UN may have to act...

[StageLeft]

UN can't do sh*t.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Nebor

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.

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?

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

People used to know that standing armies caused trouble.

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.

I never expected results out of it. I'd like for it to dry up and blow away.

I know you do, but that's just because you don't know what purposes the UN serve. Nobody is forced to be a member, countries are because they get something out of it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Tango

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.

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.

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.

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.

While i diagree with everything else you said and i'd urge you to provide evidence thereof but i know that is an excersise in futilty, i agree that the UN is toothless as it is today, maybe you are just daft or plain stupid but if it wasn't for the UN then then Kongo in the 60's would have been a lot worse, you are trying to pretend like the UN didn't do anything while it most certainly did, but the UN is nothing more than it's member states make it and at this point it's ruled by idiotic means, remove veto power as a first step, the US would fight this tooth and claw though and you know it.

I would rather be in a force that is international and given authority by international means than to be an extended handout from the SAS to the US as it is now.

No Brit decided that we needed to stay here until November, that order was issued from the US, i'm Brittish.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
UN can't do sh*t.

The UN can do anything it's member states gives it authority to do, but since you are a US resident it's obvious to you that the UN couldn't even rid Saddam of his WMD's even though they had time, the US had to do that.

Obviously the UN was more efficient, as long as they were there the storages were guarded and intact, when the US took over they were immediately looted.

Yay for the US? "Goddammit if they don't have any WMD's we'll make sure they steal back their old ones" problem was that the old ones they stole back were so old they only caused rashes at most.

 

[PokerGuy]

For those (like the OP) that whine about the UN not being able to do more than pass a resolution.... without any military, what exactly do you propose the UN should do? They can pass a resolution allowing member states to take action against Burma, that's about it.

Frankly, I don't think the UN having it's "own" army is a good idea...

You can't have it both ways -- either you want the UN to have more "teeth" or you don't, but you can't want them to have no teeth and then whine about their inability to "do something".

 

[Stoneburner]

I'd rather have a military junta than a fundamentalist buddhist regime in power anywhere!

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Tango

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.

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.

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.

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.

While i diagree with everything else you said and i'd urge you to provide evidence thereof but i know that is an excersise in futilty, i agree that the UN is toothless as it is today, maybe you are just daft or plain stupid but if it wasn't for the UN then then Kongo in the 60's would have been a lot worse, you are trying to pretend like the UN didn't do anything while it most certainly did, but the UN is nothing more than it's member states make it and at this point it's ruled by idiotic means, remove veto power as a first step, the US would fight this tooth and claw though and you know it.

I would rather be in a force that is international and given authority by international means than to be an extended handout from the SAS to the US as it is now.

No Brit decided that we needed to stay here until November, that order was issued from the US, i'm Brittish.

You might want to re-read my post, as you obviously misinterpreted. I am the first advocate of the UN, and I posted the very phrase I highlight in bold a few pages back.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Nebor

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.

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?

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

People used to know that standing armies caused trouble.

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.

I never expected results out of it. I'd like for it to dry up and blow away.

I know you do, but that's just because you don't know what purposes the UN serve. Nobody is forced to be a member, countries are because they get something out of it.

The trick is to get the most out of it without ever paying your dues. 😉

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'd rather have a military junta than a fundamentalist buddhist regime in power anywhere!

I truly hope that was sarcasm.... I wonder what fundy buddhas would be like?

 

[CanOWorms]

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.

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.

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.

We can all take comfort that the UK made the world suck. Yay colonialism and its effects that we still see today in almost every conflict!

 

[maddogchen]

Video of Japanese journalist shot by Burmese troops.
Text