Photo fraud; Reutergate et.al.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

It tries to help, when it falls short due to lack of support or lack of peace to enforce, you stomp on it. Real nice.

Because if they can't enforce its own resolutions, the UN is useless.

At least you admit that they can't enforce resolution 1559, although you try to make the UN look good by saying the resolution they made wasn't made to be 'enforced.'

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Ever wonder why the UN is useless? Couldn't have anything to do with the Americans doing what ever they want, when ever they want? Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that any time a Security Council resolution is tabled that could have a positive impact it gets killed or vetoed? As long as one country is allowed to trapse around the globe and enforce its will upon other soverign nations, while continually protecting Israel at every turn, the UN will remain an ineffective tool.

And not only the US, but the ability of every permanent member of the Security Council to veto any sort of resolution that can/will be made.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Ever wonder why the UN is useless? Couldn't have anything to do with the Americans doing what ever they want, when ever they want? Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that any time a Security Council resolution is tabled that could have a positive impact it gets killed or vetoed? As long as one country is allowed to trapse around the globe and enforce its will upon other soverign nations, while continually protecting Israel at every turn, the UN will remain an ineffective tool.

The UN does not deal with American / Israeli only resolutions, no matter whether that is the current focalpoint or not.

As observed with the Iraq war II, the UN condemned Iraq but always fell short of any kind of action.

Here we have people holding up the Americans as horrible because they avoided the UN, and in the same breath saying that the UN is useless because they never back up any of their words.

I guess the morale of the story is this: Words are good, Actions are bad

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Seems the onus is on you to prove that Israel doesn't produce propaganda (now I'm using HOZ debate tactics). Come on jerkoff, I'm sure you have some game tapes lying around that can prove this!

Honeslty, Lanny your posts are so ludicrously funny.

Ummm....sooo....

How do I show that they (anyone or anything for that matter) DO NOT use their civilian casualties as propoganda? Does this forum allow for blank posts?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So, essentially you're saying that the UN is useless?

If it orders something, but doesn't put consequences behind non-compliance, then who cares what it ordered? Is that what you're saying?

Brutal twisting of my statements, brutal.

The resolution Azure was (mistakenly) bandying about as having 'failed' because the UN didn't militarily secure the region was flat out false. There have been many resolutions from the UN requiring military action around the world, I'm sure you're aware of the Korean War. This resolution wasn't one of those. When the UN passes a resolution, there is no implicit concept that if that resolution isn't strictly obeyed, they'll bring some imaginary global army along to kick ass. Thats never been what the UN was supposed to be, and it isn't. You guys call it failed because it doesn't live up to your standards, standards it was never meant to live up to.

You guys seem to think the UN has taken on some mantle of responsibility for world peace, and then abrogates it when its member-states don't follow through on the job. Real convenient.

The fact that numerous countries all agreed that it needs to happen means nothing, apparently....

Especially when those countries don't follow through on their commitment. Obviously the UN's fault though, not theirs. Nice and easy.

[Agamemnon]

International diplomacy sometimes needs words as much as actions. Having a place for words is a good thing. Just because it doesn't agressively police the entire world doesn't mean the UN is useless or failed.

Though, again, it seems people here think it has some mandate to provide global peace. That was never its intention.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

At least you admit that they can't enforce resolution 1559, although you try to make the UN look good by saying the resolution they made wasn't made to be 'enforced.'

You lied. You blamed the UN for not enforcing UN resolution 1559 when it was never enforceable. You don't do your research and you blather on quoting sources you haven't read (like the resolution itself). The UN passes all types of resolutions, some have military teeth, some don't. That one didn't. You can't blame it for being something its not, to do otherwise is idiocy. Its like blaming a clean air law for not reducing taxes; you've missed the mark badly.

Its one thing to want the UN to be militarily and successfully involved in the region, its another to make up things about resolutions that aren't true. Your credibility is done with me (not a new thing for you, I know).

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

This resolution wasn't one of those. When the UN passes a resolution, there is no implicit concept that if that resolution isn't strictly obeyed, they'll bring some imaginary global army along to kick ass. Thats never been what the UN was supposed to be, and it isn't.

Do you ever wonder why it is ignored?

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You guys seem to think the UN has taken on some mantle of responsibility for world peace, and then abrogates it when its member-states don't follow through on the job. Real convenient.

It sure seems like those that defend the UN do so on the basis of basically proving that it is useless.

The UN has no responsibility for world peace, yet continues to pass resolutions basically demanding it... then when it doesn't happen, it isn't their fault. Rich.. real rich.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Especially when those countries don't follow through on their commitment. Obviously the UN's fault though, not theirs. Nice and easy.

So it's never the UN's fault?

The UN makes resolution after resolution, usually without penalty and enforceability. Once a resolution with actual action comes about, it still has to be negotiated who will perform that action... usually resulting in a childish game of "Not it".

What is the point of the UN? Shake a big stick and say "BAD!"??

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Do you ever wonder why it is ignored?



It sure seems like those that defend the UN do so on the basis of basically proving that it is useless.

The UN has no responsibility for world peace, yet continues to pass resolutions basically demanding it... then when it doesn't happen, it isn't their fault. Rich.. real rich.



So it's never the UN's fault?

The UN makes resolution after resolution, usually without penalty and enforceability. Once a resolution with actual action comes about, it still has to be negotiated who will perform that action... usually resulting in a childish game of "Not it".

What is the point of the UN? Shake a big stick and say "BAD!"??

The UN is only as powerful s it's strongest member state. Unfortunately, that happens to be the US, who has consistantly attempted to undermine the organization as much as possible, directly contributing to the farce that you so accurately point out.

What is the UN supposed to do when the US routinely undermines it's authority, to the point of refusing to pay membership dues, almost crippling the institution altogether? Rely on bulgaria?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

International diplomacy sometimes needs words as much as actions. Having a place for words is a good thing. Just because it doesn't agressively police the entire world doesn't mean the UN is useless or failed.

Having a place for international diplomacy is definitely a good thing. Talking and negotiating needs to happen.

That said, diplomacy is not full-proof. It can always fail. There has to be some kind of a dispute mechanism, some kind of an enforcement mechanism. Without it, the talking will go on forever and nothing will change.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Though, again, it seems people here think it has some mandate to provide global peace. That was never its intention.

Who's role is it then? Intention or not, it sure seems the UN is the one making the rules, or trying to lay blame for whatever is happening in the world.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

The UN makes resolution after resolution, usually without penalty and enforceability. Once a resolution with actual action comes about, it still has to be negotiated who will perform that action... usually resulting in a childish game of "Not it".

The UN is nothing more than the voice of the majority of the world's nation-states. To me, the fact that they pass statements rather than actions is a reflection of where the 'global village' is at right now. They don't mind speaking with one voice, but acting in a unified manner in ongoing conflicts is still beyond us.

They pass the resolutions because member-states propose them, and then a majority of the world's governments (in this case those on the Security Council) pass it, with all P5 members supporting or abstaining. Its up to these States to support (or not) the implementation of these resolutions. Clearly they haven't. Is that a reflection on the UN, or on those states? I don't see how the UN is ruled as failed because the P5 states refuse to support it. It seems to me they're the reason why the UN isn't able to enforce its own resolutions.

What is the point of the UN? Shake a big stick and say "BAD!"??

To be a global forum for diplomacy? To keep the lines of communications open among the world's governments in a formal way? To coordinate world-wide relief programs encompassing every social and humanitarian issue that exists?

Oh, right, they're not global ass-kickers, so they're not worth peanuts.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The UN is only as powerful s it's strongest member state. Unfortunately, that happens to be the US, who has consistantly attempted to undermine the organization as much as possible, directly contributing to the farce that you so accurately point out.

What is the UN supposed to do when the US routinely undermines it's authority, to the point of refusing to pay membership dues, almost crippling the institution altogether? Rely on bulgaria?

Chicken or egg: Has the US tried to undermine the organization or has the organization proved itself to be a farce with the US realizing it?

I'll agree that the US actions (or lackof) hasn't helped the overall effectiveness of the UN, but even on actions that the US considers to be worthwhile the lack of effectiveness is still there.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Who's role is it then? Intention or not, it sure seems the UN is the one making the rules, or trying to lay blame for whatever is happening in the world.

Its easy to blame 'the UN' as some sort of nebulous organization that makes its own decisions. It is not responsible for the Security Council's member-states refusing to create enforceable resolutions, or for not supporting these resolutions. If they ever get on board with each other and try to really solve these problems together, I think you'd find the UNSC acting in a very different way. Its the member-states that define its actions. If they won't get together in the UNSC, what makes you think any other body or organization is better able to handle the job?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Chicken or egg: Has the US tried to undermine the organization or has the organization proved itself to be a farce with the US realizing it?

If the US realizes that the UN is a farce, its certainly playing the fool by continuing to participate in it in a huge way on multiple levels.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't see how the UN is ruled as failed because the P5 states refuse to support it. It seems to me they're the reason why the UN isn't able to enforce its own resolutions.

So... all it amounts to is a large peer-pressure organization? Lovely.

Using a business analogy, a company is only as strong as the support that the board of directors / executive body gets. The executive of a company can decide to go in one direction but unless the working body goes along with it then the executive is useless and the company fails. Company executives can fire people - why their orders are usually followed.

The UN? Nothing but peer pressure in the vast majority of cases.

[QUOTE=Agamemnon]To be a global forum for diplomacy? To keep the lines of communications open among the world's governments in a formal way?

Free trade deals (one type of diplomatic action) never need the UN. The G8 meetings never need the UN.

The most publicized diplomacy we see from/at the UN is when something goes wrong (wars, human rights, etc) and action is needed.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

To coordinate world-wide relief programs encompassing every social and humanitarian issue that exists?

This is an extremely valuable part of the UN. That cannot be denied. That said, it is not the part that we are discussing. The program(s) will go on without resolution issuing body that is so very ineffective.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Its easy to blame 'the UN' as some sort of nebulous organization that makes its own decisions. It is not responsible for the Security Council's member-states refusing to create enforceable resolutions, or for not supporting these resolutions. If they ever get on board with each other and try to really solve these problems together, I think you'd find the UNSC acting in a very different way. Its the member-states that define its actions. If they won't get together in the UNSC, what makes you think any other body or organization is better able to handle the job?

The UNSC is part of the UN.

If the UNSC fails, that part of the UN organization fails.

I don't see how you don't see that.

[Azure]

You lied. You blamed the UN for not enforcing UN resolution 1559 when it was never enforceable. You don't do your research and you blather on quoting sources you haven't read (like the resolution itself). The UN passes all types of resolutions, some have military teeth, some don't. That one didn't. You can't blame it for being something its not, to do otherwise is idiocy. Its like blaming a clean air law for not reducing taxes; you've missed the mark badly.

Jesus Christ man. Why was the resolution never enforcable?

Because the UN 'knew' they didn't have the ability to make sure that all militia were cleared out of Lebanon?

Its one thing to want the UN to be militarily and successfully involved in the region, its another to make up things about resolutions that aren't true. Your credibility is done with me (not a new thing for you, I know).

And you're ignoring the point made by both me and calculoso of how the UN failed to enforce a resolution it drafted.

Seriously, if not to enforce the resolution, why would the UN make it?

Or are you saying the randomly make up resolutions, despite the fact that they won't demand that half of them be enforced?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Chicken or egg: Has the US tried to undermine the organization or has the organization proved itself to be a farce with the US realizing it?

I'll agree that the US actions (or lackof) hasn't helped the overall effectiveness of the UN, but even on actions that the US considers to be worthwhile the lack of effectiveness is still there.

It is most assuredly because of US undermining, not a 'chicken or the egg' argument, as you put it. The UN is only applicable to american policy when it is being used as a tool of that foreign policy, any other time the US simply ignores it. A prime example of this would be when the general assembly voted on 'calling on all states to observe international law', in response to the terrorist actions of the United States in Nicaragua.

Another example is the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, and I could go on and on.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The UN is only as powerful s it's strongest member state. Unfortunately, that happens to be the US, who has consistantly attempted to undermine the organization as much as possible, directly contributing to the farce that you so accurately point out.

What is the UN supposed to do when the US routinely undermines it's authority, to the point of refusing to pay membership dues, almost crippling the institution altogether? Rely on bulgaria?

The US is only 'one' of 'five' member states who all share the 'same' powers as each other.

Not really the 'strongest' member state.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

The UNSC is part of the UN.

If the UNSC fails, that part of the UN organization fails.

I don't see how you don't see that.

I was specifying the organ of the UN that deals with security issues. I get that they're the same organization... As far as I'm concerned you're looking at a governmental system, and blaming the structure of it for the mistakes of its parties. When federal governments are deadlocked because minority parties are unable to cooperate, does that mean that democracy is a bad form of government? The system is only as good as the political powers wielding it. If you think they're wielding it poorly, blame the parties responsible.

The UNSC facilitates the will of the P5 countries. If its their will to pass resolutions and not militarize the region, thats their call. I don't get how because these states choose not to unify their support the UN is therefore useless. That logic makes no sense to me. Their mandate is not to be a global military force that intervenes in war zones. They've sporadically intervened to peace-keep, not peace-make.

I don't see how you don't see that.