October 9, 2002

5:24 PM

"And due to the flagrant violations of U.N. resolutions, we now order Israel, Turkey, Morocco, and most every other country to bow before us..." Otherwise known as 'things George Bush overlooked when planning his Cincinnati speech.' Numerous UN resolutions have been disregarded and have gone unpunished-Israel being one of the most serious violators. Who else believes that their most hard-assed university professors would fail them for using the rather weak, subjective arguments that have been popping up in political speeches lately?
posted by tgrundke (24 comments total)

Are they developing chemical weapons for the purpose of killing masses of people, and seriously considering their use? Are they killing large numbers of their own people?
posted by aaronshaf at 5:46 PM on October 9, 2002

What does it matter if the civilians killed are 'their own' [Israeli], or not [Palestinian]? I don't have a lot of confidence in Turkey's attachment to Human Rights, and have less faith in wtf Israel thinks it is up to when it fires missiles - on more than one occasion - into apartment blocks.

This thread is doomed to go all I/P on us: none of us, I'm sure, condone murder [for the record: I see no moral distinction between i) mass murder caused by Hamas's sui/homicide volunteers, & ii) mass murder caused by an army with overwhelming hardware and troops.

Murderers, the lot of them.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:59 PM on October 9, 2002

Uhm, I guess the logic of this article works just fine if you completely ignore the fact that Iraq signed an agreement to adhere to the provisions in the resolutions cited by Bush. The resolutions cited in the article were drafted by the Security Council as recommendations and have never been signed by the countries in question.

That leaves us with Iraq not making good on their own promises and a bunch of other countries ignoring requests made upon them by others.

<sarcasm>There is just an ever so slight difference there...</sarcasm>
posted by RevGreg at 6:10 PM on October 9, 2002

For some reason, I got stuck thinking you said "weak, subjunctive arguments" in the post. I thought this was going to be about grammar, and I was all excited.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 6:16 PM on October 9, 2002

RevGreg, I'm justa wondren, isn't that the same kinda relativism that left such a bad taste in German mouths lo around 1920? You know, do as we say, not as we do? After all, Iraq (Saddam) agreed to the UNSC resolutions under no coersion or distress, I'm sure.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:17 PM on October 9, 2002

So RevGreg, are you saying that UN Security Council Resolutions are irrelevant unless the country they are directed at signs them?
posted by mikhail at 6:22 PM on October 9, 2002

RJ Reynolds, you make dreamy comments.
posted by swerdloff at 6:29 PM on October 9, 2002

The difference, according to Bush, is Saddam himself. Thus the repeated attempts to associate Saddam and Sept. 11 during the speech, despite the lack of any evidence.

Throughout his speech, Bush tried to weave the two stories together. He argued that Iraq was entangled with al-Qaida and that Sept. 11 revealed new dangers in Iraq that required military action. He tried to show, as he has for months, that war in Iraq would be part of the war on terror. Instead, he confirmed the opposite. If Bush had evidence linking the two wars, this was his last plausible chance to divulge it. He didn't. It's clear that the two stories are objectively unrelated. The link between them is subjective: The events of Sept. 11 lowered our standards for using force.

posted by homunculus at 6:41 PM on October 9, 2002

The resolutions cited in the article were drafted by the Security Council as recommendations and have never been signed by the countries in question.

Security Council resolutions are supposed to be binding, though. These aren't draft resolutions, as you seem to suggest; they are resolutions that have been affirmed by a majority of the Security Council, with no dissenting votes from any permanent member. There's nothing in international law about countries that are subjects of resolutions "signing" those resolutions. You might be thinking of the difference between General Assembly resolutions, which are more like "recommendations", and the binding Security Council resolutions.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:42 PM on October 9, 2002

The UN is a waste product. Give us a national body consisting of democracies! How many does that come to? Oh, well, sell the UN building and buy a ranch house instead.
posted by Postroad at 6:49 PM on October 9, 2002

How many does that come to?

None, by my own quirky reckoning, as I have always thought of it as 'consenting oligarchy' instead.<
posted by carter at 7:06 PM on October 9, 2002

Give us a national body consisting of democracies!

How would such a body be different from the systems of alliances that led to WWI? It would be the Democracies vs. the rest of the world. The inclusiveness of the UN is designed to stymie the formation of such systems of alliances and to provide a forum for nations to work out their differences peaceably, regardless of political system.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:07 PM on October 9, 2002

353 (1974) Turkey
Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus.

354 (1974) Turkey
Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353.

360 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus "without delay."

364 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

367 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

370 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

391 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

401 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

414 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

422 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

440 (1978) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

Remind me again why so many consider the UN to be an ineffectual joke?
posted by oissubke at 7:28 PM on October 9, 2002

Remind me again why so many consider the UN to be an ineffectual joke?

Which is exactly why the U.S. needs to start using its military might to put some force behind those resolutions. Look out, Turkey!

Look, when NATO gets in the way, the UN is ineffectual. NATO has the guns and the bombs and the political clout, so ain't nobody going to be marching into Turkey anytime soon. Same goes for Israel. These examples, however, do not tell the whole story. The UN has effected successful interventions, managed successful sanctions regimes, and organized needed humanitarian relief programs. Any organization looks bad if you point to only its failures. (The U.S. is a military weakling; after all, they were beaten by Vietnam! Have you seen Windows 3.1? What a piece of shit; Microsoft is going down! Man, the Yankees were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs this year: looks like it's time to start counting them out! Et cetera.)

Also, note that there are about 100 disregarded resolutions, out of a total of about 1500. That means that 1400 resolutions have achieved compliance. A pretty good record, especially for a field as tricky as international diplomacy. Factor in the number of standing disregarded resolutions that are repeats (as oissubke so kindly points out), and the record starts to look even better.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:50 PM on October 9, 2002

It must be obvious to anyone who can think that the charges against the Libyans are true.

In the mind of Jesse Jackson, it's always Condoleeza Rice's fault. In 1938, George Orwell wrote, "The handwringing treason of the Saddamphiles is little more than moral equivalence."

Instead of constructing arguments based on logic, the libs assume that whatever they want to be true must be. "You know, Iraqis haven't really gotten along with Islamic fundamentalists ever since hundreds of thousands got killed fighting them in the 1980s," says Albert Gore, Jr.

George Orwell has observed, "rumormongers mislead everything and listen to nothing."

On Hardball, Albert Gore engaged in outrageously bitter poison that most Americans found shocking. "We might want to err on the side of not starting World War III," were the words. Oh? Oh? Really? If so, then why has Paul Wolfowitz's call for movement been so successful? For the love of Christ, do the leftoids know no shame? Oh? Really? Considering the circumstances, this is blatantly deceitful and cheap. I suppose he'd rather invite the Iraqis over and make love. But this is standard political debate for the defeatist bigots of the liberal elite, who respond to completely logical arguments with irrational name-calling.

Politics are allowed in politics, but there are limits, and there is a pale, and Jimmy Carter has managed to prevaricate those limits, and impose beyond that pale.
posted by inksyndicate at 8:06 PM on October 9, 2002

Testify!
posted by uncanny hengeman at 8:37 PM on October 9, 2002

mr_roboto...

The problem is that most of the world, US included, doesn't believe in the concept of "international law". The UN is serving is purpose by helping organize humanitarian aid in the aftermath of war and providing a location for international dialogue, even among hostiles. It does this well.

It was never meant to carry out orders. It never will carry out orders. One needs power (real "sticks and stones" power), even if that power is never used (as nuclear parity has shown us that it's sometimes better unused) to accomplish orders.

The edict on Saddam is inherently different. It was organized by the UN as an end-of-war treaty. A peace treaty, by its very nature, implies that it must be followed, lest there be consequences. The US is currently arguing, along with the UK and a few others, that because of the nature of the Iraqi deal, there need to be consequences for not following.

It's as if there were a law against stealing, but the punishment would be that people would ask you not to steal again. It stops some people, sure. But not all. For those, you need the threat of punishment. Simply by knowing the option of consequences, Saddam will follow the UN edict that he signed.

That's why we need stronger resolutions. That's why this article has nothing to do with the Iraqi situation.
posted by Kevs at 8:46 PM on October 9, 2002

inksyndicate: huh? We should err on the side of starting WWIII? The mind of Jesse Jackson? Leftoids? Iraqi's making love? What in God's name are you talking about?

On a side note: IMO When somebody quotes Orwell, it's like somebody quoting Nietzsche: out of context and valued more for the rhetorical effect then the actual meaning.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:06 AM on October 10, 2002

elwood check out his site b4 you comment.
posted by chaz at 12:34 AM on October 10, 2002

University professors would undoubtedly fail them for not being socialist enough.
posted by dagny at 12:35 AM on October 10, 2002

aaronshaf to put it bluntly sir that is a bull-shit argument and you know it, so pathetically weak it is frankly a joke passing for the moral high ground.
posted by johnnyboy at 3:38 AM on October 10, 2002

I guess we only need to enforce the resolutions that apply to countries that have vast quantities of oil!
posted by JonnyX at 3:43 AM on October 10, 2002

Remind me again why so many consider the UN to be an ineffectual joke?

- smallpox eradicated from the wild 1979.
posted by johnnyboy at 3:46 AM on October 10, 2002

chaz: I hit inksyndicate's homepage, but I still have no idea what to make of his comments. I now assume he's nuts.
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:23 PM on October 10, 2002