catapult magazine

In the past debate of the UN vs the US over what to do about Iraq, I sometimes hear people say (write) that the US failed to convince the UN of the need to take quick, decisive action against Iraq. I see the problem to be mainly in the UN.

Iraq was a problem almost of Hitler/Stalin magnitude (as it relates to its thousands and thousands mass murdered—-to the smaller but no less ghastly number of young women raped/murdered by Uday or by Saddam’s professional rapists, to the thousands tortured for doing what I am doing here…engaging in normal dialogue, maybe criticism.)

And sooner or later, Saddam would have put out evil in t he form of missiles loaded with—-who knows what—-against Israel, against another Arab nation that crossed it, and (if they would get long range technology) even against their ancient foe, Europe. (Some terrorists or militants here & there still refer to Europe as “the Crusaders”, as did Osama in a tape where he was supporting the “socialist” i.e. Saddam.. )

Maybe you or I do not like the exact solution to Iraq presently enactedby t he US. Maybe we both wish the UN had also helped “put the hammer” on Iraq.

SO WHY CAN’T THE UN RECOGNIZE THE BLATANT, OVER THE TOP DICTATORS EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE TROUNCED UN RESOLUTIONS MANY A TIME???

EVEN WHEN THE MASS MURDERER HAS STEPPED OVER MANY A LINE THE UN HAS DRAWN IN THE SAND???

Maybe the UN doesn’t know how to tell a mass murdering over- the-top dictator from—-one of its own members???

My suggestion perhaps comes too late:

Only those nations which fit in the general confines of the Declaration of Human Rights are allowed to vote & make decisions and serve on human rights committees or on any committees.

Any nation blatantly violating the Declaration loses its vote; committee seats.

In Indiana early in the 20th Century, many politicians wre"in bed" with t he KKK. Shall we say that human rights enforcement for those targeted by the KKK during that era were less than fair? Perhaps almost nonexistent?

So it is with the UN.

If a crisis does not step on the toes of any major human rights violater (Sudan comes to mind) yes, the UN can do a great job.

Any other ways to reform the UN???

True. Perhaps the only hope for the UN is a visit by hostile martian cultures. It’s hard to unite without a tangible enemy.

the u.n. needs teeth and not a dull set of chompers either; maybe a set of claws to go with. as it is the u.n. seems to me to be a wine gummed baby who keeps balling about how everbody isn’t playing nice, because it must rely on the voluntary compliance of member nations. the debacle of the oil-for-food program comes to mind; oil companies forced to bribe iraqi officials to buy oil – the iraqi officials pocketing the bribes and still large sections of the iraqi people were inadequately supplied with food. moreover, the u.n. officials that ran the oil-for-food program knew about the bribery but didn’t have the power to do anything about it.

grant is onto something with the bit about nationalism. the ironic thing is that if the u.n. didn’t have the backing of the u.k. or for that matter the u.s. it would be little better than the league of nations. it is the very members that dan railed against that give the u.n. the power- as little as that is- that it currently has. granted that doesn’t mean the u.s. has the right to side step the u.n. or make it an extension of u.s. policy, but what is the u.n. to do when one of its biggest powers sees it as an obstacle to jump over and if that doesn’t work bowl it over. the u.n. real has no way to punish the u.s. besides a strongly worded rebuke- ouch, that’s gotta hurt. ;)

just as a thought; a piece of speculation – suppose that the u.s. hadn’t ignored the u.n. and not invaded iraq; instead bush behaved calmly (pause for a laugh), heeded u.n. policy, continued on with the weapons inspections, and didn’t insult or alienate most of the u.s.’ european allies- what do you suppose would have happened?

Looking at this post today (the UN comments) I see some values here:

Nationalism is considered bad (by some).

My question: Why?

Diversity (undefined) seems to be important. What kind of diversity? Diversity of race? (No problem here. “He (Jesus) hath made of all races…one blood.”)

Diversity of values, ideas? Ah, there one must distinguish between the smaller style differences between cultures, nations and between major values.

I subscribe to the belief that there is a general moral law in the universe. Thus, the UN looks worse than incompetent.

Maybe how one views the UN, how one defines the word “diversity”, and how one views the question of "Are there moral absolutes or a different brand of “truth”…all depend on what college, major, professor one had.

The ultumate question is “How do I test all my values & assumptions to make sure they are in alighment with reality?”

For a supporter of this adminstration to criticise the UN for not dealing effectively with Iraq, is to point out the speck in the other’s eye with a log in your own. If you want to see incompetence, look at Iraq today. The New York Times today reported that corruption continues at very high levels throughout the current adminstration in Iraq, praticularly as it relates to how contracts are awarded. The UN apparently does not have a monopoly on incompetence and inefficiency.

Wouldn’t it be nice if it were the UN making a mess of things in Iraq right now rather than the Americans? That way Republicans could get back to criticising expensive ineffective international military operations, rather than defending them. I prefer the old Republicans who could care less about the world and just wanted to cut taxes.