What if the UN had not existed in 1947? What would Israel/Palestine and the Middle East look like today?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What if there had been no UN?
Collapse
X
-
What if there had been no UN?
52The same as it does today.32.69%17There would be peace between a Jewish Israel and an Arab Palestine.9.62%5There would be an Arab Palestine and no Israel.32.69%17Palestine would be divided and annexed by the neighboring states.25.00%13Tags: None
-
as far as the Palestinian-Israeli business is concerned, I don't think it would matter much if the UN never existed. I mean, we can't forget Israeli leaderships countless defiance of UN resolutions.Education is the best provision for old age - Aristotle
Comment
-
I think that you missed the point.
Originally posted by mohassan View Postas far as the Palestinian-Israeli business is concerned, I don't think it would matter much if the UN never existed. I mean, we can't forget Israeli leaderships countless defiance of UN resolutions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mohassan View Postas far as the Palestinian-Israeli business is concerned, I don't think it would matter much if the UN never existed. I mean, we can't forget Israeli leaderships countless defiance of UN resolutions.
The UN is nothing but a corrupt anti-Israel lobby. It's counter-productive in even the things that most people regard it as being semi-good at, like disaster relief, or negotiating an end to violence between intractable factions. But one look at their record for the past two years will show how ineffective and actually retrograde every single one of their actions have been.
It's actually dangerous. It should be ended ASAP.
Comment
-
When they take action at all, they usually spread misery further. Africa has more of that than they can handle.
I know you did great work in the Balkans while under a UN mission. But I believe it would have been WAY better, WAY easier, and probably farther along by now if it had been an Anglosphere op.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bluesman View PostWhen they take action at all, they usually spread misery further. Africa has more of that than they can handle.
Originally posted by Bluesman View PostI know you did great work in the Balkans while under a UN mission. But I believe it would have been WAY better, WAY easier, and probably farther along by now if it had been an Anglosphere op.
Comment
-
I always thought the main reason for the creation of the UN was to provide a place for the US and the Soviet Union to shout at each other.
The UN could have been a great force for good in the world if it had been given teeth and at least moderate independence.
An independent UN combat force that could go to places like Rwanda, Bosnia and darfur and enforce peace instead of simply pleading for it.For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by bolo121 View PostI always thought the main reason for the creation of the UN was to provide a place for the US and the Soviet Union to shout at each other.
The UN could have been a great force for good in the world if it had been given teeth and at least moderate independence.
An independent UN combat force that could go to places like Rwanda, Bosnia and darfur and enforce peace instead of simply pleading for it.In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
Comment
-
How about this..
Troops permanently attached to (or assigned for a number of years) and paid by the UN, contributions in any case would only come from the big guys (Europe, America, Russia etc..). Head of force appointed on rotating basis by security council permanent members.
Good for putting out small brush wars in africa and genocide like darfur, rwanda etc. Not good for super sensitive things like Israel/Palestine but way better than what is there now.
Needless to say the current nature of UN precludes this.For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!
Comment
-
UN TROOPS and AUTONOMY? NO. WAY.
The first place they'd go would be 'Palestine' (although as competent as the UN usually has proven to be, they'd never be able to find it, because it's not on any map), and make certain they made the situation far worse than it already is.
This is the truth: no matter how dire the situation is, the UN can ALWAYS make it just that much worse. Darfur? One of the greatest failures of the UN in its long, sad, comic-opera history. By the time the UN gets around to doing something, there won't be anybody left to save. Problem solved.
And this is ALSO the truth: the best thing that ever happened to the Iraqis and our mission there was the UN bug-out, which they were just itching to do, both for reasons of the basest cowardice, AND the assumption by all the self-important double-dealers that make up this gang of vipers that it would help blow the whole project, and humiliate the US, who, it shall be remembered, and the UN has never managed to forget, never depended upon UN approval to act in our own national interest.
So, the hell with the whole useless - no, DANGEROUS - lot of 'em. Their mission has been a dangerous, expensive failure, and there is nothing of value that compares with what they've cost, in blood, treasure, time and ill-will.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bolo121 View PostHow about this..
Troops permanently attached to (or assigned for a number of years) and paid by the UN, contributions in any case would only come from the big guys (Europe, America, Russia etc..). Head of force appointed on rotating basis by security council permanent members.
Good for putting out small brush wars in africa and genocide like darfur, rwanda etc. Not good for super sensitive things like Israel/Palestine but way better than what is there now.
Needless to say the current nature of UN precludes this.In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
Comment
Comment