18 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf we relied on the UN(useless Nations) to do anything about Saddam after countless resolutions and such as pointed out be someone else in this thread, Hades would have frozen over by now and I'd be able to ice skate there. Oh yeah and Saddam would still be in power.
I'm Zambian not South African so taunts about the ANC won't work. 🙂
But I do think that if the ringleaders get tried then so should the participants. Necklacing was probably morally wrong though I don't know the details. It was certainly illegal and still is.
[b]I suppose that torture wasn't as bad as opponents of Saddam as being fed into a wood chip ...[text shortened]... s. But then the world isn't a democracy, its a dictatorship, with the US as the dictator.
I'm sure you believe there wasn't enough provocation on his part for the US to take action when he invaded Kuwait.
Oh well, neither one of us is going to change the others thoughts on this so, there we are.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by SMSBear716I'm not sure you understand what the UN is.
If we relied on the UN(useless Nations) to do anything about Saddam after countless resolutions and such as pointed out be someone else in this thread, Hades would have frozen over by now and I'd be able to ice skate there. Oh yeah and Saddam would still be in power.
I'm sure you believe there wasn't enough provocation on his part for the US to take ac ...[text shortened]...
Oh well, neither one of us is going to change the others thoughts on this so, there we are.
The UN is not a single country. It's 192 united nations trying to communicate and *avoid* armed conflicts.
The goal of the UN is to NOT have major armed conflicts. Especially within its ranks. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran are all members of the UN.
Think about that and maybe you'll start to see why the UN could not be involved in provoking an armed conflict in the current wars.
It's mission is diplomacy, not tanks.
And lets talk about Saddam and Iraq. He's dead now, and Iraq is where? In the process of finding a new leader? No. It's falling apart now that the leader it had was executed. Country infrastructures require some kind of solidarity and we backed a relatively unknown rival of Saddam in the invasion, so now there is no leader.
I don't think it's hard to see that Iraq is not better off due to US invasion.
Ethnic cleansing is reprehensible, but there's probably more efficient ways to address those issues. US's stance on this is incredibly unclear though. We know that the CIA purposively funds rebels, terrorists, and counter-parties in many countries to try and destabilize the existing regimes. Did the US play a role in the the Middle Easts de-stabilization? Hell yes they did. And so did the Russian Federation and China.
So, again, why would you expect the UN to step in and declare war on one of its own members to clean up the messes the power-countries create so we can have places to carry out shady business?
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallWell diplomacy failed in the case of Iraq in 1991 and thereafter. So you agree that the UN was a failure in that regard.
Raj,
If I wrote it, then you would not be asking me a leading question.
Thanks,
Thats all SMSBear was saying. The UN is a failed institution when dealing with rogue countries. In fact the UN is a complete failure. The purpose of the UN is to deal with difficult situations. Whats the point in having seatbelts in a car that work only when the situation is normal and when an accident takes place it fails.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by Rajk999Raj,
Well diplomacy failed in the case of Iraq in 1991 and thereafter. So you agree that the UN was a failure in that regard.
Thats all SMSBear was saying. The UN is a failed institution when dealing with rogue countries. In fact the UN is a complete failure. The purpose of the UN is to deal with difficult situations. Whats the point in having seatbelts in a car that work only when the situation is normal and when an accident takes place it fails.
All you're doing is admitting that you and SMSBear don't really understand what the UN does.
"The purpose of the UN is to deal with difficult situations."
1: That's inaccurate
2: It's a generalization and doesn't really mean anything specific
3: You're analogy of the UN being the seatbelt of a car makes no sense
So, lets discuss what the UN does, shall we?
Lets start with the Preamble:
Please read and tell me where you see it written that the job of the UN is to exercise and carry out armed conflicts with no peaceful resolutions in sight?
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallSo when confronted with a situation in which diplomacy has failed over and over, and where no peaceful resolution is in sight, the UN should backoff. Am I correct ?
Raj,
All you're doing is admitting that you and SMSBear don't really understand what the UN does.
"The purpose of the UN is to deal with difficult situations."
1: That's inaccurate
2: It's a generalization and doesn't really mean anything specific
3: You're analogy of the UN being the seatbelt of a car makes no sense
So, lets discuss what the UN do ...[text shortened]... o hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations. [/i]
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by LisaNovaThat really won't do either.
Spearation of UN from AMerryCar needs to be sort. If it simply contains the same BS that America has done in Iraq then it will have little worth. No worth or negative I suspect.
Once again, the UN has to stay outside of conflicts between its member states, not oust them.
The UN is a geopolitical step towards a united hegemony.
If that doesn't make sense, then you won't be able to comprehend why the UN exists.
Luckily, whether *you* get it or not, the UN knows their purpose and their course and will continue forward.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by Rajk999Raj,
So when confronted with a situation in which diplomacy has failed over and over, and where no peaceful resolution is in sight, the UN should backoff. Am I correct ?
I don't know what to say. You keep trying to badger out specific yes/no/true/false answers so you will have fuel to fire up your next argument.
The fact is, in that given scenario: it depends.
I can tell you that most diplomats don't really consider failure an option. That's a military thing.
What constitutes the failure of diplomacy? A nation gassing its own people? Every country experience dissent and has records of internal violence. If that's your measure, than the US should be invaded by itself for using militias to put down (i.e. kill) the early attempts to form Labor Unions.
The other question I have for you is what exactly does armed conflicts fix that diplomacy fails at? By all counts, I don't think the current Iraq war has succeeded in anything except creating more problems. Am I wrong? It didn't save the US economy like Bush promised. Oil prices have soared. Instead of Nuclear disarmament every neighboring country in the ME is now scrambling to ensure they're not the last ones without a nuclear defense (and who can blame them?).
Thoughts?
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by MacSwainI didn't read in the your precious 1st resolution, US and small coerced coalition has the right to use shock and awe to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi's.
ONE.. No second resolution for force?
If there was a second you would now be writting "no third resolution." If there was a third you would now be writting "no fourth resolution." Sorry, but YOU don't get to choose except in your own mind.
TWO.. Complying with inspections?
Does delusional ring a bell with you or are you truly so uninformed? Pleas ...[text shortened]... y you are the only person posting who does not know the inspectors were thrown out by Iraq.
In fact there is no mention of military action.
Iraq did nothing against the US. Yet its citizens got carpet bombed, cluster bombed and tortured at the hands of our troops.
It is ironic that it is fine for a US lead coalition to take this muderous action yet it is not OK for Iran to develop similar technology that the US has had for 50 years.
I'm disgusted with my countries part in this state terrorism, I cant believe the how proud of these coalition invaders the majority of US posters in this thread are.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallHello .... is anyone there ?
The other question I have for you is what exactly does armed conflicts fix that diplomacy fails at??
Remember Desert Storm 1991 ?
Diplomacy failed
Bullets won.
There are people in this world that ignore words but they will listen if you have a gun pointed at their head.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by invigorateYour mommy is from Iraq .... corrrect ?
I didn't read in the your precious 1st resolution, US and small coerced coalition has the right to use shock and awe to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi's.
In fact there is no mention of military action.
Iraq did nothing against the US. Yet its citizens got carpet bombed, cluster bombed and tortured at the hands of our troops.
It is ironic tha ...[text shortened]... ieve the how proud of these coalition invaders the majority of US posters in this thread are.
19 Sep 07
The war of religion is !!NOT!! the fault of the US. Since desert storm, when we left some troops to insure that Hussein would end attacks on Sudan, Bin Laden took religious offense.
The US stands where it until Iraq's gov't is strong enough to exist properly. We are not fighting Bin Laden. We are not there to attack. We are there for Iraq.
I support George Bush.
19 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by invigorateThe Useless Nations(UN) are only good at one thing, bashing the United States and her allies, inclucding the Brits.
I didn't read in the your precious 1st resolution, US and small coerced coalition has the right to use shock and awe to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi's.
In fact there is no mention of military action.
Iraq did nothing against the US. Yet its citizens got carpet bombed, cluster bombed and tortured at the hands of our troops.
It is ironic tha ieve the how proud of these coalition invaders the majority of US posters in this thread are.
After all, if they were any good at anything , they could have solved the problem in Bosnia without military force. Or here is even a easier one for the Useless Nations. Bringing peace and ending the slaughter and oppression in Dafur. Unfortunately, they can't even manage that.
Why not?
Because they are a bloated, corrupt, bureacracy which only seems to be able to pass resolutions which useless because the UN has no intention of enforcing them. They proved this with Saddam and they will continue to do the same. The only other good thing they can do is beg for money ....