Sign in to follow this  
Guest SoarPics

The U.N. and War on Terrorism

Recommended Posts

The BBC reported today the following:"United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan says the war against international terrorism can be legitimate only if approved by the Security Council. Mr Annan told the BBC that "when one is trying to deal with a broader threat to international peace and security, there is no alternative but to go through the [uN] Council". The article went on to say:"The UN Secretary General acknowledged that the UN Charter gave individual countries the right to self-defence. "But, to contain the terrorists, I submit that you need that essential international co-operation to make it effective," Mr Annan said in the BBC interview."With REASONED and MATURE discussion, what is your opinion of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Seems to me that Mr. Annan is simply stating the obvious. The important issue is whether or not the Bush Administration is paying attention. In late 1991 the first Bush Administration worked hard to build a world consensus for action against Saddam. I can't shake the feeling that the current administration is taking such an international consensus for granted. This clearly would be a mistake.On the flip side, it has become increasingly difficult to take the United Nations seriously. The organization has repeatedly shown itself to be lacking in drive and fortitude to act in the best interests of the international community. They do well to help underdeveloped nations in times of national emergency, whether natural or man-made, but beyond that the body lacks any real punitive powers or mettle that can make a difference.At any rate, tomorrow will be a bench mark day for the Bush Administration. Mr. Annan's announcement today seems to throw down a challenge to President Bush... as if the Secretary General is reminding him that the U.N Security Council should not be ignored. Which might be a wise political path for the President to follow.It is always better to have too many friends rather than too few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,Each and every country has an inherant right to self-defence, and to appropriately act to prevent tragedies.With that, I wholeheartedly disagree that we as a nation, (The UNited States of America), has to seek the permission of anyone to defend our country.So kofi syas we are illegitimate if we go on our own.I would like to know his definition of coalition.We already have the following on board with regards to Iraq, and that seems to be coalition enough for me.United States of AmericaUnited KingdomItalySpainQatarBahrainNorwayAnd I'm sure there are more, and there will be more tomorrow. The best definition of what is wrong with the UN is Syria and Lybia having the roles they have today.One other thing, The UN has already endorsed numerous resolutions for the United States to act without any further resolutions. SO if we get them great, if not, so be it.With....Against.... Like Santa Claus, we'll just keep making the list and checking it twice.Regards,Joehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I go again. Becoming a controversial figure in the AVSIM Forum.The UN is out of control. Since when does our constitution say that the UN decides when to send me to combat. If it were up to the UN, I would be handing out food in the balkins because Europe is to militarily week to do it themselves. I work for the President of the United States, The Congress of the United States, and the People of the United States. I do not work for some bogus world government. Obviously the UN is too stupid to learn from history. This is exacty why terrorist don't respect us. They think we are week. We constantly show them that we are not willing to fight. Today seemed like a day when we all wanted to find closure. Every one today was sad. I am sad too. But I am more angry than sad. Today reaffirmed my desire to avenge my countrymen. Today made me angry. I will always be angry. This country didn't free the world from tyrany in WWII because we felt sorry for our selves. We did it because we were angry. Today refocused me on my mission. Myself and every other American soldier will not rest, until the people of this country feel safe. UN or not. Captain DaveP.S. I love watching Europe bash us as they eat at McDonald's and drink Coke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The UN Secretary General acknowledged that the UN Charter gave individual countries the right to self-defence."And I say we should exercise that right. It is not a matter of if, but when we and others will be attacked again by this fanatical group.Paulhttp://www.advdigitalmedia.com/sig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA and most other countries continually exercise this right (always have and will). So what's exactly your point? Which fanatical group exactly? Will fanatical groups cease to exist? And if, how and why?Was USA attacked by another sovereign country like Iraq or Afghanistan on 11 Sep 01 or by a bunch of (admittedly dangerous) loonies? (BTW: OBL is(/was?) Saudi and not Iraqi). Where is the proof it was OBL? How does a country enter into war with a group of loonies? By decleration of war? And if, why are its prisoners not granted the POW-status according to the Geneva convention? Questions over questions and there are many more.GreetingsStephanalways glad to get world politics explained by indifferent fanatics>"The UN Secretary General acknowledged that the UN Charter >gave individual countries the right to self-defence." >>And I say we should exercise that right. >>It is not a matter of if, but when we and others will be >attacked again by this fanatical group. >>>>Paul >>http://www.advdigitalmedia.com/sig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On September 11, 2001 I adopted a motto, my own motto I believe. It stated "September 11, 2001...Victory In All We Do!" My wish was to state that we should seek victory in ALL our endevours. The liberation of Afghanistan was a tremendous victory for the US, and for the Afghanistan people. Our actions were just. There was no moral equivication. Note the few protests prior to the war, but once it started, and everyone saw just what horrors the Afghanistan people suffered at the hands of the despotic Tallisban, those protests quickly stopped. The end result was a huge, world-wide coalition which strongly supported and aided our actions in Afghanistan.Now we seek to liberate Iraq, but we do not carry that coalition. We have not made the effort to build that coalition. While our cause is equally as just, for the Iraqi's are every bit as oppressed as the Afghanistan people, it will fall on deaf ears if we do not build a strong concencous. In my opinion, instead of spending all this time in coordinated, orchistrated media leaks, hinting to unilateral action, our govt. would be well advised to spend that energy in building a strong case for the world community. Then, and only then can we take a moral stand against the evil that is truly Saddam.If we choose to attack Iraq alone I fear we are doomed to failure. We may win the war, but we will not win the battle. On the other hand, I fully appreciate the threat that Iraq is. To us, to the world. But as much as I would like to see Iraq's despotic maniac of a leader leave the planet, I will not accept vigilantism, no more than I would accept it against a murderer in my own town. I weep no tears for Saddam. He is evil incarnite. But law is law, and if we act out of vengance, not law...then we are no better than he is.Today I pray for the victims of September 11. For the people of this planet who suffer under the rule of tyrnany and despotism. For those who's only knowledge is fear. I pray the world may come together, united as one, in goodness and strength against an evil that has lived as long as time. We cannot defeat that kind of force by ourselves, this United States...but as the leader of the Free World, and as a symbol to all peoples of this planet, together, one peoples, one will, we can do anything.Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the 1930s Churchill kept pointing to a gathering threat, but his was a lone voice and he was shouted down. But on May 10th, 1940--months after war had already been declared--the King sent for him, and he became Prime Minister. Mr. Chamberlain's approach was different to Mr. Churchill's though, and he proudly held up a piece of paper after getting off the plane that returned him from Germany. He was glad to offer what everyone then and today would doubtless prefer, "Peace in our time"....FDR had to face vocal opposition to American involvement in WWII, an opposition that Mr. Lindbergh championed.And Mr. Bush faced opposition and reservations from many in the Democratic Party when the Gulf War was being debated. After the fighting was over, I remember seeing a "Winners and Losers" segment in Time magazine; referring to the Democrats, the caption read "Yikes." Many of them having opposed the conflict, they were not in a very good situation politically when it was all over.Just tonight it was pointed out in a report by Fox News that there was considerable doubt in some quarters in America after September 2001 about the ability of the US to fight a war in Afghanistan.So opposition, and a general turning away to look in the other direction and avoid confronting reality, is to be expected, especially from the usual suspects. And I would certainly put the UN and many Euros in that category. Of course, when recalling the recent events in the Balkans--from concentration camps to mass killings, even with UN "peacekeepers" on hand--there's an enormous gap in credibility from these quarters. And that's a diplomatic way of putting it.I think the US needs to provide what specific information it can without compromising its intelligence-gathering ability. It should try to persuade the opposition, just as Mr. Bush will try to do at the UN later today, but it should in no way be swayed by their opposition. Resolve is not the hallmark of many politicians, though this administration is up to the task.For anyone who's interested, while it's not an exact parallel to the current threat posed by Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons, there's a fine film about the Cuban Missile Crisis available now on DVD called "Thirteen Days" (referring to the length of the crisis in October 1962). I saw it last Saturday and was pretty impressed--then the next day on NBC's "Meet The Press" program the actual UN confrontation between the US and Soviet ambassadors in 1962 was shown during the Dick Cheney interview. I'd just seen the movie version the night before.The film was very interesting as it showed how the American officials weighed various options and grappled with all kinds of factors. One thing was clear: nukes 90 miles off Florida's coast were not to be allowed. I don't remember any serious discussion of international opposition to American actions though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid that we already have the UN's approval to do whatever we want to in Iraq. It is clearly spelled out that Iraq must comply with the UN inspectors and Iraq also agreed to this at the end of the war. Braun was correct the law is the law and we already have the law on our side by the UN'S and Iraq's own admission. Too many seem to forget recent history and the facts and are driven by public opinion which is driven by the media all too often. I wonder what would have happened if a lone country would have stood up to a really bad dude before he became "all powerful"? I am not saying that Sadam is a really bad dude but there are some parallels, for example a really bad dude openly said that he was building up his military to take over Europe and more, Sadam has said that he is trying to build his arsenal and has shown his agression toward his neighbors and enemies. a really bad dude tested weapons on his own people, so does Sadam, and the list goes on. Can you imagine what might have happened if a really bad dude had a nuke, or what about Sadam? It has been proven time and again that the right decision may not be the popular decision, for example I think that only 30 percent of Americans thought that we should declare out independence and kick the British out. How many would now say that decision was a bad one? I am afraid that sometimes we must procede with what is right whether or not everyone agrees. I think that you would be hard pressed to find many who do not think that Sadam is a threat, why then is it hard to find people that want to remove that threat? Finally I do not understand why we, the most free country in the world must bow to an organization that is full of the puppets of dictators and oppresive governments when they have already given consent to enforce the resolutions stating that Iraq must comply with inspections. What is this a game of "Mother May I"?Philip Olson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such a hot topic around the world at the moment, I just have to pass comment.Last night I watched the documentary "911", a film which was mean`t to be about the life of a rookie fire fighter in one of New Yorks oldest fire houses. Of course it ended up being a documentary about the WTC attacks as seen through the eyes of two French film makers, I still can not comprehend the magnitude of what actually happened - just surreal, sickening, horrific - words can not describe how I feel.Personally I believe the UN is a waste of time, the UN is weak and too left wing for my liking - it needs change.I strongly believe Saddam "needs" to be taken out, he is nothing short of evil. Does or does he not sponsor Palistinian families whose son or daughter commit suicide bombings in Israel ?, I believe US$10,000.00 is paid to each family for every sondaughter who succeeds in suicide bombing.It is well known he is trying to aquire nuclear capabilities - but what for ?, to protect himself ?, I think if you believe that then you will believe Bin Laden is actually quite a nice guy who just needs a little counseling to come right.For those opposed to an invasion and you get your way, keep your head firmly in the sand - and when you finally pull it out, don`t start crying when you see the end result of your short sightedness.I`m not an American, just someone who enjoys my freedom - and If it were`nt for America I`d be slaving in rice patty fields for the Japanese down here in the South Pacific.Just my opinion of course.AndyCentre right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just studied the text of the speech President Bush made to the U.N. He clearly followed the right path. He presented a decade of evidence against the Iraqi regime, and he made it quite clear that the worlds' civilized nations cannot continue to ignore the threat.Now the real work begins.For the U.S. to move unilaterally against the corrupt Iraqi regime at this point in time would be a mistake, even if they do have the support of prior U.N. resolutions. The Bush administration should now focus on generating a strong consensus of action. The coalition of 1991 fell prey to the belief that a negotiated settlement with the Iraqi regime was the best option. Clearly, this mistake won't happen again. Next time the world moves to end the tyranny, Saddam and his followers will be picking sand out of their teeth and butts. So be it. But without a strong coalition, for the U.S. to take unilateral action now will only present America as a bully. And there are enough people in the world who believe that already. No sense taking action that would perpetuate such thoughts.If the effort is made to solidify a strong coalition, then the world can kick Saddam's butt harder and farther, which is the least we can do for him. The time will come, but we must first make every effort to move the world's civilized peoples to a common ground against the Iraqi tyranny. Failing this (which would surprise few), then the U.S. can and should act to remove the threat.The art of the hunt has its foundation in the science of patience and planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Blair made a speech to the Trades Unions Congress on Tuesday, September 10. The text of that speech is available on the BBC web site if you do a bit of digging. One of the Boston NPR stations provides BBC World Service broadcasts at several points during its broadcast day and I was able to hear a portion of this speech. One of the most important quotes from that speech says:"The challenge to all in the UN is this: the UN must be the way to resolve the threat from Saddam not avoid it."'Nuf said. If Mr. Annan wishes the UN to be taken seriously, then it is time for the UN to enforce its collective will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most posters that something must be done about Iraq, if not now, certainly in the not too distant future. Like many Americans, I am not really concerned with the opinions of the rest of the world. While the US has made its mistake in foreign policies, history shows the Pax Americana has generally been in the interests of what is right and good for the civilized world.Now, the question that must be answered is, what happens after Saddam is gone? My concern with present policy is that there seems to be no plan for the end game. Like chess, power politics requires such a plan for success. If the administration has a viable plan, we need some evidence of its existance. But, if there is chaos in the wake of Saddam, the world may be in no safer situation. Should Iraq disintegrate, what does that do to Iran, perhaps strengthen its hand, in the region? Like Iraq, Iran is part of the Axis of Evil.There is one other problem in the region that must be addressed, and that is Saudi Arabia. This is a country ruled by religious zealots, though as Wm Safire's NYT column today points out, there is hope that a moderate wing of the al Saud family may be in a position to tip the scales toward ideological and religious moderation. But, for now, let us not forget that Saudi Arabia is a country that allows no open practises of its two sister monotheistic faiths, still treats women as subjects, not equals, is home to 15 of the 19 9-11 killers and has refused to fully cooperate with the United States, even where American interests hve been threatened and Americans killed. The day will come when we are as a world, no longer so dependent on oil, Arab or otherwise. I think the West will be much better off then, for environmental as well as political reasons. Sherman KaplanHighland Park IL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this