John Bolton on Ahmadinejad and the UN

[A Can of Man]

P80 is right here.

 

[phoenix80]

P80 is right here.

Thnx... I don't deny that UN might be doing some good works here and there but given its past record, I am not impressed.

 

[MontyB]

You're right and I agree. And thats why the US should put some body like Bolton there to move things around and get reforms done to better the performance of this corrupt institution. Canada, Australia, US, UK must work together and reform the United Nations.

Into what?
A rubber stamp for US foreign policy? Lets face it thats all you are after, had the UN said sure you can invade Iraq you don't need an excuse you would be here singing its praises.

Any ways, successful missions done under UN mandates were done either by the US, UK or Australia. UN didn't do any thing other than issuing a toothless statement. It was US led NATO force in Bosnia, or Australian military in Timor that enforced those toothless resolutions. You think UN could force Saddam out of Kuwait with some resolutions?

Nope but I am prepared to bet good money that there would be no Australian or New Zealand troops in East Timor without a UN mandate, I can also guarantee that the force that pushed Saddam out of Kuwait would have been about a half the size it was without a mandate.

 

[Gator]

The United Nations is supposed to move slowly, and by Law the United States of America is not the World Police Force.

 

[phoenix80]

Into what?
A rubber stamp for US foreign policy? Lets face it thats all you are after, had the UN said sure you can invade Iraq you don't need an excuse you would be here singing its praises.




Nope but I am prepared to bet good money that there would be no Australian or New Zealand troops in East Timor without a UN mandate, I can also guarantee that the force that pushed Saddam out of Kuwait would have been about a half the size it was without a mandate.

So you want the UN to stand against US?

And if the US foreign policy means to stop slaughter of people in Darfur or Burma, then hell yes, I want the UN to abide by that policy. Whats wrong with it?

But if the existence of UN means that thugs like Saddam or Ahmadienejad be allowed to roam around and make trouble, then no, I don't want that UN. Whats that UN good for then? UN people were busy stealing Iraqi people oil and money and doing nothing. Are you okay with it?

And again UN issued two dozens of toothless resolutions against Saddam with no effect. Some body had to enforce those resolutions. UN is a useless and corrupt world organization that must be dismantled and its building must be used for some thing better. The world doesnt need a toothless UN.

 

[Gator]

So you want the UN to stand against US?

And if the US foreign policy means to stop slaughter of people in Darfur or Burma, then hell yes, I want the UN to abide by that policy. Whats wrong with it?

But if the existence of UN means that thugs like Saddam or Ahmadienejad roam around and makes trouble, then no, I don't want that UN.

And again UN issued two dozens of toothless resolutions against Saddam with no effect. Some body had to enforce those resolutions.

Israel has more United Nations Resoultions against it than Saddam and Iraq had, and yet no calls for a Regime Change in Israel, and unlike Iraq, Israel does have Illegal WMD.

 

[MontyB]

So you want the UN to stand against US?

And if the US foreign policy means to stop slaughter of people in Darfur or Burma, then hell yes, I want the UN to abide by that policy. Whats wrong with it?

No I want it to be an independent body and if that means disagreeing with the US because the majority of its members believe that to be the right thing to do then so be it, if it means agreeing with the US because they believe it right then I am happy with that as well.

But if the existence of UN means that thugs like Saddam or Ahmadienejad be allowed to roam around and make trouble, then no, I don't want that UN. Whats that UN good for then? UN people were busy stealing Iraqi people oil and money and doing nothing. Are you okay with it?

Once again the UN is not a sovereign nation all these "UN People" stealing things represented a whole bunch of different countries.

 

[phoenix80]

No I want it to be an independent body and if that means disagreeing with the US because the majority of its members believe that to be the right thing to do then so be it, if it means agreeing with the US because they believe it right then I am happy with that as well.

Majority of those people can have brain problems! I don't want them to decide for the world. And as I understand if the whole world sees no objection with the massacre of Darfur, it is okay with you?!?

Once again the UN is not a sovereign nation all these "UN People" stealing things represented a whole bunch of different countries.

Then kick those irresponsible countries out of the UN. Punish them. Fine them. Suspend their membership in the UN.

What happens if one robs a bank in your city?

 

[Gator]

Majority of those people can have brain problems! I don't want them to decide for the world.

You want President Bush deciding for the World on his own, like a King, like the Dictator of the World?

 

[MontyB]

Then kick those irresponsible countries out of the UN. Punish them. Fine them. Suspend their membership in the UN.

What happens if one robs a bank in your city?

Sorry are you asking what happens if the UN robs my local bank?

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here.

 

[Gator]

Sorry are you asking what happens if the UN robs my local bank?

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here.

One needs only to look at the Saving and Loan Scandal here in the United States back in the time when this Presidents father was in Office to see what happens when the Rich and Powerful in this Nation rob Banks.

 

[phoenix80]

Sorry are you asking what happens if the UN robs my local bank?

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here.

Let me rephrase, it is like 4 am here... What would you (your justice system) do if someone robbed a bank in your town?

 

[Del Boy]

MontyB - Here I go again, quoting you:-


'Just one?
Too easy, how about the successful missions to Bosnia-Herzegovina.'



Sorry - not quite the wonderful job as portrayed. This situation, like Kosovo, was deliberately created, in my opinion, by Al Qaeda, very well orchestrated and successfully completed by them. Bosnia, like Afghanistan, was a training base for terrrorism, and is once more.
They take us for mugs, and we continually fall for it; they are leading us by the nose to where they want us. The current American leadership has recognised this and have no wish to take more backward steps. All else is simply denial. Bloody Hell - we bombed Belgrade, a European capital , on behalf of the Al Qaeda insurgency in Kosovo!

The question I would ask is do you actually know what the UN is?

'I am still of the opinion that the bulk of the people on this boards opposition to the UN stems solely from it not rubber stamping the Iraq fiasco, this has been made worse since the UN was proved right in not backing it. 'end quote :-


But
I would point out that my question was, do you not understand what the UN has become? Obviously not. Only the strength of the Security Council prevents chaos. Your take on others' Iraq views is misdirected. The UN could have and should have prevented the Iraq war. The UN lacked the commitment. Given all the time necessary the weapons inspectors failed in their duty and sat on the fence, even tho' they have plenty to say now. America did its level best to bring the UN to do its duty and bring Sadam to heel. America should not have been left with the responsibilty of dealing with the matter. What was Sadam shielding in withholding full co-operation, to the extent of endangering his country, his regime and his life?? History still has not spoken on this point. Look to the neighbours.

My point is that America must not retreat from its responsibility and duty to lead the world regardless of feeble and wavering opinion elsewhere.

Over and out.

 

[MontyB]

Ok let me start by saying please put ["/"quote] (remove the "") at the end of a quote because it is very hard to read without it.

MontyB - Here I go again, quoting you:-


'Just one?
Too easy, how about the successful missions to Bosnia-Herzegovina.'

Sorry - not quite the wonderful job as portrayed. This situation, like Kosovo, was deliberately created, in my opinion, by Al Qaeda, very well orchestrated and successfully completed by them. Bosnia, like Afghanistan, was a training base for terrrorism, and is once more.
They take us for mugs, and we continually fall for it; they are leading us by the nose to where they want us. The current American leadership has recognised this and have no wish to take more backward steps. All else is simply denial. Bloody Hell - we bombed Belgrade, a European capital , on behalf of the Al Qaeda insurgency in Kosovo!

Umm to be honest not sure where to start on this other than to point out that Al Qaeda are not responsible for every bad action on the face of the earth. But lets make this a little easier on both of us, I am sure there are people on these forums that took part in SFOR how about they tell us it was a successful operation or not, that way we are not belittling anyones efforts.

The question I would ask is do you actually know what the UN is?

'I am still of the opinion that the bulk of the people on this boards opposition to the UN stems solely from it not rubber stamping the Iraq fiasco, this has been made worse since the UN was proved right in not backing it. 'end quote :-


But
I would point out that my question was, do you not understand what the UN has become? Obviously not. Only the strength of the Security Council prevents chaos. Your take on others' Iraq views is misdirected. The UN could have and should have prevented the Iraq war. The UN lacked the commitment. Given all the time necessary the weapons inspectors failed in their duty and sat on the fence, even tho' they have plenty to say now. America did its level best to bring the UN to do its duty and bring Sadam to heel. America should not have been left with the responsibilty of dealing with the matter. What was Sadam shielding in withholding full co-operation, to the extent of endangering his country, his regime and his life?? History still has not spoken on this point. Look to the neighbours.

My point is that America must not retreat from its responsibility and duty to lead the world regardless of feeble and wavering opinion elsewhere.

Over and out.

So you are saying the UN should have stopped the USA from invading Iraq?

Given that US efforts rightly or wrongly failed to gather support at the UN then the only real course of action available to them was to stop the USA or are you saying the UN should have agreed with the US without being convinced they were right in which case I agree do away with the UN and just give dictatorial powers to the US president either way its just not going to happen.

As far as the failing of weapons inspectors that will be left to history to analyse but right now history isn't backing the US version of events can I recommend reading Hans Blix take on this as he explains the case very well.

 

[Del Boy]

'Umm to be honest not sure where to start on this other than to point out that Al Qaeda are not responsible for every bad action on the face of the earth. But lets make this a little easier on both of us, I am sure there are people on these forums that took part in SFOR how about they tell us it was a successful operation or not, that way we are not belittling anyones efforts.'



Sorry MontyB, but now you are being careless. Where did I ever suggest that Al Qaeda 'are responsible for every bad action on the face of the earth'? But I would respectfully point out to you that Al Qaeda is, in fact, at war with the western world and its culture. Now, let me test your case - are you suggesting that Al Qaeda were NOT, are not, involved in the Bosnia situation ?

Furthermore, I object to your inference that I would belittle those involved in the execution of their duties in the field. This is not my position ever, altho plenty of it goes on, I must say, together with a constant nibbling away at every position taken by America.

It is low-down to infer that I was referring to the execution of these operations. I refer only to the various stances of the UN on world issues, and I must ask you not to take that dishonourable line again. I am sure that those involved on the ground ensured the success of the operations they undertook.

Does your position mean that every time you criticise the Iraq war you seek to belittlie those involved in fighting it at the front?

 

[MontyB]

Does your position mean that every time you criticise the Iraq war you seek to belittlie those involved in fighting it at the front?

I take it you have trouble understanding the meaning of the word "we"?

Because I clearly used it in the sentence you are quoting.

that way we are not belittling anyones efforts

It is my contention that the best way to settle the SFOR argument is to ask those that were part of it to say whether they believe they failed or not, my contention is that it was a success it would appear that you disagree.

Does your position mean that every time you criticise the Iraq war you seek to belittlie those involved in fighting it at the front?

To some degree yes it does mean that however I would argue that at no stage have I ever targeted anything other than politicians for this treatment and I would be surprised if you can point to a post where I belittle those actually fighting so please stop with the sycophantic spin we get enough of that from P80

 

[Del Boy]

I take it you have trouble understanding the meaning of the word "we"?

Because I clearly used it in the sentence you are quoting.



It is my contention that the best way to settle the SFOR argument is to ask those that were part of it to say whether they believe they failed or not, my contention is that it was a success it would appear that you disagree.



To some degree yes it does mean that however I would argue that at no stage have I ever targeted anything other than politicians for this treatment and I would be surprised if you can point to a post where I belittle those actually fighting so please stop with the sycophantic spin we get enough of that from P80

Please do not be foolish - obviously 'we' includes me, and I am offended by it - speak for yourself.

Whether or not it was a political success has no bearing on the experience of those involved in military efforts.

You answer my question in a few words 'to some degree, yes'. Furthermore, I bounce your precise point back to you and as far as you are concerned it becomes 'sycothantic spin'. What goes around comes around. It is quite unnecessary to try to insult P80, who has not been involved in our exchange.

You do not respond to my direct question as to whether or not you deny the involvement of Al Qaeda in Bosnia, although you previously dismissed my mention of the fact.

 

[MontyB]

Didn't we have this argument in the WW2 forum where the same argument waffled on for weeks with no actual point?

One question did the SFOR achieve its goals in Bosnia? I don't care who started the damn conflict, I don't care who won the world series in 1998, all I want to know is whether the SFOR part of it worked.
Please no more scatter gun arguments.

 

[Del Boy]

Quote:
Monty B quote:-
"So you are saying the UN should have stopped the USA from invading Iraq?​

Given that US efforts rightly or wrongly failed to gather support at the UN then the only real course of action available to them was to stop the USA or are you saying the UN should have agreed with the US without being convinced they were right in which case I agree do away with the UN and just give dictatorial powers to the US president either way its just not going to happen.
As far as the failing of weapons inspectors that will be left to history to analyse but right now history isn't backing the US version of events can I recommend reading Hans Blix take on this as he explains the case very well."

__________________end quote.​

No – I am saying that if the UN had carried out their duty correctly the USA would not have had to do the dirty work for them. I accuse the UN of dereliction of duty.​

Yes, when it comes to nitty-gritty, and discounting the leadership of the US, we could well do without the UN at present. How you manage to relate this to’ dictatorial power of the US president’ I fail to understand. ​

History has already been written on this point – the weapons inspectors, led by Hans Blix, were called upon to confirm whether there were weapons of mass destruction. They were in the best position to say NO. They said neither yes nor no – they sat on the fence. A no might have saved Iraq.​

Hans Blix was the greatest culprit – now he has a great deal to say, and I expect he makes a great deal of money doing so. I have no respect for the performance of Blix and his team in this affair. We waited on their every word, in vain. ​

 

[Del Boy]

One question did the SFOR achieve its goals in Bosnia? I don't care who started the damn conflict, I don't care who won the world series in 1998, all I want to know is whether the SFOR part of it worked.
Please no more scatter gun arguments.

This is a political thread re Bolton and the UN, remember? As for scatter guns - I have merely responded to points set by yourself.

To answer your specific question, although you ignored mine, I would say - militarily, yes. Politically - ????.


AL QUEDA'S BALKAN LINKS.Wall Street Journal Europe | November 1, 2001 | Marcia Christoff Kurop


Posted on 11/01/2001 3:53:17 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen

The Balkans' uncharacteristically silent exit from the world stage as the most prominent international hot spot of the last decade belies its status as a major recruiting and training center of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. By feeding off the region's impoverished republics and taking root in the unsettled diplomatic aftermath of the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts, al Qaeda, along with Iranian Revolutionary Guard-sponsored terrorists, have burrowed their way into Europe's backyard.
For the past 10 years, the most senior leaders of al Qaeda have visited the Balkans, including bin Laden himself on three occasions between 1994 and 1996. The Egyptian surgeon turned terrorist leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri has operated terrorist training camps, weapons of mass destruction factories and money-laundering and drug-trading networks throughout Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey and Bosnia. This has gone on for a decade. Many recruits to the Balkan wars came originally from Chechnya, a jihad in which Al Qaeda has also played a part.
These activities have been exhaustively researched by Yossef Bodansky, the former director of the U.S. House of Representatives' Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. The February testimony of an Islamist ringleader associated with the East Africa bombings have also helped throw light on these actions.
They have however been disguised under the cover of dozens of "humanitarian" agencies spread throughout Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania. Funding has come from now-defunct banks such as the Albanian-Arab Islamic Bank and from bin Laden's so-called Advisory and Reformation Committee. One of his largest Islamist front agencies, it was established in London in 1994.
Narco-Jihad Culture
The overnight rise of heroin trafficking through Kosovo -- now the most important Balkan route between Southeast Asia and Europe after Turkey -- helped also to fund terrorist activity directly associated with al Qaeda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Opium poppies, which barely existed in the Balkans before 1995, have become the No. 1 drug cultivated in the Balkans after marijuana. Operatives of two al Qaeda-sponsored Islamist cells who were arrested in Bosnia on Oct. 23 were linked to the heroin trade, underscoring the narco-jihad culture of today's post-war Balkans. These drug rings in turn form part of an estimated $8 billion a year