OK Monty B, bottom line time here:

1. Do member nations have to comply with UNS Resolutions or not? I

2. If they do not comply, does the UN, or member nations acting on behalf of the UN, have the right to compel compliance thru sanctions, embargos or force?

3. At what point does the Un stop fooling around and act?

Originally Posted by Gunner13

OK Monty B, bottom line time here:

1. Do member nations have to comply with UNS Resolutions or not? I

2. If they do not comply, does the UN, or member nations acting on behalf of the UN, have the right to compel compliance thru sanctions, embargos or force?

3. At what point does the Un stop fooling around and act?

1) My understanding (and this could be wrong) is that no they dont have to comply with resolutions as national interests take precedent.

2) As I understand it no member nations can not enforce a UN resolution without the UN actually sanctioning it, having a threat on in a resolution does not allow nations to run around enforcing them as they see fit if this was the case Israel would be in all sorts of trouble.

3) When it sees fit to act. That usually requires a majority agreement much like the first Gulf war.

OK.. but when the UN passes a resolution and then does nothing to enforce it - the entire legitimacy of that body is called into question.

That is the reason the US took action in Iraq - because the UN would not take action to enforce its own resolutions.

IMHO - the entire process from the point of view of the Bush administration was truly to discredit the UN, with the ultimate goal of having that august body (and it's recent record of anti-US bias) disbanded or at the very least removed from US soil. Another good idea run aground in a sea of political correctness.

Note: how many resolutions have been passed against Israel? How many have been proposed, only to be vetoed by the US or Great Britain? I don't know the answer, but I'd wager that the first number is very small, while the second number would be much larger.

Originally Posted by MI Blues

OK.. but when the UN passes a resolution and then does nothing to enforce it - the entire legitimacy of that body is called into question.

That is the reason the US took action in Iraq - because the UN would not take action to enforce its own resolutions.

Thats fine but dont pretend you have a UN mandate to take action.

IMHO - the entire process from the point of view of the Bush administration was truly to discredit the UN, with the ultimate goal of having that august body (and it's recent record of anti-US bias) disbanded or at the very least removed from US soil. Another good idea run aground in a sea of political correctness.

I am not sure the UN is discredited, when you look at it the only "anti-UN" attacks are coming from the US no one else is firing any shots.
If the US wants out of the UN by all means pull out I am sure they will try and rebuild it elsewhere or kill it completely but I personally really dont care whether the UN survives or not because I see only two options: 1) it doesnt conform to the US ideal in which case you think it is useless or 2) It does conform and still remains useless because of it.

See in the end the strength of the UN is not in some perceived military capacity but in its ability to solve problems in a fair and equitable way, the minute any one party chooses to ignore it for what ever reason it cannot suceed and it doesnt matter whether that party if Iraq, Iran, Israel or the US.

Note: how many resolutions have been passed against Israel? How many have been proposed, only to be vetoed by the US or Great Britain? I don't know the answer, but I'd wager that the first number is very small, while the second number would be much larger.

Does it matter?.
France hasnt vetoed anything yet and still they have become the target of US anti-French/German sentiment.[/quote]

I apologise for any grammar and spelling mistakes its 4:30am and I am tired.

(note - I haven't picked up the intricacies of pulling from previous posts to reply - control-c is my only tool for that at this point)

Quote:

IMHO - the entire process from the point of view of the Bush administration was truly to discredit the UN, with the ultimate goal of having that august body (and it's recent record of anti-US bias) disbanded or at the very least removed from US soil. Another good idea run aground in a sea of political correctness.


>I am not sure the UN is discredited, when you look at it the only "anti-UN" attacks are coming from the US no one else is firing any shots.
If the US wants out of the UN by all means pull out I am sure they will try and rebuild it elsewhere or kill it completely but I personally really dont care whether the UN survives or not because I see only two options: 1) it doesnt conform to the US ideal in which case you think it is useless or 2) It does conform and still remains useless because of it.

Yes, but the anti-US shots are coming from the third-world countries which make up the hierarchy of the current UN. As a for instance - has not Kofi Annan himself been completely discredited in the oil-for-food scandal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See in the end the strength of the UN is not in some perceived military capacity but in its ability to solve problems in a fair and equitable way, the minute any one party chooses to ignore it for what ever reason it cannot suceed and it doesnt matter whether that party if Iraq, Iran, Israel or the US.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When has their been a "fair and equitable solution" that did not call for the US to spend more of its gross national product rebuilding some third-world have-not or paying for some other nation to play catch-up to us? Whether the situation is war, natural disaster, disease, whatever - the international cry is that the US (not the UN) isn't doing enough. But let us actually want to have a say in what is done with our dollars and our troops - and we're suddenly the bad guys.

Remove the US military forces availability from the UN - and it will - quickly, become the same useless debating society that was the League of Nations. With out the US military, the UN is useless

Yes, but the anti-US shots are coming from the third-world countries which make up the hierarchy of the current UN. As a for instance - has not Kofi Annan himself been completely discredited in the oil-for-food scandal?

Not that I know of, he was cleared of any wrong doing I think his son Kogo (or how ever it is spelt) was considered a more likely suspect however the only "evidence" I have seen (there is more than likely stuff I havent seen as the UN doesnt keep me in the loop. ) was that he worked for a company that was implicated in the scandal.

Originally Posted by abrams

why we are in iraq when we should be in north korea. our soliders[US soliders] are in iraq training our exenemies when they could be stopping a nuclear disaster

[/u][/i][/b][/quote]

Right now we cant just totally desert Iraqi after we over threw the government. We're now resposible for the re construction of the government. Also none of the troops or the police are ready to be on their own. If we do the country will be in civil war for years and war lords will be in and out of control.

And second the US cant just say "O I think Ill attack Iraqi today maybe Korea or Iran tomarrow." If we do we'll be even more hated than we are now. I mean we're already fighting two wars. One in Iraqi and one in Afgan.

Originally Posted by MI Blues

When has their been a "fair and equitable solution" that did not call for the US to spend more of its gross national product rebuilding some third-world have-not or paying for some other nation to play catch-up to us? Whether the situation is war, natural disaster, disease, whatever - the international cry is that the US (not the UN) isn't doing enough.

To be honest I dont think you have the faintest idea how the world see's or thinks about the US believe it or not most people I know couldnt give a flying monkey's about the USA or any other country but their own so saying that the world demands the US pay for things is a nonsense.

But let us actually want to have a say in what is done with our dollars and our troops - and we're suddenly the bad guys.

The reason for this is that in most cases countries contribute to these things free of strings to give "aid" with clauses is just poor taste sort of like me giving you an gift and then reminding you of it daily after a while you will get sick of it and end up hating me.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am not sure the UN is discredited, when you look at it the only "anti-UN" attacks are coming from the US no one else is firing any shots.
If the US wants out of the UN by all means pull out I am sure they will try and rebuild it elsewhere or kill it completely but I personally really dont care whether the UN survives or not because I see only two options: 1) it doesnt conform to the US ideal in which case you think it is useless or 2) It does conform and still remains useless because of it.

I'm going to have to disagree. The reason that the "only anti-UN attacks are coming from the US" (not true) is that the rest of the nations in the UN are either:

1. Profiting off of the corruption, like the oil-for-food program.
or
2. Need the UN for protection

And monty, you're totally wrong about the Kofi thing, he has already been exsposed when he gave his son a cushy job and by oil-for-food

Stand back, rant mode full on!

First off, yes the UN is flawed, deeply so. I would say the same about the justice system, social safety net and health care system of my native land, Canada. Does that mean I wish to destroy these systems in Canada, having nothing with which to replace them? No. I would like to see reforms.

The UN needs reforms, absolutely. The problem is that nation states act like nation states and want nothing to encroach on their sovereignty. The US is as guilty of this as any other nation. Consider the situation in Rwanda in 1993-1994 and the situation in the Sudan now.

The US did not want to get involved in Rwanda, but could not stand by while other nations did so, as this would tarnish it's self-image of the "good-guy." The US pushed for an end to the UN mission in Rwanda even though it had not been asked for troops or logistical support. The US then ignored the genocide in Rwanda, claiming it didn't know what was going on, while the Red Cross had already reported 100,000 deaths in the first two weeks. The same is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan now.

The US is not alone in turning a blind eye to the suffering in Africa. Canada's plan regarding the Sudan is pathetic, and even more pathetic is the fact it came out of domestic political machinations rather than altruistic humanitarianism. Canada also ignored its own people on the ground in Rwanda, namely Lt. General Romeo Dallaire, when he asked for more troops or at least some modicum of support.

Originally Posted by TMV

I'm going to have to disagree. The reason that the "only anti-UN attacks are coming from the US" (not true) is that the rest of the nations in the UN are either:

1. Profiting off of the corruption, like the oil-for-food program.
or

So all 190 Member States of the United Nations (not counting the USA, with which there is 191) are profiting off the corruption of the oil-for-food program or similar scandal? I would like to see some kind of evidence for that claim.

Originally Posted by TMV

2. Need the UN for protection

I would say that the vast majority of the other 190 Member States do not need UN protection. The most recent numbers I have seen indicate 16 peacekeeping and one political mission. That is not a very high percentage.

Originally Posted by TMV

And monty, you're totally wrong about the Kofi thing, he has already been exsposed when he gave his son a cushy job and by oil-for-food

That is not completely true. I'm going to let Reuters tackle this one for me.

Originally Posted by Reuters

In its March 29 report on Kofi and Kojo Annan, the Volcker committee, said Mouselli and the younger Annan were trying to solicit business from Iraq under the oil-for-food program and lunched with the secretary-general in September 1998 in South Africa.

At issue is whether the secretary-general had been told about his son's intentions and whether his lawyers then convinced Mouselli to change his mind.

Mouselli at first said Annan had been told that his son was trying to do business in Iraq under the oil-for-food program. But two days later he said he could not specifically recall that Kojo had mentioned to his father visits to the Iraqi embassy in Nigeria, where the younger Annan worked.

The committee then discounted Mouselli's testimony but faulted Annan for not investigating properly a conflict-of-interest regarding his son.

Kojo was working for the Swiss inspection firm Cotecna, which received a lucrative U.N. contract for Iraq. The Volcker report said Annan had not interfered in the contract process.

Quoted from: http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...RAQ-UN-USA.xml