I'm fed up with the UN - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
September 23rd, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
UN has some goals, the most relevant of which is keeping security and peace among the countries of the world.
Fundamentally trying to prevent countries from waging wars to one another thru mediations, negotiations, agreements and such.
That is, the UN does NOT have democratization or the preservation of democracy as a major task. That would be limiting and, paradoxical enough, would lead the UN to its end, as Mr Annan ( btw the head of the UN is called Secretary-General not President) knows very well. If the UN had democracy and its spread in the world as a major goal, it would mean that all the nondemocratic countries of the world (bout 60 % of total) would not take part of it. China's, Islamic countries' (except for Turkey and Indonesia) and way more other countries' governing elites in the world would see no gains in entering an organization which aims to overthrow them.
Then we would have a UN made up of 80 countries only, and have Switzerland talking to New Zealand and Portugal talking to Canada...: not too useful.
We would have the main nuclear powers in the world and the richest in oil OUTSIDE the UN and since they wouldnt be part of it we couldnt deal with them in a multilateral way. Which would be extremely dangerous because it would not reflect the actual balance of power in the world as it is today.
Theres no way out.
I personally agree with doody and my views on the UN cant but be skeptical and critical.
The US should just keep do what they're doing, with the help of the West (my country is proudly in). Protect our interests and help democracy spread, because this is what it takes.
By the way, IG is back, guys.
September 23rd, 2004  
devilwasp
 
the UN is not something like NATO it cant go into a war just because its hapining. they need to know both sides of the argument, i mean the police dont rush into a fight and help the weaker side do they? they split it up by all means possible.
the UN doesnt want to risk killing its soldiers orthe soliders of another country. they only come in when both sides agree.
i mean if a war happened say against two small third world countires and say your the comander of the UN what would you do?
September 23rd, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
The UN has no troops of it's own. They rely on the troops of member nations to be deployed as part of a Peacekeeping Force. That is why you see troops of all nations wearing the UN blue berets and Helmets when deployed in that capacity.
--
Boots
September 23rd, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Very nice post Italian Guy!
September 23rd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Bear in mind, I'm not knocking the IDEA of a World Government organization, its just that the one we have now is only useful for humanitarian aid and passing resolutions they will never enforce.
September 24th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
Very nice post Italian Guy!
Thank you Chocobo I'm just trying to get back into posting after the summer 8)
September 25th, 2004  
Lupos
 
 

Topic: Re: UN


Quote:
Originally Posted by sunblock
It seems like, from reading the posts here, that most people seems to disgrace the UN?

What you guys really intend to say is that we can shut down the UN system and give the UN role to USA, China, Russia and the rest of the members of the security council - or to certain key states?

What if we shut down the UN functions and leave them to ie USA, France, UK, Germany, Russia and China? Each country have the right to decide what happens in own designated areas of the world. No questions asked if military intervention takes place in civil war, crisis or other issues.

Could it work better than with the UN? Each country seems to have the will to interact in any crisis (with exception of Germany to some levels), USA, China and Russia have the military equipment and personell needed for instant action wherever in the world.

Thankfully I am not a politician....
What the are you talking about, the majority feeling here is to get rid of the security council not give even more power to it!
September 26th, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133489,00.html

BLAM!
September 26th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Lovely sign-up screen, what the heck does it mean???
September 26th, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Hmmm, it sends me to the site when I click it..... I'll just post it:


By Col. Oliver North for FOX Fan Central

FNC
Col. Oliver North
In September 1931, when the Japanese Imperial Army marched into Manchuria, the Nationalist Government of China, a signatory to the League of Nations (search) charter, called on the international community for help.

The League arrogantly pronounced that the aggression would stop because it had taken the matter "under consideration." Tokyo’s response to this vacillation was to seize Shanghai. The Chinese again appealed to the League of Nations. While the diplomats dithered, Tokyo renamed Manchuria, set up a puppet regime in its capital and declared that Japanese troops were staying. The League of Nations responded by censuring Tokyo and demanding the withdrawal of Japanese troops. The Japanese promptly withdrew from the League, declaring its deliberations to be "irrelevant." World War II had begun – though it took the Europeans another seven years to understand.

This sad, but accurate historical lesson in arrogance and irrelevance is pertinent to what transpired at the League’s successor — the United Nations (search) – this week. On Tuesday, September 21, the president of the United States stood before the U.N. General Assembly and challenged the world body to try – once again – to be relevant in a world threatened by an evil even more dangerous than fascism: fanatical terrorism.

In a stirring tutorial, Mr. Bush recounted both the threat and horror of what now emanates from much of the Middle East: "Eventually there is no safe isolation from terror networks or failed states that shelter them, or weapons of mass destruction." He then offered an account of the sacrifice in treasure and lives being made by the United States and a handful of allies to protect the innocent from the bloody hands of terrorists and generously help those less fortunate than we. Unfortunately, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (search), the erratic and secretive leader of this multi-billion dollar global organization, wasn’t listening.

In his opening remarks, Mr. Annan – who last week declared the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein to be "illegal" – hectored world leaders to "start from the principle that no one is above the law and no one should be denied its protection." He went on to describe his ethical universe: "In Iraq we see civilians massacred in cold blood… and we have seen Iraqi prisoners disgracefully abused." Apparently to Mr. Annan, the ghastly, systematic beheading of innocent civilians is morally equivalent to an isolated case of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Ironically, as he was drawing this frightening parallel, a radical Islamic Web site was posting the horrific images of Eugene Armstrong being beheaded.

Sadly, few in the U.S. media took the time to focus on the hubris or ethical inconsistencies in Mr. Annan’s lecture. Instead, the potentates of the press rushed to cite the differences between the president’s challenge to the world body and the approach offered by his rival, Senator John Kerry. The day before Mr. Bush spoke to the General Assembly, the Democrat nominee was feted at New York University where he demanded that in Iraq "the U.N. must play a central role" and pledged that if he is elected he will "recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force." Who does Mr. Kerry want to lead such a force? Kofi Annan?

Since none of the reporters covering the Kerry campaign bothered to ask that question at the candidate’s press conference this week, we don’t know. But before anyone offers the U.N. secretary-general the mantle of leadership for re-building Iraq or fighting terrorism, it would be wise to examine his record.

In March 2003, prior to the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I reported from Kuwait that, "senior U.S. military officials were concerned that Saddam Hussein was using cash from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program to buy votes in the Security Council." The New York Times immediately trashed the charge – and anonymous sources at the U.N. claimed the allegation was "preposterous" and "unfounded."

But we now know better. Since then, we have learned that cash from the Oil-for-Food program – administered directly from Mr. Annan’s office by one of his most trusted aides, Benon V. Sevan — was used by Saddam for everything but food. The Iraqi dictator used the U.N. provided funds to buy weapons, finance terror, and enrich officials in the Communist Party of Slovakia, the Palestinian Liberation Organization and political figures in France, Libya, Syria, Indonesia and Russia. Despite the presence of U.N. administrators in Baghdad and "auditors" at the U.N. headquarters in New York, Saddam was able to offer "coupons" worth millions of barrels of Iraqi crude oil to "friendly officials" who were allowed to sell them on the market and pocket huge profits.

Did Mr. Annan, his cronies or family reap any of this windfall? We don’t know because the UN Secretary-General – so willing to lecture President Bush about the "rule of law" is accountable to no one. And, since UN activities are not subject to the laws or the scrutiny of member states, he has been able to effectively stonewall an independent audit of the Oil-for-Food program. Meanwhile, Mr. Annan stands above the fray, offering little but rhetoric for dealing with the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons or the barbaric genocide taking place in the Sudan.

This arrogance flies in the face of Mr. Kerry’s call to give the U.N. greater say in how we protect ourselves from terror – much less any suggestion that American troops should again don blue berets. Doing either or both won’t make the world body more relevant to present realities. Dealing with corruption at the U.N. might.