is BUSH a war criminal?

Originally posted by Goatboysrevenge
Read this, then see what you think about the U.N.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/general/2003/0827blueman.htm

Sorry, this fails to meet the criteria I was asking about. I stated 5 instances where diplomacy by the UN managed to avoid an armed conflict.

'Blue Helmets" patrolling after the conflict has pretty much ended doesn't meet the criteria.

Originally posted by SMSBear716
Obviously you are not any help though, you didn't name 5 instances.
So,disregarding your personal insults (a favorite tactic of liberals when they can't prove their point), I have to make the assumption that there are not 5 instances you can point to. If the UN is such a useful body, what I'm asking shouldn't be hard... right?

You have a nice day.

I like your Ostrich defense style.

But... who said I was a liberal? I'm not going to be blind for any side: yours or theirs. I wish you could say the same.

Originally posted by mdhall
I like your Ostrich defense style.

But... who said I was a liberal? I'm not going to be blind for any side: yours or theirs. I wish you could say the same.

Here, I'll help you out and give you the only time that the UN helped to prevent a conflict, that I can recollect. And even this one is stretching it a bit since the real diplomacy went on behind the scenes between the United States and the Soviet Union.

But the UN did discuss this event quite intensely. And the then head of the Evil Empire came to the UN and pounded his shoe on the podium swearing that the Soviet Union would 'bury us' I shouldn't be hard on ole Kruschev though, my Dad said that he and I were distant relatives(4th or 5th cousins removed, something like that)

But the one time that I remember the UN helped with diplomacy to prevent a conflict was ..... the Cuban Missile Crisis

Originally posted by SMSBear716
Sorry, this fails to meet the criteria I was asking about. I stated 5 instances where diplomacy by the UN managed to avoid an armed conflict.

'Blue Helmets" patrolling after the conflict has pretty much ended doesn't meet the criteria.

So to fulfil your terms 5 instances of a country saying "Well, I was going to launch a few missiles, but thought better of it because of the UN" have to be found for you? You seem to have a very black and white view of conflicts. You think that everyone just puts down their guns and goes home? The really messy work starts when the ceasefire starts and you have to dance the diplomacy dance to keep them down. Every ceasfire that lasts is a success for the UN.
Read that article again but this time try to do it slowly and let some of what it's saying settle in. It lists off dozens of cases where continued diplomatic and peacekeeping action has held the peace. That's what peace-keeping means after all. So if you're looking for proof that the UN does a good job of what its job is, make sure you know what that job is in the first place before you set your own personal goalposts.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Now you changed it to 'civil' ?

Wiki says :

[i] Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, b ...[text shortened]... ctatorship that killed off the Kurds and Shia'a by the thousands. How can you be so biased ?

Hmm. I would take issue with the Wiki definition, which is very narrow.

Originally posted by agryson
So to fulfil your terms 5 instances of a country saying "Well, I was going to launch a few missiles, but thought better of it because of the UN" have to be found for you? You seem to have a very black and white view of conflicts. You think that everyone just puts down their guns and goes home? The really messy work starts when the ceasefire starts and you ha ...[text shortened]... re you know what that job is in the first place before you set your own personal goalposts.

Is that like when French troops in the Congo doing peace keeping under UN auspices was raping teenage girls? Peace keeping like that?

Originally posted by SMSBear716
Is that like when French troops in the Congo doing peace keeping under UN auspices was raping teenage girls? Peace keeping like that?

Rape is standard operating procedure for United Ninnie Piecekeepers.

Originally posted by SMSBear716
Is that like when French troops in the Congo doing peace keeping under UN auspices was raping teenage girls? Peace keeping like that?

Hmm... I think I see where your problem is, you seem to think that those troops were there raping girls under the orders of the UN. Well, hate to tell you buddy, but if you want to start slinging examples of troop misconduct around the place, there's plenty to go around. Now, how about you try to practice what you preach and deal with the issue rather than try to blow smoke around the place to put posts between you and what was a very informative link on the UN. What, got no solid arguments so you're either going to ignore it or come up with crazy assertions such as UN sanctioned rape?

Originally posted by SMSBear716
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.

I'm not a regular here but surely these are two different issues, connected but only because they involve some of the same players:

- One involved one country invading another. A UN backed international force, comprising dozens of countries (most of them from the US) went to war and restored the pre-war borders while at the same time imposing and enforcing certain restrictions to prevent a reoccurrence.
- The second instance involves one country invading another (with the aid of a few cronies) stating lots of spurious reasons at the time, but the current one being to replace that country's ruler and political system with one more acceptable to itself. The invasion was condemned by the UN.

If the UN is the Useless Nations, then the US must bear a lot of responsibility by thumbing its nose at world opinion and doing what it wants and following its own agendas. There certainly is no moral consistency.

Originally posted by buffalobill
Hmm. I would take issue with the Wiki definition, which is very narrow.

Thats it ? Say what you think is the correct definition then.

Originally posted by agryson
Hmm... I think I see where your problem is, you seem to think that those troops were there raping girls under the orders of the UN. Well, hate to tell you buddy, but if you want to start slinging examples of troop misconduct around the place, there's plenty to go around. Now, how about you try to practice what you preach and deal with the issue rather than t ...[text shortened]... you're either going to ignore it or come up with crazy assertions such as UN sanctioned rape?

Why dont we all try to stick with the issue.

We are trying to establish in a practical fashion (spare us the UN charters and the talk and the hot air) which 5 (or 3 for that matter) situations did the UN resolve with diplomacy.

Originally posted by buffalobill
I'm not a regular here but surely these are two different issues, connected but only because they involve some of the same players:

- One involved one country invading another. A UN backed international force, comprising dozens of countries (most of them from the US) went to war and restored the pre-war borders while at the same time imposing and enf ...[text shortened]... nd doing what it wants and following its own agendas. There certainly is no moral consistency.

I now see the truth ....thanks.

Saddam was the good guy that complied with the UN resolutions and the US was the rogue country that ignored the UN and went about its agenda.

I was so stupid to think otherwise.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]Yes he should be tried and sent to prison along with every US citizen that supported him and all leaders and citizens of other countries that supported the war!

President Bush should be tried and sent to prison? How about only sending him to prison if he's actually found guilty. I find it interesting that so many of the Bush-haters call our president a fascist, but they're ready to throw the guy into the hoosegow no matter what!

Originally posted by Rajk999
Saddam was the good guy that complied with the UN resolutions and the US was the rogue country that ignored the UN and went about its agenda.

No and yes.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Why dont we all try to stick with the issue.

We are trying to establish in a practical fashion (spare us the UN charters and the talk and the hot air) which 5 (or 3 for that matter) situations did the UN resolve with diplomacy.

Did you actually read the webpage on the link I posted??

If so, you will have noticed that it clearly highlights many arenas of conflict where the UN has gone in & brokered a peace deal, and then stayed around to make sure that the peace is lasting, and not just a temporary ceaefire.


So I think that did establish, in a practical fashion, that the U.N. does great work at resolving conflict through diplomacy.

Lebanon, Cyprus, the Golan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, Namibia, Angola, El Salvador, Cambodia, Somalia, Mozambique, Georgia, Liberia, Haiti, Tajikistan, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Côte d'Ivoire, the Congo, India and Pakistan and East Timor, just in the last 20 years.

Slightly more than 5 (or 3 for that matter) there...