NationStates Jolt Archive

Well this is in response to a interview I watched last night on Australian television with Daniel Ellsberg, regarding his past whistleblowing and also his warnings about Iraq and Iran. I was very interested in the part in which he said the US breaking the law (the Constitution) via the UN charter by going into Iraq without permission, and now threatens a conflict with Iran over similar claims of WMDs and potential WMD, I spose that also could be extended to DPRK also.

But my basic question to forumers here, because I dont pretend to know much about US politics (only what I see on the Jim Learer news). But I would ask is their a government level attitude, or even policy of disrespect or just ignorance of the UN and international law in US foreign policy, to what Ellsberg says is the 'highest law of the land on this matter'.

Is ignoring the UN (and I spose using it when needed) just something this current administration, or is it more running, and moreover how would you suggest it be fixed.

Aforementioned interview transcript plus actual download is here.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1763782.htm

If the UN wasn't a failed organization maybe they would have more respect from the USA. It is scandal filled and filled with corruption who only likes to talk the talk but when the time comes they have no back bone.

If the UN wasn't a failed organization maybe they would have more respect from the USA. It is scandal filled and filled with corruption who only likes to talk the talk but when the time comes they have no back bone.

UNICEF? FAO? UNESCO?

more ignorant bollocks from yanks who still wont accept they were wring on iraq in spite of UN and global pressure to behave. n no-one had a problem with the UN pre 2003....

name one scandal other than oil for food, which US companies were in the thick of?

If the UN wasn't a failed organization maybe they would have more respect from the USA. It is scandal filled and filled with corruption who only likes to talk the talk but when the time comes they have no back bone.
USA... the ones that established the UN? Ah yes, the UN failed because it isn't a US puppet.

UNICEF? FAO? UNESCO?

more ignorant bollocks from yanks who still wont accept they were wring on iraq in spite of UN and global pressure to behave. n no-one had a problem with the UN pre 2003....

name one scandal other than oil for food, which US companies were in the thick of?

I think the major problem with the U.N. is that it has no teeth, it can be kicked around by world superpowers with absurd ease. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not an internationalist I just think the U.N. needs a way to enforce the will of the majority of its own members, otherwise it resembles the old Articles of Confederation the U.S. had.

who only likes to talk the talk but when the time comes they have no back bone.
Korea and the First Gulf War spring to mind to counter that argument.

But hey, given your track record, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?

Well my question wasn't exactly is the UN effective or not, but more specifically and in context to Iraq, does the US government respect the Articles of War and rules of aggressive wars.

UNICEF? FAO? UNESCO?

more ignorant bollocks from yanks who still wont accept they were wring on iraq in spite of UN and global pressure to behave. n no-one had a problem with the UN pre 2003....

name one scandal other than oil for food, which US companies were in the thick of?

http://www.woodwardnews.net/opinion/local_story_048102918.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA545UNScandals.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/deweese050505.htm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050228/iwilliams
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1543360,00.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42088

How many more would you like?

http://www.woodwardnews.net/opinion/local_story_048102918.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA545UNScandals.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/deweese050505.htm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050228/iwilliams
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1543360,00.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42088

How many more would you like?

3 of those refer to oil for food and the other 3 are blogs.

nice try.

3 of those refer to oil for food and the other 3 are blogs.

nice try.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/UnitedNations/story?id=489306&page=1

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17373

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17373

Ya know, the big flashing "conservative T-shirts!" sign calls that site's neutrality into question...

*snip*

Hey, I'm anti-UN, but I opposed it long before the Iraq War. And I was against the Iraq War from the start.

The US has never been easy-going about surrendering sovereignty. That, and from the examples I've witnessed on these forums and life Americans in general do not treat the UN the same way other countries do. Even my own personal feelings on it conclude:

The UN is an organization whose best use is to prevent large scale war and to make international communication more easy. It does not have the right to override the US constitution, The US does not have to enforce its "laws", and the US does not have the right (as in the US Gov't) to place its citizens under UN jurisdiction.

I actually like it this way, the real problem comes when the US tries to force others to take the UN more seriously than we do.

Well anyways, they have a few scandals in progress....the famous oil for food and then the UN peacekeepers raping more than 100 women and children in the Congo.

As for the UN in regards to Iraq...we would have had the support from the UN if it weren't for France's illegal activities with Saddam and as for Germany's coming of elections and of course Schroeder being up Chirac's you know what.

As for the USA the UN can NOT and will NOT override the decisions of the USA ever. They will NOT and can NOT claim jurisdiction over the USA.

As far as I'm concerned, the UN needs to be dismantled.

Well anyways, they have a few scandals in progress....the famous oil for food and then the UN peacekeepers raping more than 100 women and children in the Congo.

Not the point, and that wasn't my question or the topic of this thread either. Fact remains the US invaded Iraq based on a lie against the UN charter, therefore the war was a war of aggression no different than the annexation of the Sudetenland or the invasion of Kuwait. My question just goes to ask if it's just the current administration who disrespects international law in regard to the Articles of War, nothing else.

name one scandal other than oil for food, which US companies were in the thick of?

Well anyways, they have a few scandals in progress....the famous oil for food and then the UN peacekeepers raping more than 100 women and children in the Congo.

Honestly, are you blind?

Honestly, are you blind?

Did you not see that other scandal I listed. Hence are you blind?
I wanted to go ahead and list the oil for food out of spite but followed was one of where the UN peacekeepers raped more than 100 women and children in Congo. Alas, I ask again.....Are you blind?

Did you not see that other scandal I listed. Hence are you blind?
I wanted to go ahead and list the oil for food out of spite but followed was one of where the UN peacekeepers raped more than 100 women and children in Congo. Alas, I ask again.....Are you blind?

No.

Hey, does rape fall under collateral damage?

Hey, does rape fall under collateral damage?
Only if it's US soldiers, and only if they shoot everyone afterwards.

"It went off in my hand, Staff Sergeant, I swear!"

As for the UN in regards to Iraq...we would have had the support from the UN if it weren't for France's illegal activities with Saddam and as for Germany's coming of elections and of course Schroeder being up Chirac's you know what.

As for the USA the UN can NOT and will NOT override the decisions of the USA ever. They will NOT and can NOT claim jurisdiction over the USA.

As far as I'm concerned, the UN needs to be dismantled.

blah blah blah.

you still reckon you were right on iraq?

pathetic

Well this is in response to a interview I watched last night on Australian television with Daniel Ellsberg, regarding his past whistleblowing and also his warnings about Iraq and Iran. I was very interested in the part in which he said the US breaking the law (the Constitution) via the UN charter by going into Iraq without permission, and now threatens a conflict with Iran over similar claims of WMDs and potential WMD, I spose that also could be extended to DPRK also.

But my basic question to forumers here, because I dont pretend to know much about US politics (only what I see on the Jim Learer news). But I would ask is their a government level attitude, or even policy of disrespect or just ignorance of the UN and international law in US foreign policy, to what Ellsberg says is the 'highest law of the land on this matter'.

Is ignoring the UN (and I spose using it when needed) just something this current administration, or is it more running, and moreover how would you suggest it be fixed.

Aforementioned interview transcript plus actual download is here.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1763782.htm

But didn't Saddam break his deals with the UN, such as the Oil For Food deal, and the no-fly zones?

You could say that the US is the enforcer of the UN.

Well as for my opinion on this, I think there needs to be more UN nations willing to stand up and say something when illegal activities are going on.
It's ironic that the US would maybe say the UN has no right in it's business becuase of it's sovereignty, and yet in the case of Iraq totally disregard and destroy the sovereignty and independence of Iraq by annexing it. Yet in cases now such as Iran and the DPRK, they are using the UN. Irony.

But didn't Saddam break his deals with the UN, such as the Oil For Food deal, and the no-fly zones?

You could say that the US is the enforcer of the UN.

The problem with this is that in that case the US enforced something the UN did not want to enforce. Any acceptance of any member state enforcing any resolution without the approval of the UNSC is problematic.