I'm fed up with the UN - Page 18




 
--
Boots
 
October 24th, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted
First of all; it takes the US a lot more too to get into action. Thousands of dead won't get the 7th fleet moving an inch. Second, I had eleven friends get chopped to pieces in Ruanda while wearing a blue helmet. The US wasn't even on the scene... The UN was there, but they don't belief in blowing everybody to pieces in seconds notice. They like to get the facts in proper order before doing the damage, and yes sometimes that takes a while. Better late then rushing in, blowing to place to pieces and finding out you do it for the wrong reasons.
REALLY!? That is amazing. Especially in context to Rwanda.

But it is true the US is also shamed by not stepping in. Though, i'm sure if we did, you would be crying we breeched international law.
November 11th, 2005  
skipper
 
We studied the UN in history this year as part of 20th Century Studies.

I have to say that while the UN does a decent job on aid, education, etc., they are sorely lacking in the Peacemaking and Peacekeeping areas.

These are some of the reasons why i believe they are a largely ineffective peacekeeping organisation.

They have too many requirements and bureaucracies too quickly make a discision, such as....
It requires 9/15 members of the Security Council to vote 'yes' on an operation mandate
There must be no Veto from the permanent memebers, Britain, USA, China, Russia and France, which could cancel the whole thing.
The operation must be overseen by a ranking memeber of the council, usually the deputy SEC GENERAL, who may often be deployed elsewhere; he controls the politics in the given country.

The governments of peacekeeping units have total (and i mean total) control over their countries military, even though they are officially under UN control, eg Belgians in the Congo up and left at the behest of their government, rather than stay and finish the job. No offence to military, just governments.

The force commander (field marshall, CIC of theatre, wateva, head honcho) is often chosen for political reasons and not military skill. (Though not in the case of Romeo Dalliare, FC of Rwanda OP)

Both sides in the conflict must request/approve UN peacekeepers. therefore, one side can just say no and peacekeepers are not allowed in. Peacemakers are a different story. but the UN does not mandate them very often.

and probably the worst possible thing that plaugues any operation is the differentiation between peace'making' and peace'keeping', which basically means 'makers' can fight a proper war, meaning they can attack the enemy in a prudent fashion, and that 'keepers' act as more of a 'prescence' or police force, and, the worst part, are never allowed to fire their weapons even in self defence.

BTW in my opinion, the best operation was the East Timor op, because Australia and NZ basically said to the UN, "we're going in there, wether you like it or not, so just give u consent and make it official" and then proceeded to fight a proper battle with the MIlitia's and Indonesian Military.

In regards to Rwanda, it has been shown that the liason between the UN Sec Con and the operaation, Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh (not kidding) was actually assisiting the Rwandan Military and the Hutu militias, and was suppressing his reports to the Security Council. He especially ommited the word 'genocide', because part of the UN charter is to not alow genocide to occur in any form, meaning they would have to commit to an operation thaty they were not ready for. In addition, various problems occured which caused delays, such as the Clinton administration being restrictive i its monetary aid (the UN wanted the US to pay for the OP), due to the public backlash caused by the Mogadishu episode. but thats just one example, not blaming the US. However, at the basic level the UN are inefficeint, especially in regards to this 'mobilisation' issue. They estimate that, including all international talks and negotiations about cost and force, they should be on the ground in 1, ONE month. It took so long for Rwanda because they are inefficient and parts are corrupt.

As to the general morals of the UN general assembly, and this "if you insult the UN you insult all governments that make it up" the majority of the general assembly is made up of NON -DEMOCRATIC nations.
So i leave you with one question,
How can an organisation that prides itself on its democratic values be run by a group of Marxist and authoritarian / totalitarian governments, and still achieve its democratic goals?

if u can answer this satisfactorily i will buy you a beer next time your in Melbourne.
November 11th, 2005  
Ted
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
But it is true the US is also shamed by not stepping in. Though, i'm sure if we did, you would be crying we breeched international law.
That just depends on how you would do it. With the proper mandate, you cover that. Just sending in the army when you feel like it, that does like breeching international law.

So it's your turn again to cry "it takes them years to decide on anything, we need to act now!"
--
Boots
November 11th, 2005  
FULLMETALJACKET
 
 
well it does... tear on!
November 11th, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted

That just depends on how you would do it. With the proper mandate, you cover that. Just sending in the army when you feel like it, that does like breeching international law.

So it's your turn again to cry "it takes them years to decide on anything, we need to act now!"
I see. So you would rather hold yourself to some abstract concept of international law than do what is necessary.

"All it takes for evil to suceed is for good men to do nothing"
November 14th, 2005  
Ted
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
I see. So you would rather hold yourself to some abstract concept of international law than do what is necessary.

"All it takes for evil to suceed is for good men to do nothing"
I would say "yes" to your question for the following reasons. But somehow I reckon you will not agree on them with me.

1) Nobody, even the US, is willing to intervene in all the hotspots on this planet. So who decides where to act and on what grounds? You will look hypocritical and inconsequent if you choose only certain countries.

2) If you want International Law ever to succeed, then randomly sending the army isn't the way to follow.

3) The "people are dying" argument isn't really holding up. They have been dying all around the world and nobody can do anything about it. Sending in the military to make an end to this will take some killing and the new system will have it's enemies ready to kill the new rulers. (Not everybody will be happy with Iraq's new constitution.)

4) A framework for an international order can't be build on pragmatic and ad hoc interventions. You need an institution that can cope with it. These institutions are built on agreements and diplomacy and not intervention in places chosen by some countries. What is the point of multilateral conventions if noone sticks to them?

If you are against such institutions or multilateral agreements (which some of you most certainly will be) don't pretend to intervene on the behalve of some "better worldorder". What you are doing is upholding your nations interests by other means. If you carry out Von Clausewits's international politics, the least you can do is to say so. Name one intervention where a strong nation removed some dictator with just a pure altruistic motive. I can't think of one. And since this motive doesn't exist in an international order.

I believe that any structural, permanent answer to this will take time. Time in which people will die. But they die also while actively engaging and people will die in the process afterwards. In other words; there are always people dying no matter how you try to solve it. And I just believe that my approach will get us further on the long run.
July 18th, 2006  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
This thread lives on with the recent actions in the Middle East.

First off, UN Resolution 1559 (I think) demanding that Hezbolla be disarmed. It was passed in September of 2004. Almost 2 years later and nothing has happened. Then Hezbolla goes and starts crap. Funny how the news doesn't really dawn on the fact that another UN resolution was ignored or not even enforced.

Then we have the words of Kofi Annon, "I appeal to all parties to spare civilian life and civilian infrastructure." Ok I can understand the civilian infastucture part. I do not agree with how Israel is attacking it. But asking all parties to spare civilian life. Lets see, unguided missiles loaded with bird shot being fired into Israel with the hopes of hitting Israeli cities. The soul purpose of those attacks is killing civilians. That message seems to be directed to Israel and only Israel.

A few weeks ago yet another UN declaration was vetoed by the US. It called for Israel to stop it's evil actions against the Palestinians with no mention of palestinian activities.

I am still not convinced the UN is worth anything. The UN is nothing more like those annoying small barking dogs. They sound all big and bad. But when you challenge them, they run back to a safe distance only to start barking again.
July 18th, 2006  
Rob Henderson
 
 
And the shadow looks much scarier than the real thing.
I agree.
July 19th, 2006  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Screw thw United Nations.

'Nuff Said...

5.56X45MM

PS - Get the UN out of the USA and get the USA out of the UN.

UN - Useless Nitwits