Photo fraud; Reutergate et.al.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

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

Not really the 'strongest' member state.

Again, I'm going to suggest you get out of these discussions, you're only going to succeed in further marginalizing yourself in the views of other posters. Your participation in these topics is staggering considering the lack of even rudamentary knowledge of the topic. You may be young and wish to contribute, but you should really read up on these things before you take such rediculous stands on these issues.

It's not my job to educate you on such easily accessible topics, so do us all a favour (including those who's 'side' you purport to be on) and educate yourself. If you would like to know where to begin, I could give you plenty of 'centerist' and universally accepted reading suggestions to get you started.

[Azure]

Again, I'm going to suggest you get out of these discussions, you're only going to succeed in further marginalizing yourself in the views of other posters. Your participation in these topics is staggering considering the lack of even rudamentary knowledge of the topic. You may be young and wish to contribute, but you should really read up on these things before you take such rediculous stands on these issues.

Thanks for calling me an idiot in a nice way...

The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end):

http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp

Each permanent member state has veto powers, which can be used to void any resolution. A single veto from a permanent member outweighs any majority. This is not technically a veto, rather just a "nay" vote; however any "nay" vote from a permanent member would block the passage of the resolution in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...curity_Council

It's not my job to educate you on such easily accessible topics, so do us all a favour (including those who's 'side' you purport to be on) and educate yourself. If you would like to know where to begin, I could give you plenty of 'centerist' and universally accepted reading suggestions to get you started.

I'll gladly take the advice. But first of all tell me where I was wrong with my original post....

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Jesus Christ man. Why was the resolution never enforcable?

Resolutions are legal documents. Some say 'if this does not happen, this will happen', this being military intervention. The resolution you're mis-quoting does not allow for military intervention. Some of them do. Some of them don't. Because of the words in the document, military intervention is not permitted under this resolution. To call for it is wrong, and shows a lack of education as to the content of it.

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

If you're referring to the one you mis-quoted, it wasn't an enforceable resolution, by law. If you're referring to UNIFIL, check the link I provided, it dictates step by step the UN's situation in Lebanon. Maybe take a moment to read in between all your writing.

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

To draw international attention to the situation? Because the member-states, including the P5, decided to? Ask them why they chose not to support the resolution. It certainly isn't Koffi Anan restraining these states from supporting missions and resolutions.

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

There are different kinds of resolutions. Some declare that if certain steps aren't taken, force will be used. The one you're mis-quoting doesn't say that. These aren't just 'topical resolutions', they have actual words in them that mean stuff. You can't take a look at the jist of it (militia's must disarm) and decide that the UN has taken on the responsibility to go door-to-door looking for katyusha's.

[Azure]

Resolutions are legal documents. Some say 'if this does not happen, this will happen', this being military intervention. The resolution you're mis-quoting does not allow for military intervention. Some of them do. Some of them don't. Because of the words in the document, military intervention is not permitted under this resolution. To call for it is wrong, and shows a lack of education as to the content of it.

So they draft resolutions, demanding that all militia withdraw from Lebanon, but pass it as not being enforcable? Is that not suggesting how useless the UN is?

I get your point about the UN not enforcing resolution 1559, although it seems ridiculous to me to provide words and demands, knowing you do not have the ability to enforce those demands.

The UN was in the position to solve the Israel/Hezbollah problem before it started, yet you defend their incompetence in not doing anything.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

So they draft resolutions, demanding that all militia withdraw from Lebanon, but pass it as not being enforcable? Is that not suggesting how useless the UN is?

They choose the level of enforceability in a resolution. Had they chosen to beef it up and threaten intervention by force, then that would reflect the will of the Security Council. If the will isn't there to intervene, thats the way it is.

What I don't get is its the P5 states that make the decisions (largely). If they're not going to agree in the UNSC to intervene, what other international forum are they going to? What organization or group is the UN 'butting out' of being able to intervene? Whats your great idea for getting Russia, China, France, UK, and US to agree a multi-national force?

I get your point about the UN not enforcing resolution 1559, although it seems ridiculous to me to provide words and demands, knowing you do not have the ability to enforce those demands.

Yeah, well... sometimes you when you ask someone to do something, and they don't, a punch in the face is not necessarily required. UN resolutions, in the majority, are non-binding. States choose to participate in the UN. They choose (or not) to abide by its resolutions. Because states are sovereign, you can't 'force' them to do anything. The UN respects the rights of states to take care of their own affairs. They don't just butt in to Lebanon just like they don't just butt in to the US, or Russia, or China.

I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time. The UN's sole purpose is not military intervention. When they adress a conflict and try to simmer things down, it is not their fault when the two sides continue fighting. They do 'their best'. If thats not good enough for you, why don't you tell me who should be doing what? What organization should be involved in this process? What should replace the UN? What organization acts, internationally, like the way you want the UN to act? (kicking asses all over the globe?) Such an organization doesn't exist.

The UN was in the position to solve the Israel/Hezbollah problem before it started, yet you defend their incompetence in not doing anything.

No. You started waving a resolution around saying the UN had failed in enforcing it. You were wrong. You were uneducated (as in, did not even read) about the resolution you bandied about. When called on it, you just shifted the debate.

As usual. Everyone knows it.

[Azure]

What I don't get is its the P5 states that make the decisions (largely). If they're not going to agree in the UNSC to intervene, what other international forum are they going to? What organization or group is the UN 'butting out' of being able to intervene? Whats your great idea for getting Russia, China, France, UK, and US to agree a multi-national force?

Well they obviously agree to it now, 'after' the fighting has broken out.

UNSC is 'still' part of the UN, and the fact that the 'SC' did not agree to provide a international force to solve the problem between Hezbollah and Israel, a problem that has existed for 20 some years, shows the incompetence of the UNSC, a 'part' of the UN.

I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time. The UN's sole purpose is not military intervention. When they adress a conflict and try to simmer things down, it is not their fault when the two sides continue fighting. They do 'their best'.

to take military action against an aggressor;

http://www.un.org/docs/sc/unsc_functions.html

And that was from the offical UN site, a link YOU provided me.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well they obviously agree to it now, 'after' the fighting has broken out.

Yeah, that was my initial point in this thread. They passed the resolution on Friday.

UNSC is 'still' part of the UN, and the fact that the 'SC'

Thanks. Believe it or not, I realize that the two organizations are related. This lame point was already raised once in this thread, to my surprise. When I use the term 'UNSC', it is not meant to baffle you or to be shifty. Its the acronym for the Security Council. I'm not sure why you guys feel the need to dwell on the acronym.

did not agree to provide a international force to solve the problem between Hezbollah and Israel, a problem that has existed for 20 some years, shows the incompetence of the UNSC, a 'part' of the UN.

War happens all over the world. The UN was not created with the express purpose to end wars. It was created to become an international forum of diplomacy and to coordinate nations globally in areas like economics, politics, culture, and health.

YOU seem to believe that it is SUPPOSED to go into EVERY area of the world, kick-asses, take names, and set the place right. That is a fantasy. The UNSC can intervene. It is extremely rare that the P5 states agree to do this. Is this a 'failing'? I doubt it... I'd call it 'the way things work'. Sometimes they're able to intervene, sometimes their not. If these leading states decided to get on the same page and allow for UNSC intervention with mandates to actually militarily act and intervene, then you might see UN missions with a lot more teeth. Until these states decide to do this, it can't be done.

There is the reality of the world and global politics, and then there is what you think should happen. The two are extremely far apart.

http://www.un.org/docs/sc/unsc_functions.html

And that was from the offical UN site, a link YOU provided me.

Yup, the Security Council exists all right, you've got me there Though, I am beyond shocked you actually sought to educate yourself on a topic.

I'll pose this question to you. IF the UN is a failed organization (which would surprised the heck out of Russia, China, US, UK, France, etc.), who should be taking over the Lebanese peace-keeping/making mission. I'm all ears.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'll pose this question to you. IF the UN is a failed organization (which would surprised the heck out of Russia, China, US, UK, France, etc.), who should be taking over the Lebanese peace-keeping/making mission. I'm all ears.

NATO.....

The UNSC is useless as long as the 5 permanent possess veto power, and have the ability to dictate the actions of the UNSC, based on their own motives.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

NATO.....

Obviously NATO disagrees, given that they're not going in there. Its nice to know there's a difference between what you believe should happen, and what will happen. The reality is more what I'm interested in debating.

The UNSC is useless as long as the 5 permanent possess veto power, and have the ability to dictate the actions of the UNSC, based on their own motives.

Any other organization that has a collective security aspect would face the same issues the UNSC does. The reason these states have vetoes is to ensure their participation, and its gone a long way in getting them permanently at the same table. The UN was the scene of many Cold War debates, and the forum of communication between the US and USSR (ie, useless).

As long as powerful states like China, Russia, UK, and US disagree, no multilateral organization will be able to provide an effective global security force. NATO isn't going in. The US isn't going in. The UN is the best option available, which is too bad, because as I've said a number of times, they peace-keep, they don't peace-make. (I can feel the vibration of these words hitting deaf ears....)

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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.

Sounds exactly what other countries do too.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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

You mean all of those resolutions demanding that Iraq do specific actions that they ignored? All those attempts for the US to try and get the UN to specify and act on the warnings of "serious consequences"? (I don't want to get into another US / Iraq war discussion)

The UN's inability to act is causing the US's undermining. Even when they threaten, they don't actually threaten. It is a chicken and egg. If the UN would/could back up its words, it would be a much more useful tool. Since it can't / won't, it will continue to be ignored.

The UN is useful for getting to the "You've been bad.. stop it" stage. It's pretty much useless for anything further than that.

[Azure]

Obviously NATO disagrees, given that they're not going in there. Its nice to know there's a difference between what you believe should happen, and what will happen. The reality is more what I'm interested in debating.

And given the history of the conflict, do you really think the UN, without the massive participation of the US, will be able to solve 'anything?'

Any other organization that has a collective security aspect would face the same issues the UNSC does. The reason these states have vetoes is to ensure their participation, and its gone a long way in getting them permanently at the same table. The UN was the scene of many Cold War debates, and the forum of communication between the US and USSR (ie, useless).

Regardless, the veto power is what has made the UNSC useless on many occasions.

As long as powerful states like China, Russia, UK, and US disagree, no multilateral organization will be able to provide an effective global security force. NATO isn't going in. The US isn't going in. The UN is the best option available, which is too bad, because as I've said a number of times, they peace-keep, they don't peace-make. (I can feel the vibration of these words hitting deaf ears....)

Yep...

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time. The UN's sole purpose is not military intervention. When they adress a conflict and try to simmer things down, it is not their fault when the two sides continue fighting. They do 'their best'.

....

Such an organization doesn't exist.

I agree. It is not their sole purpose - but it should be part of their mandate when demands aren't being met.

It's like being a moderator demanding that posters stop swearing without the power to suspend/ban those posters from the board. What's the point in having a moderator? In case the poster will stop on their own because they were told to?

Such an organization doesn't exist... but that doesn't mean that the UN and UNSC can't evolve into it. It's those that continue to resist and say that there is nothing wrong with the UN that prevent it from happening though.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

No. You started waving a resolution around saying the UN had failed in enforcing it. You were wrong.

So you're saying it's okay for them to "demand" something, but never enforce it?

"You will put that gun down"

"why?"

"'Cause I said so"

how very useful...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I agree. It is not their sole purpose - but it should be part of their mandate when demands aren't being met.

It's like being a moderator demanding that posters stop swearing without the power to suspend/ban those posters from the board. What's the point in having a moderator? In case the poster will stop on their own because they were told to?

Because its the only Moderator available? If you remove that Moderator's voice (even if its power is limited), have you made the Board a better place?

It seems to me that you understand the role of the Moderator, but because this moderator in particular doesn't have absolute power, the role of Moderator is useless and should be removed? How does that improve the situation? I'd rather have a Moderator with limited effectiveness than none at all.

Such an organization doesn't exist... but that doesn't mean that the UN and UNSC can't evolve into it. It's those that continue to resist and say that there is nothing wrong with the UN that prevent it from happening though.

Sure. And I'm 100% on board with you. I would love nothing more than the UNSC P5 states to unify and begin giving the UNSC teeth, which, as you said, they do have the power to do. I just put the responsibility on these P5 states, specifically, rather than saying the forum in which they operate is obviously the reason global security isn't effective. Its not like the P5 states want to get things done but the UN is standing in the way. The UN would love nothing more than realistic missions with realistic mandates. If the P5 choose not to give them this, there's nothing they can do. Responsibility rests with the P5, not with the bureaucratic structure of the UN.

So you're saying it's okay for them to "demand" something, but never enforce it?

"You will put that gun down"

"why?"

"'Cause I said so"

how very useful...

Fair enough. Though, more useful than saying nothing at all. Thats sort of the jist of my point; if the UN isn't going to do it, or you think they're incapable of it, who is supposed to step in and fill that role more competently?

Obviously the P5 states believe there is a reason to pass resolutions without enforcement options. Its not like I'm making up reasons that they aren't able to cooperate, they're in the newspapers all the time. International politics is complicated. The UN isn't a miracle worker. To 'solve' the problem in the Middle East would require just that, a miracle. They do their best... if thats not good enough, why not pitch in and help out rather than tear the whole thing down, to be replaced with... (blank).

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So you're saying it's okay for them to "demand" something, but never enforce it?

"You will put that gun down"

"why?"

"'Cause I said so"

how very useful...

In specific response to the Resolution quoted in this thread, as I've written 3-4 times, it was not enforceable. You can't just say 'why not?'. Read the Resolution. There is no enforcement option in the text. 'Why not?', because thats the law.

So, yes, I'm saying its ok to 'demand' something, but not necessarily enforce it. When you steal my pen, and I demand it back... and you don't give it back, is the next (and only) option to punch you in the face? The UN tries to communicate through these statements. If states don't wish to listen, what are you going to do? The UN doesn't invade member-states who don't comply with their resolutions, otherwise they'd have had to invade Israel long ago... that wouldn't be koshur though, would it?

I'm fully on board with a UNSC that has more power, and does more realistic missions. Its up to the P5 to get that done, not the structure of the UN. Its like blaming democracy because opposition parties can't agree on what to do. Its the parties fault, not democracy's.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The reason these states have vetoes is to ensure their participation, and its gone a long way in getting them permanently at the same table. The UN was the scene of many Cold War debates, and the forum of communication between the US and USSR (ie, useless).

A forum for communication is a good thing.

A forum for setting unenforceable resolutions/demands is a bad thing (ie: useless).

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The UN is the best option available, which is too bad, because as I've said a number of times, they peace-keep, they don't peace-make. (I can feel the vibration of these words hitting deaf ears....)

Listening to various soldiers who have served on UN duties, they most definitely do peace-make. It's what a lot of Canadian UN soldiers are doing in Afganistan (and elsewhere) right now:

Take this quote from Retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie (text found on a blog... but I've heard similar words on the radio and tv from him):

"As we improve our military's ability to project force abroad, we should dispense with the all-too Canadian conceit that what the world needs is "peacekeepers." Peacekeeping in the classic, Pearsonian sense -- whereby our troops occupy a piece of territory at the request of local belligerents -- is no longer in much demand. What is needed now are peacemakers with the weapons and mandate necessary to kill belligerents who don't want us there."

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

A forum for communication is a good thing.

A forum for setting unenforceable resolutions/demands is a bad thing (ie: useless).

Fair enough. What do you suggest? I assume there must be something better than the UNSC to take care of these issues if they're incompetent.

My point is that while the UN does have issues, its the best we've got. Why bother pointing out what it can't do, why not point out (and you've started) what it _can_ do? Ironically, its the Conservative parties of most governments that are against UN involvement. The UN is stuck halfway, its been established as a good idea, but when push comes to shove, world governments don't back up their votes with their military, economy, and politics. The institution is there to be used by the world's governments for good or ill. Blame the wielder of the tool, rather than the tool itself.

Listening to various soldiers who have served on UN duties, they most definitely do peace-make. It's what a lot of Canadian UN soldiers are doing in Afganistan (and elsewhere) right now:

Take this quote from Retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie (text found on a blog... but I've heard similar words on the radio and tv from him):

"As we improve our military's ability to project force abroad, we should dispense with the all-too Canadian conceit that what the world needs is "peacekeepers." Peacekeeping in the classic, Pearsonian sense -- whereby our troops occupy a piece of territory at the request of local belligerents -- is no longer in much demand. What is needed now are peacemakers with the weapons and mandate necessary to kill belligerents who don't want us there."

Fair enough. I was under the impression that we weren't blue-helmets in Afghanistan. Blue-helmeted peace-keepers are just that, peace-keepers. Is that what Canada is doing in Afghanistan? Have they stopped wearing the blue helmets???

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I agree. It is not their sole purpose - but it should be part of their mandate when demands aren't being met.

It's like being a moderator demanding that posters stop swearing without the power to suspend/ban those posters from the board. What's the point in having a moderator? In case the poster will stop on their own because they were told to?

This is a poor analogy. It would be more akin to if the users of this board all paid for it's upkeep and costs and recognized that all posters had a stake in the board. Moderators could say "cut it out" but would be more hesitant to outright ban the members because of the costs associated with losing said poster. Even that isn't a really good analogy, but it's better than the one you're passing off.

If you want to use this message board as an analogy for the UN, one could do so.

USA = Bingo, the most powerful member state, what he says goes. Theoretically the 'security council' could disagree, and he might even be inclined to follow their advice, but at the end of the day, he's the only one that matters. Disagreeing with the security council can have egregious consequences. For instance, some kind of argument evolves between bingo and say, scottie and Photon resulting in them leaving, leading to instability in the organization (forum software), but are not really powerful enough to bring down the site (UN) on their own.

Moderators/admin = Security Council. They are granted power above the norm of the General Assembly, and can create and enforce policy, though not without the consent (implicit or otherwise) of Bingo/USA.

General Assembly = the rest of the posting body. Suggestions and initiatives are often taken under advisement, and can even become policy. Matters can be put to a vote, though the votes aren't necessarily binding.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Fair enough. What do you suggest? I assume there must be something better than the UNSC to take care of these issues if they're incompetent.

My point is that while the UN does have issues, its the best we've got. Why bother pointing out what it can't do, why not point out (and you've started) what it _can_ do? Ironically, its the Conservative parties of most governments that are against UN involvement. The UN is stuck halfway, its been established as a good idea, but when push comes to shove, world governments don't back up their votes with their military, economy, and politics. The institution is there to be used by the world's governments for good or ill. Blame the wielder of the tool, rather than the tool itself.


Fair enough. I was under the impression that we weren't blue-helmets in Afghanistan. Blue-helmeted peace-keepers are just that, peace-keepers. Is that what Canada is doing in Afghanistan? Have they stopped wearing the blue helmets???

There are chapter 6, 6.5 and 7 all with varying rules of engagement. Chapter 6.5 and 7 are thought of more as peace enforcement resolutions.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

It seems to me that you understand the role of the Moderator, but because this moderator in particular doesn't have absolute power, the role of Moderator is useless and should be removed? How does that improve the situation? I'd rather have a Moderator with limited effectiveness than none at all.

That isn't what I'm talking about. It's not a UN or nothing. It's a UN or improvement on UN stance that I have.

As long as there is tremendous resistance to criticizing the UN, there can be no improvements.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sure. And I'm 100% on board with you. I would love nothing more than the UNSC P5 states to unify and begin giving the UNSC teeth, which, as you said, they do have the power to do. I just put the responsibility on these P5 states, specifically, rather than saying the forum in which they operate is obviously the reason global security isn't effective. Its not like the P5 states want to get things done but the UN is standing in the way. The UN would love nothing more than realistic missions with realistic mandates. If the P5 choose not to give them this, there's nothing they can do. Responsibility rests with the P5, not with the bureaucratic structure of the UN.

The UN needs a leader to bring these P5 states together. They obviously aren't going to do it themselves. The UN needs to improve to get its goals (or our goals for it) to be achieved. Throwing your hands up and saying "I'm not getting any cooperation, oh well" should not be an option.

Would that leader succeed 100% of the time? Of course not. That said, it's not even being seriously attempted right now.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Fair enough. Though, more useful than saying nothing at all. Thats sort of the jist of my point; if the UN isn't going to do it, or you think they're incapable of it, who is supposed to step in and fill that role more competently?

Obviously the P5 states believe there is a reason to pass resolutions without enforcement options.

They're passing resolutions without enforcement options because nobody is making them decide on one. They're diplomats, after-all, usually notorious peace-niks. Anything to avoid a physical conflict. It works sometimes, but not always.

I don't see it as the UN being incapable of doing it. I see it as the UN being unwilling to do it. Very different.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I don't see it as the UN being incapable of doing it. I see it as the UN being unwilling to do it. Very different.

Fair enough. I'd agree on that, though I'd place the blame on the P5 states, rather than 'the UN'. 'The UN' does what its told. If the 'peac-niks' tell it to create a resolution (at the behest of their home governments, George W included), it does. If they don't, it doesn't. P5 states are the problem, not 'the UN'.

I agree, I think the P5 states should beef up their commitment to the UNSC and make it what it could be, rather than what it is.