UN shows its ineffectiveness again,

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Mike F+Sep 20 2004, 07:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Sep 20 2004, 07:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Sep 20 2004, 11:47 AM
The Israel issue is far more complex than that. The UN has passed resolutions that are a complete detriment to thier security at times, so Israel who never agreed with the resolution has somewhat of a right to reject or ignore them

The UN resolution concerning Iraq were agreed upon by Hussien as a condition of ending the first Gulf War, he refused to abid by something that he originally agreed too.

A couple of completely different scenarios.

So you, as someone who has long and loud decried the uselessness of the UN, support a system whereby countries are only expected to be bound to resolutions they agree to?



What next? Are we going to improve our justice system by letting criminals set their own sentences? [/b][/quote]
You've kinda reversed what I was saying

The order to disarm and be opened to inspection was agreed to by Hussien as a condition of the ceasfire of the gulf war. He never lived up to those conditions.

I've said repeatedly that the UN in its current form dosen't have the strength or legitimacy to dictate terms to its member states. The UN resolutions passed on Isreal if accepted would have caused grave issues with thier own internal security and thus they (Isreal) is obligated to look after thier own national self interests first. however if the UN had the strength and the moral standings to enforce thier rulings this wouldn't be a problem because they could impose settlements on member states

The Sudan cannot handle thier internal rebellion and cannot solve the slaughtering of thier own people by both sides, and therefore if the UN had the strength and the moral fortitude to go in and seperate the sides and protect the victims which is thier mandate I would have little or no problems with it.

On the whole criminal picking thier own sentences I would have no problem with them picking thier own punishments if it was phrased as a or question.

You can either spend the rest of your life in a 4 by 4 cell or we can shoot you, your choice.

You can either spend 20 years in prison, or you can allow your victim to beat you around the ears with an aluminum bat

your choice

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by octothorp@Sep 20 2004, 08:01 PM
Interesting (well, not really) article on CBC about Japan lobbying for a permanent seat on the UN.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...nun_040920.html

Would granting such a seat to Japan (or to Brazil, Germany, and India, all of whom are lobbying for such a seat) make the UN even more ineffective?

I do seriously doubt the security council's ability to deal with urgent matters, such as Sudan. At the same time, I have a hard time coming up with any more effective system. More security council seats is definitely not the way; especially when Japan's constitution prevents it from sending troops into battle.

I don't see why Japan should have a permanent seat on the security council, nor should the other nations listed.

In fact I always wondered why the French had veto power or the Chinese due to thier horrible human rights records.

The Russians, Americans and Britain should have seats. the rest should be rotated among the power nations in europe and asia.

funny thing with the Japanese not being able to send troops out on foreign nations, I've always wondered why the Germans weren't slapped with the same rules.

I mean the Swiss still can't send thier troops anywhere but the Vatican.

funny world

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 20 2004, 08:05 PM
[
funny thing with the Japanese not being able to send troops out on foreign nations, I've always wondered why the Germans weren't slapped with the same rules.

I mean the Swiss still can't send thier troops anywhere but the Vatican.

funny world

Didn't Germany have to go through special hoops internally to generate troops for their NATO mission in Kosovo?

I think it was the first foreign deployment of German troops since World War II.

The fact of the matter is the global community needs the military resources of a modern Germany and Japan for missions like Afghanistan, Kosovo and, in time, probably peacemaking in Iraq.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 20 2004, 08:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 20 2004, 08:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Sep 20 2004, 08:05 PM
[
funny thing with the Japanese not being able to send troops out on foreign nations, I've always wondered why the Germans weren't slapped with the same rules.

I mean the Swiss still can't send thier troops anywhere but the Vatican.

funny world

Didn't Germany have to go through special hoops internally to generate troops for their NATO mission in Kosovo?

I think it was the first foreign deployment of German troops since World War II.

The fact of the matter is the global community needs the military resources of a modern Germany and Japan for missions like Afghanistan, Kosovo and, in time, probably peacemaking in Iraq.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
If I remember right they did, which is funny because the treaty that they signed had nothing to do with the UN.

But it wasn't the first time German Troops were used by the UN

They were in East Timor

Kuwait/Iraq

Bosnia

Kosova

Georgia

They also participated in air defense excercises in Britain in the 70's so they have been deployed

Japan has dispatched troops for the UN, but they have been logistical bodies and not front line troops

[Lurch]

The Israel issue is far more complex than that. The UN has passed resolutions that are a complete detriment to thier security at times, so Israel who never agreed with the resolution has somewhat of a right to reject or ignore them

The UN resolution concerning Iraq were agreed upon by Hussien as a condition of ending the first Gulf War, he refused to abid by something that he originally agreed too.

A couple of completely different scenarios.

Besides if the Europeans decided to impose thier will on Israel they'd get thier butts kicked all the way back to thier nations capital.

Right. Israel is a complex situation that demands special rules, while any situation the US decides is time for unilateralism is clear and simple. Seems to me the US has opened a huge can of worms by suggesting unilateralism is ok as long as its 'obvious' in the eye of the beholder. Effectively, international consensus is no longer a concern, as long as you feel like you are right and you've got the guns to back it up. I just hope China and India don't adopt your outlook anytime soon.

[Cowperson]

I was talking about combat trooops.

For the first time since World War
II, the German government will deploy combat troops abroad.
On December 20, 1997, some 3,000 German soldiers will join other
imperialist forces in the NATO occupation of Bosnia.
Germany's parliament approved the deployment with an
overwhelming majority of 499 to 93, with 21 abstentions,
December 13.
German Foreign minister Klaus Kinkel hailed the vote as
the end of Bonn's "special role" as a country held back by
its Nazi past from participating in imperialist operations
outside the territory of the states that belong to NATO.
"We have now seen that, contrary to the fears of some
people, our soldiers presence is welcomed by all sections
of the population," Kinkel declared.

http://www.yurope.com/people/sen/prezentac....yu/2/0014.html

Loved the reference to "imperialist forces" and "imperialist operations."

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Right. Israel is a complex situation that demands special rules, while any situation the US decides is time for unilateralism is clear and simple. Seems to me the US has opened a huge can of worms by suggesting unilateralism is ok as long as its 'obvious' in the eye of the beholder. Effectively, international consensus is no longer a concern, as long as you feel like you are right and you've got the guns to back it up. I just hope China and India don't adopt your outlook anytime soon.

Both the U.S. and the Un are pretty much at fault for this whole mess. the U.S. for rashly going into Iraq without any kind of exit plan.

the UN for allowing its member nations who had much to lose fiscally to put them in a position of weakness.

The UN for allowing the food for Oild program to become a corrupted money vacuum.

Isreal has a right to protect itself and if UN resolutions are going to weaken its ability to secure itself, then damn right they have a full right to ignore it.

Saddam Hussein pulled this all onto himself by refusing to live up to the UN resolutions that he himself agreed to abide by.

Competely different situations


Maybe the UN should be going into Palestine and cleaning out the terrorist groups that are sending terrorists thugs into cafe's and grocery store. Maybe the UN should force Arafat out of that country. But they don't so who looks weak there?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 20 2004, 08:37 PM
I was talking about combat trooops.

For the first time since World War
II, the German government will deploy combat troops abroad.
On December 20, 1997, some 3,000 German soldiers will join other
imperialist forces in the NATO occupation of Bosnia.
Germany's parliament approved the deployment with an
overwhelming majority of 499 to 93, with 21 abstentions,
December 13.
German Foreign minister Klaus Kinkel hailed the vote as
the end of Bonn's "special role" as a country held back by
its Nazi past from participating in imperialist operations
outside the territory of the states that belong to NATO.
"We have now seen that, contrary to the fears of some
people, our soldiers presence is welcomed by all sections
of the population," Kinkel declared.

http://www.yurope.com/people/sen/prezentac....yu/2/0014.html

Loved the reference to "imperialist forces" and "imperialist operations."

Cowperson

Denis Miller had the best line for the Germans


"The Germans today declined to join the American's in an invasion of Iraq, they decided that it wasn't on a grand enough scale for them"

[habernac]

So if the US is in it "just for the oil" WTF were they doing in Vietnam?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by habernac@Sep 20 2004, 09:09 PM
So if the US is in it "just for the oil" WTF were they doing in Vietnam?

Supporting the weapons manufacturers and aerospace industry, or so the story went IIRC. LBJ "gave them their war" (on tape and all) and the Viet Nam era was borne.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 20 2004, 10:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 20 2004, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-habernac@Sep 20 2004, 09:09 PM
So if the US is in it "just for the oil" WTF were they doing in Vietnam?

Supporting the weapons manufacturers and aerospace industry, or so the story went IIRC. LBJ "gave them their war" (on tape and all) and the Viet Nam era was borne. [/b][/quote]
I think your oversimplifying things there Lanny, the Vietnam conflict was much more complex then that, and was created by the most incredible string of stupidity and false pride in the history of warfare.

It wasn't just about supporting the weapons and aerospace industry





And just because I feel like using an Icon after the day I've had

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Sure it was more complex Captain, but the war took on a different spin after LBJ was in office. Kennedy was about to bring the troops him before he got gunned down in Dallas. LBJ was going to follow through on that legacy but got crushed by the lobby in question. He gave them their war and everyone was happy, except for the public and the thousands of young men that gave their lives without reason.

[Flame On]

Many of you keep saying the UN risks becoming irrelevant, to who? To pro war in Iraq supporters in the US? Or the tenuous coalition of the willing perhaps; some of which are reversing their positions as the dust settles, maybe them? I agree they need more clout (see US vetos) and the people in Sudan might appreciate them getting their act together but coming from the US...seems shallow.

[Daradon]

'If its bad intelligence that it was based on..OK. To suggest it was outright lies is ridiculous though. '

???

1. Many U.S. commission reports showed the evidence was exaggerated or plain made up. It wasn't so much of a question to the CIA and other U.S. intellgence leaders as, 'does Iraq have WMD's', but more pressure in the way of, 'SHOW us that Iraq has WMD's. Cheney was very adament on getting this from the intelligence channels.

2. Powell refused to read the first report to the U.N. because he felt so much was fabricated.

3. Regardless of who you believe in that whole story the HARD FACTS are, NO WMDS have been found. Show me the money Tranny, to resurrect an overused saying.

It's not ridiculous at all to believe that, in fact it's quite logical.