Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 256

Thread: Useless UN

  1. #226
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    I do know about the oil for food allegations... They are allegations not convictions.. For the moment, I will choose to go with "innocent until proven guilty". We can - and have - accused most of the worlds premier politicians of some degree of corruption. It doesnt mean that they are, and doesnt disqualify them from commenting on something that is within their remit, i.e the legality of the war.
    How about I give you two arguements.

    1) The UNSG does not have the legal authority to declare anything illegal. That power belongs soley to the UNSC. The UNSG is just an administrator; whose only authority would be moral.

    2) Kofi Annan has no moral authority whatsoever. It was he who countermanded General Dallaire's legal authority to mount a pre-emptive raid against the Rwandan Genocide consipirators. In hindsight, that was the last chance the UN had at stopping the genocide.

    The 2nd point really rags me. The puke got the gall to say the Iraq War was illegal when he stop the legal action of a ground commander to stop the genocide.

  2. #227
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    25 Apr 06
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,272
    Point taken and accepted

  3. #228
    Staff Emeritus Confed999's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 03
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    10,026
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    there are enough convincing arguements on both sides to render the discussion in the "agree to disagree" category.
    Maybe the part you're not getting is that the arguments don't matter, as OoE stated, there is only one body that can declare the action illegal. It's like here in the USA, until the Grand Jury says a crime was commited, no crime was commited.
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    They are allegations not convictions..
    And always will be, as outside investigations have been blocked. This is the ultimate corruption, and abuse of power, and where I base my statements.
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    However, my original point stands.. What difference would 8 weeks have made?
    My reply still stands: What difference would 8 weeks have made? France had ceased negotiating in good faith. They bluffed, we called 'em.
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    or made the USA any more unsafe than the previous decade had?

    No.
    Side note: Don't get me wrong here, as my arguments may seem to place me in the war vs. WMD group, but I do not support the actions taken for my "security". Personally I could care less about WMD in any of these issues. The only good thing about them is that they tend to scare people into doing what they should have done to begin with. My support comes from the premise that all peoples deserve the chance to be free, and nothing more. As such, I would have supported action in Iraq if Saddam only had hand guns, wasn't backing terrorists, had never attacked any other country, and had never threatened anyone beyond his borders.
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    But equally, given the backing by the international community, they are all achievable within the UN. There is no need for a different body.
    So which nations will they start kicking out? Or do they just say places like China don't get to talk anymore?
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

  4. #229
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    The reason I respect Confed so much is his consistency. He knows his own mind, and never betrays his convictions.

    Would that we were all so faithful to ourselves.

    YOU are a mensch, my friend, and I am proud that you're both.

    Lt. Bluesman and I are going over to Skipper's for dinner and tunes tonight. You want to meet us there?

  5. #230
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    25 Apr 06
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Confed999
    Maybe the part you're not getting is that the arguments don't matter, as OoE stated, there is only one body that can declare the action illegal. It's like here in the USA, until the Grand Jury says a crime was commited, no crime was commited.

    And always will be, as outside investigations have been blocked. This is the ultimate corruption, and abuse of power, and where I base my statements.

    My reply still stands: What difference would 8 weeks have made? France had ceased negotiating in good faith. They bluffed, we called 'em.

    Side note: Don't get me wrong here, as my arguments may seem to place me in the war vs. WMD group, but I do not support the actions taken for my "security". Personally I could care less about WMD in any of these issues. The only good thing about them is that they tend to scare people into doing what they should have done to begin with. My support comes from the premise that all peoples deserve the chance to be free, and nothing more. As such, I would have supported action in Iraq if Saddam only had hand guns, wasn't backing terrorists, had never attacked any other country, and had never threatened anyone beyond his borders.

    So which nations will they start kicking out? Or do they just say places like China don't get to talk anymore?
    OK all fair points especially your point re-WMD.

    I still cling to the view that the UN has the tools it needs. But the current members do not use those rules. There is no will in the western nations to remove dictators simply because they are dictators. Lots of people coming back in body bags doesnt sit well with voters. Politicians lack the courage (generally, not always) to risk the backlash. I dont see how a new organisation would change this at all.

    i do get your point about China etc. I dont like dictators either. I think your stand on Iraq is highly commendable. But a NATO plus democratic others simply becomes a "Western" club and is too exclusive.

    I guess Im just too much of "damned european liberal" to embrace the idea of enforcing regime change across the world. I cant help feel that it simply becomes a form of imperialism and is open to abuse.

    My ingrained instinct is negociation and the hope of gradual, organic change from within those nations themselves.

    I also worry about huge cost in innocent lives. If we want to bring freedom to the world, we need to been sure those we would free are willing to pay the price. Freedom is not free, and has always been bought by life. I suspect many in Iraq would rather not be paying that price right now. Do we have the right to make that choice for them?? It makes me uneasy...

    ( Im not arguing that the price doesnt need to be paid for longterm gain, but being invaded, occupied, bombed in the name of freedom is a hard pill to bear for any people)

    I have learned much from this debate and will go away and think longer and harder before I jump into a debate like this again!
    Last edited by PubFather; 07 May 06, at 18:14.

  6. #231
    Staff Emeritus Confed999's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 03
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    10,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesman
    The reason I respect Confed so much is his consistency. He knows his own mind, and never betrays his convictions.
    I do my best anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesman
    YOU are a mensch
    I'm still not sure if that's good or bad. Guess I'll have to look it up...
    Main Entry: mensch
    Pronunciation: 'men(t)sh
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Yiddish mentsh human being, from Middle High German mensch, from Old High German mennisco; akin to Old English man human being, man
    : a person of integrity and honor

    Oh wow, thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesman
    I am proud that you're both.
    I'm proud that we got the chance to meet and become friends as well. I'm glad Battlefront couldn't maintain it's political forum.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesman
    Lt. Bluesman and I are going over to Skipper's for dinner and tunes tonight. You want to meet us there?
    :( Figures it's tonight. My Mom is in town until after dark tonight, and we're going to do the Olive Garden for dinner before she leaves. (Yeah I'm a Mama's boy, what of it?) Please do not hesitate to ask me next time, it is unlikely you'll get a negative response from me again.
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    But a NATO plus democratic others simply becomes a "Western" club and is too exclusive.
    If it is not exclusive, then tyrants are getting a say in world policy, and being legitimized in the process.
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    My ingrained instinct is negociation and the hope of gradual, organic change from within those nations themselves.
    By all means, try that first, but there are alot of places that do not care whay anyone but them says. Saddam was the perfect example. The talking has to end somewhere, and with Saddam it should have ended long ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    I also worry about huge cost in innocent lives.
    Just Iraq, 300,000+ bodies from mass graves so far and many more to be explored, 4 million internally and externally displaced peoples, over one million reports of missing people, genocide, ethnic cleansing, political cleansing, torture for fun, the rape and murder of one's children as punishment for their ideas. You want to see the huge cost of life? It isn't in the liberation, it's in leaving the tyrant in power.
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    Do we have the right to make that choice for them??
    Do we have the right to ignore their plight under tyranny? To me that is just as evil as if the one ignoring it were the one stomping babies to death. All that can be done is to give the people a chance to try it again, and pray they get it right this time. Nothing more can be done for, or asked of, them.
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    think longer and harder before I jump into a debate like this again!
    I believe you've done just fine. I look forward to arguing with you in the future...
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

  7. #232
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578

    The UN kills.

    I know I'm getting repetitive with this guy's columns, but the simple truth is...he puts it better than the rest of us can.

    And here's proof, once again, if it's still needed, that he's right about dam' near everything he thinks.

    Mark Steyn: New coalition of willing needed in Darfur
    Hollywood stars are naive to expect the UN to stop the bloodbath in Sudan

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    08may06

    I SEE George Clooney and Angelina Jolie have discovered Darfur and are now demanding "action". Good for them. Hollywood hasn't shown this much interest in indigenous groups of the Sudan since John Payne and Jerry Colonna sang The Girlfriend of the Whirling Dervish in Garden of the Moon (1938).

    I wish the celebs well. Those of us who wanted action on Darfur years ago will hope their advocacy produces more results than ours did. Clooney's concern for the people of the region appears to be genuine and serious. But unless he's also serious about backing the only forces in the world with the capability and will to act in Sudan, he's just another showboating pretty boy of no use to anyone.
    Here's the lesson of the past three years: The UN kills.

    In 2003, you'll recall, the US was reviled as a unilateralist cowboy because it and its coalition of the poodles waged an illegal war unauthorised by the UN against a sovereign state run by a thug regime that was no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders, which it killed in large numbers (Kurds and Shia).

    Well, Washington learned its lesson. Faced with another thug regime that's no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders which it kills in large numbers (African Muslims and southern Christians), the unilateralist cowboy decided to go by the book. No unlawful actions here. Instead, meetings at the UN. Consultations with allies. Possible referral to the Security Council.

    And as I wrote on this page in July 2004: "The problem is, by the time you've gone through the UN, everyone's dead." And as I wrote in Britain's Daily Telegraph in September 2004: "The US agreed to go the UN route and it looks like they'll have a really strongish compromise resolution ready to go about a week after the last villager's been murdered and his wife gang-raped."

    Several hundred thousand corpses later Clooney is now demanding a "stronger multinational force to protect the civilians of Darfur".

    Agreed. So let's get on to the details. If by "multinational" Clooney means a military intervention authorised by the UN, then he's a poseur and a fraud, and we should pay him no further heed. Meaningful UN action is never gonna happen. Sudan has at least two Security Council vetoes in its pocket: China gets 6 per cent of its oil from the country, while Russia has less obviously commercial reasons and more of a general philosophical belief in the right of sovereign states to butcher their own.

    So forget a legal intervention authorised by the UN. If by "multinational" Clooney means military participation by the Sudanese regime's co-religionists, then dream on. The Arab League, as is its wont when one of its bloodier members gets a bad press, has circled the camels and chosen to confer its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on Khartoum by holding its most recent summit there.

    So who, in the end, does "multinational action" boil down to? The same small group of nations responsible for almost any meaningful global action, from Sierra Leone to Iraq to Afghanistan to the tsunami-devastated Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia and on to East Timor and the Solomon Islands. The same core of English-speaking countries, technically multinational but distressingly unicultural and unilingual and indeed, given that most of them share the same head of state, uniregal. The US, Britain, Australia and Canada (back in the game in Afghanistan) certainly attract other partners, from the gallant Poles to the Kingdom of Tonga.

    But, whatever international law has to say on the subject, the only effective intervention around the world comes from ad hoc coalitions of the willing led by the doughty musketeers of the Anglosphere. Right now who's on the ground dragging the reluctant Sudanese through their negotiations with the African Union? America's Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick and Britain's International Development Secretary Hilary Benn. Sorry, George, that's as "multinational" as it's gonna get.

    Clooney made an interesting point a few weeks ago. He said that "liberal" had become a dirty word in America and he'd like to change that. Fair enough. But you're never going to do so as long as your squeamishness about the projection of American power outweighs your do-gooder instincts.

    The American Prospect's Mark Leon Goldberg penned an almost comically agonised piece fretting about the circumstances in which he'd be prepared to support a Bush intervention in Darfur: Who needs the Janjaweed when you're prepared to torture your own arguments the way Goldberg does? He gets to the penultimate paragraph and he's still saying stuff such as: "The question, of course, is whether the US seeks Security Council support to legitimise such airstrikes."

    Well, no, that's not the question. If you think the case for intervention in Darfur depends on whether or not the Chinese guy raises his hand, sorry, you're not being serious. The good people of Darfur have been entrusted to the legitimacy of the UN for more than two years and it's killing them. In 2004, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan took decisive action and appointed a UN committee to look into what's going on. Eventually, they reported back that it's not genocide.

    Thank goodness for that. Because, as yet another Kofi-appointed UN committee boldly declared, "genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated". So fortunately what's going on in the Sudan isn't genocide. Instead, it's just hundreds of thousands of corpses who happen to be from the same ethnic group, which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone's dead, at which point the so-called "decent left" can support a "multinational" force under the auspices of the Arab League going in to ensure the corpses don't pollute the water supply.

    What's the quintessential leftist cause? It's the one you see on a gazillion bumper stickers: Free Tibet. Every college in the US has a Free Tibet society: There's the Indiana University Students for a Free Tibet, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Students for a Free Tibet, and the Students for a Free Tibet University of Michigan Chapter. Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet. Idealism asinertia is the hallmark of the movement.

    Those of us on the Free Iraq-Free Darfur side are consistent: There are no bad reasons to clobber thug regimes, and the postmodern sovereignty beloved by the UN is strictly conditional. At some point, the Left has to decide whether it stands for anything other than self-congratulatory passivity and the fetishisation of a failed and corrupt transnationalism. As Alexander Downer put it: "Outcomes are more important than blind faith in the principles of non-intervention, sovereignty and multilateralism."

    Just so. Regrettably, the Australian Foreign Minister isn't as big a star as Clooney, but I'm sure Downer wouldn't mind if Clooney wanted to appropriate it as the Clooney Doctrine. If Anglosphere action isn't multinational enough for Sudan, it might confirm the suspicion that the Left's conscience is now just some tedious shell game in which it frantically scrambles the thimbles but, whether you look under the Iraqi or Afghan or Sudanese one, you somehow never find the shrivelled pea of The Military Intervention We're Willing To Support.

    Mark Steyn is a regular contributor to The Australian's opinion page.

  8. #233
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    More on the uselessness of the UN:

    Annan: Don't Pull Our Plug
    Kofi Annan warned the United States yesterday not to pull the plug on the United Nations by defunding Turtle Bay. Annan assured the US that the world body would reform itself despite the slow progress thus far:

    Secretary-General Kofi Annan predicted on Thursday the United Nations would avert a budget crisis threatened at the end of the month over the slow pace of U.N. reforms and implicitly warned the United States against trying to "pull the plug" on the world body.
    "The reform will proceed, and the cap on the budget will be lifted. There will be no crisis as far as I can see this month," Annan told a news conference.

    Rich nations, pushed by the United States, imposed a cap on the U.N. budget in December in hopes of increasing pressure on developing nations to approve long-delayed management reforms by June 30. ...

    Annan told reporters he saw no signs Washington was backing away from reforms or that Malloch Brown's remarks had left them "much more difficult" to negotiate.

    "For someone to say that 'because you have not reformed to my satisfaction I am going to pull the plug and stop all the activities,' it is going to be a very hard sell for all the member states to swallow and rightly so." Annan added.


    Annan says that the General Assembly will never stand for a permanent imposition of a budget cap, but it isn't up to the General Assembly. The nations paying the bill for the UN do so voluntarily, and we do not see the UN as a positive force in the world. In fact, what we see is a world body that too often allows its leadership to reflect that of most of the member nations: autocratic, unaccountable, and almost absolutely corrupt. The lack of mechanisms to hold management responsible for its actions spring from the undemocratic nature of the organization as well as its members, and the ongoing corruption and atrocities involved in its operations embarrass and anger those of us footing the bill for them.

    As a matter of principle, we do not intend to keep funding any international organization that refuses to reform itself and continues to allow its agencies to prostitute refugees for food and water. After the billions of dollars lost in the Oil-For-Food scandal that went directly into the pockets of a dictator that the UN assured us could be contained. While it's difficult to believe that this organization serves any purpose for anyone with the kind of rank corruption it practices, it certainly dosn't serve the purposes of democracy or advancement. With its structure and its general membership, it serves only to keep a status quo and to tie the hands of those nations willing to take action to rectify wrongs and spread democracy and freedom.

    If the UN can reform itself into an agency that serves those ideals instead of self-perpetuation and the venal needs of its management, then perhaps we can see our way to funding it fully. Otherwise, we can and should simply walk away from the UN and encourage the democracies of the world to form a separate multilateral organization that actually works for the advancement of the only values that have proven themselves beneficial to humanity and a deterrent to war: self-determination through representative democracy. When the nations of the world all have that freedom, that organization will fulfill the promise that the UN has so tragically failed.

  9. #234
    Staff Emeritus Confed999's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 03
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    10,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesman
    Kofi Annan warned the United States
    [SARCASM]I know I'm scared now![/SARCASM]
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

  10. #235
    Banned Ellopian's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 06
    Posts
    134

    Refresh?

    you guys in this forum keep saying the same phrases. I mean, i was missing for for a month at least, and i read the same exact things.
    1 UN are useless
    2 It fills the pockets of tyrrans with money
    3 UN are useless
    4 It fills the pockets of tyrrans with money; etc etc...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Ok, understood, i don't agree, but it's your pov.
    Now, what are your suggestions, what is the alternative? Finally, the only real uselless thing going on, is your obsession about repeating how useless and "unfair" the UN are...

  11. #236
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    In case you have not noticed, the world is going on without the UN. The only place of signifcant UN impact is the Sudan and that's because nobody else cares.

  12. #237
    Banned Ellopian's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 06
    Posts
    134
    If nobody cares, why 235 posts?

  13. #238
    Banned Ellopian's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 06
    Posts
    134
    Maybe the good thing about UN is that they go where nobody else want to go.... and they save lives. Of course the USA/GB alliance go only where they have interest$ to defend.

  14. #239

    Join Date
    07 Sep 05
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellopian
    you guys in this forum keep saying the same phrases. I mean, i was missing for for a month at least, and i read the same exact things.
    1 UN are useless
    2 It fills the pockets of tyrrans with money
    3 UN are useless
    4 It fills the pockets of tyrrans with money; etc etc...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Ok, understood, i don't agree, but it's your pov.
    Now, what are your suggestions, what is the alternative? Finally, the only real uselless thing going on, is your obsession about repeating how useless and "unfair" the UN are...

    Point in case Indo-US relations. No outside body was responsible for much improved realtions between these countries. Just you-trade-I-trade. Now name one successful military intervention from UN. And African tragedies like Tutsie- Hutu conflict happened inspite of UN being there.

    They are good in UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO kind of thing.
    Last edited by gilgamesh; 30 Jun 06, at 14:57.

  15. #240
    Banned Ellopian's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 06
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by gilgamesh
    Point in case Indo-US relations. No outside body was responsible for much improved realtions between these countries. Just you-trade-I-trade. Now name one successful military intervention from UN. And African tragedies like Tutsie- Hutu conflict happened inspite of UN being there.

    They are good in UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO kind of thing.
    I don't disagree with you in that, i did not say that UN is the center of the universe; the fact that Indians and Americans improved their relations doesn't prove that UN should be bannished or something.
    But, and try to understand my pov please, the you-trade-I-trade "system" finally, supports - gives more power to the strong country against the weaker country in the negociation. Get it?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. F16 - Most Useless Modern Plane?
    By PubFather in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 26 Jun 06,, 11:10
  2. Kashmir moot useless: Mirwaiz
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 May 06,, 20:30
  3. Useless Facts
    By THL in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 20 Mar 06,, 18:54
  4. OIC wants permanent UNSC seat
    By troung in forum International Politics
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 18 Jul 05,, 22:55
  5. Adjustment Lending useless concept
    By Adjustment in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26 Feb 05,, 14:45

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •