Who Created the "NEED" for UN approval for force? The US, according to UN Watch

[Alistar7]

United Nations Watch aims to promote the balanced, fair, and non-discriminatory application of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, and to encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, culture, language, or religion.

Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has written the following of UN Watch: "I deeply appreciate the valuable work performed by UN Watch. I believe that informed and independent evaluation of the United Nations? activities will prove a vital source as we seek to adapt the Organization to the needs of a changing world. I can promise you that I will pay close attention to your observations and views in the years ahead."

The world?s reluctance to act in the face of continuing military aggression in Kosovo prompts a consideration of the evolution in the legitimacy of the use of force.

George Bush's decision to liberate Kuwait in line with Security Council authorization probably helped to secure the legitimacy of Operation Desert Storm. Bush's tactics prevented a potentially devastating rift between Arab and non-Arab nations.

Using force only when sanctioned by the international system ? as represented by the Security Council ? would be ideal, if adhered to by all. Sadly, aggressors are largely impervious to the force of world opinion. Often, even economic sanctions fail to alter dictators? behavior, as the brunt of the pain is transferred to domestic populations for whom the aggressor shows little respect.

What?s more, the gradual delegitimation of the use of force in the absence of Security Council approval, a paradigm shift that started with Desert Storm , now hampers efforts to resolve humanitarian tragedies. No side in Kosovo has completely clean hands. But the inability of Europeans or NATO to stop Milosevic shows how one ruthless individual can use the Western liberal ethic to stymie efforts to stop him.

Of course since that was written we know the US stepped in again to save Europe and got the Dayton Accords signed, which paved the way for UN aprroval of force ( the very next day ) to end the conflict.


Still the only country to ever ask, nice precedent we set for everyone else though, I would love to see our efforts matched by anyone......

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
United Nations Watch aims to promote the balanced, fair, and non-discriminatory application of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, and to encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, culture, language, or religion.

Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has written the following of UN Watch: "I deeply appreciate the valuable work performed by UN Watch. I believe that informed and independent evaluation of the United Nations? activities will prove a vital source as we seek to adapt the Organization to the needs of a changing world. I can promise you that I will pay close attention to your observations and views in the years ahead."

The world?s reluctance to act in the face of continuing military aggression in Kosovo prompts a consideration of the evolution in the legitimacy of the use of force.

George Bush's decision to liberate Kuwait in line with Security Council authorization probably helped to secure the legitimacy of Operation Desert Storm. Bush's tactics prevented a potentially devastating rift between Arab and non-Arab nations.

Using force only when sanctioned by the international system ? as represented by the Security Council ? would be ideal, if adhered to by all. Sadly, aggressors are largely impervious to the force of world opinion. Often, even economic sanctions fail to alter dictators? behavior, as the brunt of the pain is transferred to domestic populations for whom the aggressor shows little respect.

What?s more, the gradual delegitimation of the use of force in the absence of Security Council approval, a paradigm shift that started with Desert Storm , now hampers efforts to resolve humanitarian tragedies. No side in Kosovo has completely clean hands. But the inability of Europeans or NATO to stop Milosevic shows how one ruthless individual can use the Western liberal ethic to stymie efforts to stop him.

Of course since that was written we know the US stepped in again to save Europe and got the Dayton Accords signed, which paved the way for UN aprroval of force ( the very next day ) to end the conflict.


Still the only country to ever ask, nice precedent we set for everyone else though, I would love to see our efforts matched by anyone......

What's the point of asking if we refuse to accept the answer? Seems dishonest to me.

 

[sMiLeYz]

We're being very hypocritical when we want others have to go through UN approval, yet we ignore it the UN ourselves.

Gee, great example you're setting to the world there America.

 

[Tab]

The UN is legitamate anymore. We should leave it and let everyone else deal with the worlds problems.

 

[Chris A]

The US is the only country in the world to ever seek approval from the UN. Most other countries react to their own best interests and forget the UN... Our biggest mistake was to try to get UN approval.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Chris A
The US is the only country in the world to ever seek approval from the UN. Most other countries react to their own best interests and forget the UN... Our biggest mistake was to try to get UN approval.

"If your best friend jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Let's not forget that the countries you speak of are ones that we have called "terrorist" nations, our enemies, and part of the "axis of evil," among others. By disobeying the UN, we put ourselves in a completely hypcritical position. We can do it, but they can't, and if they do, they're evil?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Chris A
The US is the only country in the world to ever seek approval from the UN. Most other countries react to their own best interests and forget the UN... Our biggest mistake was to try to get UN approval.

"If your best friend jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Let's not forget that the countries you speak of are ones that we have called "terrorist" nations, our enemies, and part of the "axis of evil," among others. By disobeying the UN, we put ourselves in a completely hypcritical position. We can do it, but they can't, and if they do, they're evil?

Almost every permanent member of the security has gone to war without consent of the UN. It is more like they did, why do we have to.

 

[Chris A]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Chris A
The US is the only country in the world to ever seek approval from the UN. Most other countries react to their own best interests and forget the UN... Our biggest mistake was to try to get UN approval.

"If your best friend jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Let's not forget that the countries you speak of are ones that we have called "terrorist" nations, our enemies, and part of the "axis of evil," among others. By disobeying the UN, we put ourselves in a completely hypcritical position. We can do it, but they can't, and if they do, they're evil?

Honestly I speak of no other nation.. The US is the only one to ever go before the UN. Russia has and is in many wars without UN sanction.. Chechneya, Afganistan.

I agree we should not ask other countries to go before the UN but then neither should we...

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Chris A
The US is the only country in the world to ever seek approval from the UN. Most other countries react to their own best interests and forget the UN... Our biggest mistake was to try to get UN approval.

"If your best friend jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Let's not forget that the countries you speak of are ones that we have called "terrorist" nations, our enemies, and part of the "axis of evil," among others. By disobeying the UN, we put ourselves in a completely hypcritical position. We can do it, but they can't, and if they do, they're evil?

Almost every permanent member of the security has gone to war without consent of the UN. It is more like they did, why do we have to.

You do know that World War 2 happened before the formation of the UN right? Otherwise, pass the crack you've been smoking.

 

[Chris A]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Chris A
The US is the only country in the world to ever seek approval from the UN. Most other countries react to their own best interests and forget the UN... Our biggest mistake was to try to get UN approval.

"If your best friend jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Let's not forget that the countries you speak of are ones that we have called "terrorist" nations, our enemies, and part of the "axis of evil," among others. By disobeying the UN, we put ourselves in a completely hypcritical position. We can do it, but they can't, and if they do, they're evil?

Almost every permanent member of the security has gone to war without consent of the UN. It is more like they did, why do we have to.

You do know that World War 2 happened before the formation of the UN right? Otherwise, pass the crack you've been smoking.

Dude/dudet There have been lots of wars since WW2... Pass the crack pipe....

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Chris A

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Chris A
The US is the only country in the world to ever seek approval from the UN. Most other countries react to their own best interests and forget the UN... Our biggest mistake was to try to get UN approval.

"If your best friend jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Let's not forget that the countries you speak of are ones that we have called "terrorist" nations, our enemies, and part of the "axis of evil," among others. By disobeying the UN, we put ourselves in a completely hypcritical position. We can do it, but they can't, and if they do, they're evil?

Almost every permanent member of the security has gone to war without consent of the UN. It is more like they did, why do we have to.

You do know that World War 2 happened before the formation of the UN right? Otherwise, pass the crack you've been smoking.

Dude/dudet There have been lots of wars since WW2... Pass the crack pipe....

Duuuuuude slash duuuudeet... thats good crack! Feel free to make up your own jokes... You know who members of UN security council are?

Not including the US, I challenge you to name 1 war (not skirmish or UN peacekeeping war) for each of these following countries that they started...

China
France
Russia
United Kingdom
United States
Angola
Bulgaria
Cameroon
Chile
Germany
Guinea
Mexico
Pakistan
Syria
Spain

 

[B00ne]

The only major countries to start wars I remember are: US, Russia/SU, GB - cant think of anyone else or it is too long ago...

 

[Fencer128]

Ooh! Spot history test! Can't wait to see the results...

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Chris A

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Chris A
The US is the only country in the world to ever seek approval from the UN. Most other countries react to their own best interests and forget the UN... Our biggest mistake was to try to get UN approval.

"If your best friend jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Let's not forget that the countries you speak of are ones that we have called "terrorist" nations, our enemies, and part of the "axis of evil," among others. By disobeying the UN, we put ourselves in a completely hypcritical position. We can do it, but they can't, and if they do, they're evil?

Almost every permanent member of the security has gone to war without consent of the UN. It is more like they did, why do we have to.

You do know that World War 2 happened before the formation of the UN right? Otherwise, pass the crack you've been smoking.

Dude/dudet There have been lots of wars since WW2... Pass the crack pipe....

Duuuuuude slash duuuudeet... thats good crack! Feel free to make up your own jokes... You know who members of UN security council are?

Not including the US, I challenge you to name 1 war (not skirmish or UN peacekeeping war) for each of these following countries that they started...

China
France
Russia
United Kingdom
United States
Angola
Bulgaria
Cameroon
Chile
Germany
Guinea
Mexico
Pakistan
Syria
Spain

A few former French colonies there, notice how they still meddle in Africa without sking for UN approval.



Angola

China, and India somewhat

Alegeria, the French Vietnam

British war on the falklands

Bulgaria helped start ww1.

Chechnya for Russia, or Afghaistan if you like.

Germany, lol, cmon now thats too easy.

Cameron, another french colony.

You can check out Chile's wartime history here among other things.

Guinea is involved in the Sierra Leone conflict right now, also head of the security council.

France attacks Mexico

Mexico attacks the US

Early in May, 1845, American troops under Gen. Zachary Taylor had been stationed at the Sabine River preliminary to an advance to the Rio Grande, the southern boundary claimed by Texas. They advanced to Corpus Christi in July. In Mar., 1846, after the failure of Slidell?s mission, Taylor occupied Point Isabel, a town at the mouth of the Rio Grande. To the Mexicans, who claimed the Nueces River as the boundary, this was an act of aggression, and after some negotiations Gen. Mariano Arista ordered his troops to cross the Rio Grande. On Apr. 25 a clash between the two armies occurred, and Taylor reported to Washington that hostilities had begun. 5
On May 3 the guns of Matamoros began to shell Fort Brown (then Fort Taylor), an advanced American position near the present Brownsville, Tex. President Polk called these Mexican actions an invasion of American soil, and on May 13, 1846, the United States declared war. Meanwhile, Taylor had defeated the Mexicans at Palo Alto (May 8) and Resaca de la Palma (May 9). The Mexicans retreated across the Rio Grande. Taylor followed them and on May 18 took Matamoros. After a delay he then advanced on Monterrey, which he occupied after a five-day battle (Sept. 20?24, 1846).

Pakistan attacks India

Syria attacks Israel

Spain attacks Cuba, more EU colonialism, notice how well their colonies are doing today, look at their most modern ones in Africa...

 

[Alistar7]

This one is just for fun..... interesting international diplomacy here

After warily watching nearly three years of factional struggles in Spain over the government, the international powers at the Congress of Verona (October 1822), alarmed by the capture of Spain's Kind Ferdinand VII (1784-1833) by armed revolutionaries opposed to absolutism, authorized France to intervene in the conflict and restore Ferdinand to his throne, despite Britain's objection. On April 17, 1823, French forces led by Louis Antoine de Bourbon, duke of Angouleme (1775-1844), crossed the Pyrenees into Spain, welcomed by the Basques and Catalonians. The duke dispatched a force to besiege San Sebastian while he launched an attack on Madrid, Spain's capital, held by the revolutionaries. The rebel government withdrew to Seville, Mardrid's military commander secretly capitulated and fled to France, and the leaderless Madrid garrison could not keep out the French, who seized the city and installed a Spanish-chosen regent pending Ferdinand's return. From there, the French moved south to besiege the revolutionaries under Colonel Rafael del Riego y Nunez (1785-1823) at Cadiz, where the Cortes (national legislature) had taken Ferdinand. Riego's forces suffered defeat at the Battle of Trocadero on August 31, 1823, and when Cadiz fell to the French on September 23, 1823, Ferdinand was handed over to them and restored to the throne. Renouncing his prior promise of amnesty for the revolutionaries, the king order ruthless measures of reprisal against them while French troops stood by helplessly.