The Real Iraq

[White Doors]

Well it's pointless. The UN refused to invade/bomb Serbia just like they refused with Iraq and will refuse with Iran. Have also refused with Rwanda.

So while you were grammatically correct, you're point proved nothing and my origianal point stands.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well it's pointless. The UN refused to invade/bomb Serbia just like they refused with Iraq and will refuse with Iran. Have also refused with Rwanda.

So while you were grammatically correct, you're point proved nothing and my origianal point stands.

The mandate of the UN has never been to aggressively invade and bomb countries, with the possible exception of Korea, which could be debated.

The mandate of the UN was to stablize regions and to ferry emergency aid around the countryside.

[White Doors]

Is that a fact?
I can see how you would think that, certainly - they have been unable to agree on military action for quite some time now, but the UN certainly DOES have the right to mandate interventions, including military action.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Is that a fact?
I can see how you would think that, certainly - they have been unable to agree on military action for quite some time now, but the UN certainly DOES have the right to mandate interventions, including military action.

The UN doesn't have the right. The UN Security Council does. I think you often have to look at the major players on this council and maybe put some of the blame on them, as opposed to just blanketing a massive organization with dozens of independent branches, missions, and organizations.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by peter12

The mandate of the UN was to stablize regions and to ferry emergency aid around the countryside.

They're sure doing a hell of a good job with that, eh?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Azure

They're sure doing a hell of a good job with that, eh?

Actually I think they performed quite admirably in the former Yugoslavia. As Agammenon mentioned, the UN isn't some miracle organization, it is bound by the selfish interests of the members of the Security Council. When the UN is actually on teh ground and able to carry out its mandate, it is a very effective tool.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The UN doesn't have the right. The UN Security Council does. I think you often have to look at the major players on this council and maybe put some of the blame on them, as opposed to just blanketing a massive organization with dozens of independent branches, missions, and organizations.

Last I heard the UN security Security council was a part of the UN..
Of course you have to blame the major players on the council, especially Russia and China.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by peter12

Actually I think they performed quite admirably in the former Yugoslavia. As Agammenon mentioned, the UN isn't some miracle organization, it is bound by the selfish interests of the members of the Security Council. When the UN is actually on teh ground and able to carry out its mandate, it is a very effective tool.

yes, they did a great job in the The Medak Pocket.
sarcasm off.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by White Doors

yes, they did a great job in the The Medak Pocket.
sarcasm off.

The Medak Pocket was a successful UN operation...

And if you are referring to the subsquent pullout by Croats and the war crimes they inflicted on the Serb populace, is that erally the fault of the UN.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Last I heard the UN security Security council was a part of the UN..

Then why did you blame the UN for the mistakes of the nations on the UN Security Council? Do you equate the UN and the UNSC as the same...? The UN has 40-50 independent bodies overseeing economic, political, social, and health issues around the world.

A failure on the part of the UN Security Council to act does not constitute a failure of the entire United Nations... not even close. Security is probably one of the least areas of influence that the UN participates actively in (in comparison to the above issues, health, hunger, poverty, equality, environment, economics, etc.). They are not a military organization (ala NATO), and they are _not_ responsible for policing the world, and when something terrible happens (Rwanda), everyone has to look in a mirror, not smugly blame the organization that they themselves created and operate.

Of course you have to blame the major players on the council, especially Russia and China.

Right. But you didn't, you blamed 'the UN', as though it somehow garnered more responsibility for failure than the 5 major states that control the UNSC.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Medak Pocket was a successful UN operation...

And if you are referring to the subsquent pullout by Croats and the war crimes they inflicted on the Serb populace, is that erally the fault of the UN.

Well yes it is! The Dutch army was under chapter 5 authority - since they were not fired on they COULD NOT INTERFERE while civilians were slaughtered. But, boots on the ground. yep, that's awesome.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well yes it is! The Dutch army was under chapter 5 authority - since they were not fired on they COULD NOT INTERFERE while civilians were slaughtered. But, boots on the ground. yep, that's awesome.

Canadians were involved in the Medak Pocket and stopped the Croat advance on the a Serbian village.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Then why did you blame the UN for the mistakes of the nations on the UN Security Council? Do you equate the UN and the UNSC as the same...? The UN has 40-50 independent bodies overseeing economic, political, social, and health issues around the world.

A failure on the part of the UN Security Council to act does not constitute a failure of the entire United Nations... not even close. Security is probably one of the least areas of influence that the UN participates actively in (in comparison to the above issues, health, hunger, poverty, equality, environment, economics, etc.). They are not a military organization (ala NATO), and they are _not_ responsible for policing the world, and when something terrible happens (Rwanda), everyone has to look in a mirror, not smugly blame the organization that they themselves created and operate.

Right. But you didn't, you blamed 'the UN', as though it somehow garnered more responsibility for failure than the 5 major states that control the UNSC.

The primary focus of the UN was to succeed where the league of nations failed. They were to go after 'rogue' regimes and stop major wars from ever happening again. It has failed miserably. 'IT' cannot even agree to stop genocides ala Rwanda, Darfur. They want to send in AFRICAN troops for cripes sakes! (Not UN) if you cannot see that the UN's priority had been security and that it has failed miserably, then you are overdosing on your kool-aid.

The US and major western democracies are left without any choice but to act unilaterally.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by peter12

Canadians were involved in the Medak Pocket and stopped the Croat advance on the a Serbian village.

There you go! You're catching on! They also broke all the rules under which they were to operate - per the UN. The Dutch 'obeyed orders' and sat by and did nothing.

Thank god the Canadians acted 'unilaterally'.

[peter12]

Oh my lord. That is the most blatantly stupid post in this thread.

The Canadians were also enforcing a UN ceasefire.

[White Doors]

yes and so were the Dutch

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

The primary focus of the UN was to succeed where the league of nations failed. They were to go after 'rogue' regimes and stop major wars from ever happening again. It has failed miserably. 'IT' cannot even agree to stop genocides ala Rwanda, Darfur. They want to send in AFRICAN troops for cripes sakes! (Not UN) if you cannot see that the UN's priority had been security and that it has failed miserably, then you are overdosing on your kool-aid.

The US and major western democracies are left without any choice but to act unilaterally.

The UN was not created to offensively invade and occupy countries. For any reason. The UN does not have a mandate (nor has it ever, except for Korea) to participate in 'warfare'... thats why its called 'peacekeeping'. The UN can 'authorize' warfare by condoning the actions of a particular state (had they sanctioned the Iraqi War, for example), but thats about it until there is a peaceful situation to 'keep'.

They aren't peacemakers... never have been. They are peacekeepers. If there is no peace to keep, then they don't go in. Of course, that is, again, entirely up to the United States, France, UK, Russia, and China, for the most part. If they wanted to _radically_ change the UNSC's mandate to include offensive-interventionist policy, then thats up to them. But until they do, you can't blame 'the UN' for the failings of its members. Its not like UN bureaucrats are bungling around, preventing the member-states from acting. The only states that can authorize the type of operation you're accusing the UN of failing at are the UNSC permanent members.

They were to go after 'rogue' regimes and stop major wars from ever happening again

I could be wrong, but I don't think 'going after rogue regimes' has ever been anything the UN is involved with (except maybe in the Streefighter movie...). Sanctions are what the UN uses to pressure uncooperative regimes, successfully in the case of South Africa.

You can't blame an orange for not being an apple.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I could be wrong, but I don't think 'going after rogue regimes' has ever been anything the UN is involved with (except maybe in the Streefighter movie...). Sanctions are what the UN uses to pressure uncooperative regimes, successfully in the case of South Africa.

You can't blame an orange for not being an apple.

Thing is, those sanctions don't work too well. Unless "all" nations throughout the world are willing to cooperate.

The UN is practically worthless given the veto power the permanent members have.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thing is, those sanctions don't work too well.

Sanctions seemed to work pretty well on Iraq, don't you think?

The military was castrated and the dreaded WMD programs had obviously come to a halt. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was kind of the point of the sanctions from Day 1.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Sanctions seemed to work pretty well on Iraq, don't you think?

The military was castrated and the dreaded WMD programs had obviously come to a halt. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was kind of the point of the sanctions from Day 1.

And Saddam somehow still managed to get money from somewhere in order to keep himself rich and alive. All those palaces? How do you think he paid for them? When you have sanctions being applied for 10 plus years, something is wrong.

Iraq was still making money somewhere.