Security Council Gives Iran Deadline

UN is looking like the big global loser right now. Credibility is going out the window faster than people can shoot missiles at each other.

What was it? 14 UN resolutions against Iraq violated while the 15th was being drafted and the US invaded?

Few dispute that if Lebanon had made any strides toward carrying out UN resolution 1559 after Israel complied, none of us would be talking about Hezbollah today.

Now we are playing the resolution game with Iran. Isn't this exactly the same solution we heard in April, following reports from independent inspectors... blah blah blah.

Just venting... I hope this resolution brings the desired results.

Just venting... I hope this resolution brings the desired results.

The sad part is it won't, and the world is sitting by letting them get to their goal.

How is this appeasement?

Because Iran isn't stupid. They have watched the game be played and they have been playing just as well for many years and continue to do so. The world also knows and they choose not to actually hold these countries accountable. Probably because most, including on some items the US, dont want to be held responsible for their own items.

How is this appeasement?

How is it not? It's like threatening to spank your child every day and never doing it, the kid catches on.

They have watched the game be played and they have been playing just as well for many years and continue to do so. The world also knows and they choose not to actually hold these countries accountable. Probably because most, including on some items the US, dont want to be held responsible for their own items.

I am fully aware that Iran is not ignorant of the shortcomings of the Security Council. But if this were appeasement, we would be throwing treats at them and saying "Please stop doing what you are doing!" As far as I can tell, the UN is moving (albeit slowly) towards punishing Iran, not rewarding it. And no, the earlier attempt to create an incentives package for Iran is not appeasement. The West wasn't/isn't about to let Iran walk all over them.

This is a game of wits, pure an simple. Iran is playing its cards against the US and Europe (not so much Russia). This is not appeasement.

Well I did not say it was appeasement and I actually do not think we are at that point yet. If we actually gave them incentive packages, then I think it would be appeasement because we know full well that Iran wouldnt stop moving forward even if they agreed not to. The UN would only provide minimal follow up on verifying Iran's and compliance to adhere to any agreements and would do squat to enforce their own resolutions as we have seen over and over again.

I am fully aware that Iran is not ignorant of the shortcomings of the Security Council. But if this were appeasement, we would be throwing treats at them and saying "Please stop doing what you are doing!" As far as I can tell, the UN is moving (albeit slowly) towards punishing Iran, not rewarding it. And no, the earlier attempt to create an incentives package for Iran is not appeasement. The West wasn't/isn't about to let Iran walk all over them.

... That is EXACTLY what we're doing, the UN only talked hard on lebanon, iraq, now iran, with the same outcome-- no way to backup its rhetoric

The fact that it didn't do right in the past does not mean its doing right now. In any case the people who mostly constrain UN effectiveness; Russia and the US are working together now on this, so it gives me cause for optimism.

China, don't forget China. They are like the Russians in that they are going their own way somewhat with Iran and not necessarily with the US.

I was stating a historical fact. The two most obstuse nations in the Security Council are US and Russia. China much less.

Show me anyplace the UN has consistently done a good job where the situation was actually difficult and more complex than "here is some food."

But I agree, the fact that Russia and China are on board is encouraging. However, they usually serve their own needs/greed when push comes to shove. Thats the beauty about tomorrow though, you never know what itll bring.

All five members serve their own need/greed, but the UN's organisational failings have been spectacular sometimes but a good chunk of the blame especially at the Security Council action level relate to the 2 countries named above.

You blame the organisation but not its constituents, and that undermines the validity of your claims.

Bash the UN all you want but even your man (I presume) Bush, has turned to the UN for solving this Lebanon problem.

I blame the organization because the rest of the member countries and the SG dont have the courage to ever call out any country on such items. That is where the organization fails. I do blame the individual countries as well. I never said I didnt, so there is no undermining of any validity. That was an invalid assumption.

Bush is not my man but he has to turn to the UN first for just about everything. If he doesnt the rest of the world whines. So he has to make atleast the attempt and give the rest of the world a chance to act responsibly. Again, however, they do not have a good track record of that in the UN. Which is why things still occur in Rwanda, Somalia, etc.

I blame mostly the Veto-holders who have crippled the organisation and taken away the power the organisation originally had. I blame countries who only believe the Un works well when it gives cartes blanches to their allies.

FL you keep rabbiting on about Rwanda and how ineffective the UN is but seem not to know that the US delayed instigation of a reaction force for an indefinite period, until the massacre was over, by quibbling like some be-speckled ninny over the actual definition of the word 'genocide'.

They argued that isolated incidences of genocide were not 'genocide' as it is defined and thus the intrusion by UN forces were unauthorised. This was America and America alones argument and it meant that the British troops who were already stationed there watching and sheltering those few they had the manpower to, while communicating back to their superiors the vastness of the slaughter, had to deal with America's putrid, immoral and indefensible delay tactics.

Much like the cosmetic toothless gladhanding by Condi now is simply a delaying tactic.

You may in your own proudly ignorant way be glad to trot out the self serving cliches regarding the UN's purposelessness, its transgressive faults with fraudulent and immoral examples, its general in your scornful opinion uselessness, but it might behove you before you go on these transparently shallow and pitifully spoon fed jags of yours to think twice or even thrice before revealing of yourself your affinity with the monkey rather than the organ grinder. Given nothing I have ever seen you write has not been written verbatim by people far far further up the chain than yourself, so far up the chain they are actually paid to feed you with your opinions, I simply cannot imagine you have the facility as they so obviously do of ventriloquism
and am left with only one option as to your role as a mouthpiece of blatantly regurgitated spin.

You need to research a little more before leaving yourself vunerable to your own ignorance.
OK much better now thank you, look here, I'll even throw you a lifeline, It was during Clinton.

A strong UN is the last thing the American admin needs or wants.

whinesome-more

Your pedantic blathering of rabid insults mirror the tactics of many above you on the food chain as well. When faced with something you disagree with you resort to accusations of an inability to understand and belittling of someone in an sad attempt to somehow minimize their view point. Perhaps in the miasmic vacuum you call a head you might, just for one second, be able to comprehend that people might agree with some of those higher ups rather just acting as agents of their spoon fed material. Yes people might have a different opinion than you and it doesnt make them any less competent or intelligent.

In the meantime you can stop making wild assumptions about what knowledge I have or dont have based solely on the fact that I did not mention something in a particular post.

Do you feel good now? Was the childish rant of self righteousness the highlight of your day? Did the hour that it took you to word your diatribe give you a brief feeling of superiority? Great now go away unless you have something constructive to contribute.

By the way, I could care less about Clinton.

The fact remains you used Rwanda in two of your posts on this thread as examples of the UN's dysfunction. I am reiterating that the example of Rwanda if you care to research it at any depth beyond your regular newspaper is a perfect example of American foreign policy as impediment.
I did go a little overboard, well a lot actually. But still your usage of examples that have little basis in reality is a bit of a red flag i'm afraid. (1min 47 secs)

I did too. My apologies.

As to your points:

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Just because the UN decided they did not want get involved so they decided to use some "definition" of what genocide meant does not necessarily make it any less of a genocide. (Here Ill throw you a bone with a Clintonism, "the depends on what your definition of is is")

According to the UN's Office of High Commisioner for Human Rights, and I quote

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Notice the lack of a number as to how many can be killed before its considered genocide. Additionally, I would argue that the murder of an estimated 800,000 to 1,071,000 people is a bit on the high side even for mass killings and would think it would warrant some attention. Calling it genocide and but then saying it isnt enough genocide still admits that it was genocide and violates the international treaty that Rwanda did sign in 1975.

What the UN members really said was "these people's lives are not worth the economic costs it would require of us to deal with the situation. Additionally this country has little of value to us to recoup our costs after the conflict is concluded." Had they possessed large stores of oil it would have been a different story.

In addition, I guess the UN should not have created this website if it was not genocide. And Ill quote:

Message from Kofi Annan
Secretary-General of the United Nations "The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda delivered the first-ever judgement on the crime of genocide by an international court. This judgement is a testament to our collective determination to confront the heinous crime of genocide in a way we never have before. I am sure that I speak for the entire international community when I express the hope that this judgement will contribute to the long-term process of national reconciliation in Rwanda. For there can be no healing without peace; there can be no peace without justice; and there can be no justice without respect for human rights and rule of law."

So it wasnt genocide enough to send troops in to stop the fighting, but it was genocide enough to have a tribunal and conduct trials for those that committed it?

I appreciate the opportunity to be be more respectful.
Given the UN's own definition of Genocide being what you have provided us.
And given that the US has a profound influence on the security council of the UN complete with veto.
Given also in my opinion the fact that after Somalia the US was in a position where further losses of US armed personnel was simply unacceptable. Then these facts might help you recognise that in many ways now and in the past, the UN has been a patsy, a tool of convenience for action or inaction as it suits America.

April 28, 1994 State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelley is asked whether what is happening in Rwanda is a genocide. She responds,

"...the use of the term 'genocide' has a very precise legal meaning, although it's not strictly a legal determination. There are other factors in there as well."

May 11, 1994 At a State Department briefing, Mike McCurry is asked, "Has this government been able to determine whether any of the acts committed in Rwanda since April 6 constitute genocide?" He answers, "I don't know that they've made any legal determination on that."

May 13, 1994 The U.N. Security Council prepares to vote on restoring UNAMIR's strength in Rwanda. However, Madeline Albright delays the vote for four days.
Albright testifies at a Capitol Hill hearing on tensions in U.S.-U.N. relations and discusses the Security Council's resolution:

"... The United States has been a driving force in the provision of humanitarian assistance, in condemning the violence and in trying to organize a U.N. mission designed not simply to promise, but to deliver what it promises. Sending a U.N. force into the maelstrom in Rwanda without a sound plan of operations would be folly ... The resolution adopted last night requires the Secretary-General to report back before the next phase of deployment begins ... these choices are not easy ones. Emotions can produce wonderful speeches and stirring op-ed pieces. But emotions alone cannot produce policies that will achieve what they promise. If we do not keep commitments in line with capabilities, we will only further undermine U.N. credibility and support. The actions authorized last night will help. They may save lives. But ultimately, the future of Rwanda is in Rwandan hands."

Mid-May The International Red Cross estimates 500,000 Rwandans have been killed.

May 25, 1994 Mike McCurry, State Department spokesman, is asked at a press briefing, "... Has the administration yet come to any decision on whether it can be described as genocide?"

He answers, "I'll have to confess, I don't know the answer to that. I know that the issue was under very active consideration. I think there was a strong disposition within the department here to view what has happened there; certainly, constituting acts of genocide that have occurred ..."

June 10, 1994 At a State Department briefing, spokesperson Christine Shelley is asked, "How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?"

"That's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer."

"Well, is it true that you have specific guidance not to use the word 'genocide' in isolation, but always to preface it with these words 'acts of'?"

"I have guidance which I try to use as best as I can. There are formulations that we are using that we are trying to be consistent in our use of. I don't have an absolute categorical prescription against something, but I have the definitions. I have phraseology which has been carefully examined and arrived at as best as we can apply to exactly the situation and the actions which have taken place ... "

Sorry this is a bit extensive but my point is that America cobbled the UN quite effectively by not agreeing to a definition of 'Genocide' which would have mandated immediate action.
Interesting to note also that in the absence of international assistance the Rwandese Patriotic Front finally put an end to the carnage only shortly afterwards to have their opposition the newly formed Democratic Republic of Congo having support for it declared by the US.
The UN falling pitifully short in its humanitarian obligations seems pretty simplistic given the facts.