• 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.

UN may have to act...

I

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Monks' shaved heads stained with blood could be seen at the Shwedagon Pagoda where police charged against protesters demanding the end of military rule.

The UN is meeting tonight to discuss the crisis in Burma after five people were reportedly killed in an armed crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations.


Of course the UN is only discussing the issue. Will the UN do anything or simply pass a resolution, if that, condemning the violence? Bush called for sanctions during his speech to the UN the other day. It should not be long before other Western leaders do so. I am curious what Russia and China will do, or will one of them thwart any effort?

 
I guess they simply need to retrieve one shiny new strongly worded letter from the stash in their closet, and maybe that will help... :roll:
 
news at 11.
UN has new method to deal with countries.
Its a web page with the bright flashing colors and the womans voice from the ipod online ads/
Text " WE REALLY REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME, OR ELSE, we will uhm uhm, send you TWO letters !"

 
What do you want the UN to do? They have no troops, crying about the UN not doing anything is as pointless as the UN.
 
Originally posted by: smack Down
What do you want the UN to do? They have no troops, crying about the UN not doing anything is as pointless as the UN.
Click to expand...

People will never get it. The UN are only as good as the member states. The UN are supposed to have a permanent, independent military force according to the charter. Guess who always opposed the implementation of this?

How can the UN do anything if member states won't pledge their military to intervene?
 
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: smack Down
What do you want the UN to do? They have no troops, crying about the UN not doing anything is as pointless as the UN.
Click to expand...

People will never get it. The UN are only as good as the member states. The UN are supposed to have a permanent, independent military force according to the charter. Guess who always opposed the implementation of this?

How can the UN do anything if member states won't pledge their military to intervene?
Click to expand...

I stand totally opposed to the UN having a standing army.

People used to know that standing armies caused trouble.
 
Most UN operations are accompanied with various atrocities according to their own investigation. What's happening in Burma right now pales in comparison to the rape, murder, gun smuggling, etc. that accompanies most UN missions.
 
Originally posted by: Tango
The UN are supposed to have a permanent, independent military force according to the charter. Guess who always opposed the implementation of this?
Click to expand...

Considering the focus and agenda of other UN bodies like the Human Rights Council, would you really want it to control an army? I sure as hell wouldn't.
 
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: smack Down
What do you want the UN to do? They have no troops, crying about the UN not doing anything is as pointless as the UN.
Click to expand...

People will never get it. The UN are only as good as the member states. The UN are supposed to have a permanent, independent military force according to the charter. Guess who always opposed the implementation of this?

How can the UN do anything if member states won't pledge their military to intervene?
Click to expand...

I stand totally opposed to the UN having a standing army.

People used to know that standing armies caused trouble.
Click to expand...

Well, that's ok then. Just stop complaining when the UN has not the military assets to enforce its policies. If you deny them effective instruments, then you must not pretend effective results.
 
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Most UN operations are accompanied with various atrocities according to their own investigation. What's happening in Burma right now pales in comparison to the rape, murder, gun smuggling, etc. that accompanies most UN missions.
Click to expand...

This is true, but you must remember that military forces under the UN flag currently remain under military control of the nation "lending" them. And this is just the effect of the UN not having its own military forces.

If the UN had the independent military forces they are supposed to have according to their charter you could blame directly the UN for whichever misbehavior they indulged in. In the present state of things, you must blame the military command of whichever army in involved in those facts.
 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
The UN sucks because US, Russia and China made it suck, not for any other reason, stop trying to shift the blame.
Click to expand...

The UN suck because because the 5 permanent members of the security council make it suck. These include France and the UK on top of the 3 countries you mentioned.

Interestingly, these are also the top-5 weapons producers and exporters in the world.
 
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
The UN sucks because US, Russia and China made it suck, not for any other reason, stop trying to shift the blame.
Click to expand...

The UN suck because because the 5 permanent members of the security council make it suck. These include France and the UK on top of the 3 countries you mentioned.

Interestingly, these are also the top-5 weapons producers and exporters in the world.
Click to expand...

No, the only three permanent members that have made it suck is the US, China and Russia because of their own interests, name one vote where the UK has vetoed in it's own interests and not the US's or where France has not been a part of a NATO conference before and then agreed to the veto in the UN. Don't kid yourself, once upon a time it was the US and the western world against nations like China and Russia, now it's the western world against countries like the US, Russia and China.

US, Russia and China vetoes anything that could ever do anything substantial and the US goes ahead to start wars which are not UN approved, agressive wars, breaking every international law of warfare there is, and then claim that the UN is toothless... Think about it, if it wasn't and the US started a war against Iraq, the UN would have to fight the US on that to uphold the law.

 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
The UN sucks because US, Russia and China made it suck, not for any other reason, stop trying to shift the blame.
Click to expand...

The UN suck because because the 5 permanent members of the security council make it suck. These include France and the UK on top of the 3 countries you mentioned.

Interestingly, these are also the top-5 weapons producers and exporters in the world.
Click to expand...

No, the only three permanent members that have made it suck is the US, China and Russia because of their own interests, name one vote where the UK has vetoed in it's own interests and not the US's or where France has not been a part of a NATO conference before and then agreed to the veto in the UN. Don't kid yourself, once upon a time it was the US and the western world against nations like China and Russia, now it's the western world against countries like the US, Russia and China.

US, Russia and China vetoes anything that could ever do anything substantial and the US goes ahead to start wars which are not UN approved, agressive wars, breaking every international law of warfare there is, and then claim that the UN is toothless... Think about it, if it wasn't and the US started a war against Iraq, the UN would have to fight the US on that to uphold the law.
Click to expand...

The UN was useless quite a while before the Iraq war.

You might want to get off the high horse too before you hurt yourself since good percentage of the bullshit in the ME is fallout from the break up of the British Empire. Also getting condescendingly lectured by Europeans on a continual basis about the US's history of starting "aggressive" and "illegal" wars has to be the height of hypocrisy.
 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
The UN sucks because US, Russia and China made it suck, not for any other reason, stop trying to shift the blame.
Click to expand...

The UN suck because because the 5 permanent members of the security council make it suck. These include France and the UK on top of the 3 countries you mentioned.

Interestingly, these are also the top-5 weapons producers and exporters in the world.
Click to expand...

No, the only three permanent members that have made it suck is the US, China and Russia because of their own interests, name one vote where the UK has vetoed in it's own interests and not the US's or where France has not been a part of a NATO conference before and then agreed to the veto in the UN. Don't kid yourself, once upon a time it was the US and the western world against nations like China and Russia, now it's the western world against countries like the US, Russia and China.

US, Russia and China vetoes anything that could ever do anything substantial and the US goes ahead to start wars which are not UN approved, agressive wars, breaking every international law of warfare there is, and then claim that the UN is toothless... Think about it, if it wasn't and the US started a war against Iraq, the UN would have to fight the US on that to uphold the law.
Click to expand...

France and the UK have many times kept the UN outside of countries that are part of their post-colonial sphere of influence. Examples? Namibian Kaprivi-strip crisis, Angola civil war, Congo, Burundi, Tanzania, Kenya, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Burundi, Sri Lanka...

Most people care lass about these because they are mostly in Africa, and most people (particularly here in the US) have a hard time just remembering where Africa is, let alone understand its politics. The US, Russia and China have more geographically spread interests, so they usually enter a more wide and controversial spectrum of issues, compared to the UK and France. But the political pattern of trying to keep the international community outside of your own sphere of interest is in my opinion quite consistent among the 5 permanent members.

The fact is, The UN were not created to be a perfect system. They were created to be a credible system with one big target: avoiding war between the world's major powers. In this they have been wildly successful, something many people who don't follow the development in international diplomacy don't understand.

Now the question is if we want to make one step forward and try to achieve a better system (no permanent members?) but risk that the system collapse, or just accept this status quo.

The current UN system reflects the balance of power emerging from WWII, and some countries are now challenging this status quo as they perceive the real balance of power has shifted significantly.

Right now you have something that doesn't work very well, but is reliable and diplomats know how it works and what you can expect. Major changes to this status quo might have severely disruptive effects. In the next 50 years we will be called to choose if risking this changes or not.
 
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: smack Down
What do you want the UN to do? They have no troops, crying about the UN not doing anything is as pointless as the UN.
Click to expand...

People will never get it. The UN are only as good as the member states. The UN are supposed to have a permanent, independent military force according to the charter. Guess who always opposed the implementation of this?

How can the UN do anything if member states won't pledge their military to intervene?
Click to expand...

I stand totally opposed to the UN having a standing army.

People used to know that standing armies caused trouble.
Click to expand...

Well, that's ok then. Just stop complaining when the UN has not the military assets to enforce its policies. If you deny them effective instruments, then you must not pretend effective results.
Click to expand...

I never expected results out of it. I'd like for it to dry up and blow away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top