Some of you already know that I am not a big fan of the United Nations. I just read that there is opposition to a US resolution that would threaten oil sanctions against Sudan (article link below). Sudan fell into a civil war in FEB 2003. Since then about 50,000 people have died and 1 million people have been driven from their homes. Much of the violence against civilians has come from government-backed militias. Now there is a growing humanitarian crisis with the 1 million displaced people.

So with thousands of lives in danger, the UN has once again shown its true colors. I must remind everyone that the UN also looked the other way during the slaughter in Rwanda. Almost one million people died in 100 days. I would think that the UN would have learned its lesson about inaction. Maybe the UN does not care about Africa. I remember the world was quick to act when Yugoslavian forces invaded Kosovo and killed about 2,500 (10,000 were reported but it was revised) Albanians and displaced many more.

If there are any UN supporters on the forum, you should be ashamed of your organization. The United States was criticized for not having UN support. Who needs the support of an organization that ignores genocide? As of now, I do not care if the US does something against the wishes of the UN.

SSG Doody

Article Link
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../17/2003203237
more articles in google news

UN is good when it concerns slower action like food aid, relief, education.. etc
However, it cannot act well when it concerns troop deployment as it has very little power over the world nations on troop deployment.

It's a club for the nations to interact.

The world needs the US for firm, resolute action when there's danger... the UN can do the humanitarian work after the main action by the US is completed.

Originally Posted by Doody

Some of you already know that I am not a big fan of the United Nations. I just read that there is opposition to a US resolution that would threaten oil sanctions against Sudan (article link below). Sudan fell into a civil war in FEB 2003. Since then about 50,000 people have died and 1 million people have been driven from their homes. Much of the violence against civilians has come from government-backed militias. Now there is a growing humanitarian crisis with the 1 million displaced people.

So with thousands of lives in danger, the UN has once again shown its true colors. I must remind everyone that the UN also looked the other way during the slaughter in Rwanda. Almost one million people died in 100 days. I would think that the UN would have learned its lesson about inaction. Maybe the UN does not care about Africa. I remember the world was quick to act when Yugoslavian forces invaded Kosovo and killed about 2,500 (10,000 were reported but it was revised) Albanians and displaced many more.

If there are any UN supporters on the forum, you should be ashamed of your organization. The United States was criticized for not having UN support. Who needs the support of an organization that ignores genocide? As of now, I do not care if the US does something against the wishes of the UN.

SSG Doody

Article Link
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../17/2003203237
more articles in google news

Doesnt care about africa, where did you get that idea? The mission in africa now is Congo. UN also have big aid programs for many countries in africa.

The UN is also high speed and low drag when it comes to trading those oh so important rations for oil. That and critizing the U.S. for protecting it's interests.
I'm with ya on this one Doody the UN is worthless.

Originally Posted by AlexKall

Doesnt care about africa, where did you get that idea? The mission in africa now is Congo. UN also have big aid programs for many countries in africa.

Yes, I agree that the UN does good stuff in the name of aid.

The UN is in Congo right now, but why won't it get involved with Sudan? The problem in Sudan is much worse than that of Congo.

The mission of the UN is much more than just aid. The UN's mission ( http://www.un.org/english/ ) includes Peace and Security, economic & social development, human rights, humanitarian affairs and issues of international law. I clicked on the security council link and found what "the functions and powers of the Security Council are under the Charter"


FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations

to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction

to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement

to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken

to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression

to take military action against an aggressor

to recommend the admission of new Members

to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas"

to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_functions.html

Read that and tell me that the UN security council is doing their job.

SSG Doody

03USMC, I am glad to know someone else sees this problem too

They are not doing their job within the confines of their Mission Statement.The UN Security Council and the Secertary General have tried to appoint themselves as the overseer of the worlds goverments.
They fail to realize that they are not a governing body. If you you remember Liberia in the Summer of 2003 the UN was going to send a "peacekeeping force" then it was ECOMIL then it was the UN and when troops failed arrive it was the U.S.'s fault for not having boots on the ground to stop the assault on Monroiva (again according to the vaunted UN).ECOMIL finally deployed Nigerian troops and who took credit for it? Yep the UN.

How many here have worked under or with UN forces?

I have my opinions, not many good. I agree with Sooner and 03USMC, but what is the real charter? It has mostly become a debating forum.

After everything that has been happening in the last dcade in the world, evry time that the US takes action the UN skolds us. Now I hear that the UN President (whatever his name is) is saying that the Iraq war is illegal. WTF!!! I'm getting tired of this! I now begin to question the purpose of the UN in general. Why should two countries have to have the permission of the rest of the world to go at it. Should it not be left to the people to decide if they want to. When it comes to aid, yes the UN is good. But when it comes to military actions, the sit around on their es and wait for things to be convenient for them.

The UN is a good idea, in theory. Having a system of World Government is a great idea. The problem is that the 5 permanent members of the security council are constantly sabotaging each other. This makes the UN, in reality, an international council that is so crippled that it proves incapable of taking decisive action about ANYTHING until 5-10 years after its already too late. There is one exception: Humanitarian Aid often gets approval without much trouble.

The setup of having 5 nations with veto power is a big problem. Imagine the United States having the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President, the Vice President, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House ALL with veto power. But the veto power is an unrecoverable kill of whatever action, so no 2/3 majority in both houses to overcome it. What would the result be? Nothing would ever get done, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Lil Hulk 1988

How many here have worked under or with UN forces?

I've worked in Lebanon and Macedonia (UNIFIL and UNPREDEP)

The UN system is a real pain in the a*s to work under.
as others have commented here it's a real slow system.
One example is that we had to plan and order equipment three years ahead in Lebanon, and we were lucky if we got half of it.
Most of the critical equipment (radios etc.) we had to buy ourself from Norway, because it was not possible to get them in time from UN..

I agree that UN is a good idea, but there's a lot of internal "issues" that needs to be sorted out.