A Can of Man
Je suis aware
P80 is right here.
P80 is right here.
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.
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?
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 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.
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?
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.
Once again the UN is not a sovereign nation all these "UN People" stealing things represented a whole bunch of different countries.
Majority of those people can have brain problems! I don't want them to decide for the world.
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.
Sorry are you asking what happens if the UN robs my local bank?
I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here.
The question I would ask is do you actually know what the UN is?
'I am still of the opinion that the bulk of the people on this boards opposition to the UN stems solely from it not rubber stamping the Iraq fiasco, this has been made worse since the UN was proved right in not backing it. 'end quote :-
But
I would point out that my question was, do you not understand what the UN has become? Obviously not. Only the strength of the Security Council prevents chaos. Your take on others' Iraq views is misdirected. The UN could have and should have prevented the Iraq war. The UN lacked the commitment. Given all the time necessary the weapons inspectors failed in their duty and sat on the fence, even tho' they have plenty to say now. America did its level best to bring the UN to do its duty and bring Sadam to heel. America should not have been left with the responsibilty of dealing with the matter. What was Sadam shielding in withholding full co-operation, to the extent of endangering his country, his regime and his life?? History still has not spoken on this point. Look to the neighbours.
My point is that America must not retreat from its responsibility and duty to lead the world regardless of feeble and wavering opinion elsewhere.
Over and out.
MontyB - Here I go again, quoting you:-
'Just one?
Too easy, how about the successful missions to Bosnia-Herzegovina.'
Sorry - not quite the wonderful job as portrayed. This situation, like Kosovo, was deliberately created, in my opinion, by Al Qaeda, very well orchestrated and successfully completed by them. Bosnia, like Afghanistan, was a training base for terrrorism, and is once more.
They take us for mugs, and we continually fall for it; they are leading us by the nose to where they want us. The current American leadership has recognised this and have no wish to take more backward steps. All else is simply denial. Bloody Hell - we bombed Belgrade, a European capital , on behalf of the Al Qaeda insurgency in Kosovo!
The question I would ask is do you actually know what the UN is?
'I am still of the opinion that the bulk of the people on this boards opposition to the UN stems solely from it not rubber stamping the Iraq fiasco, this has been made worse since the UN was proved right in not backing it. 'end quote :-
But
I would point out that my question was, do you not understand what the UN has become? Obviously not. Only the strength of the Security Council prevents chaos. Your take on others' Iraq views is misdirected. The UN could have and should have prevented the Iraq war. The UN lacked the commitment. Given all the time necessary the weapons inspectors failed in their duty and sat on the fence, even tho' they have plenty to say now. America did its level best to bring the UN to do its duty and bring Sadam to heel. America should not have been left with the responsibilty of dealing with the matter. What was Sadam shielding in withholding full co-operation, to the extent of endangering his country, his regime and his life?? History still has not spoken on this point. Look to the neighbours.
My point is that America must not retreat from its responsibility and duty to lead the world regardless of feeble and wavering opinion elsewhere.
Over and out.
'Umm to be honest not sure where to start on this other than to point out that Al Qaeda are not responsible for every bad action on the face of the earth. But lets make this a little easier on both of us, I am sure there are people on these forums that took part in SFOR how about they tell us it was a successful operation or not, that way we are not belittling anyones efforts.'
Sorry MontyB, but now you are being careless. Where did I ever suggest that Al Qaeda 'are responsible for every bad action on the face of the earth'? But I would respectfully point out to you that Al Qaeda is, in fact, at war with the western world and its culture. Now, let me test your case - are you suggesting that Al Qaeda were NOT, are not, involved in the Bosnia situation ?
Furthermore, I object to your inference that I would belittle those involved in the execution of their duties in the field. This is not my position ever, altho plenty of it goes on, I must say, together with a constant nibbling away at every position taken by America.
It is low-down to infer that I was referring to the execution of these operations. I refer only to the various stances of the UN on world issues, and I must ask you not to take that dishonourable line again. I am sure that those involved on the ground ensured the success of the operations they undertook.
Does your position mean that every time you criticise the Iraq war you seek to belittlie those involved in fighting it at the front?
Does your position mean that every time you criticise the Iraq war you seek to belittlie those involved in fighting it at the front?
that way we are not belittling anyones efforts
Does your position mean that every time you criticise the Iraq war you seek to belittlie those involved in fighting it at the front?
I take it you have trouble understanding the meaning of the word "we"?
Because I clearly used it in the sentence you are quoting.
It is my contention that the best way to settle the SFOR argument is to ask those that were part of it to say whether they believe they failed or not, my contention is that it was a success it would appear that you disagree.
To some degree yes it does mean that however I would argue that at no stage have I ever targeted anything other than politicians for this treatment and I would be surprised if you can point to a post where I belittle those actually fighting so please stop with the sycophantic spin we get enough of that from P80
One question did the SFOR achieve its goals in Bosnia? I don't care who started the damn conflict, I don't care who won the world series in 1998, all I want to know is whether the SFOR part of it worked.
Please no more scatter gun arguments.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.