[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

How many times have I expressed my views on human and civil rights in these forums? Do you *honestly* think that blatantly misrepresenting my position like that is a way of taking a debate forward?

It doesn't matter what you say, if aren't prepared to back it up with action. You can say "Saddam was a terrible man, Iraq is full of human rights abuses", etc, but if aren't prepared do anything about it, then words are worthless.

No, but as Matt has pointed out you were claiming that France would veto *any* second resolution regarding Iraq when actually it was any resolution aimed at triggering war with them.

See first point.

And what does a sweeping generalisation like "The UN has been thoroughly
impotent for years" have to do with Iraq?

Actually, everything, which is why I am bringing it up. The UN's shamefully lackluster attitude to Iraq and its citizens are precisely why we have this mess. They put sanctions on Iraq, patted themselves on the back, saying they did all they can do. How many children were dying under sanctions that wern't working? How can sanctions work on such a sadistic man who doesn't care his citizens are dying? And how many people died, or were abused, during the 12 years between Gulf War 1 & Gulf War 2? All those opponents to the regime, and those who were there to satistfy the trio's sick sadistic bloodlust.

I said the UN needs a lot of new staff, but thinking about it earlier, it needs a bit more than that. It needs a whole new change of attitude. The UN was created to prevent another world war. That translates to "peace at any cost". That means so long as regimes aren't warring, what they do to their citizens go largely untouched. It needs to be proactive in protecting the citizens of countries, who, when they needed it most, never recieved it. I.e. millions of Iraqis in the 1990s.

Does that justify attacking Iraq because the UN have been (according to you) unable to do anything about anyone else's human rights abuses elsewhere in the world?

The UN should never have allowed Iraq to drag on like it did. The only justification needed was that what Saddam was doing, ignoring his weapons, was unacceptable. Respectable people in civilised countries shouldn't allow this to go on in other places.

And what the UN was doing might not have worked, but they were *also* trying. Of course it's always easy to criticise something and say it didn't work with 20/20 hindsight.

I have always said this. I have always had little respect for the UN, and I have resented it for his attitude towards Iraq. You call sanctions trying? It is amazing to think anyone would think sanctions would fix the problem, or work on someone like Saddam (off hand, I can't think of any situation that sanctions has actually solved a problem like this). I would say that with foresight, let alone hindsight. Throughout the 90s, the UN had enough opportunity to say "nothing is changing, lets change gear", because what changed in the 90s? Nothing. The sanctions went on, and the US/UK bombed targets in the no-fly-zones. What did it achieve? Nothing. The situation would have rolled on for many more years. Soemone said that Saddam wouldn't live forever. Well, when he have died naturally, control would have passed to Uday who much, much worse, because he is much more sadistic, and psychotic. They would die, but then they would have sons... etc.