Why wasn't the UN involved in the decision to attack Afghanistan?

[Dowding]

It seems to me that there was huge opportunity to harness the global outrage over the WTC attacks, by getting a UN mandate backing action in Afghanistan. It could have also included an integrated plan to decide Afghanistan's future after the Taliban have been removed.

This is another flashpoint in which the UN has been bypassed, Kosovo being the last notable example.

So, has the UN become irrelevant?

[GRUNHERZ]

I'm angry with your position on the whole attack and the war. Sorry.

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]

[Dowding]

Ok... anyone else?

[Toad]

Very well thought out and reasonable reply Grun.  

LOL.

Jeez, ole Dowd asked a legitimate question.

Is your collar a bit too tight?

Dowding, I'd say the answer is that the US has what it (we? they?) deem a sufficient link to Afghanistan that it was considered an act of war. Much the way Nato took it under Article 5 was it?

I doubt any nation is going to go to the UN _first_ for redress from an act of war.

However, they (we? they?) are obviously trying to involve the UN in the peace and nation-building that will come after.

Pretty deafening non-response on that front, eh? I doubt you could find any government, other than an Islamic one, that would consider the Taliban a "good" government or situation.

You like to address human rights. Taliban has to be one of the worst offenders going.

Yet noone wants to step up and say "We'll go and help nation build".

Once again, where are all those folks that like to criticize? Time to get in the game.

(Before you get your Union Jack all in a wad, I'd say the Brits should be out of the nation-building on this one too. You folks cast your lot with US militarily (and thanks). The Brits won't be welcome either. Time for the "non-aligned" Western Nations to get off their duffs and DO something besides "Batch" for a change.)

Just my .02, of course.

[Tac]

The UN is nothing but a bunch of rutabagas banded together for financial interest. Its a damn joke.

UN should have its own standing army from which ALL nations should contribute to. And that army should not answer to ANY nation BUT to the UN council itself.

I believe its in their charter to have it... guess member nations "conveniently" forget stuff. The hypocrisy of it is overwhelming.

[Dowding]

This wasn't an anti-US post, as much as some might like to think it is. Personally, I'm not against the action, but doubt it will become a precedent for dealing with global terrorism as some would have it.

But the security council contains the states that have condemned the act and would support a mandate to use NATO (in the form of the US and UK) to 'pacify' the Taliban. There then could be UN funded regeneration of Afghanistan, perhaps with a proviso that most of the funding comes from the rich Islamic states.

To me that would be the ideal solution for Afghanistan.

I guess it hinges on whether the attack was considered to be an act of war in any legal sense. Perhaps the definition will have to change to accommodate recent events, because how can you be at war with an ideology whose proponents are spread around the globe with no affiliation to any one state?

Personally I see the UN becoming increasing marginalised in a similar way to the League of Nations.

<edit>

Don't edit your post Grunherz. You wrote:

"Shut the diddly up you commie studmuffingot bastard. It wasn't 7000 UN rutabagas that died, it was 7000 Americans!

Don't write anymore on this subject and diddly off."

Or something very close to that.

</edit>

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

[Toad]

UN should have its own standing army from which ALL nations should contribute to. And that army should not answer to ANY nation BUT to the UN council itself.

Your problem there is "would it ever act?"

Look how long it took and how many died before anything was really done in Bosnia. Even then, that was a NATO operation (Yah, Boroda.. I agree.. illegal), not a UN op.

It's possible that the UN is too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

Which leads back to Dowding's question/thought:

because how can you be at war with an ideology whose proponents are spread around the globe with no affiliation to any one state?

In this particular case, the US has found sufficient justification to LINK it to the Taliban and Al-Qaida to "be at war".

In your example, however, it becomes necessary to class terrorists as criminals and thus it becomes a "police action". Unfortunately, no ones police force has the necessary weapons/capability to take these guys on so you end up using military forces.

Sound like Bosnia or anything?

The UN didn't act there.. NATO did...

It's a circle, isn't it?

[Red Ant]

Its quite simple, really. The U.N. is an UTTERLY INEFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION. It has been this way since its creation shortly after the end of WW2. If you want something debated ad nauseam with no real resolution, you go to the U.N. If you want something DONE, you go & do it.

[batdog]

Yea...what Ant said. Name ONE time the UN has ever done anything effectivly. They rely on the US for any sort of "enforcement" and finacial support anyway. They're pretty damn useless seeming to me and incompentant.

 xBAT

[-ammo-]

Being a UA armed forces member.. The day I have to wear a blue helmut, or arm band, is the day I quit, ar start the process of quiting the USAF. I ahve no faith in the UN. I do have a strong loyalty to my country, the USA.

[Boroda]

Unfortunately, US acts as if there are no laws written for them. And they usually spit at any laws, even if it is extremely easy to obey them. I doubt that any Security counsil member could veto the UN action against Afghanistan. Nevertheless - our American friends don't even bother to legalise their agression (and de facto it is an agression). It was much easier in 1950 with Soviet representative boycotting the UN session.

And this hypocrites STILL insist that Russians must cease armed struggle in Chechnya and negotiate with Chechen terrorists!

Grunhertz, your caveman anticommunism is amazing. A true example of propaganda, national prejudices and "immigrant syndrome" contradicting with common sence. I suggest you to keep silence, so you can look smarter.

Dowding, you become dangerous because you ask questions. Most of the others simply let Big Brother whistle in their ears.

Again: I support the anti-terrorist operation. But I don't think that key decisions should be left for the people who have obvious problems with logics and common sence. Sometimes it seems to me that US authorities smoke something too much.

BTW, I still expect any proof that Osama is guilty in Sep. 11 tragedy. Every day I feel more and more like US bombs the wrong place.

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by Boroda:
Unfortunately, US acts as if there are no laws written for them. And they usually spit at any laws, even if it is extremely easy to obey them.

What laws do A country have to abide by? And explain why we should not be justified in our retaliation?


Again: I support the anti-terrorist operation. But I don't think that key decisions should be left for the people who have obvious problems with logics and common sence. Sometimes it seems to me that US authorities smoke something too much.

I dont think you do, but your government does, and it isnt neccesarily in the name of stamping out terrorism. I think you are full of it.

[Toad]

"BTW, I still expect any proof that Osama is guilty in Sep. 11 tragedy. Every day I feel more and more like US bombs the wrong place."

Sorry, Boroda. Somehow Blair and Powell must have missed your house on the trips to explain the proof to Russia and Pakistan.

It seems the proof was good enough for your Mr. Putin though:
 http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/10/04/gen.blair.tour.pakistan/index.html

"In Moscow Putin said he was confident that the U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan could be successful.

"We will be able to tell this once the actions become a reality," Putin told a news conference. "But I have no doubt at all that they can be effective.

"The main condition is the joining of efforts of many countries and sincere desire to work together effectively."

Russia has emerged as a key player in the crisis, with Putin expressing strong support for U.S.-led military strikes against Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network and their Afghanistan hosts."

But then Putin must be a tool of the capitalist West now, right?  

The proof was good enough for Pakistan's leader President Musharraf:


 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34440,00.html

"In Pakistan, President Musharraf, a military leader who seized power from an Islamist civilian government friendly to the Taliban, met with politicians, newspaper editors and Islamic clerics, seeking support for his promise to give "full support" to the United States."

Our action meets all the requirements laid out by International Law and the requirements laid out for a "just war".

 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#1

"Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts, which in the literature are referred to, for the sake of convenience, in Latin. These parts are: 1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place; 2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and 3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war."

Take a look at that site and you'll see the present US action is allowed under "just war", particularly look at teh "jus ad bello" section.

We did and are following the International Laws of War.... whether Boroda approves or not. It may come as a shock to some, but UN approval never was and is not a requirement for a nation-state to go to war.

What we have done is not aggression by the laws of just war and the burden of proof would be on Boroda to write a cogent argument to prove his position. At present, he's merely offering an unsupported opinion.

WRT Chechnya, it is an internal affair of the Russian government. It is a state fighting and killing its own citizens. Hardly the same situation as the US vs Afghanistan. It is perhaps closer to what Iraq did to the Kurds, without the poison gas.

Smoking something too much? Keep your windows open Boroda.... you don't want to OD yourself.  

[Daff]

"WRT Chechnya, it is an internal affair of the Russian government. It is a state fighting and killing its own citizens. Hardly the same situation as the US vs Afghanistan. It is perhaps closer to what Iraq did to the Kurds, without the poison gas"

Huh?..While I would hate to defend anything Boroda posts, you seems to forget the several terrorist attacks in Moscow, carried out by Chechen terrorist, prior to the Russian invasion in Chechnya.
It was on top of the news here in London, anyway.

Daff

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Daff ]

[Ozark]

Originally posted by Boroda:

BTW, I still expect any proof that Osama is guilty in Sep. 11 tragedy. Every day I feel more and more like US bombs the wrong place.

Speaking from 20 years as Airport Police and Airport Fire Fighter...Plus, over 50 Courtroom testimonies...

...Proof is for the CourtRoom. You never revile your evidence before a trial. That would be stupid! Don't matter if just an infraction of the law or a capital offence.

BTW: He will get a fair Trial if he asks for it now. Much more fair that in most countries.

Never lay your cards on the table before your hand is played.