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 (969 Views)
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
So it would seem that Bush was not calling the UN irrelevent, but was instead using rhetoric.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
So, is the UN still irrelevant?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Apparently Bush thinks so, he asked for thier help in democratizing Iraq.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Have you bothered reading some of the posts in here, or are your undies in a wad over something?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Nope, just checked the underwear, no wads. I don't know what you mean by that. You'll have to forgive me, I just started posting on this site again Friday afternoon, so I have some catching up to do. I see though you're as pleasant as ever. :kiss:
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
We try to get along here, but your flaming posts are just inciteful.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Did I flame someone? :huh:

If I did, I sincerely apologize, I am just being a little sarcastic, I understand how it could be taken the wrong way, not everyone gets me. :shrug:

Admiral, I think you got me all wrong. We can disagree and still have some fun, I just thought I would point out that Bush has "flip-flopped" on the UN in this instance. We don't have to agree, but we can be civil. :yes:
Offline | Profile ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
The UN has continualy proved its irrelevancy during the Iraq siruation.

Iraq violates 11 UN resolutions, and therefor the terms of the ceasefire,and the UN does what?

The UN headquarters in Bagdad gets bombed and the UN shows its resolve to remain a player in the peace process how?

THe UN has refused to reenter Iraq becuase it is too unsafe, Proving the UN to be a seroius power in the region how?

The UN puts Libya and Syria in charge of the Human rights and anti sematism commitees. This proves that the UN is reelvent, in what way?

If Bush has gone to the UN for assistance, it is more of a gesture to disprove claims of western imperialism than due to any real worth of the organisation. Most likely Bush went there at the behest of his state department, and the Iraqi governing council.

ANOVA





Offline | Profile ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

I'm not a real big fan of the UN. International concensus is so hard - and compromise is such a risky, vulnerable proposition. It is odd to see the President engage the UN in the 'situation' in Iraq now - quite a contrast to the President's attitude toward the UN in late 2002.

I've listened with incredulous disgust as the President has watered-down his "battle-cry" about Iraq posing a serious threat to the security of the United States (mushroom cloud) to smugly saying that he never meant that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States - but that the war is justified at any rate because Saddam Hussein was a bad leader. I've experienced the same bewilderment hearing the Bush administration officials promising that Iraqi citizens would greet our soldiers with flowers and candy to flippantly saying that at least our soldiers engaged in battle in Baghdad and not in Boston - - What? These clowns probably have to bite their tongues to keep from laughing as they spew this kind of bs.

We haven't heard the President campaign under the "plain spoken man" banner in this election - I don't think we'll hear more about the "compassionate conservative" bs, either. We all know that the President won't be able to come up with anything that he'd do differently, either. It must be nice to be so perfect.

Latest Washington Post poll has Ralph Nader at 6% - I think the 6% is probably higher than the true level of nationwide support, but I'm pleased nonetheless. Go Nader!
^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
benetil
Apr 20 2004, 07:15 PM
I'm not a real big fan of the UN. International concensus is so hard - and compromise is such a risky, vulnerable proposition. It is odd to see the President engage the UN in the 'situation' in Iraq now - quite a contrast to the President's attitude toward the UN in late 2002.

Oh, and what was Pres. Bush's attitude? And why don't you cite his exact word that give you that impression?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
benetil
Apr 20 2004, 08:15 PM
We all know that the President won't be able to come up with anything that he'd do differently, either. It must be nice to be so perfect.

I really don’t understand this sentiment, as you allow for only two possibilities and reasons. Both which paint a bad light for the president in ether direction he choice to go. You are in a sense asking a question that not matter what answer he gives he will be wrong in your eyes. If this is true why even ask the question?

Question: “President Bush, during your admonition and the war in Iraqi have you made any mistakes”

Possible answer one: “No, I relatively don’t think so, as with any venture one can find short cuts after the fact, but at the time of making each diction we made the right ones”

Options out cry form possible answer one: “Oh my god – can you really believe the arrogance of this man - It must be nice to be so perfect. – hurrrumfffff”

Possible answer two “Yes I must admit that we could have done X Y and Z differently, and had a better out come”

Options out cry form possible answer two: “There you go folks, the president him self admitted that X Y and Z where wrong, he is proving him self why he cant be our president. - Look at the incompetents in this man.”

So what ever answer he gives you will find fault. So which one does he give? The lesser of two evils. The one where it may show that he is arrogant, rather then incompetent. The one where he wont lose those who already agree with him, because in both cases the people who disagree with him wont turn and agree with him. You don’t like the way politicians do this? Don’t blame the politician, blame the fickleness of the American people.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
You guys are beginning to sound like Clinton, “well, it all depends on what the meaning of “IS” is…”

Come on folks, does the man literally have to say, “THE UN IS IRRELEVANT?. What does it mean when you stick your middle finger up to a world body like the UN? What is he trying to say?

Irrelevant is a word Bush likes to use in many scenarios but one of them happen to be in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September
12, 2002. Bush said, "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. … 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?"”

So the gauntlet is tossed.

Here the U.S. strategically links the enforcement of Security Council resolutions with the relevancy or effectiveness of the U.N. -- it's their argument's defining criterion. In other words, if the U.N. can't enforce resolutions, they're irrelevant. If they can, they’re doing the right thing. Is that too much to deduce?

Here’s a little something to chew on:

President Bush during a March 6th nationally-televised press conference on Iraq in the East Room of the White House:
"This is not only an important moment for the security of our nation, I believe it's an important moment for the Security Council, itself. And the reason I say that is because this issue has been before the Security Council - the issue of disarmament of Iraq - for 12 long years. And the fundamental question facing the Security Council is, will its words mean anything? When the Security Council speaks, will the words have merit and weight? I think its important for those words to have merit and weight, because I understand that in order to win the war against terror there must be a united effort to do so; we must work together to defeat terror."

"I'm confident the American people understand that when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so. I want…the United Nations to be effective. It's important for it to be a robust, capable body. It's important for its words to mean what they say, and as we head into the 21st century…when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."

I didn’t see the word “irrelevant” once.

Just my opinion :)
Offline | Profile ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
doctortobe
Apr 19 2004, 06:33 PM
So it would seem that Bush was not calling the UN irrelevent, but was instead using rhetoric.

:hail:

well said!
Offline | Profile ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 20 2004, 04:38 PM
So, is the UN still irrelevant?

Only if they don't agree to his terms :evil1:
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
Come on folks, does the man literally have to say, “THE UN IS IRRELEVANT?. What does it mean when you stick your middle finger up to a world body like the UN? What is he trying to say?


If you are going to stand there and accuse some one of flip-flopping then yes. There is a big difference between "I believe the UN IS irrelevant” and “I believe the UN MAY become irrelevant”. We aren’t asking for the definition of is, we are pointing out that there is a difference between IS and MAY in the English language. The two worlds are used to convey two different ideas.

If Bush said that the UN IS irrelevant then the Sisko would be right in saying Bush is contradicting himself

If Bush said that the UN MAY become irrelevant, his recent actions can be seen in two ways, one) Bush’s fears did not come to pass (that is acceptable) and the UN escaped the clutches of irrelevance. Or Two) Bush still fears the idea and in an attempted to make sure the UN doesn’t become irrelevant is trying to involve them. Lets not for get, he tried to involve them before the war.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus