Iraq May Chair Disarmament Conference
Wed Jan 29, 2:32 PM ET
By BARBARA BORST, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS - Iraq is in line to take over as chairman of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in May, prompting one U.S. official Wednesday to say: "The irony is overwhelming."
Richard Grenell, spokesman for U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte, issued the comment as officials realized Iraq was in line for the rotating post. India now holds it and will be followed by Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland and Israel as countries take the job in alphabetical order.
U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said on Tuesday that the choice of conference leaders is "a purely automatic rotation by alphabetical order" with five or six conference presidents each year, each serving a term of about four weeks.
"I think you could expect that from time to time a letter would come up that might raise questions in certain quarters, but it has no political significance, I would say," said Eckhard, spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), when asked if Iraq holding the job did not seem odd.
The 66-nation Conference on Disarmament, based in Geneva, is the world's top disarmament forum. It meets annually for 24 weeks in three sessions beginning in January.
The U.N. General Assembly established the conference in 1979 with 40 members to consolidate the work of several Geneva, Switzerland-based negotiating bodies that had been set up in the 1960s.
The conference, which adopts its decisions by consensus, has negotiated such major multilateral arms limitation and disarmament agreements as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. It also steered talks on the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
Notar520AC From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1606 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1855 times:
Oh my God!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!! That is so frickin hilarious! That really tempts me to change my hesitation about nuking the whole country...
Notar520AC From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1606 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1809 times:
I apologize- I shouldn't have jumped to that statement- I just turned my reputation into mud, didn't I? Sometimes I slip- I admit it, but we've been discussing this so much in our history class that I'm so tired of the threat just being there...
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3667 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1766 times:
That sounds strange, right.
But the principle of a rotating presidence is not new.
Perhaps Iraq should have been banned from the UN, then we wouldn't have had that sort of situation ?
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7702 posts, RR: 55 Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1766 times:
I assumed when I opened this post that the 'mother of all ironies' was someone pointing out the absurdity of the nation with the most WMD (and strongest appetite for using them) using aforementioned WMDs against a nation with one of the smallest stockpiles of WMDs (assuming they have any at all), for having WMDs.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 24 Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
Yes!!! Bravo, Cedarjet: You are the one that really pointed to the ultimate Irony. Unluckily GWB is not going to understand it. Once, quite long ago I wrote my simplest thoughts about Bush jr., president. It was on Kyoto but can be applied to any of Bush thoughts. I wrote "George W. Bush is gonna fuck it all", (you can read it here) and I maintain it. He f*ed Texas while he was the governor, he just f*ed Alaska, he's gonna f*ck Iraq very soon whatever UN say, and the consequences of it will be more anti-americans everywhere, with the risk extended to fanatism of many people, and increasing the risk for his co-citizens of suffering more attacks at home worse than the NY-WTC one. That one was very impressive, very spectacular, but quite limited. There are many different discrete ways of being more harmful and during longer time than just crashing a couple of jets. And why? just for some oil and a couple of dollars, no matter how many innocents must die or become poorer... Just wait and see.
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2698 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1747 times:
I thought it was about the US being appointed debt-collector-in-chief for those member nations that had not paid their membership dues.
When are you guys going to stop picking on the UN ? You claim it is a non-working organisation but the truth of the matter is that you don't really want it to work. Effective multi-lateral action would play hell with your unilateral desires don't you think ? Fine for you to think that way but save the canned outrage for someone who believes it.
Your government goes out of it's way to marginalise or disregard the UN's efforts so big surprise that it is not what it should be. Having said that I think it is a vast improvement over past international relations efforts but such a conclusion would require perspective ... in short supply around here I know.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1696 times:
It is hard not to ignore the UN given that organization's impotence and incompetence. The appointment of Iraq, Iran, and Libya to some key posts just add to the bass ackwardness of the UN.
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2698 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1689 times:
Since all you UN-haters seem to love Jeeeeeesus so much I just thought I would remind you of the 'he who is without sin casting the first stone' rule of thumb.
If your own country were a responsible member of the UN others might take your opinions more seriously. Get your own house in order before smugly critisizing every fucked-up decision others make.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1683 times:
Easy there PJ. The problem with your beloved UN is the decisions that they do not make or do not even consider. Rather than responding to Iraq's defiance for 11 years, they sat there like a jackass in a hailstorm. Now everyone expects them to be taken seriously all of a sudden. I do not see it happening.
Toady From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 724 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1683 times:
"India now holds it and will be followed by Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland and Israel as countries take the job in alphabetical order."
All the more reason to get the war over and done with quickly. If the invasion can be completed by the end of Iran's tenure, there might be a decent Iraqi government to take the disarmament chair.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1677 times:
What does this say about the United Nations? It says that it is just that. Every nation should be involved. Not just nations that the all-godly US deems suitable or those that don't pose a threat to peace (ironically including the US).
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7702 posts, RR: 55 Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1644 times:
Come on, the US has attacked loads of countries since I started counting (1984): Lebanon, Sudan, Afganistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Somalia, Serbia... and the US is somehow more suitable for membership to the UN than Iraq, who have attacked only two (Iran and Kuwait), or Iran, who have attacked none?
And Turbulence is right, Dubya is steering the US right into another 9/11, and if you were surprised how many rational, compassionate people around the world failed to express surprise, you wait til the next one. The chorus of "you asked for it" will be deafening (not the same as being unsympathetic to the actual victims btw).
Finally, I pointed out the irony of the WMD king attacking a WMD pauper for having, maybe, a few little WMDs. Further irony: if aforesaid WMD pauper (Iraq) do have any, guess who they bought them off? How many times has Donald Rumsfeld been to Baghdad to sell WMDs to Saddam? (answer: two trips, 1983 & 1984).
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1565 times:
Come on, the US has attacked loads of countries since I started counting (1984): Lebanon, Sudan, Afganistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Somalia, Serbia... and the US is somehow more suitable for membership to the UN than Iraq, who have attacked only two (Iran and Kuwait), or Iran, who have attacked none?
Let's take a look at your list, Cedarjet, and let's define what you mean by "attack".
By "attack", in this context, I take it to mean "start a conflict". Let's take a look at those.
-Lebanon: Sent to help Lebanon and Israel in attacks from Syrian-backed militia. Oh, and over 200 marines were "attacked" and killed in a terrorist attack there. The conflict was already underway when the U.S. entered it.
-Sudan. Cruise missiles launched on Sudan in response to the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. In other words, the U.S. was attacked first.
-Iraq. Responded in 1991 after Iraq occupied Kuwait. It was a war started by Iraq, and the U.S. lead a COALITION that included Arab nations to take Kuwait back. In other words, Iraq started the conflict.
-Panama: This was an attack. It was an attack to oust a known international drug-trafficker. I didn't agree with the invasion, but it sure helped Panama.
-Greneda: Hardly worth mentioning as a major engagement. A communist regime was threatening Americans on the island, and the U.S. went in, got them out, and shot it out with a few Cuban soldiers.
-Nicaragua: I don't remember any attack on Nicaragua. Refresh my memory on that one. I don't recall that one.
-Somalia: Peace-Keeping mission, under the guise of the U.N. Oh, a bunch of Yanks were murdered in the streets of Mogadishu.
-Serbia: Part of a Peace-keeping mission under NATO command. The conflict was already underway.
So, under the way I see it, only one of those "attacks" was really an "attack"-Panama. The rest were in response to aggression, or under the guise of peace-keeping mission. I think you miss the mark on this one, Cedarjet.
Footnote: the two conflicts started by Iraq cost over 1 million lives, something you failed to mention.
And Turbulence is right, Dubya is steering the US right into another 9/11, and if you were surprised how many rational, compassionate people around the world failed to express surprise, you wait til the next one. The chorus of "you asked for it" will be deafening (not the same as being unsympathetic to the actual victims btw).
And you'll be at the head of the cheering section, secretly happy that someone else bloodied the U.S, right? And yes, it is the same as being unsympathetic to the victims. If you're saying "you asked for it", you include the American people, Cedarjet. Stop the double-talk.
Again, it's amazing that something I found amusing has been turned into another hysterical, overdone anti-American thread, led by the likes of PJ, and his endless attempts to belittle the U.S. You guys are really pathetic.
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1539 times:
Alpha1,
I read this thread as per your recommendation and whilst I see idiotic anti-american statements I see just as many idiots who can't quite grasp simple concepts.
Irony? What's the irony in rotating responsibilities? Sure, they should EXPEL Iraq from the UN, but whilst they are a member nation they have every right to be involved.
As for the UN itself, what's your problem? Seems to me a convenient organisation to ignore when you want to and vilify when you wish. The UN is useless because nobody takes it seriously and i'm sorry, but the USA is one of the biggest offenders, only supporting the Un when it wants something or when it agrees. That's not how democratic organisations work, and if our "well respected superpower" won't honour the organisation, why would you expect any other country to do it? Or are you suggesting we do as America says rather than as they do?
All in all, this thread is pretty crappy .... and I think this statement pretty much sums it all up:
So your problem with the UN is that it dares to try to represent the opinions of the world, rather than just the US?
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1533 times:
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
Irony? What's the irony in rotating responsibilities?
No, no, there's no irony in the rotating of responsibilities, but the irony, and it is one, is that Iraq's rightful turn-on the disarmament commission-comes at a time when Iraq is in the middle of a disarmament question. It is a delicioius irony, and I found it amusing. That's why I'm dismayed at what the thread was turned into, that's all.
Sure, they should EXPEL Iraq from the UN, but whilst they are a member nation they have every right to be involved.
I never said that, did I? That wasn't the point of my thread at all. It was simply the timing of the event, and I found it amusing.
As for the UN itself, what's your problem? Seems to me a convenient organisation to ignore when you want to and vilify when you wish.
Why do you have to say "you", ADG? For a majority of nations in that peculiar body, that is the way it works-Russia (USSR), China, France, Britian, the U.S., and other nations over the years like Uganda, Argentina, Israel, Iran and others have done the same thing-run to the U.N. when it suits their purpose, and conveniently ignored it when the U.N. is found opposing their particular nation. It is not something common only to the U.S. Such a statement is disingenious, to say the least.
So your problem with the UN is that it dares to try to represent the opinions of the world, rather than just the US?
My problem, ADG, with the UN is that while it is the only voice of "world opinion", it has screwed up more of it's missions than any organization known to man, and often makes a mockery of itself by some if it's internal decisions, like the latest with Libya, and last year in putting a nation like Zimbabwe on a human rights commission. It is also cynically looked at because it refuses to get rid of one of the worst decisions it ever made-to put veto power in the hands of 5 nations on the security council.
I have no problem with the basic concept of the UN. I have a problem with the way it's misuesed in the world, by everyone, and by it's appalling beaucratic bumbling.
BNE From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 3156 posts, RR: 13 Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1519 times:
I did not start this as a prelude to commenting on it, or for flaming purposes, but I couldn't help but laugh over the incredible irony
Does the term a red rag to a bull mean anything.
And Turbulence is right, Dubya is steering the US right into another 9/11, and if you were surprised how many rational, compassionate people around the world failed to express surprise, you wait til the next one. The chorus of "you asked for it" will be deafening (not the same as being unsympathetic to the actual victims btw).
And you'll be at the head of the cheering section, secretly happy that someone else bloodied the U.S, right? And yes, it is the same as being unsympathetic to the victims.
I don't think anyone in the world would be happy with another 9-11 tradegy, but the rest of the world would be thinking that any future tradegy that the US had it coming.
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3667 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
I don't want to "pour oil on the fire" as we say in French, but it would be FAR MORE IRONIC that the US headed the disarmament commission, while the military expenses in the USA have litterally exploded after the 11th September (and is the 1st in the world by far) !!!!
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 24 Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
Eh!!!
Wait a moment...
The fact saying that another NY-WTC is coming on, or even "you asked for it", which i did not dare writing, but actually think, does not mean being unsympathetic to the victims; the civil population (or the "mostest" of them) do not deserve what happened, but the foreign policy of the USA somehow caused it... It has been discussed endless times...
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1466 times:
No, no, there's no irony in the rotating of responsibilities, but the irony, and it is one, is that Iraq's rightful turn-on the disarmament commission-comes at a time when Iraq is in the middle of a disarmament question.
Amusing sure, but hardly worth getting into a lather about. Is America moving for Iraqs removal from the UN?
It is a delicioius irony, and I found it amusing. That's why I'm dismayed at what the thread was turned into, that's all.
Ah ... I see and agree. It's timing is amusing. You'd better watch out though, you exhibit almost Australian like humour there
I never said that, did I? That wasn't the point of my thread at all. It was simply the timing of the event, and I found it amusing.
Yes, I missed your point as well. I have to admit that it was lost in the feral rantings posted after your post.
Why do you have to say "you", ADG?
In this instance "you" referred to everyone above bitchin about the UN.
For a majority of nations in that peculiar body, that is the way it works-Russia (USSR), China, France, Britian, the U.S., and other nations over the years like Uganda, Argentina, Israel, Iran and others have done the same thing-run to the U.N. when it suits their purpose, and conveniently ignored it when the U.N. is found opposing their particular nation. It is not something common only to the U.S. Such a statement is disingenious, to say the least.
The statement is the truth. More so for America as it is a "superpower", a country we should all look up to, and yet whilst vilifying others for misbehaving it's one of the most visible examples of people who do not honour the UN. Why should others listen to the UN when America wont'? Hardly a glowing example to the rest of the world.
My problem, ADG, with the UN is that while it is the only voice of "world opinion", it has screwed up more of it's missions than any organization known to man, and often makes a mockery of itself by some if it's internal decisions, like the latest with Libya, and last year in putting a nation like Zimbabwe on a human rights commission. It is also cynically looked at because it refuses to get rid of one of the worst decisions it ever made-to put veto power in the hands of 5 nations on the security council.
Isn't there a saying about reaping what you sow?
I have no problem with the basic concept of the UN. I have a problem with the way it's misuesed in the world, by everyone, and by it's appalling beaucratic bumbling.
and if your country were to show it the respect it deserves, perhaps other countries will learn by example and you wouldn't look quite so hypocritical when whining about the behaviour of the UN.
B747forlife From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 392 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1402 times:
I was wondering, when has the US threathened to use its WMD in the past 30 or so years? They haven't. Who has attacked his own people and Kuwait, and Israel, and is lying to inspectors, and etc.? Saddam, through Iraq. Don't give me that irony crap about the US, the only irony is that the one country that has been ordered to disarm isn't, and will head the disarmarment commission.
Why do you need to even bring in the part about US debts? If the US lowered the amount of money it gave 25%, like Japan just did, the UN would be bankrupt, so be happy for what the UN is getting.
-Nick
25 ADG: I was wondering, when has the US threathened to use its WMD in the past 30 or so years? Nice classification. They used nukes on Japan, they pointed th
26 Alpha 1: They used nukes on Japan, they pointed them at the USSR (that's threatening) 1. Used on Japan to finish a war Japan started. Made unnecessary an inva
27 ADG: 1. Used on Japan to finish a war Japan started. Again Alpha1, I wasn't making a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the action, merely that the
28 Alpha 1: Again Alpha1, I wasn't making a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the action, merely that the action had been taken. I wrote that, fully unde
29 B747forlife: ADG - But where is his threat against America? You see, one more thing a lot of liberals are confused about. A lot of them push for more global involv
30 ADG: I wrote that, fully understanding that's what you meant. But I think it's important to round out the story. To simply say "you used them on Japan", wi
31 Cmk10: If you ask me the mother of all ironies is the pop up blocker pop up ad. DC-10's Forever
32 Alpha 1: Then next time ensure you do not write it in a manner as to infer I may have deliberately left it out to slant the conversation, it is in this instanc
33 ADG: If you ask me the mother of all ironies is the pop up blocker pop up ad. Alpha1, We're not on first name basis ... With all due respect, ADG, I think
34 Alpha 1: Alpha1, We're not on first name basis ... If your first name embarrasses you that much, I will refrain from using it. Agian, a mountain out of a mole
35 ADG: Agian, a mountain out of a mole hill. and yet I had to ask you twice? *yawn* Then bringing up the attack, is equally irrelevant. Rubbish. it was a res
36 Alpha 1: If that's what you call pointing out the facts then so be it alpha1. Half truths and half the story are not "facts". Facts are when you include the wh
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From France, joined May 2001, 3667 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7702 posts, 
From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2698 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 3156 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
