Aranthus

What if the UN had not existed in 1947? What would Israel/Palestine and the Middle East look like today?

Officer of Engineers

Probably the same as now. Instead of the UN, it would be replaced by big power treaties.

__________________
Chimo

gunnut

We may not have eliminated small pox.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

mohassan

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

Aranthus

I think that you're assuming that UN resolutions have some inherent worth. Otherwise, you wouldn't use the term "defiance", and instead you would just say that the Israelis ignore the UN. The point of the post was to raise the issue of whether the UN ahs any relevance at all: morally, legally, or practically, and what the false belief in the UN and international law means for the people on the ground.

Bluesman

Well, it certainly seems SOME people can't forget. Maybe it would be better if you tried, though.

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.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Officer of Engineers

Africa still need the UN.

Kansas Bear

Take a long hard look at Lebanon.....

__________________

Till he returns...

Bluesman

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.

Officer of Engineers

That's the sad part in all of this. It's either the UN or no one. Noticed that no one is stepping up front for the Dafur mission. Not any of the P5, not any of the European powers, not any of the traditional UN military supporters, not even India is offering up a battalion. Whatever little hope the UN is offering is all the hope these people have.

The only real interests anyone had in that war was to keep Yugoslavs in Yugoslavia instead of all over the place. Yeah, the Serbs are the bad guys but they're still in control of large chunks of territories outside of Serbia.

bolo121

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.

Stan187

Unless they hire a PMC, how the hell is it supposed to be an independent force? Troop contribution come from member countries. Sometimes, they come from member countries that are having the same type of troubles as the places the blue helmets deploy to.

__________________
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

bolo121

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.

Bluesman

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.

Stan187

You're going to tell me that brush wars in Africa, Darfur and Rwanda are not super-sensitive situations? What's your definition of a super-sensitive situation bolo, because I'm not following?