Too late, pal!

Can't blame Kofi Annan for the actions of the Security Council. He's done a pretty good job at a horribly thankless position.

the bastard child of all world organizations is parroting about "legitimacy". so much irony i could choke. that man wouldn't know legitimacy if it bit him in his mamby-pamby, coddled little ass.

Sounds like Baghdad Bob with his Reality Distortion Field.

"Always Out Front"

Gee...did he check w/ Chirac before he said this?

Jackass

LOL...Tht is funny! If Kofi Anan wanted to establish some credibility for the un he had his chance this past weekend when a u n group failed to stop the slaughter of over 1,000 souls in his old stomping grounds...

Kofi! Get a clue, your a bum and we all know it.

Legitimacy. I do not think it means what he thinks it means...

The UN adds legitimacy? Har-har! The UN couldn't determine if Resolution 1441 was legitimate!

"...the U.N. has had good experience in this area," according to Kofi.

Palestine, Lebanon, and a number of other places may question that! Kosovo -

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/501nlmdb.asp UN+EU=DISASTER After 4 years on Kosovo nothing works - via http://www.command-post.org/oped/archives/004232.html 'Kosovar journalist Beqe Cufaj, German correspondent for Koha Ditore, summed up the situation eloquently on March 23: "This morning when Berlin announced that the U.N. secretary general and the Security Council have tasked Germany and its government with compiling an urgent plan for humanitarian aid to postwar Iraq, a Kosovar could not help but shudder. . . .Let us hope this really involves humanitarian aid and nothing else. . . . Because if the Iraqi people have to undergo anything like what we have in Kosovo, God help them. . . . That should be the message to the Iraqis from the Kosovars, a people experienced with the U.N. and exhausted by life in UNMIKistan!" '

What he said:
"U.N. Role in Iraq Will Add Legitimacy"

What he meant:
"U.N. Role in Iraq Will Add Legitimacy to the U.N."

I think we should be more concerned with setting up a representative gov't for the people of Iraq and less concerned with making the world community feel legimate.

The only thing Annan can do to bring legitimacy is to pull a "Rachel" and step in front of a M-1!

Testify, Vicky!

Hey Malik, The job Mr Anan has may be thankless but have you checked his swiss bank account lately...

What a joke, the u n is nothing but a cadre of despots who arrived at the table of largess at the point of some gun. 70% of the shills sitting at the table have something to hide...take your u n loving where it might sell..the u n is a series of big mistakes.

Legitimacy?

Like Kosovo, where the UN failed to act in the face of genocide?

Like 12 years worth of crap in Iraq that the UN uttery failed to do anything?

Like keeping murderous dictators like Mugabe and his kleptocrats from killing their own people?

Like the UN worked in N.Korea with Jimmy Carter in preventing them from continuing a nuclear program?

Legitimacy, when almost HALF the countries that make the UN membership are dictatorships who keep their people in almost midaeval poverty?

Legitimacy, as in Iraq heading DIsarmament comittee, and Libya in charge of Human Rights?

Yeah Right. Kofi you go back and play in your doll house - the grownup nations have work to do. We'll let you know when we need someone to come in and do some minor chores.

To ensure legitimacy is given to this effort, I hold that the U.N. should move its headquarters from NYC to Baghdad.

"To ensure legitimacy is given to this effort, I hold that the U.N. should move its headquarters from NYC to Baghdad."

You bet. Either two weeks ago, just in time for the festivities. Or right now, rumor has it the Russian Embassy is available at a good price.

The UN's authority to confer legitimacy is comparable to Belgium's ability to evaluate the U.S.'s military planning (one of their multitude of ministers recently proclaimed our planners "unprofessional") or France's ability to do anything besides surrender or beat up on lightly armed African rebels (assuming they're winning).

Somehow I'm thinking that if the new Iraqi government emerges as a U.S. and British trading partner, the Euro-Whores will find a way to get on board. Just a guess.

"The UN adds legitimacy? Har-har! The UN couldn't determine if Resolution 1441 was legitimate!

"Posted by Vince at April 7, 2003 12:47 PM "

There's another Vince lurking at this site? What are the odds? :)

I guess I'll have to start signing my infrequent contributions with "vjf."

- datarat

Princess Bride reference? If so, lol. If not, lol, anyway.

Who still shows up for the Kofi Annan press conferences?

RIGHT ON OLDSPOOK! YOU GO BROTHA!

Corky---

Haven't the Iraqi people suffered enough? I think we should move the UN headquarters to Antarctica.

Inconceivable!

I got the Princess Bride ref. too! :*D Nothing the UN does adds legitimacy to anything. I think the US should withdraw from the UN and kick them out of NY.

The UN adding legitimacy is like a prostitute adding chastity.

gee, King George does not want to include the UN or any other source in the "transitional government" in Iraq*

what a big farkin' shocker that is

Legitimacy?

Like how the UN "disarmament" committee was to be chaired by Iraq until just a few weeks ago?

Um,like how the UN has handled slavery in Africa?

Or maybe like how the UN has been allowing its member states to violate its own sanctions?

Mr. Annan has a lot more 'splainin' to do before I start thinking UN involvement lends "legitimacy."

Ratbane,

Thanks for restoring perspective to my previous argument. The Iraqi people have, indeed, suffered enough.

Your proposal, however, would bring undo pain & suffering to those poor penguins!

What Anna meant to say was: TO LEGITIMIZE UN's EXISTENCE.

Annan said: "Iraqis have to be responsible for their political future and to control their own natural resources, and whatever one can do to help the emergence of the new leadership in a new situation is what one should focus on."

Given the performance of countries like France, Germany, and Russia during the diplomacy phase, and their obvious economic interests in Iraq, I find the idea that U.N. "legitimacy" is somehow more legitimate than U.S. leadership in post-war Iraq absolutely laughable.

It's like they're saying they don't trust the U.S. to do the right thing, but I think we've all seen what the U.N. idea of "the right thing" is: craven political maneuvering, backbiting, and impotence. No thanks, Kofi...you can help feed the refugees and rebuild the power plants, but that's about it.

On Sunday, April 06th, Bernard Lewis was interviewed on C-SPAN's Book TV. He pointed out that the partition of the British Colony of India into India and Pakistan was accomplished without any UN involvement, the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine was done with the UN helping all the way.

Which would you consider more succesful?

Legitimacy?

Legitimacy comes from the consent of the people, in this case Iraq. Dictatorships do not have the consent of their people. Israel and Taiwan have legitimacy. Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea do not. Now who is in the UN?

The UN did a good job helping Cambodia establish a quasi-democratic government, defusing the Khmer Rouge.

I think y'all are being too hard on Annan. He doesn't have any power.

Look at Rwanda. Annan stood by while thousands were killed, even though the military guys on the ground were warning of genocide and begging for more peacekeepers. Why? Because the Security Council wouldn't agree to send more troops.

Annan is the boss of nothing. He can't do anything without consensus. That doesn't mean the UN is useless though. Look at the WHO. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm glad it's co-ordinating research and treatment on SARS.

Also, when Annan says the UN will bring legitimacy to a new Iraqi government, he's right. It would allow a lot more countries to get involved in the reconstruction. And America is going to need all the help it can get with that.

Managing the peace will likely be tougher than winning the war. This is a big opportunity for America to show the Arab world that it means what it says about democracy in the region.

Iraq's oil assets - well in excess of 3 TRILLION dollars - are more than enough to pay for the reconstruction.

Kofi's remark perfectly reflects the view of the transnational progressivists, namely, that legitimacy flows downward from authority, not upward from the governed. To be sure, the tranzi's notion of legitimacy has a very long history. It used to be called "the divine right of kings." I'm not sure what they call their theory of top-down legitimacy, but it will come to the same thing in the end.

Supreme Executive Power derives from a mandate of the people, not some watery tart lobbing a scimitar at you.

Right now, America's legitmacy in Iraq comes from military power, and nothing else. There won't be elections in Iraq for how long? A few years, likely. Until there are, Iraqis will live with an American military government, then some kind of appointed Iraqi government. Neither will have any legitimacy beyond that imposed by military power. This is not a small thing. If Iraqis and other Arabs see this as an occupation, it will be very difficult to build democracy in Iraq.

Look at Afghanistan. Lots of countries are helping with the reconstruction there, and it's not going smoothly.

Except for those cute UNICEF containers I see at Halloween, nothing of any use has come out of the UN in years. Some here have suggested that the UN be moved to Baghdad. I dissagree. They should remain right where they are so we can keep an eye on them. But when the new World Trade Center is complete, we should move them to the top floor.

I'm not necessarily hard on Annan (for this issue, at least). He has now real power.

And power is what this is all about. The entire push to keep the US out of Iraq has been about a great big European power grab. They don't have the gravitas on their own, so they hide behind the UN. Chiraq knows that with 35 hour work weeks, his country can never compete with the US. His best opportunity is to weaken the US through the UN.

Well Bush screwed that one up for him, to be certain.

Chiraq and the other UNSC weasels want nothing more than to de-ligimize the US. They will set booby traps up the entire way.

Their involvement must be limited, and it must be led by the coalition.

Steve -- Annan deliberately blocked any action in Rwanda. He and the UN are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Perhaps Kofi, and the French, Germans and Russians for that matter, should be reminded of the folk tale, "The Little Red Hen".

So, Has Chiraq (thanks phred, love that spelling) had a comment on the various chemical weapons found?

Annan has a thankless job, and he personally has tried. The UN is a vehicle for looking like a legitimate agency for international power politics, but really is designed to only work when the "great powers" have consensus. No consensus, nothing gets done but a lot of talk. The UN has no sovereignity of its own (for which some folks are glad and some sad). I have admired how hard Annan has worked. He should not be blamed when the UN has let bad things happen. It is often not his personal fault!

Just looking at economies, if I was a recently liberated country, who would I want to run things for awhile? France and Germany with unemployment close to 10% and so much debt they may not *qualify* for the EU this year? And that's with no military spending to speak of!

I'd rather have those nasty money-grubbing corporate minions that are making money hand over fist, thanks.

The UN will give any new government in Iraq "international legitimacy"?

Hahahahaha!!!

All this outrage over France and Germany seems a bit strange to me. The French, in particular, have their noses out of joint because they are becoming less and less powerful in the world. As American power grows, French power wanes. They don't like that. Too bad for them. But there are a handful of reasons why they tried to block this war. Some are bad and some are good.
1. They are afraid of losing their investments in Iraq.
2. They have loads of Muslims in France and French leaders are afraid of terrorism.
3. They don't trust American and British plans for Iraq.
4. A vast majority of French voters oppose the war.
5. They are afraid the war will destabilize the region.

I'm not saying they were right to block the UN resolution, but this boycott-France movement looks like an orchestrated propaganda campaign to me.

Before this war started, I thought there were three possibilities.
1. War with UN backing.
2. No war - for now - because of lack of UN backing.
3. War without UN backing.

I preferred options 1 and 2.

I'm Canadian, and I'm more or less pro-American, but I get nervous when it looks like you are going to start invading countries all over the place. What if Cuba is next?

After Sept. 11, I thought: If it's time to pick sides, I'm with the Americans against the Islamofacists. No question. Kill them. And I'm glad that Canadians have been fighting in Afghanistan.

I wasn't so sure about the Iraq war, partly because I wasn't sure how hard it would be. I didn't think I had enough information for a real risk-benefit analysis. Looks like it was worth it. I'm happy about that.

I just hope Syria, Iran and North Korea aren't next.

I doubt if any of them will. Not because the US wouldn't, but rather because this little demonstration currently going on in Iraq will undoubtedly give them all great pause. I don't think war will be necessary to convince them of the error of their ways.

The US does not want an empire, nor do we want to somehow impose our will on the whole world, in general. What we do want to do, and what we WILL DO, by whatever means necessary, is remove the threat of international terrorism from the American people. In so doing, we will also remove that threat from the world. But we're doing it for us, and we're doing it as a matter of self-defense.

And we won't stop until either the US, or international terrorism, is finished. It's still a matter of you're either for us, or against us, until this job is finished. Iraq is the second major battle field in this war. I hope amd pray it can be the last, but if it is not, oh well. If anyone else is looking for a war (or an arms race, for that matter), they can be accomodated.

Ever play poker? If you don't pay, you don't play.

What did the UN ante up?

"Look at Afghanistan. Lots of countries are helping with the reconstruction there, and it's not going smoothly."

Posted by steve at April 7, 2003 01:30 PM

Hate to further rain on your UN parade, but you might want to actually research the "evidence" given as support for your premise...the 'Interim Government' of Hamid Karzai WAS "legitimized" by the UN!

The Unilateral Nancies are finished...except to pass out 'milk & cookies' like the old women they are!

I'm all for continuing the war on terror, whenever and wherever necessary (although I wish it were more obvious that this war is about that).

I hope DSmith is right when he says that this war in Iraq should encourage Iran, Syria and N. Korea to mend their ways.

That's likely the best argument for the Iraq war.

Re. Karzai:

Because Karzai's govt was legitimized by the UN, lots of countries, including Canada, are helping with some of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan.

Nation building requires lots of patience and money. Part of the reason Osama had a base in Afghanistan is that the Americans ran out of patience after booting the Russians out of there.

Here's my point: America has an astonishingly powerful military. It needs to match that hard power with soft power to help rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It can use all the help it can get to do that. The UN, by legitimizing that process, opens the door to more help.

Re. Karzai:

Because Karzai's govt was legitimized by the UN, lots of countries, including Canada, are helping with some of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan.

Nation building requires lots of patience and money. Part of the reason Osama had a base in Afghanistan is that the Americans ran out of patience after booting the Russians out of there.

Here's my point: America has an astonishingly powerful military. It needs to match that hard power with soft power to help rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It can use all the help it can get to do that. The UN, by legitimizing that process, opens the door to more help.

Posted by steve at April 7, 2003 04:13 PM

Here is MY point which was YOUR point (originally!): The Unilateral Nancies were involved once again in 'legitimizing' the new Afgan government and as in your words; "and it's not going smoothly"! The US, WITHOUT the 'political correctness', velvet glove BS, did JUST FINE in both re-establishing new governments AND rebuilding countries in Japan AND Germany (just to name a couple). The only differerence, we didn't give a $HIT what the sniveling French had to say since they were still too busy cleaning the brown stains from their whites so they could wave them at someone! If we weren't so worried that we might "hurt someone's feeling's" then it would not be an issue!

Unless you are speaking of the proxy war, I think your facts are a little confused as to whom was involved in the Russian/Afgan war. We did not run out of patience, we ran out of INTERESTS!

What the entire WORLD needs to realize is the if you look at the ENTIRE GDP of the world (ALL 190 some odd nations!), the USA is roughly 58% of that! This BS that we are 'all equal' under the UN is ASININE! When you look at the 3-4% bugetary increase in defense spending this fiscal year being MORE IN TOTAL than the ENTIRE BUDGET for Germany, UK, & of course France PUT TOGETHER...bottom line, what are they (UK aside!) REALLY going to do/say about it, unless we LET THEM!?!?!

The only "soft power" we need, is the "soft", liberal, tree-hugging, pinko-commie bastards who have given away our country for DECADES to go BACK to the pulpit, and stay out of politics (STARTING with that bible-thumping IDIOT, Jimmy Carter!)...there is MORE than enough "revenue" in Iraq, for THEM to pay for their OWN rebuilding since it has already paid for 11 palaces with GOLD TOILETS!!!

BTW- F#(% CANADA! They are the QUINTESSENTIAL tree-huggers! See what "Gun Control" has gotten them...!

I hope they don't forget what continent that THEY are on (OURS!) before they run their mouth TOO much...and especially, before they assault anymore KIDS just trying to play HOCKEY!!!

Steve- your reasons for France opposing the US on Iraq are only a small part of the picture.

It's about the EU and re-arming Europe as a power to oppose US interests and eventually subjugate Europe...again. Although the former Soviet states are making noises that they may not be so quick to exchange one tyrant for another.

Have a look at the EU and TotalFinaElf links I posted on foolsblog today. It looks like the UK will again refuse to adopt the Euro..that's good news. Den Beste has a story on Hungary and the EU today.

IMO while the US media is focused on the Arab world and the US being the bad guys...France is pulling a fast one. We may see a replay of this photo one day.

"I do expect the U.N. to play an important role, and the U.N. has had good experience in this area," Annan said.
Did I read this right??? The U.N. has had good experience in this area! How is the Korea War doing in the 50's. Oh where were you in cambodia?
Is this pick & choose. United Nothing Debating Sociey! too late but you can pay to pickup and feed people, sort of a caregiver role rather than a leadership role...you're good at that.

"Unless you are speaking of the proxy war, I think your facts are a little confused as to whom was involved in the Russian/Afgan war. We did not run out of patience, we ran out of INTERESTS!"

You thought you did. In fact, it would have been in the interest of the United States to build a stable Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated. A huge security threat now comes from failed states like Afghanistan, where terrorists can set up training camps.

Helping Afghanistan would have cost a lot less than the consequences of not helping Afghanistan have cost.

"BTW- F#(% CANADA! They are the QUINTESSENTIAL tree-huggers! See what "Gun Control" has gotten them...!

I hope they don't forget what continent that THEY are on (OURS!) before they run their mouth TOO much...and especially, before they assault anymore KIDS just trying to play HOCKEY!!!"

Whoa. Relax.

We've been allies for a long time. We usually do what we're told, and I'm sure we will again. Chretien's government is on its last legs. Paul Martin, the next prime minister, will try to patch things up with Bush.

"Have a look at the EU and TotalFinaElf links I posted on foolsblog today. It looks like the UK will again refuse to adopt the Euro..that's good news. Den Beste has a story on Hungary and the EU today.

IMO while the US media is focused on the Arab world and the US being the bad guys...France is pulling a fast one."

Excellent link. The French are playing all sorts of nasty tricks to get their hands on oil.

This is normal, though, and little or no different from the kind of things countries have been doing forever to control important commodities. The U.S. has little to learn from the French when it comes to backing corrupt strongmen so American companies can make money from sugar, or bananas, or oil.

Great link, though.

By the way, you're likely right that France gets an easier ride than the United States does in the media, and it shouldn't.