Need help to win an argument on the UN

[cirej2000]

Me and one of my buddies were playing poker last night after MNF, having a few brews and listinging to KGO AM 810 (a station in the City). The host of the show, Gene Burns, was debating with some apparent neo-con on the validity of Iraq. Gene (who is normally pretty conservative on social issues not dealing with religion), was shooting this nut down regarding how * violated international law by ignoring the UN in going into Iraq.

The neo-con finally had to agree that * broke international law by invading a sovereign country.

My friend (a democrat, but still brainwashed by the media and watches Faux-News alot), starting spouting arguments about how valid international law is if the UN is a body of law because:

Of the UN's failure in Rawanda(spelling?) what failures?

The fact that Iraq and Libya have major roles on the UN committees.

Russia, France and Germany three of the key nations against * were in cahoots with Saddam...I know he owed them money for sending food and medical aide, but he says that they were supplying him with ammo after 1991?

The UN blew the mission in Somalia (if anything, the neocons will say it was the president, not the UN).

The UN didn't enforce the resolutions (well we all know how to shove this back in their faces)

The rest of the stuff he said was straight out of a meeting with a bunch of Mountain Men...hmmm, well he is starting to get into NASCAR :).

I gotta save my friend more than anything...he's starting to go to the dark side and is starting to fall for the media attack on us. He thought that chimpy turkey adventure was cool!!

Help! I need ammo!

-kev

[Iverson]

1. the other fellow's arguments are diversions

The simple response is that failure to do the admittedly right thing in one situation does not negate doing the admittedly right thing in another situation.

[htuttle]

2. Try an analogy

Is our own justice system infallible? No. Are mistakes made in US courts? Yes. Sometimes innocent people go to jail, and guilty people go free.

Does that mean we should toss out the whole of jurisprudence and law enforcement, and go back to raw vigilantism and clan-feuds? No. No it doesn't.

It's same with the UN.

Tell him he's 'making the perfect the enemy of good'. He'll hate that.

[SCantiGOP]

3. Keep it simple

For a half century since the end of WWII, the US led the world towards two policies to govern foreign affairs: One is that preventative was is never acceptable, and the other was that disputes and emergencies were best handled through the United Nations. Our actions in Iraq effectively killed both of those premises, and removed any claims to moral leadership which we may have had. On Sept 12 of 2003 the US arguably had more good will and support than at any time in our history; today, we are more despised and mistrusted than at any time in history. The world will pay for Bush's mistakes in the next century.

[zbdent]

4. LOL - a RW site which tries to make the case that Clinton's action

on Kosovo was an illegal war.

The link to the argument: http://www.citizensoldier.org/illegalwar.html

What's hilarious is almost every point made declaring that Clinton's Kosovo action was illegal is mirrored by Bush's "legal" war!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

5. some responses

regarding Rawanda, he is referring to the genocide in the 90's that claimed millions of lives that the U.N. did nothing to intervene in. Tell him neither did the U.S., presumably because there are no vast oil reserves there. Ask your friend if it is coincidence that every military action by Shrub has involved oil rich states. Remind him that Bill Clinton got us into Somalia for true humanitarian reasons, to feed starving people.

regarding Somalia, just because they watched blackhawk down they think they know all the strategic and tactical realities of that conflict.

regarding Russia, France and Germany - there are tons of allegations of Russians, French and Germany sending weapons. Of course, what they mean is that there were Russian, French, and German weapons in Iraq when we invaded. Does this mean that Putin, Chirac and Schroeder all got together and sent weapons to Iraq? No, what it means is that Hussein knew how to tap into the arms black market. It amazes me when this argument comes up, when the whole reason the U.S. went to Iraq in the first place was to find WMD's which we DIRECTLY gave Saddam.

BTW, your friend's not a democrat.

[Bandit]

7. Remind him that Bill Clinton got us into Somalia

Actually it was George Bush the first that got America involved in Somalia. It was President Clinton that got us out.

[Hamlette]

6. the US and the UN

Rwanda was a horrible mistake. There were a few UN troops in there but they were not allowed to use force.

The problem there was it was a civil war which brings up a whole set of issues for intervention. Yes, we should have stopped it but in defense of the UN it happened very quickly. It shocked us all that it was over in about 90 days. We didn't expect it.

Because the UN has made mistakes does not mean it should be disbanded.

We blew the mission in Somalia and it was because our helicopter was shot down. War is hell. We should know that going in. Somalia spooked us which is why we didn't go in to Rwanda.

Tell him just because international law is broken is no reason to not have international law. People who are not handicapped park in handicapped stalls so should we not have handicapped parking stalls?

And the US should PAY ITS DUES! Sheesh. Of course they have no status, we've spent years bashing them and not paying our dues. It's like teachers, we expect them to teach our children everything, including values and morals which is really a parents job, and pay them next to nothing. It shows disrespect which breads disrespect. Kids aren't going to listen to teachers when the society values them so little that they bash them all the time and don't pay them. Same with the UN.

We bash the UN because we want to use them. We say we went to war in Iraq to enfoce the UN resolutions. Then we disobeyed one UN resolution to enforce another? Oh really. How convenient.

[cirej2000]

8. Thanks for the answers folks

Too much Jagermeister makes it hard to argue with someone who's used to arguing this stuff :)

[reachout]

9. Different reasons

I agree that the UN is now more of a problem than a solution. You can start with the fact that it is a blatantly undemocratic institution, with the victors from WWII holding all the cards and deciding which resolutions become a reality and which don't. The United States has used its veto power to block anything that remotely fails to line-up with its interests. It has turned into nothing more than a mop-up brigade for whatever mess this country runs around the world creating. Just look at the after-the-fact ratification of the invasion via the resolution hailing the U.S. puppet governing council in Iraq.

The UN is in a "battered wife" syndrome with the United States, thinking that somehow, this time, it can keep it from violence; when in fact all it does is further enable it.

The UN's problems are a lot bigger than Rawanda or Somalia.

[cirej2000]

10. Well c'mon now...gimme something more than that

Ok, so maybe my friend isn't becoming a facist. I guess he won't lose 80 lbs, his hearing and have back pains... :)

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Oh, where do I start...

International law existed long before the UN, and the UN was never intended to be a world government with enforcement powers.

The UN is a forum, where problems are identified, solutions are proposed, and actions taken voluntarily. International law involves treaties and agreements between nations that are separate from the UN, although their paths cross often.

The first Geneva Convention, for instance, was in 1864-- well before the founding of the UN.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

The failure in Rwanda was not the UN's per se. It was a failure of international commitment to stop the killing. Within the UN, there was massive outrage at the genocide, but many of the individual members preferred to do nothing and leave it to Africans to deal with African problems. As Africans dealt with Idi Amin and others.

The present mess in the Congo, the slave trade, child labor, and the illicit diamond trade are other examples of the same talk in the UN and attempts by its relief agancies to help, but failure of major powers to take action.

The old days of UN blue helmets with Irish, Kenyan, and other troops from nonaligned nations rushing in seem to be waning.

All countries rotate on the non-veto Security Council seats and other committees, and our impression of them has little to do with whether or not they should be there. Kind of like a Californian weighing in on how Tom deLay's district should vote. Many of those assignments and votes were a deliberate slap at the US which insisted on trying to run things while not even paying its bills. Such games might not be nice, but should be expected.