P80 is right here.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

P80 is right here.

Thnx... I don't deny that UN might be doing some good works here and there but given its past record, I am not impressed.

Originally Posted by phoenix80

You're right and I agree. And thats why the US should put some body like Bolton there to move things around and get reforms done to better the performance of this corrupt institution. Canada, Australia, US, UK must work together and reform the United Nations.

Into what?
A rubber stamp for US foreign policy? Lets face it thats all you are after, had the UN said sure you can invade Iraq you don't need an excuse you would be here singing its praises.

Any ways, successful missions done under UN mandates were done either by the US, UK or Australia. UN didn't do any thing other than issuing a toothless statement. It was US led NATO force in Bosnia, or Australian military in Timor that enforced those toothless resolutions. You think UN could force Saddam out of Kuwait with some resolutions?

Nope but I am prepared to bet good money that there would be no Australian or New Zealand troops in East Timor without a UN mandate, I can also guarantee that the force that pushed Saddam out of Kuwait would have been about a half the size it was without a mandate.

The United Nations is supposed to move slowly, and by Law the United States of America is not the World Police Force.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Into what?
A rubber stamp for US foreign policy? Lets face it thats all you are after, had the UN said sure you can invade Iraq you don't need an excuse you would be here singing its praises.




Nope but I am prepared to bet good money that there would be no Australian or New Zealand troops in East Timor without a UN mandate, I can also guarantee that the force that pushed Saddam out of Kuwait would have been about a half the size it was without a mandate.

So you want the UN to stand against US?

And if the US foreign policy means to stop slaughter of people in Darfur or Burma, then hell yes, I want the UN to abide by that policy. Whats wrong with it?

But if the existence of UN means that thugs like Saddam or Ahmadienejad be allowed to roam around and make trouble, then no, I don't want that UN. Whats that UN good for then? UN people were busy stealing Iraqi people oil and money and doing nothing. Are you okay with it?

And again UN issued two dozens of toothless resolutions against Saddam with no effect. Some body had to enforce those resolutions. UN is a useless and corrupt world organization that must be dismantled and its building must be used for some thing better. The world doesnt need a toothless UN.

Originally Posted by phoenix80

So you want the UN to stand against US?

And if the US foreign policy means to stop slaughter of people in Darfur or Burma, then hell yes, I want the UN to abide by that policy. Whats wrong with it?

But if the existence of UN means that thugs like Saddam or Ahmadienejad roam around and makes trouble, then no, I don't want that UN.

And again UN issued two dozens of toothless resolutions against Saddam with no effect. Some body had to enforce those resolutions.

Israel has more United Nations Resoultions against it than Saddam and Iraq had, and yet no calls for a Regime Change in Israel, and unlike Iraq, Israel does have Illegal WMD.

Originally Posted by phoenix80

So you want the UN to stand against US?

And if the US foreign policy means to stop slaughter of people in Darfur or Burma, then hell yes, I want the UN to abide by that policy. Whats wrong with it?

No I want it to be an independent body and if that means disagreeing with the US because the majority of its members believe that to be the right thing to do then so be it, if it means agreeing with the US because they believe it right then I am happy with that as well.

But if the existence of UN means that thugs like Saddam or Ahmadienejad be allowed to roam around and make trouble, then no, I don't want that UN. Whats that UN good for then? UN people were busy stealing Iraqi people oil and money and doing nothing. Are you okay with it?

Once again the UN is not a sovereign nation all these "UN People" stealing things represented a whole bunch of different countries.

Originally Posted by MontyB

No I want it to be an independent body and if that means disagreeing with the US because the majority of its members believe that to be the right thing to do then so be it, if it means agreeing with the US because they believe it right then I am happy with that as well.

Majority of those people can have brain problems! I don't want them to decide for the world. And as I understand if the whole world sees no objection with the massacre of Darfur, it is okay with you?!?

Once again the UN is not a sovereign nation all these "UN People" stealing things represented a whole bunch of different countries.

Then kick those irresponsible countries out of the UN. Punish them. Fine them. Suspend their membership in the UN.

What happens if one robs a bank in your city?

Originally Posted by phoenix80

Majority of those people can have brain problems! I don't want them to decide for the world.

You want President Bush deciding for the World on his own, like a King, like the Dictator of the World?

Originally Posted by phoenix80

Then kick those irresponsible countries out of the UN. Punish them. Fine them. Suspend their membership in the UN.

What happens if one robs a bank in your city?

Sorry are you asking what happens if the UN robs my local bank?

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here.