Time Out

The New Republic ^ | January 30, 2003 | The Editors

[Servant of the Nine]

Even the Neo-Liberals Bible is hawkish on war. The Democrats are in almost as much trouble as Saddam Hussein.

So9

[zarf]

Awesome editorial by the New Republic.

The New York Times editorials as of late have been mind bogglingly inconsistent and appeasement oriented.

The Washignton Post, on the other hand, has earned my respect with consistant editorials that cut to the chase.

[Mr. Bird]

The New Republic is too old an institution to recklessly advocate for the wrong side of history. It will be interesting to watch certain liberal organs (news anchors and several magazines such as Newsweek and Time) flail about once the true nature of Hussein's regime is exposed to the light of day.

It may not be the equivalent of the liberation of the concentration camps, but the severity of his oppression will be revealed as a repugnant chapter in modern history. The appeasers will attempt to "blend" in with those of us who have seen the situation in realistic terms. Hopefully, entities such as Free Republic will not allow them to get away with it.

[Steve_Seattle]

For a long time, I have given The New Republic credit for not being blatantly partisan. Political partisanship and anti-Bushism, not coherent thinking about Iraq, is what motivates The New York Times, Daschle, etc. There is no way that the war in Kosovo met the standards that The Times insists upon in going to war with Iraq, but The Times supported it because Clinton was a Democrat. Remember the rubbish that the war in Kosovo was "the first humanitarian war"? As if we went into WWI or WWII for selfish reasons.

[Southack]

Outstanding editorial, especially to come from NorthEastern liberals...

[Southack]

fyi

[Dog Gone]

It's a great editorial, but attacking the New York Times for inconsistency is not nearly as hard as it once might have been.

[Southack]

True, but this editorial is from the Left, which isn't the source normally associated with criticizing the NY Crimes...

[philman_36]

Iraq, he writes, "appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it."
One day that statement is going to say...
The United States, he writes, "appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it."

If Iraq can be disarmed at the will of the UN can the same be demanded of the United States?

[Servant of the Nine]

If Iraq can be disarmed at the will of the UN can the same be demanded of the United States?

It can if we lose a war and agree to those terms for a cease fire like Saddam did.

So9

[philman_36]

It can if we lose a war and agree to those terms for a cease fire like Saddam did.
UN Department for Disarmament

DISARMAMENT ISSUES

Maybe you should read up on the subject. You seem to be under a delusion.

[Nick Danger]

The New Republic is too old an institution to recklessly advocate for the wrong side of history.

Just as importantly, they seem to know it. The current people in place are but the custodians of a reputation that took a long time to build, and that will have value long after they are gone.

I do not understand why the owners of the just-as-venerable New York Times have chosen to trade their institution's incredible reputation and power for a few ineffectual spears thrown at one Republican President. Such short-term thinking boggles the mind.

[Servant of the Nine]

Maybe you should read up on the subject. You seem to be under a delusion.

1. We have a Veto on the Security Council.
2. The UN and it's General Assembly don't have the power to enforce the color of their Berets without US support.
3. The UN can vote to lower the acceleration of Gravity. So What?

So9

[philman_36]

The United Nations was founded on the belief that peace and security for all peoples would only be possible through disarmament. Article 26 of the United Nations Charter calls for 'the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources'.

[philman_36]

Voluntary agreement...treaties...
The US has agreed to disarm voluntarily.

[philman_36]

The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World
The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:
The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.

[philman_36]

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA)

[philman_36]

And never forget that small arms are considered by the UN as WOMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)(see the left hand column header)
SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS (SALW)

[Eva]

And Iraq is scheduled to take its turn as head of the disarmament committee.

I am afraid that the UN is finished, no matter what actions the security council takes. The UN no longer has the moral authority to back its own action, so who cares what they do?

Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. We are the largest contributors to the UN, so if we withdraw our funds and start charging them rent for the building, maybe they will move to an appropriate third world country.