DFAIT logo partnership The logo for the by design elab, an independent research development and production think tank specializing in online forums for policy development, incubated in 1997 at the McLuhan Program at the University of Toronto
DFAIT Home Site Map Help Policies Partners Feedback Netcast Français
 
Welcome
Message from the Minister
Dialogue Paper
Answer Questions
View Answers
Discussion Forum
 

Conclusion: The World We Want

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

USA role in the UN

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-04-09 16:37:59


I agree with you Fatmomma on alot of what you just said! :)

Yes, the US attempts to rally the security council were half-hearted and not very well executed. They knew, from 50 years of dealing with the UN, that this was a stupid route to take and could only end in their embarrassment - that's all France cares about when it comes to its veto.

I think they felt they should have finished the job 11 years ago. But what stopped Bush Sr.? He didn't have a UN mandate and knew he wouldn't get one.

Bush Sr. was the only president to go to the security council to authorise military action. He did this as a means of empowering the UN post-cold war. But, the set up of the security council is so far removed from global reality that the US quickly learned not to bother. That's why we have no UN support of the Kosovo campaign.

The government is now telling us that because attacking Serbia was done under the auspices of NATO that it was sufficiently multilateral. But this means that had the Warsaw Pact attacked a country, Canada would have said, "its perfectly alright, since they are doing it multilaterally."

If you think that Saddam's Iraq

1 - had no WMDs nor the desire to acquire them.
2 - had no expansionist ambitions.
3 - would not collude with Al-Quaeda or Al-Ansar or Al-Anything to kill some Americans

then I suggest you apply for a job in Saddam's ministry of information! :)

Reply to this message

Show in topic

USA role in the UN

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-09 17:16:34


My answers:
1) They had.
2) Not anymore - historically Kuweit was part of Iraq - just remember that fact please (that does not mean its ok, just have to keep it in mind thats all).
3) Religion and Baas don't work very well together - and several analysts have said Saddam would never do that.

Reply to this message

USA role in the UN

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-04-10 10:11:10


Was that analyst Eric Margolis?

Or better yet, an analyst from the Parisian left bank? They are such good analysts!

Reply to this message

USA role in the UN

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-10 01:19:20


Believe me Bush left no bribe unpromised; no threat unspoken
But he failed : he lied and produced fraudulent reports, The USA is responsible for the UN not acting where it should many times because American used its veto.
Mr Bush stopped because he was afraid of being charged with War Crimes for massacreing retreating soldiers (Kuwait and Iraqi and Iraqi citizens along a main highway. Charges state the USA used napalm.
Saddam may have had the desire but he obviously does not have any significant WMD; none have been used.
Saddam is a vile dictator but not the only or worst in the world.
Turkey is attacking and killing Kurds living in that country.
The USA does not have the right to make decisions for the world; they assigned that task to the UN
The USA will be looking to the UN to help pay for the damage they have done.
Destroying a dictatorship and installing a democracy does not ensure an acceptable leadership, Zimbabwe is a good example. The people of a country must be willing and motivated enough to initiate the removal of a dictatorship or they will probably return to another similar government

Reply to this message