Keith Devens .com

Would you say Annan has a vested interest in not going to war ?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/24/1046063958417.html

I dunno. I'm not so familiar with Annan's personal politics. I do know that the entire efficacy of the security council and the legitimacy of the UN hangs on this issue, however, so that may influence Annan's decisions in some way, beyond simply doing what's right.

Here's the crux of Annan's position:

He believes that inspections are "working" even though they're obviously not. Saddam is not cooperating. That's not in dispute. I can't imagine one sense in which the inspections can be said to be "working" in light of resolution 1441. So he's simply wrong about that. And...

Annan ... warned any action not sanctioned by the United Nations would lack legitimacy.

Here's the problem. People seem to think that the U.N., an organization where half of its members are countries run by dictators, an organization where Libya is running its human rights commission, an organization that has Iraq and Iran running its conference on disarmament, somehow has a higher moral authority. It doesn't.

But what's your point in bringing this up? What's your argument?

I think going to the UN was smart.

"Two birds with one stone."

We will disarm Iraq one way or another and bring freedom and democracy to that deranged desert.

The second thing that is an added bonus that will come out of all of this is hopefully the end of the UN by its own proven inadequacices first and foremost highlighted by the UN's lack in both Rwanda and Kosovo.

Nice.

See, I've been wondering whether I'd rather have the new resolution be approved or not. If it's approved, then Bush and Blair look good. The UN will continue to hang onto its legitimacy by a thread, but the UN won't have changed or become any more relevant. If the new resolution is not approved, then the UN loses all of its little remaining legitimacy, which is fine by me. Then maybe in the future we'll spend less time playing games in the "international debating society"

It's so ridiculous that the "legitimacy" of this war will somehow be dictated by countries like Angola and others I've never heard of which happen to have a seat on the security council right now, but are otherwise completely irrelevant in world politics. People have to understand that the UN gets it's legitimacy largely from us, not the other way around, since anything the UN decides is meaningless without the ability to enforce it, and we're basically the only ones who can. We also fund their anti-American asses.