Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
UN still irrellevant?; Bush asks for irrellevant assistance
Topic Started: Apr 19 2004, 01:43 PM (966 Views)
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Apparently, Bush decided that the UN has some kind of merit as he is working with the Algerian Islamic national Brahamdi to ensure Iraqi self reliance by June 30. Or is this development irrellevant to the UN's irrellevancy? Am I misunderestimating the situation?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
When did Bush say that the UN was irrelevant? Some on this board may have, but that was never the stance the US government took.

The UN is in fact not irrelevant, the idea of the UN is most relevant. But the UN in practice is corrupt and does little to live up the idea it embodies.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Bush stated before the invasion that if the UN does not approve of action against Saddam Hussein, they will be irrellevant.

Bush: UN Must Support New Policy on Inspections in Iraq, or Become Irrelevant

(New resolution must state consequences to Iraq if it fails to comply) (580)
By Wendy Ross
Washington File White House Correspondent

Washington -- The United Nations must support a tough new inspection policy that
ensures the disarmament of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, or itself risk
becoming irrelevant, President Bush said October 3.

Seems you're mistaken dan. :whistle:
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Apr 19 2004, 04:41 PM
Bush stated before the invasion that if the UN does not approve of action against Saddam Hussein, they will be irrellevant.

Sorce?


Quote:
 

Bush: UN Must Support New Policy on Inspections in Iraq, or Become Irrelevant


Sorce?

Quote:
 
Washington -- The United Nations must support a tough new inspection policy that
ensures the disarmament of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, or itself risk
becoming irrelevant, President Bush said October 3.
Risk does not mean to be ture.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Source? How about the White House Correspondant ?

Try www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2002/october/100402.html

And I won't bother arguing semantics with you. That's a futile effort at best.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Sorry Sisko the closet thing in your link to the president saying the UN would be irrelevant is this.

Quote:
 
Washington -- The United Nations must support a tough new inspection policy that
ensures the disarmament of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, or itself risk
becoming irrelevant, President Bush said October 3.


First this is not even a direct quote form the president, so at best it is hear say. But we will take it for what it says.

Second its not semantics its the English language. Saying "the subject runs the risk of becoming irrelevant" and "The subject is irrelevant" are two Wildly diffrent statements.

And you are a teacher?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
No, I'm not. If you want a direct quote, I can find it for you. The "hearsay" comes from the U.S. Embassy archives website, but you can dismiss it if it makes you feel better.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
No, I didn’t dismiss it - read what I wrote. "But we will take it for what it says" Which means for right now I wont argue the point.

This was the point I was making.

Quote:
 
Second its not semantics its the English language. Saying "the subject runs the risk of becoming irrelevant" and "The subject is irrelevant" are two Wildly diffrent statements.


But if you wish to dismiss it - that’s your choice.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Posted on Tue, Apr. 13, 2004



U.N. Chief Juggling Far-Flung Commitments


EDITH M. LEDERER

Associated Press


UNITED NATIONS - From Iraq and East Timor
to Cyprus, Haiti and more than a half-dozen African countries, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has his hands full these days.

Just over a year after President Bush warned that the United Nations would "fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant, debating society" if it didn't help him confront Saddam Hussein, the world body is involved in major missions across the globe - with Washington's blessing.

Offline | Profile ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Apr 19 2004, 05:47 PM
Posted on Tue, Apr. 13, 2004



U.N. Chief Juggling Far-Flung Commitments


EDITH M. LEDERER

Associated Press


UNITED NATIONS - From Iraq and East Timor
to Cyprus, Haiti and more than a half-dozen African countries, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has his hands full these days.

Just over a year after President Bush warned that the United Nations would "fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant, debating society" if it didn't help him confront Saddam Hussein, the world body is involved in major missions across the globe - with Washington's blessing.

what does this prove Sisko? That EDITH M. LEDERER believes that the president thinks the UN is irrelevant?

You still have no real facts, only oninion and hearsay.

You still haven’t answer my point, if we are to assume your first peace of hearsay is in fact true.

You don’t have a leg to stand on here do you?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
You're right, all I got is hearsay and onions. :rotfl:

Fine, dan, you win. This isn't a contest you know. Man, you really take yourself too seriously.

Okay, GWB said the UN "is in danger of becoming irrelevant" but now is willing to work with the Islamic national they appointed to help him leave Iraq with dignity.

Is that better? Or would you like me to rephrase it again?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
This one's from the Cincinatti Post: www.cincypost.com/2004/04/19/pink041904.html

Bush needs the U.N. after all
President Bush is known for his "straight talk," but he just threw a curve -- a flip-flop, actually.

Exhibit A is the United Nations. It hasn't changed, but Bush has.

In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Oct. 12, 2002, the president said that the world body would be "irrelevant" if it didn't approve a new war resolution.

The U.N. Security Council refused and, of course, Bush went to war anyway.

This sequence of events delighted neoconservatives in the administration. For example, Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, wrote on March 22, 2003, just as the Iraq war was beginning, "Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony he will take the United Nations down with him."

In the minds of these neocons, the United Nations is a hotbed of anti- American and anti-Israeli feeling. And, of course, they're not entirely wrong.

But the right-wing critique of the U.N. went further. It wasn't just the world's opinion that was a problem, these critics said; another problem was the U.N. bureaucracy. And, once again, they had a point. The United Nations' Oil for Food program -- in which the U.N. served as a middleman, overseeing exports of Iraqi oil in return for selected non-embargoed imports -- has long been an ongoing scandal. For two years, the Wall Street Journal editorial page has been digging into the sordid details. An April 7 editorial described the program as "so secretively run that it seemed almost designed to facilitate the corruption that fleeced of billions of dollars in aid."

But, of course, the Journal's mission went far beyond cleaning up corruption. As the editorial explained, the problem wasn't just crooked bureaucrats, but the international organization as a whole: "The U.N. Secretariat and three of five permanent Security Council members knowingly facilitated ... Saddam's 'Oil for Palaces' program." That is, the money wasn't being used for food, but for Saddam's wasteful extravagance. And so, the Journal concluded, Iraqis should ask if they "can trust the U.N. to play a major role in the future of their country."

So it must've been a Maalox moment for the Journalists when Bush put the U.N. at the center of his Iraq policy Tuesday night.

In his opening statement, he lauded "international institutions ... for stepping up to their responsibilities." Then he added, "We're working closely with the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi ... to determine the exact form of the government that will receive sovreignty on June 30th."
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Like the whole "imminent threat" meme, Pres. Bush never claimed the United Nations was irrelevant.

In Mr. Bush's first speech where the term "irrelevant" was mentioned in relation to the UN, he said the following...
Quote:
 
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

Mr. Bush is clearly asking a rhetorical question to make light of the fact that the UN is not living up to its purpose. He's not calling the UN irrelevant.

In another speech where Pres. Bush uses the word "irrelevant"...
Quote:
 
I'm optimistic that the U.N. Security Council will rise to its responsibilities, and this time ensure enforcement of what it told Saddam Hussein he must do. See, I believe when it's all said and done, free nations will not allow the United Nations to fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society. (Applause.) I'm optimistic that free nations will show backbone and courage in the face of true threats to peace and freedom.

Again, here the President isn't calling the UN irrelevant, but in a round about way he's saying that he's not going to let the UN become irrelevant ... in essense laying the ground floor for his argument for taking out Saddam Hussein even if France and Russia wouldn't.


In short, if you're going to argue that President George W. Bush called the UN irrelevant, don't go get some quote from a reporter in a newspaper or on a web site - go to the source!
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Apr 19 2004, 05:54 PM
You're right, all I got is hearsay and onions. :rotfl:

Fine, dan, you win. This isn't a contest you know. Man, you really take yourself too seriously.

Okay, GWB said the UN "is in danger of becoming irrelevant" but now is willing to work with the Islamic national they appointed to help him leave Iraq with dignity.

Is that better? Or would you like me to rephrase it again?

On the contrary, as every one here knows I never take things that serious and am not beholden to any camp. I do like President Bush, but to tell you the truth that’s not where I am coming from in this. Its just that you are trying to make allegations, and you still have no real proof or statement to back you up. Even in your last post there is no proof that the president said he thought the UN was irrelevant. Just the opinions of the writes who interpreted that Bush meant this, and that now he is back peddling.

Just in case you still don’t understand. In order to have proof you will have to post a link to a speech or comment made by Bush him self (full with where and when he gave it) indicating that he thinks the UN is irrelevant. Then you can make the statements you are making. And I will be left with no other chose but to believe you. Any thing short of that is just not good enough, as any one can pull some op-ed peace out of there ass and use it to prove any point.

Further from where I am sitting it is you that is getting all bet out of shape because I will not capitulate to your point of view. You must understand that if you make an allegation you will have to back it up form people who will try to disprove it. There is no reason to get all huffy about it. Take some one like somerled for example, often he finds him self on the onsite side to many people here (right and left) yet he doesn’t act as you do.
Offline | Profile ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
The Sisko
Apr 19 2004, 04:41 PM
Bush stated before the invasion that if the UN does not approve of action against Saddam Hussein, they will be irrellevant.

Bush: UN Must Support New Policy on Inspections in Iraq, or Become Irrelevant

(New resolution must state consequences to Iraq if it fails to comply) (580)
By Wendy Ross
Washington File White House Correspondent

Washington -- The United Nations must support a tough new inspection policy that
ensures the disarmament of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, or itself risk
becoming irrelevant, President Bush said October 3.

Seems you're mistaken dan.   :whistle:

The Sisko, the source you are quoting was taken from statements Ari Fleischer made in his October 3, 2002 press briefing...not a direct Bush quote.


“MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in regard to the first part, I noticed there was a report on the news last night that didn't cite anybody that made that case, that the White House is impatient or the White House -- I'll just cite what Secretary Powell said this morning. Secretary Powell said that he's optimistic that we'll be able to get an agreement from the United Nations Security Council. And the President believes that it is vital for the Security Council to act and speak differently than it has over the last 10 years, and that he believes, as a result of the diplomatic efforts that are underway, that indeed will be the result. The President just could not imagine that the United Nations Security Council would become irrelevant by letting the status quo remain. "

"MR. FLEISCHER: Let me put it to you this way, Terry. I think the days of anybody the United States would do anything unilateral are over. I think it's very clear to everybody what the United States is doing, it's doing with the support of many nations around the world. The only question that remains is what role will the United Nations Security Council play? Will they be a part of this -- the President hopes so -- or will they become irrelevant -- the President hopes not. “

“MR. FLEISCHER: The President is optimistic, as Secretary Powell said he is optimistic, that at the end of the day the world will see the issue as he laid it out in New York, because the President cannot imagine the United Nations wants to make itself irrelevant.” 10-3-2002 Press Briefing


Quote:
 
In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Oct. 12, 2002, the president said that the world body would be "irrelevant" if it didn't approve a new war resolution.

Perhaps you mean September 12, 2002?

And this is what Bush actually said:

"The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" LINK
Offline | Profile ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus