davidmc said:
Two questions for U:
Are U.N. Security Resolutions binding and therefore enforceable
and if not:
Why does the U.N. exist
Feel free to reminisce/defend SH if you feel so inclined
Responses:
1) Binding = "Yes". Enforceable = "By whose standards?" The same coalition that saw invasion as the only solution to enforcing UN Security Council Resolutions in the case of Iraq, apparently did not feel the same solution was applicable with Israel's long=term refusal to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions regarding its behaviour. Diff'ent strokes for diff'ent folks? Are you so sure that the continuing occupation is really about transgressions of UN Security Council Resolutions?
2) The UN exists so that there is an acceptable means for the Nations of the World to place these issues on the table. It is not a policeman. What it doesn't do (eg engage in warfare) is just as important as what it does do (engage in peacekeeping / observation programmes, and a very large number of operations to improve the lot of the unspoken masses (eg Decade of Water programme which, through recognising how debilitating the task of carrying water supplies is for those who do not have ready access to such, is funding a large effort to make local supplies available to the masses, or the WHO's vaccination campaigns here in Africa, or UNHCR efforts to provide basic supplies and administrative assistance to refugees, or...). Unfortunately, these issues are not very newsworthy, so many people only get to see what they may describe as the toothless monster that is the UN. The UN was never meant to have teeth. It is (in my opinion) misguided to berate it for not doing a task for which it was never intended.
I do not, and never have, defended Saddam Hussein. He is, in my eyes, a piece of shite. I have refugee friends who suffered under him in the 1980's, one of whom had his leg shattered during a frontline confrontation with the Iranians, where he, as an Assyrian, was served up as canon-fodder. At that time, the very same Nations that form the current coalition, held Saddam up to be wonderful voice of reason (property) in a troubled Middle-East. He was a piece of shite then, and he's a piece of shite now.
Some questions for you, David:
1)Was a full scale (2nd) invasion of Iraq the only way that he could be dealt with? Many Nations did not appear to feel that it was warranted, despite the lobbying that was done to raise support.
2)With the collective intelligence available to the mightiest miltary forces of the World, could no-one see the power vacuum they were going to create by using full-scale invasion as the means of removing one (1) man? I'm just an ordinary World citizen, and I predicted it. Couldn't they see
, or didn't they care
?
Forgive me if I am (again) sceptical of the ethical basis of this invasion and occupation. I am not sceptical of the troops on the ground - I am sceptical of the political forces that put them there, and continue to keep them there. It's a little bit like a fireman finding business is slow, so engaging in a bit of fire-lighting - "Sure, charge me with arson, but you'll have to wait until I put out all these bloody fires..."
Apologies to Carrera for hijacking his thread...
