The United Nations thread

[ledhed]

It started out as a dream of president Wilsons. Its was preceded by the failed League of nations. It was meant to be a place where the countries of the world could settle thier differences without war.
What do you feel the UN's place is in the world today ?
Because some people are confused as to what exactly the UN is feel free to post some UN facts.
I think that today the greatest problem confronted by the UN is the Middle East vs. Isreal . Until and unless that problem can be sloved , we can expect more war and continued terrorist attacks around the world, no matter how many the US kills or sticks in orange jump suits.
The second problem is one we hardly ever see mentioned in tnis forum. Gencide in Africa. In Sudan alone over two million dead africans at the hands of the Arab army and militia bear testiment to the futility of the UN. Not to mention Chad, The former Belgium congo, Somalia.
Third on a bad list is Nucular proliferation, with Iran threatening and N. Korea joi9ning the list of countries with nukes. Also the Kashmir area of Pakistam/ India , always ready to explode into a nuclear confrontation.
There's alot going on in the world today that dosn't involve the US or oil but millions are dying from it or being displaced.

 

[High-Test]

I think they could have done A lot more in the way of what's going on in sierra Leone and sudan, and I will say they did some stuff to help out In Rwanda, but it was too little, too late, as 800,000 tutsis had already been slaughtered. Great job UN. You really kept the peace there.[/sarcasm\]

 

[vladimir]

i'd say that certain security council members like china, russia or the usa have too much power in the UN. they can do whatever they want in tibet, chechenya or iraq...

 

[Danny]

I think Putin sounds like Poo tin.

 

[Danoff]

I think at this point everyone knows that because the US is a member of the UN, that means that every other member of the UN security council can control US policy.

It means that France and Germany have to sign off on it if we want to scratch our ass.

It's a way that tiny countries who's main source of income is tourism can weild the reigns on their big dumb American horse.


But the US better not do anything on its own or all of the citizens of those tourism countries will get really pissed off and rant about how the US should do nothing without their consent.


That's what the UN is. A chance for France to act important.

 

[vladimir]

thats wrong danoff...the US can veto everything and that is also the reason why china and russia can do what they want...

 

[Danoff]

thats wrong danoff...the US can veto everything and that is also the reason why china and russia can do what they want...

Then why do I keep running into people who claim that the war in Iraq is "illegal"?

 

[vladimir]

Then why do I keep running into people who claim that the war in Iraq is "illegal"?

because france would have vetoed any iraq resolution that would have allowed the USA to attack iraq.

why is this thread going to be a america/anti-america again?

i tried to say something about the security council, not about anything else. i even mentioned russia and china first and gave examples about their misbehavior as well...

maybe you don't know what a veto is? a veto allows you to stop any resolution, it won't allow you to make up resolutions of your own.

 

[Danoff]

maybe you don't know what a veto is? a veto allows you to stop any resolution, it won't allow you to make up resolutions of your own.

I went to elementary school too.

because france would have vetoed any iraq resolution that would have allowed the USA to attack iraq.

That's what I'm talking about. The fact that you used the word allowed there, like the UN has to offer its permission to the US for us to take care of ourselves. The whole concept of that is rediculous and heads right back to my post (which you said was not the case). The fact of the matter is, France wanted to feel important by attempting to prevent the US from going to war. They didn't realize how unimportant they were risking feeling if the US didn't listen to them. Now they get it.

 

[Pistachio]

I went to elementary school too.



That's what I'm talking about. The fact that you used the word allowed there, like the UN has to offer its permission to the US for us to take care of ourselves. The whole concept of that is rediculous and heads right back to my post (which you said was not the case). The fact of the matter is, France wanted to feel important by attempting to prevent the US from going to war. They didn't realize how unimportant they were risking feeling if the US didn't listen to them. Now they get it.

We have seen in the past that no matter how France vetoes (or any other country for that matter) it makes little difference to US policy. In fact the UN system in general ignored by the US when it so benefits them.

This was obvious in Iraq, when the UN didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq the US continued anyway, i hardly think this has made France feel powerful as you said.
Israel has breeched 75+ resolutions, with impunity, and the world has cared little or just been unable to do anything about it, hardly what i would call empowering, and this has had little effect on Israels military funding from the US.
Another example would be when the US was convicted by the World Court of what amounts to international terrorism, and demanded to pay reperations to Nicaragua, a demand that the US leadership openly resented and dissobeyed.

It is obvious that the US is not dictated it's foreign policy by the UN, the UN has very little effect on large powerful states, only able to realy exert influence on small weak states. As far as i can remember the UN has never stopped the US, USSR or Israel from achieving any of their goals.

 

[wellyrn]

How do you manage to live with the injustice danoff? Forget the millions of people dying in Africa; the US needs more power on the world stage!




I think the current UN is a joke for many reasons. The first attempt didn't work, this one subsisted for a while, it's time for a 3rd attempt i say. It's better to do it now than after WW3.

 

[ledhed]

Anyone know what the UN has been up to lately ? they seem kind of quiet. I thought that by now the situation in Sudan would be on the agenda. Did they run out of peace keepers ?
Amnesty International has alot of info on that mess, if anyones interested.
welryn..who is this US guy you keep talking about ? I find it hard to imagine with all that is going on in this very large country , that there is a conspiracy afoot to " grab " world power. What exactly is world power anyway and who would want to buy it ? Last time I saw the congress in session on cable they were very boring and didn't look very interested in grabbing anything, except maybe a drink or some lunch. Let me know where I can find these "world power " grabbers they sound interesting.

 

[Duke]

France wanted to feel important by attempting to prevent the US from going to war. They didn't realize how unimportant they were risking feeling if the US didn't listen to them. Now they get it.

That little comment about deer hunting and accordians hit a little close to home for them, I think...

 

[wellyrn]

Maybe the UN is still tending to its wounded anus...

Ledhed: The US as a nation has great "world power". If you forgot it is known as the "super power". Thats's not because it has x-ray vision and can shoot fireballs from its eyes.

It depends on your definition of Conspiracy. The easy answer to "who" is whoever can get thier hands on it. Obviously.



neon_duke: Im rofl you monkey. Why don't we make fun of the jews? They got slaughtered by Nazis too! HA! HA! frikin HA!

 

[Pistachio]

I wouldn't say the US is the sole superpower though. In contemporary political science you learn there are two superpowers on earth "the US and popular world opinion."

 

[vladimir]

I went to elementary school too.



That's what I'm talking about. The fact that you used the word allowed there, like the UN has to offer its permission to the US for us to take care of ourselves. The whole concept of that is rediculous and heads right back to my post (which you said was not the case). The fact of the matter is, France wanted to feel important by attempting to prevent the US from going to war. They didn't realize how unimportant they were risking feeling if the US didn't listen to them. Now they get it.

maybe france wanted to prevent injustice? france is not unimportant, they are only incapable of stopping US arrogance.
the problem is that the US never listens to anybody and doesn't give a **** about anybody else.

and if you look at all the vetoed resolutions, you will see that it is always the US that vetoes. since 1970, over half the vetoes were casted by the US.
(before 1970 it was the USSR that casted about 80% of the vetoes)

the USA uses the UN whenever it fits into their plans, and if it doesn't they don't care.

 

[ledhed]

Thats what countries do they look after thier own interest. Are you going to try to tell me that France didn't try to change the US governments course because it was not in Frances best interest to do so ? thats how the world works and how it always has. We are not a world community we are a world of communities and we expect our individual governments to look after our best interest.

 

[vladimir]

then please stop crying when anti-americanism is growing...

 

[Famine]

the USA uses the UN whenever it fits into their plans, and if it doesn't they don't care.

That may be accurate, but every other member of the UN has ignored them as and when it suits them.

As for the European Union... Jesus... Every member country is told that they must do "x", and Spain, Germany, France and Italy do whatever they want.

 

[ledhed]

hey Vlad , if you have not noticed I am a realist when it comes to the way countries act. I expect other countries and other people to be upset when the US is doing something they do not aggree with , just as I get upset when other countries do things to piss me off. I dont cry about crap I have no controll over. Then again I live in the country thats the 500 pound gorrilla so I guess it shouldnt worry me too much anyway what they think. What are they gonna do ? if I lived in France do you think I'd worry any more ? Or Canada ? I may be worried if I lived in a country like Iran. seeing your country as a target after your neighbor just evaporated in two weeks will tend to raise your stress level.

 

[Max E.]

i have strong opinions on the un but really, i just had to say that neon duke's avatar disturbs me.

 

[///M-Spec]

We have seen in the past that no matter how France vetoes (or any other country for that matter) it makes little difference to US policy. In fact the UN system in general ignored by the US when it so benefits them.

This was obvious in Iraq, when the UN didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq the US continued anyway, i hardly think this has made France feel powerful as you said.
Israel has breeched 75+ resolutions, with impunity, and the world has cared little or just been unable to do anything about it, hardly what i would call empowering, and this has had little effect on Israels military funding from the US.
Another example would be when the US was convicted by the World Court of what amounts to international terrorism, and demanded to pay reperations to Nicaragua, a demand that the US leadership openly resented and dissobeyed.

It is obvious that the US is not dictated it's foreign policy by the UN, the UN has very little effect on large powerful states, only able to realy exert influence on small weak states. As far as i can remember the UN has never stopped the US, USSR or Israel from achieving any of their goals.

Don't forget Turkey for its troops in Cyprus, Morocco for being in the Western Sahara, Armenia for being in Azerbaijan, Croatia for its treatment of Serbs, South Africa's occupation of Namibia, Indonesia for troops in West Timor, India and Pakistan for developing nuclear missles, not to mention Iran, who last year thumbed its nose at a Canadian proposed UN draft resolution regarding its human rights record.

Then there's Sudan, who is about to turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing in its borders despite a draft resolution being proposed at this very minute. This is on top of prior violations.

With the exception of India and Pakistan, not very large or powerful countries but each has/or is in current violation of UN resolutions. See... its not just the big boys who don't play by the rules. A lot of countries blow off the UN when it doesn't suit them.

Funny you should mention Israel, though. Here's a country who very existence was mandated by the UN, but was prompty attacked upon its creation in 1948 by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon whom all refused to acknowledge its very existence. Then they did it again in 1967 and again in 1973. I don't think those Arab states much observed the will of the UN then, either.

As for Nicaragua, there is little doubt the US funded Contras were shady individuals. I think Americans who do a little research on exactly where their tax dollars ended up in 1982 might be a little upset. Ashamed even.

But then again, maybe not. The situation was certainly more complex than you present it. The US DID pull funding from Nicaragua when it was clear the Somoza dictatorship was brutalizing its own people and rigging elections, and the Carter administration DID initially accept the new FSLN government.

But the Sandinistas at the time weren't exactly a bunch of choir boys either. They had their own problems and came into power in exactly the same manner as all the other despots that ruled the country before: armed revolution and a bloody civil war. They had their own brand of social repression and I don't feel they were any more legitimate a government than the slimey Somozas were.

When it became clear they were more interested being a client of the USSR rather than anything remotely resembling a democracy, it was old Ronny who authorized the Contra backing after Congress decided they were simply too shady to support. It was either that or Nicaragua becoming another staging area for the Soviets. El Salvador was already another country the Soviets were trying to get their hands on. Two bad choices. Pick one.

Certainly, the US government did not "do the right thing" by prolonging yet another civil war. But at the time, neither was anyone else in that country.


M

 

[///M-Spec]

why is this thread going to be a america/anti-america again?

Because in the third post of this thread, you complained about America. Again. Being there are Americans on this forum who don't share your viewpoint, what did you expect, a cookie?


M

 

[Duke]

i have strong opinions on the un but really, i just had to say that neon duke's avatar disturbs me.

Ha, I got through to the Mighty Max! I've had a number of people say it's scared them or disturbed them. You wrote all that great stuff in GTJugend's homosexuality thread, and then a wink from a stud like Patrick freaks you out?

To keep this on-topic, the UN is a like an arbitration board. Everybody is theoretically supposed to agree to the verdict of the arbitration. In reality, it's still possible, and legal, to ignore the results if you really disagree with them.

 

[Pistachio]

Ha, I got through to the Mighty Max! I've had a number of people say it's scared them or disturbed them. You wrote all that great stuff in GTJugend's homosexuality thread, and then a wink from a stud like Patrick freaks you out?

To keep this on-topic, the UN is a like an arbitration board. Everybody is theoretically supposed to agree to the verdict of the arbitration. In reality, it's still possible, and legal, to ignore the results if you really disagree with them.

Not if you have ratified the International Laws that the UN has proposed. The UN charter is the main example, as far as i know all members have ratified it making it a part of their own domestic law. I know in the case of the US their constitution (the highest form of law) is quite specific in saying that international treaties must be obeyed.
However if such treaties, agreements and charters AREN'T ratified, technicaly a country doesn't have to follow the laws. This is highly arguable though, many will argue that a country is obliged to follow the laws regardless of ratification.

-Edit: if any exceptions are to be taken, it can't be because you "really disagree with them." And exception must be made according to the UN charter.

 

[vladimir]

Because in the third post of this thread, you complained about America. Again. Being there are Americans on this forum who don't share your viewpoint, what did you expect, a cookie?


M

i did not complain about america, i complained about the fact that five nations, including the usa, have too much power in the UN (which is not the US' fault).


ledhed,

than understand my post as a message to all those who see "anti-americanism" in every critical sentence.

 

[Danoff]

The UN is tool for the nations that are part of it. It is their way of having a voice in a world arena.

But as tools go, the UN is a far greater tool for countries like France than countries like the US.

The US is a nation of do it yourselfers. If we can't get help from the UN, we'll do it ourselves. If your country has a problem with our country's policy, feel free to declare war or start sanctions against us or something. If you're not going to do anything, just get out of our way. We've got people to protect.


As for france trying to stop injustice... give me a break. The war in Iraq is just.

 

[vladimir]

The UN is tool for the nations that are part of it. It is their way of having a voice in a world arena.

But as tools go, the UN is a far greater tool for countries like France than countries like the US.

care to axplain why?

As for france trying to stop injustice... give me a break. The war in Iraq is just.

again, why?

 

[Danoff]

care to axplain why?

One French vote for little to no contribution
One US vote for billions upon billions of dollars worth of contribution.

again, why?

I've already laid that out at least 5 times in other threads.

 

[Famine]

Indeed - France makes a net profit from membership of the EU (as does Spain), while the UK have a £4 billion deficit. Yet France, with it's* micropscopic population (I believe it's 27 million, compared to the UK's 63 million) get almost as many votes as the UK does.

And then, when things don't go thier way, they ignore it.

*If you're reading, Anderton, that was deliberate.