WinterHome Tapestries Forum Index WinterHome Tapestries
The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. --Hubert H. Humphrey
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Who'll get the job?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    WinterHome Tapestries Forum Index -> The Secret Lounge
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Who'll get the job?
The UN
33%
 33%  [ 2 ]
The UK
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
The US
66%
 66%  [ 4 ]
Australia
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
The Iraqis
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 6

Author Message
winter
Babbler


Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Posts: 331
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:56 pm    Post subject: Who'll get the job? Reply with quote

So... Who do you think will get to "administer" Iraq until it gets "back to normal" (whatever that is!)??
_________________
[img:849c560a74]http://www.digitaltapestries.com/winter_brown_avatar.jpg[/img:849c560a74]
[color=darkblue:849c560a74]-------------
~ Winter ~[/color:849c560a74]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
winter
Babbler


Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Posts: 331
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I reckon the (insert snide observation here) UN will wrangle the job by bitching that because the US went into Iraq without their blessing that they now should be allowed to go in and clean up the US's mess up for them (what mess?) - and that France will stick its ugly great nose in demanding to be allowed the plum admin positions... I just hope the US vetos any possibility of that ever happening - tit for tat!
_________________
[img:849c560a74]http://www.digitaltapestries.com/winter_brown_avatar.jpg[/img:849c560a74]
[color=darkblue:849c560a74]-------------
~ Winter ~[/color:849c560a74]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
callan
Apprentice


Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Posts: 226
Location: Melbourne

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think the US will let the UN do anything other than dole out red cross packages. The American public won't let the French anywhere near anything to do with Government or industrial influence.

Just my 2c worth.

Ooroo
Callan
_________________
If all else fails......Hug your teddy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
winter
Babbler


Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Posts: 331
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

callan wrote:
I don't think the US will let the UN do anything other than dole out red cross packages. The American public won't let the French anywhere near anything to do with Government or industrial influence.

Just my 2c worth.

Ooroo
Callan

Frankly, I don't give a damn who gets to administer the place or who tries to sort out the political mess now that the "war" (if you could have ever called it that!) is over - as long as the [INSERT VERY RUDE WORD HERE] French don't get a look-in!! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil (snarl!)
_________________
[img:849c560a74]http://www.digitaltapestries.com/winter_brown_avatar.jpg[/img:849c560a74]
[color=darkblue:849c560a74]-------------
~ Winter ~[/color:849c560a74]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Seamus Warren
Apprentice


Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 172
Location: Dee Why Sydney NSW Australia

PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we could have a whole thread dedicated to the United Nations Debating Society and Talkathon of Tyrants. Here is an email I received yesterday from a Yank I contacted a while back in my search for the actual document signed by the Iraqi and American/Coalition Generals to cease hostilities in what I think of as the first part of the Gulf War. I still haven't found this bloody document though. I have a bit more digging to do I suppose.


Hi Seamus,

No doubt there was something the Iraqi representatives signed that agreed to the terms of 687, I've seen video of the signing in a tent in Iraq on a program on The History Channel, a US cable channel that you might also get down under. I think what is important is the Iraqis signed as representatives of their government and neither they nor the French, Russians, Syrians, and Jordanians abided by the terms of the document.

Have you folks in Australia seen the stories about the UN oil for food program that came out today? The Telegraph is reporting a UK Labor Party MP was receiving kickbacks from it, based on Iraqi intel documents. Also the NY times reported Kofi Anan personally administered the program without any accounting oversight and is refusing to open the books. The Times reports the UN got a significant commission on all sales and the sales were made to Saddam's preferred customers, the French, Syrians, etc.

A fair number of us in America have always been skeptical of the UN - there have been over 290 conflicts since it was founded and the security council has taken action in exactly three, Korea, Kosovo, and Iraq, all at US urging. The French and Russians, among others, have gone to war without seeking security council approval. It seems the UN only works to restrain good guys, not the bad. Perhaps the problem is if men are to have a common judge amongst them they must agree on a common set of ideas of what is right and wrong. Clearly that consensus does not exist in the world and never will.

Paul

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
winter
Babbler


Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Posts: 331
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seamus Warren wrote:
I think we could have a whole thread dedicated to the United Nations Debating Society and Talkathon of Tyrants. Here is an email I received yesterday from a Yank I contacted a while back in my search for the actual document signed by the Iraqi and American/Coalition Generals to cease hostilities in what I think of as the first part of the Gulf War. I still haven't found this bloody document though. I have a bit more digging to do I suppose.

? Hmmm... I'd be interested in having a look at that document, if you can find it - where/how did you hear about it?

Regarding your friends comments on the UN, below, are we talking about the United Nations per se, or just the Security Council part of it?



Seamus Warren wrote:
Hi Seamus,

No doubt there was something the Iraqi representatives signed that agreed to the terms of 687, I've seen video of the signing in a tent in Iraq on a program on The History Channel, a US cable channel that you might also get down under. I think what is important is the Iraqis signed as representatives of their government and neither they nor the French, Russians, Syrians, and Jordanians abided by the terms of the document.

Have you folks in Australia seen the stories about the UN oil for food program that came out today? The Telegraph is reporting a UK Labor Party MP was receiving kickbacks from it, based on Iraqi intel documents. Also the NY times reported Kofi Anan personally administered the program without any accounting oversight and is refusing to open the books. The Times reports the UN got a significant commission on all sales and the sales were made to Saddam's preferred customers, the French, Syrians, etc.

A fair number of us in America have always been skeptical of the UN - there have been over 290 conflicts since it was founded and the security council has taken action in exactly three, Korea, Kosovo, and Iraq, all at US urging. The French and Russians, among others, have gone to war without seeking security council approval. It seems the UN only works to restrain good guys, not the bad. Perhaps the problem is if men are to have a common judge amongst them they must agree on a common set of ideas of what is right and wrong. Clearly that consensus does not exist in the world and never will.

Paul

I fear that it is the nature of the human beast to be corruptible at the best of times, and the old saying about power and corruption a truism rather than a platitude. I'm not going to talk about the United Nations - I really don't know very much about the main neck of the hydra, I'm going to talk about the Security Council, which has featured so prominently in the media since "9/11".

From the almost hysterical way that the media, the bleating sheep-like public, and various world leaders (including some of our own, I hate to say) seem to almost deify the Security Council's pontifications and deliberations, a visitor to this planet could be forgiven for thinking that the members of the Security Council were gods, and The Security Council chambers, Mt. Olympus!

In truth they are only ordinary men and women
* who have their own agendas and their own country's best interests to follow. And this makes them so fair, unbiased, and infallible that we must kowtow to their decisions, when even a five year old can see that they are not acting in the best interests of a victimised country!

Unfortunately I don't really have a better solution to the United Nations/Security Council conundrum - you cannot rule by Committee - it's been tried before and always fails. Democracy is supposed to be "majority rule", but alas, the vocal minority always seems to have a way of getting their own way, whether by threats, bribery, or by obstructing the will of the majority.

In the most recent case, that of Iraq, I think there is really only one rational and logical solution - countries like the US, and those willing to help, should just go in and do what needs to be done, without all the preliminary stuffing around and endless, totally fruitless debates in the Security Council - all of which only served to give Saddam Hussein the precious time needed to get his weapons out of Iraq and over the border into... "another country". There's said to be several ships sailing around the Indian Ocean, loaded to the gunwales with illegal weaponry, too, but... no-one can locate them.

There's only one thing wrong with this sort of precedent - the next time a big, powerful country saw a smaller, weaker country doing something suspicious, or illegal, or that the more powerful country would stand to benefit from if they stopped the weaker country, they could just march right on in and do it - a case of "Might Makes Right"

Might doesn't make right, but if no-one is willing to go to the aid of the weaker country (because it wouldn't be in their best interests)... You end up with another Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kosovo.... whatever.

(bitterness) Yeah, a lot of good the Security Council did there, too... (/bitterness)

On the one hand, we need something like the Security Council to prevent stronger countries bullying weaker ones... But on the other hand, if the Security Council can be shown to be lazy, corrupt to the core, and totally useless, what's the point of having them at all? And now that the US has shown that the Security Council can be totally ignored, without any of their dire predictions coming to pass...

We live at the crossroads of history, my friend. The next ten years will be.... most interesting!


*are there any women on the Security Council? I would hope for the sake of my sex that no women would be stupid enough or power greedy enough to succumb!
_________________
[img:849c560a74]http://www.digitaltapestries.com/winter_brown_avatar.jpg[/img:849c560a74]
[color=darkblue:849c560a74]-------------
~ Winter ~[/color:849c560a74]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Seamus Warren
Apprentice


Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 172
Location: Dee Why Sydney NSW Australia

PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2003 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Winter wrote:
Hmmm... I'd be interested in having a look at that document, if you can find it - where/how did you hear about it?

I have been lazy of late. I should have a poke around at the Pentagon Web site for the material.

Winter wrote:
Regarding your friends comments on the UN, below, are we talking about the United Nations per se, or just the Security Council part of it?

I am critical of the UN General Assembly and of the UN Security Council, which provides the UN authorisation for war that the people of this country seemed to want (re: Newspoll stats.). I see the UN as a tool used to undermine nations like America, Israel, and even Australia to a point.

If the UN is supposed to be a Democratic body why are so many undemocratic countries like China and Syia given a Democratic right to vote at the UN?

At the moment Syria is a temporary member of the UN Security Council. It is a perverse situation that many of use have become accustomed to. We tolerate the totalitarian regimes around the world but we whine when America goes to war?

John Howard has mentioned reform of the UN. He said something about a braodening and multi-tiered approach to the Security Council but I've heard little else from Mr. Howard on the matter.

I think the whole UN should be "tiered". The Arab block for instance is basically a Dictators' club. They use the "Democratic" United Nations General Assembly to undermine the only Democratic country in the Middle East - Israel. There have been disproportionately thousands of resolutions against Israel and only something like two resolutions against the Arab Dictatorships. All I can say to those who "oh, but Israel must deserve it for being baddies" is wake up and smell the roses; get real; and commonsense is not so common! Israel has been forced into the "occupation". Israel is forced into violent response to violent Arab action. Let us try to even the scales at the UN a little bit 'eh?

What I am saying is that countries who are not democracies themselves ought not allowed to vote at the UN. That would be a first step. Here is some material I consider relevant to this matter:
The Sovereigny Con » » »

Winter wrote:
I fear that it is the nature of the human beast to be corruptible at the best of times, and the old saying about power and corruption a truism rather than a platitude. I'm not going to talk about the United Nations - I really don't know very much about the main neck of the hydra, I'm going to talk about the Security Council, which has featured so prominently in the media since "9/11".

From the almost hysterical way that the media, the bleating sheep-like public, and various world leaders (including some of our own, I hate to say) seem to almost deify the Security Council's pontifications and deliberations, a visitor to this planet could be forgiven for thinking that the members of the Security Council were gods, and The Security Council chambers, Mt. Olympus!

In truth they are only ordinary men and women who have their own agendas and their own country's best interests to follow. And this makes them so fair, unbiased, and infallible that we must kowtow to their decisions, when even a five year old can see that they are not acting in the best interests of a victimised country!

I just wish more people were aware of this. They hold the UN it too high esteem and forget about national sovereigty.

Winter wrote:
Unfortunately I don't really have a better solution to the United Nations/Security Council conundrum - you cannot rule by Committee - it's been tried before and always fails. Democracy is supposed to be "majority rule", but alas, the vocal minority always seems to have a way of getting their own way, whether by threats, bribery, or by obstructing the will of the majority.

A simple first step would be to take away the right to vote at the UN from those so-called nations that don't give their own people the right to vote.

Winter wrote:
In the most recent case, that of Iraq, I think there is really only one rational and logical solution - countries like the US, and those willing to help, should just go in and do what needs to be done, without all the preliminary stuffing around and endless, totally fruitless debates in the Security Council - all of which only served to give Saddam Hussein the precious time needed to get his weapons out of Iraq and over the border into... "another country". There's said to be several ships sailing around the Indian Ocean, loaded to the gunwales with illegal weaponry, too, but... no-one can locate them.

I hope Iraqi scientists will now be free to reveal the secrets of the regime and it WMD ambitions.

Winter wrote:
There's only one thing wrong with this sort of precedent - the next time a big, powerful country saw a smaller, weaker country doing something suspicious, or illegal, or that the more powerful country would stand to benefit from if they stopped the weaker country, they could just march right on in and do it - a case of "Might Makes Right".

If we can't rely on the "modernising military strongman" in places like Syria and Iraq to bring stability we've got to do it ourselves. I don't want to see action post Mushroom cloud. Smile

The United Federation of Planets was Roddenberry's vision of what the UN might become but even in the world of Star Trek we've seen the Prime Directive broken on occasion for the greater good haven't we? Some people think the real United Nations is some benevolent body free of corruption and the agendas you touched on.

We do need some sort of international diplomatic framework but the United Nations needs to be rebuilt or scrapped completely.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
winter
Babbler


Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Posts: 331
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2003 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seamus Warren wrote:
...We do need some sort of international diplomatic framework but the United Nations needs to be rebuilt or scrapped completely.

And how is this going to happen whilst so many people think that the sun shines out of the collective backsides of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council? The same way that getting rid of Saddam should have happened "internally"? I remember some woman on TV shouting how wrong the war was - yes, Saddam was an evil man, but change had to come from within, not be forced on them from the outside. Obviously she didn't have two synapses to spark together to form a coherent thought - how is change going to come from within when kindly old dictator Saddam kept the people so firmly in check and under his thumb that they hardly dared to say "inshallah" without his say-so?! Gimme a break!

The only way the UN can or will be changed is for it to become so irrelevant that it fades out with a whimper - hopefully to be replaced by something better - but don't hold your breath!

The UN has almost (almost) "irrelevanced" itself out of existence with this latest little fiasco over Iraq - the only way they might be able to snatch victory from the jaws of death by ennui is if they now turn around and successfully prosecute America, Britain and Australia for war crimes committed against a sovereign nation - but I can't really see that happening.

Even Roddenbury's vision of a united and peaceful Federation left a lot to be desired, never mind the Prime Directive! Politics was a red hot potato in Star Trek VI, The Undiscovered Country (probably the best Star Trek movie of the lot, by the way) - the Federation (read: the UN) was at odds with itself over the proposed peace treaty with the Klingons (read: Iraq) after their moon, Praxis, exploded.

I fear we are living in "interesting times", as the old Chinese curse says...

_________________
[img:849c560a74]http://www.digitaltapestries.com/winter_brown_avatar.jpg[/img:849c560a74]
[color=darkblue:849c560a74]-------------
~ Winter ~[/color:849c560a74]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Seamus Warren
Apprentice


Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 172
Location: Dee Why Sydney NSW Australia

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2003 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Winter"]
Seamus Warren wrote:
...We do need some sort of international diplomatic framework but the United Nations needs to be rebuilt or scrapped completely.
Quote:
And how is this going to happen whilst so many people think that the sun shines out of the collective backsides of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council?

LOL, "vey must fink va sun shines out or your arse sonny!" (Life of Brian flashback).

As you point out, the UN would probably fade away if the US and its supporters withdrew support for the UN in favour of some new international diplomatic organistion. I think there are good points to the UN and it would be nice if the good could be saved and the rubbish dumped but the UN is probably not about to reform to the point of abolishing the Security Council and removing voting rights from countries run by thugs where democratically accountable government does not exist.

I think - as was pointed out in one of the pieces from Open Democracy - that we will see coalitions form. We have seen the formation of the European Union which is pretty much a European United Nations anyway isn't it? The Arab scumbags (thank you Paul) have the "Arab League" - a Dictators' club and a kind of small Arab UN. What's left? Asia? America? What about Australia?

Asia has the ASEAN economic forum that could be expanded into an Asian "UN".

Oh man, I'm going to bed. I'm sick of bloody politicls... Rolling Eyes

I want to focus on computers and food, but with the odd whinge about the UN and so on. Smile
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
winter
Babbler


Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Posts: 331
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2003 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seamus Warren wrote:
Oh man, I'm going to bed. I'm sick of bloody politicls... Rolling Eyes

I want to focus on computers and food, but with the odd whinge about the UN and so on. Smile

LOL! Off you go, get some rest, and for goodness sake, have something more to eat than a bowl of rice and cups of coffee!
_________________
[img:849c560a74]http://www.digitaltapestries.com/winter_brown_avatar.jpg[/img:849c560a74]
[color=darkblue:849c560a74]-------------
~ Winter ~[/color:849c560a74]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
russell_
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2003 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

so wheres this this list of 290 conflicts?

Quote:
The French and Russians, among others, have gone to war without seeking security council approval.

When have France and Russia gone to war in conflicts and actions not covered under the UN charter and the section on self defence?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    WinterHome Tapestries Forum Index -> The Secret Lounge All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
trevorj :: theme by ~// TreVoR \\~