I'm amazed. It's been over 4 hours since his speech and no one has posted anything on it. So I'm starting it now. Text (in case you didn't see it on TV): www.nytimes.com/2002/09/12/politics/12AP-PTEX.html
It can be summed up in the last paragraph: "We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well." He did not just focus on the WMS stuff but all the other UN resolutions that Iraw has ignored. I think he was telling the UN to do their job or else the US will go in there and do it for them.
The most comprehensive and convincing argument(s) I've seen yet on why action against Iraq is needed. Point about UN credibility is important. But I'm still left wondering - why is it so urgent to act right now? They've been defying us for a decade. Do we really have any evidence that Iraq is supplying terrorist organizations WMDs? Or that they are supporting terrorists in other ways - beyond harboring ex-Taliban / Al Queda? Share the evidence with the world - if it exists. What evidence do we have recently (last 5-10) years that Iraq will act aggressively against other nations? It has continued to violate its own citizens human rights, but how has it threatened other nations since the Gulf War? I thought that "coalition forces" have been pretty successful in containing Iraq, even if Hussein is still a thorn in the side of the US (UN?). Good news about US rejoining UNESCO - we need to be engaged in the world. Now how about Kyoto, the anti-land mines treaty, and the World Criminal Court?
how bout us paying our dues before acting like we own the place...US doth not the UN make, UN credibility is based on its support of the world not one rich state.
How about the UN members paying what they owe to the fine City of New York. The UN's credibility lies in backing their resolutions and mandates. So far they haven't done such a good job.
He makes a compelling argument by listing off all the UN resolutions that Iraq is violating. However, it still begs the question: Why did it all of a sudden become so important? Most of the violations aren't exactly breaking news.
Well, those are nice words and all, but when one rich state is fiscally responsible for a disproportionate share of the UN's budget, then I'd say that that one rich state has a lot to say about the affairs of the UN.
But wouldn't that be requisite on actually paying said dues? I mean, we could come and say "We're responsible for 29% of the budget" or whatever the number is, but if we pay nothing, it's kind of a meaningless statement, isn't it?
The US still pays dues to the UN every year, but just not as much as the UN and US agreed to. The US still pays more than any nation and we still owe money. It's not like we're not giving them anything because we are, we're giving A LOT. Just not as much as they'd like. Have you ever seen the salaries for UN employees? They're ridiculous. The UN is a prime example of overspending in the wrong areas.
Well, maybe they should be making news. Maybe if the UN actually made sure that Iraq abided by the resolutions over the last 12 years there would be less of a threat.
Because a good war is good for the incumbent. I don't think Bush is any more sinister than anyone else. I think there is just pressure on him to act, due to the very unique circumstances of 9/11, and the impassioned religious fanatacism of the hell-bound Muslims. He's on the wrong level right now -- looking as if he is trying to force the issue. He needs to try to continue swaying the leaders of the other Arab nations. And he also needs to focus on intelligence gathering.
I posted this in another thread, but I'll post it here as well. I don't think it suddenly became important. It's just that other things have happened that were more important. From one of the 2000 debates.... "MR. LEHRER: -- how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference? VICE PRESIDENT GORE: I haven't heard a big difference right -- in the last few exchanges. GOV. BUSH: Well, I think -- it's hard to tell. I think that -- you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better. I mean, we don't -- MR. LEHRER: With Saddam Hussein, you mean? GOV. BUSH: Yes, and -- MR. LEHRER: You could get him out of there? GOV. BUSH: I'd like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. But we don't know -- there's no inspectors now in Iraq. The coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger; we don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard to -- it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him. MR. LEHRER: Do you feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration? GOV. BUSH: I do."
I agree - this did sum up the speech. A false dichotomy between doing nothing and "regime change." What happened to all the evidence that Saddam was supporting terrorism? The only time the Chimp mentioned the subject was towards the end - in the future tense, as a possibility. No, I don't know why I expected something new, significant, or convincing - it just would have been reassuring. How about regime change in Saudi Arabia? In any case, this is a reasonably welcome acknowledgment that the US isn't going to go completely unilateral. I'm going to assume that the groundwork has been laid for the UN to support Bush's war. Otherwise, well, let's just say it'll get ever so slightly awkward if the UN comes back and says "We do not give our approval" - or even "We give Saddam a one-year deadline to allow inspectors back in," leaving regime change completely out of it. Hell, all Hussein has to do, really, is say "Okay, okay, we'll comply" - and that's it for regime change.
Its amazing how cynical this country has become. Why does Bush want to attack Iraq now? Well obviously because he wants to win an election. Aren't we still officially fighting a war on terrorism? Wouldn't this war on terrorism be good for the incumbent? I am sure you will shoot back with something like, well we aren't winning the war on terrorism because we don't have OBL head. This cynicism, and I am usually a cynic can go on forever. From my understanding, Cheney pointed out on whatever Sunday show he did this past weekend or two weekends ago that a shipment of Lead Tubes were being sent to Iraq. The US found out and stopped it. The way it was explained, said Lead Tubes are used to take normal grade uranium and make it weapons grade. Or something. I am no nuclear physicist. Is this not enough if it happened in the last year or two years even? I mean even if it happened three or four years ago, I think it is safe to say, September 11, 2001 might have diverted attention away from other foreign policy goals that Bush Jr. might have had. Personally, I thought he was just going to do it, under the old declaration of Congress in 1993 like his counsel said. The fact that he is attempting this approach before the United Nations is admirable and applaudable. It is great to know that he isn't a war monger like others say. He is indeed committed to the UN as it is a quasi world democracy. That being said. I agree, its time for the UN to put up or shut up.
> Why did it all of a sudden become so important? > Most of the violations aren't exactly breaking news. The rumor is that Saddam is ill, and probably won't live another year. Saddam dying would be the worst possible thing for this administration, as it would remove the chemical warfare reason for invading Iraq without us getting our hands on Iraqi oil. We need to invade before that happens.
You call someone who disagrees with you a cynic? And aren't you cynical about the UN. Years ago, everyone was for our attack on Iraq. Now the aren't. And I think they were right both times. Here's to idealism.
The move by Bush to speak to the UN and lay it on their lap was brilliant. They have no choice now but to support the US efforts to oust Sadam. Because if they voted down a resolution supporting the US and another major incident like 9-11 happened on our soil, then the UN building would be the first place to be torched by US citizens. Their free rent on American soil would be history and they know a good thing when they see one. The UN must now write a tough resolution requiring that Iraq meet demands that they aren't willing to meet. Next, comes a UN-sanctioned military action that ousts Sadam. It spills over into Iran and a youthful revolution there ousts the hardline Muslim leaders. The infection sweeps elsewhere across the Middle East, as democracies begin to take shape everywhere in the region. It's going to happen. GWB will be the next face on Mt Rushmore. All the accolades for Bush will drive Billy to an early grave, I tell ya!
I'd think of putting him on the rock sooner if he was to go against a more difficult military power. Like maybe Panama...
Like Iraq is the only country that has failed to adhere to UN resolutions? Oh -- comes the response -- but they have WMDs and they've killed their citizens and invaded their neighbors. So have other countries. But we don't plan to invade them.
You just pointed out the Iraqi problem, but there's FAR more to the problem than Iraq. Nowhere did I specifically point to Iraq on this issue. As I stated earlier, The UN's credibility lies in backing their resolutions and mandates. So far they haven't done such a good job.
And right on cue.... Iraq Rejects U.S. Demands on Inspectors DUBAI (Reuters) - Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz on Friday rejected the unconditional return of U.N. arms inspectors as demanded by Washington, saying the move would not avert U.S. military designs on Baghdad. Now, are all you people who wanted to give Saddam one more chance happy?