They [US] rule out the UN and still say that UN authorized them to use force in 1441 … make up your mind folks at the top … Is UN relevant or not? If not, stop quoting its resolutions and authorizations … you have ample justification to move ahead based on your own country’s needs to defend itself .. you dont need that lousy UN .. why keep using its name? Are you worried that the rest of the world will see this as a unilateral action?
The UN is only irrelevant to the US, as they dont give a **** what the world thinks. For the US its - You' re either with us, or your gonna get your ass kicked. Regardless of whats wrong of right.
Its only a matter of hours now as the war in Iraq starts. Who is Bush trying to fool by calling for "disarming iraq", its all about a regime change. "Afterall, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad" are his very own words ;).
The credibility and the very existence of UN is at stake now as the the bilateral action over Iraq is about to start in 48 hours.
The UN has been redundant for a long time (Isreali contraventions of countless resolutions passed) this event has simply outlined the fact that a dove's suggestions will not be taking into account again by the hawk's in the US government.
It was Colin Powell that urged Bush to go this route.
UN has failed so has the system. There is no trust in the UN for me any more. At least now people should understand why there are no UN Soldiers in Israel, Kashmir and Chechnya.
Re: They rule out the UN ...
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Azkar Choudhry:
They [US] rule out the UN and still say that UN authorized them to use force in 1441 ... make up your mind folks at the top ... Is UN relevant or not? If not, stop quoting its resolutions and authorizations ... you have ample justification to move ahead based on your own country's needs to defend itself .. you dont need that lousy UN .. why keep using its name? Are you worried that the rest of the world will see this as a unilateral action?
[/QUOTE]
I couldn't have said it better myself. If they did not need a second resolution to specifically authorise force, then why did they spend the last month trying to get this resolution passed? Now just because 80% of the UNSC states would not back them suddenly the UN becomes irrelevant, but at the same time they are still quoting previous UN resolutions. Shameless hypocrisy and mistruths of unprecedented levels.
and look at that big loser Tony trying to justify his action in front of the MPs ... And I quote:
[quote]
The U.N.'s credibility would be destroyed if no action was taken
[/quote]
Muhahahahaha .... what an ass!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Azkar Choudhry: *
and look at that big loser Tony trying to justify his action in front of the MPs ... And I quote:
Muhahahahaha .... what an ass!
[/QUOTE]
Once a gadha then a bigger gadha.
It would only be "relevant" if it would back "any" US resolution, otherwise UN is a "useless" bunch.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Once a gadha then a bigger gadha.
[/QUOTE]
haha:D
Anyone seen/heard Kofi Annan around recently ? Or is he hiding in the UN hq. The US/UK should know quite well that 1441 didn't provide any authorization of military force - that is precisely why both spent a number of weeks and expended a large amount of effort in trying to coerce other countries to accept their version of a second Resolution. It is amazing how we are now hearing that countries such as France have destroyed the credibility of the UN. It would be funny if it was not so idiotically sad.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
It would only be "relevant" if it would back "any" US resolution, otherwise UN is a "useless" bunch.
[/QUOTE]
Well I think all other states can say the same from now on.
The UN has never been anything more then a organisation set up to justify US military actions abroad. And even then sometimes, the US has only remembered it as an afterthought. As during the Somalia issue.
It has always been the case, that any action the US partakes in, is only carried out if it benefits them. One only has to look to the Suez crisis to see this.
What is happening in Iraq IS unilateral action. Look at the standings of the main "superpowers". USA and Britain on one side. Germany, France, China, Russia on the other. If no consensus exists between the major powers what hope is there.
Resolutions are only acted upon if it suits the US, otherwise they are conveniently forgotten.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if as a result of the present crisies occuring; the existence of the United Nations and/or NATO is put into question. If resolutions aren't adhered to, as someone said early why keep them.
US will not cede control of Iraq to UN
interesting. so after the war, UN won’t have a significant say in the set-up and running of iraq.
**
The United States will not cede control of Iraq to the United Nations if and when it overthrows President Saddam Hussein, Secretary of State Colin Powell said today…
**
you can read the whole story here.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3300776&thesection=news&thesubsection=world
For the real reasons behind the aggression against Iraq just read what was planned from 1992 onwards. So all this WMD etc. is just hogwash.
"Origins of Regime Change in Iraq
Proliferation Brief, Volume 6, Number 5
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
…
The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when “collective action cannot be orchestrated.” The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.
Links to Likud
In 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, now administration officials, joined in a report to the newly elected Likud government in Israel calling for “a clean break” with the policies of negotiating with the Palestinians and trading land for peace. They said “Israel can shape its strategic environment…by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq…Iraq’s future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly.” They called for “reestablishing the principle of preemption.”
In 1998, 18 prominent conservatives wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to “aim at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.” Most of these experts are now officials in the administration, including Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.
…"
http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationID=1214
US has destroyed the UN not that it had any credibility anyway but now its official..and on top of that if they do not achieve their objectives in Iraq they really are in a big mess.
That’s as disgusting as it is a tragedy. These are Powell’s words: “We didn’t take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future.” (My emphasis)
So much for Operation Iraq Liberation. 
Why would it? It would be silly from US perspective to hand Iraq over to UN. After disregarding UN and invading Iraq, does it make sense to "reconsider" UN? Especially when it comes to "reap the reward"????
Not till it has installed a puppet government - remeber Afghanistan.
i wonder what Kofi Annan's response to this will be (if he can be bothered to give a response).
I thought UN was null and void by now....