the years with no-real breaches in obligations by the contracting parties, it is far more likely that the Serbia bombing was a violation of international law for taking place under the aegis of the NATO organization, than anything else.

You've just perfectly described how I feel when debating with some people...:D
I don't even mind that. What I do mind is when they then devolve into ad hominems, and "only a crazy person would think like that" and "you're obviously a really bad person" etc.

Please. I am rarely debating the morality of anything.

I don't even mind that. What I do mind is when they then devolve into ad hominems, and "only a crazy person would think like that" and "you're obviously a really bad person" etc.

Please. I am rarely debating the morality of anything.The phrase "Onto my ignore list you go" when I said something someone didn't want to hear has always made me shake my head in disgust...;)

The phrase "Onto my ignore list you go" when I said something someone didn't want to hear has always made me shake my head in disgust...;)

I've always wondered about people who do that. I mean, it's no secret that NS General is the place to find people who DON'T agree with you. And we like it that way!

-snip-
You mess the UN up, then blame it for the problems you've caused... Delightful tactic.
No, we basically realized that the U.N. was just a bloated beaurocracy, and that it was a waste of money to give it to an organization filled with people who valued kickbacks over security. Maybe if they would have inforced Res. 1441, we could have given them their money. But considering we had to do the U.N.'s job for them, I fail to see why we owe them a damn dime.(by "we" I mean the nations who actually recognized that a threat is present, even if it hasn't happened yet)

Right, I finally did find something to support my case that the air strikes were eventually authorized:
5. If these steps are not taken, NATO is ready to take whatever measures are necessary in the light of both parties’ compliance with internationalcommitments and requirements, including in particular assessment by the Contact Group of the response to its demands, to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, by compelling compliance with the demands of the international community and the achievement of a political settlement. The [Security] Council has therefore agreed today that the NATO Secretary-General may authorize air strikes against targets on territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Secretary-General of NATO will take full account of the position and actions of the Kosovar leadership and all Kosovar armed elements in and around Kosovo in reaching his decision on military action. NATO will take all appropriate measures in case of a failure by the Kosovar Albanian side to comply with the demands of the international community.Source (http://www.un.org/peace/kosovo/s99107.pdf)

No, we basically realized that the U.N. was just a bloated beaurocracy, and that it was a waste of money to give it to an organization filled with people who valued kickbacks over security. Maybe if they would have inforced Res. 1441, we could have given them their money. But considering we had to do the U.N.'s job for them, I fail to see why we owe them a damn dime.(by "we" I mean the nations who actually recognized that a threat is present, even if it hasn't happened yet)Since when is the US engaged in building houses in Bangladesh? Or building schools in Burundi? Or directing AIDS treatment in the afflicted regions? Or establishing criteria for cultural and environmental heritage sites? Or getting countries that no one cares about to come to peaceful solutions? Or crack down on child labor and human trafficking?
"We" as the US aren't doing the UN's job for them.

Right, I finally did find something to support my case that the air strikes were eventually authorized:
Source (http://www.un.org/peace/kosovo/s99107.pdf)

Now I have you.

So, all we have to do now is convene the Security Council, have them vote to sanction and authorize the invasion of Iraq, and everyone here who thinks the US violated international law by doing so would have to clam up.

Now I have you.

So, all we have to do now is convene the Security Council, have them vote to sanction and authorize the invasion of Iraq, and everyone here who thinks the US violated international law by doing so would have to clam up.You don't have me :p
If what you were saying would happen, then Iraq would have been legal. Now if this were to happen in a few years, I would question it's veracity, since it didn't happen as part of the ending of hostilities, as the Kosovo Crisis did, but this is technically the way of getting it legalized.

Right, I finally did find something to support my case that the air strikes were eventually authorized:
Source (http://www.un.org/peace/kosovo/s99107.pdf)

No dude, that's just a copy of a letter from NATO sec gen, saying that the UN Sec. Con. may authorize airstrikes. It's part of an enclosure in a letter protesting NATOs illegal actions.

The closest thing you will find is the 10 Jun 1999 resolution, which as I have already discussed does not authorize the airstrikes.

The UN Sec. Con. never authorized them. Ever. Especially not in a letter from NATO.

Right, I finally did find something to support my case that the air strikes were eventually authorized:
Source (http://www.un.org/peace/kosovo/s99107.pdf)

No dude, that's just a copy of a letter from NATO sec gen, saying that the UN Sec. Con. may authorize airstrikes. It's part of an enclosure in a letter protesting NATOs illegal actions.

The closest thing you will find is the 10 Jun 1999 resolution, which as I have already discussed does not authorize the airstrikes.

The UN Sec. Con. never authorized them. Ever. Especially not in a letter from NATO.

This is interesting, but I have to go out and get drunk now. I'll continue later.

It wouldn't surprise me if Syria was involved in this. The Assad regime was always weak, and it has been growing weaker, making it desparate. Any punitive action is probably unnecesary, seeing that the Assad regime will die out very shortly now that it's in the business of alienating patrons.

No, if they have real evidence then up it. If they don't, it's just another example of the UN sucking America's d*ck.
What? The UN and America don't get along. The UN hasn't backed up America since the Korean war.

Oh you don't have to go back too far, or do you forget when Butros-Butros Gali was Sec-Gen of the UN? Every country supported him and wanted him to stay in the position except the Americans, they wanted Kofi, guess who won? The world or the Americans? Lets see, who is Sec-Gen of the UN now? Say what you want about the UN, but Kofi was your guy.
Considering the fact that Butros-Butros Gali got the US involved in an unnecessary shooting war in Somalia I'd say that we had good reason to insist on his removal.