• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The UN is ... [Get it into your freak$%& heads!!!]

C

coolVariable

Diamond Member
When are people going to get it into their !"§$! heads ...
that the UN is not some sort of world government with international laws that it enforces?
It is an international organization for SOVEREIGN nations to meet and concert their international policy.
It is especially important for poorer countries that CAN'T afford to have an embassy in every capital of the world and it is their only means of making international policy together with other nations.
It is like a club of nations!
The security council (thanks to the US) has been acting like a world policeman but it is not!!!!
 
Originally posted by: coolVariable
When are people going to get it into their !"§$! heads ...
that the UN is not some sort of world government with international laws that it enforces?
It is an international organization for SOVEREIGN nations to meet and concert their international policy.
It is especially important for poorer countries that CAN'T afford to have an embassy in every capital of the world and it is their only means of making international policy together with other nations.
It is like a club of nations!
The security council (thanks to the US) has been acting like a world policeman but it is not!!!!
Click to expand...

Would you like every government in the world to be involved or the ones that will actually be able to lend aid to those countries that need it. BTW what would you prefer the UN or the US do let everybody in the world have nukes or let the bosnians (sp) kill the surbs?

think before you post.
 
Originally posted by: coolVariable
When are people going to get it into their !"§$! heads ...
that the UN is not some sort of world government with international laws that it enforces?
It is an international organization for SOVEREIGN nations to meet and concert their international policy.
It is especially important for poorer countries that CAN'T afford to have an embassy in every capital of the world and it is their only means of making international policy together with other nations.
It is like a club of nations!
The security council (thanks to the US) has been acting like a world policeman but it is not!!!!
Click to expand...

So, basically you are saying the UN has no actual rights to stop the US from invading?
 
One of the guiding principles of the UN was best stated by Truman . . . the notion that the most powerful nations on the planet have a responsibility to act in the best of interest of all people and all nations. The hope was that the UN would embody the primacy of mankinds interests over the nation-state. Unfortunately, the UN (and most egregiously ALL members of the Security Council) invariably put national interests ahead of the common good. Although the UN (and its many component organizations) remains the most respected international body . . . the actions of countries with disproportionate influence (Security Council and client states) have harmed the body's integrity.

Regardless of the vote . . . if it comes to a vote . . . the Bush admin will put the final nail in the coffin by either 1) prevailing by intimidating/bribing other nations or 2) demonstrating the UN's irrelevance by invading Iraq without UN authorization.

Truman
President Truman came to deliver the opening address. ?All nations large and small are represented here,? the President stated. ?This Assembly is the world?s supreme deliberative body. The highest obligation of this assembly is to speak for all mankind in such a way as to promote the unity of all members in behalf of a peace that will be lasting because it is founded upon justice. It must be everlasting,? said Truman and he quoted the scriptures. ?Swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, and nations shall not learn war anymore.
 
Originally posted by: datalink7
Originally posted by: coolVariable When are people going to get it into their !"§$! heads ... that the UN is not some sort of world government with international laws that it enforces? It is an international organization for SOVEREIGN nations to meet and concert their international policy. It is especially important for poorer countries that CAN'T afford to have an embassy in every capital of the world and it is their only means of making international policy together with other nations. It is like a club of nations! The security council (thanks to the US) has been acting like a world policeman but it is not!!!!
Click to expand...
So, basically you are saying the UN has no actual rights to stop the US from invading?
Click to expand...

That's what I got out of it.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
One of the guiding principles of the UN was best stated by Truman . . . the notion that the most powerful nations on the planet have a responsibility to act in the best of interest of all people and all nations. The hope was that the UN would embody the primacy of mankinds interests over the nation-state. Unfortunately, the UN (and most egregiously ALL members of the Security Council) invariably put national interests ahead of the common good. Although the UN (and its many component organizations) remains the most respected international body . . . the actions of countries with disproportionate influence (Security Council and client states) have harmed the body's integrity.

Regardless of the vote . . . if it comes to a vote . . . the Bush admin will put the final nail in the coffin by either 1) prevailing by intimidating/bribing other nations or 2) demonstrating the UN's irrelevance by invading Iraq without UN authorization.

Truman
President Truman came to deliver the opening address. ?All nations large and small are represented here,? the President stated. ?This Assembly is the world?s supreme deliberative body. The highest obligation of this assembly is to speak for all mankind in such a way as to promote the unity of all members in behalf of a peace that will be lasting because it is founded upon justice. It must be everlasting,? said Truman and he quoted the scriptures. ?Swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, and nations shall not learn war anymore.
Click to expand...
That's all fine and dandy, but do you really believe that one shred of the original intent of the UN is still intact? This isn't aimed at just the US... everyone. People violating sanction 1, country B demanding X money, country C demanding looser immigration laws... all of which is completely irrelevant to the tasks at hand. The UN is nothing more than 1) a blackmail bazaar and 2) diplomat social hour / debating society. The world simply isn't ready for a UN type body at this point in time. We are better off with task-oriented coalitions.
 
Originally posted by: Torghn
Originally posted by: datalink7
Originally posted by: coolVariable When are people going to get it into their !"§$! heads ... that the UN is not some sort of world government with international laws that it enforces? It is an international organization for SOVEREIGN nations to meet and concert their international policy. It is especially important for poorer countries that CAN'T afford to have an embassy in every capital of the world and it is their only means of making international policy together with other nations. It is like a club of nations! The security council (thanks to the US) has been acting like a world policeman but it is not!!!!
Click to expand...
So, basically you are saying the UN has no actual rights to stop the US from invading?
Click to expand...

That's what I got out of it.
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
The UN will ultimately fail in time.

The general reason is that it does not have an armed forces of its own. Its basically a lawmaking body that has no ability to back up the laws (imagine your town with no policemen). In general, the UN works because the violaters of the UN are small countries that can be easily squashed by the UN. However, on iffy situations, where large nations violate the sanctions, there is nothing the UN can do.

The UN needs a standing military for it to work. And I can bet you money there arent enough people on earth that will be willing to die for the UN cause.
 
Originally posted by: coolVariable
When are people going to get it into their !"§$! heads ...
that the UN is not some sort of world government with international laws that it enforces?
It is an international organization for SOVEREIGN nations to meet and concert their international policy.
It is especially important for poorer countries that CAN'T afford to have an embassy in every capital of the world and it is their only means of making international policy together with other nations.
It is like a club of nations!
The security council (thanks to the US) has been acting like a world policeman but it is not!!!!
Click to expand...

but the US acts like a world policeman. i'd rather let the un do the police work
 
Originally posted by: dexvx
The UN will ultimately fail in time.

The general reason is that it does not have an armed forces of its own. Its basically a lawmaking body that has no ability to back up the laws (imagine your town with no policemen). In general, the UN works because the violaters of the UN are small countries that can be easily squashed by the UN. However, on iffy situations, where large nations violate the sanctions, there is nothing the UN can do.

The UN needs a standing military for it to work. And I can bet you money there arent enough people on earth that will be willing to die for the UN cause.
Click to expand...
I dunno... some of those protestors might be willing to sign up for the opportunity to smite a few American baby-killers or something. 😛
 
Originally posted by: dighn
Originally posted by: coolVariable
When are people going to get it into their !"§$! heads ...
that the UN is not some sort of world government with international laws that it enforces?
It is an international organization for SOVEREIGN nations to meet and concert their international policy.
It is especially important for poorer countries that CAN'T afford to have an embassy in every capital of the world and it is their only means of making international policy together with other nations.
It is like a club of nations!
The security council (thanks to the US) has been acting like a world policeman but it is not!!!!
Click to expand...

but the US acts like a world policeman. i'd rather let the un do the police work
Click to expand...
Ya, 'cause policemen are the boogeyman.

 
Oh yea, the UN also fails because the 5 permanent security council countries can basically do whatever they want in their own self-interests, and use their permanent veto power to block any "legal" military action against them.

The US can technically let Isreal nuke the middle east (or veto 35 sanctions like it has already done),
Britain with Zimbabwe,
Russia with Cheyna,
China with Taiwan,
France with.... I dont know.

They can technically veto, and "legally" nothing can be done within the UN framework.

UN SC Veto History.

From the above article, you can clearly see the abuses of the UN SC Veto by the former Soviet Union and the United States.
 
the veto is a relic of post-WWII when the soviet union was afraid that the other countries of the world would gang up on them. also they were given 3 votes in the general assembly. the UN is NOT a club of nations--that was what the League of Nations was and was an utter failure. the mandate of the UN is peace, but within its framework is the tools for peace: expulsion, sanction, observation, and even police action.

one note you forgot to mention: the Korean War was mandated by the UN Security Council. the invasion of a communist country by a democratic regime--how could the UN support this with the Soviet Union having veto power? the USSR was boycotting the proceeding of the SC because the US would not recognize the communist gov't of China--everytime a vote would come up, the US would veto. in protest, the USSR stormed out of the room. the US quickly drafted a resolution authorizing war on North Korea. the USSR would never leave a Security Council meeting in session =)
 
Like I said . . . the principle is just as sound in 1948 as it is today. The difference is the US is currently governed by people who believe they have a right to impose their personal beliefs upon ANY person or nation at a whim. Unfortunately, even the just principles advocated by the current Bush administration are skewed to the point they no longer represent values common to all people.
 
one note you forgot to mention: the Korean War was mandated by the UN Security Council.
Click to expand...

Curiously, the principle of unintended consequences shows up more than once with regards to the Korean War. Truman was the first US President to commit troops to a limited war without a declaration of war by the Congress . . . ushering in 5 going on 6 decades of un-Constitutional wars due to Congressional duplicity and Executive abuses.
 
Originally posted by: yodayoda
the veto is a relic of post-WWII when the soviet union was afraid that the other countries of the world would gang up on them. also they were given 3 votes in the general assembly. the UN is NOT a club of nations--that was what the League of Nations was and was an utter failure. the mandate of the UN is peace, but within its framework is the tools for peace: expulsion, sanction, observation, and even police action.

one note you forgot to mention: the Korean War was mandated by the UN Security Council. the invasion of a communist country by a democratic regime--how could the UN support this with the Soviet Union having veto power? the USSR was boycotting the proceeding of the SC because the US would not recognize the communist gov't of China--everytime a vote would come up, the US would veto. in protest, the USSR stormed out of the room. the US quickly drafted a resolution authorizing war on North Korea. the USSR would never leave a Security Council meeting in session =)
Click to expand...

No you are mistaken. If you read the UN charter, it does not mention veto anywhere. It simply states that all 5 permanent security council members have to agree in order to do something. It has been generally defined as "veto", even though it does not explicitly state it. Its inception had nothing to do with the USSR fear about the rest of the world, because it could nuke the rest of the world to submission anyways. Its inception was due to the fact that during WWII, the world saw an extradinary amount of world cooperation and good-will. The USSR has always had just 1 vote.
 
Originally posted by: Aceshigh
We should have left the U.N a long time ago. They are unable to accomplish anything.
Click to expand...

Dont know about that. They have managed to keep up out of this silly war this long. Wont work forever. Ahab is just so patient. White whale number one gonna go bye bye soon.
 
I'm guessing that soon this thread will move onto the "is the UN redundant" (IMHO No) - which then means everyone can go and look up all the threads that have discussed that arguement prior to now - and save my poor fingers from RSI 😉

Andy
 
Originally posted by: dexvx
The UN will ultimately fail in time.

The general reason is that it does not have an armed forces of its own. Its basically a lawmaking body that has no ability to back up the laws (imagine your town with no policemen). In general, the UN works because the violaters of the UN are small countries that can be easily squashed by the UN. However, on iffy situations, where large nations violate the sanctions, there is nothing the UN can do.

The UN needs a standing military for it to work. And I can bet you money there arent enough people on earth that will be willing to die for the UN cause.
Click to expand...

the UN isn't like a town tho. it isn't a government it shouldn't have a police force. it is more like a housing association. it collects dues, pays for improvements for everyone in the neighborhood, new pool, etc etc. but it doesn't enforce laws. that's still done by the local police department.

btw, for all of you who want to do away with the UN because some UN members disagree with the US. that's ludicrous. that's part of the checks and balances. i personally don't agree with frances stand and i believe their motives are suspect but still their objections serve a purpose anyway. if nothing else, it forces everyone to reconsider the action of declaring war on iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top