Photo fraud; Reutergate et.al.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Because it's easier politically if you appear to be seeking world consensus?

But I thought the UN didn't matter to the US?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

But I thought the UN didn't matter to the US?

ugh, it doesn't, as can be seen by numerous examples of american nose-thumbing. I even gave you examples.

Naturally it's better to appear to be a member of the international community, so that when it suits your interests (ie. requesting support for the invasion of Iraq) you can do so. When it doesn't suit your interests, you can abandon it, like in the examples I gave.

It's also easier to sell to your domestic population when it appears world consensus is on your side.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Every once in a blue moon they do act.. but it is by far the exception rather than the rule.

I want to see it become more of a rule - when they're obviously and constantly being ignored, do more action. Stand up for their demands. Stop blowing hot air all the time.

Again, you're acting as if there is some supreme UN military that can go in and force nations to heel under their demands. It doesn't work that way.

Israel is in direct contravention of the most UN resolutions of any nation on the planet. Why do you think the UN hasn't attempted to forcibly enforce these resolutions? I'll tell you. It's because they are completely incapable of doing so unless given authority and resources from the US, a concept that is laughable to anyone with basic knowledge of UN and US history.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

For some mind-boggling reason you seem to be taking this single issue and using it as a comprehensive judgement on all UN security actions now and in the past. The UNSC has used military intervention before. They may again. Just because they haven't this second doesn't mean they never have, or never well. Thats pretty narrow.

For some mind-boggling reason, you seem to be taking my words and assuming they apply to this single issue. That's pretty narrow.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sounds good. Whats the improvement? 'A better leader'? Right now the P5 states jointly lead the UNSC. What can the UN do to get these member-states to agree more? What criticism can you level at the UNSC for the lack of P5 commitment?

Right now, everyone in the UNSC is there for their own good. There is no unifying force. There is nobody that stands impartial, with the ability to lead the others to "security" (peace, justice, etc, etc). This is the criticism that I can level at the UN and UNSC.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

If this inability to do anything is so obvious to you, why are the P5 states wasting their time using the institution? Clearly the world's governments believe the UNSC is very important; its where all the recent negotiating over a cease-fire occurred. These states could have easily met outside the UNSC, but it was the P5's vehicle of choice. If you think the UNSC is obsolete, aren't these countries all foolish for bothering to participate?

Once again, I never said obsolete... just not as useful as it could be.

The current resolution in place is a good compromise between all members of what the UNSC could be. Now, we wait to see if any of this actually happens. If the UN force (some 15,000 strong) does not get established, if the buffer zone does not work, if the member states shirk their responsibilities to support this resolution, then all of the criticisms will continue to exist.

If this resolution, and the actions detailed within, do work, I hope it is proof that things have changed and there is more leadership within the UNSC to get things to happen. Something has obviously failed since all of the UNSC resolutions about Iraq. Let's hope it continues.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... phrases like 'the UN is incompetent' are pretty broadly-based. Its not my fault if people aren't specific about which organization they're saying has 'failed'. If you look at the thread you'll see many instances where the whole organization has been painted with the failure brush due to the UNSC's lack of military intervention in the Middle East.

IMO, people use broad-based examples when there is something immediately in the news. The UNSC is currently acting, so the UN (2 words shorter) gets used. It is not a condemnation on the entire body, but the one that is relevant to the topic being discussed.

The UN has its share of successes, and its share of failures. Nobody in their right mind is going to say the UN has totally failed. It has failed in some areas - aid and security in some parts of Africa, enforcing resolutions, etc - but has also succeeded in other areas - aid in other parts of Africa, etc.

The UN is not perfect... but it could also stand for some improvements.

[Agamemnon]

Sounds to me that we believe in the same things. We both want the UNSC to have more support from the P5 states, we both want to see the UNSC take a more active and beefed up role in conflict-situations, and we both agree that there is room for improvement.

I just think that when people take the current situation in Lebanon and use it as an excuse to say the UN is 'failed' is wrong. Clearly you don't believe it is failed, so we're again in the same boat.

I certainly approve of criticizing the P5 states and their lack of ability to provide the UNSC with the support it needs to do the job everyone here wants to see it do.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

ugh, it doesn't, as can be seen by numerous examples of american nose-thumbing. I even gave you examples.

Naturally it's better to appear to be a member of the international community, so that when it suits your interests (ie. requesting support for the invasion of Iraq) you can do so. When it doesn't suit your interests, you can abandon it, like in the examples I gave.

It's also easier to sell to your domestic population when it appears world consensus is on your side.

So, the UN doesn't matter... but, because of public opinion, it should still be tried because it does matter?

If you're going to assert that public opinion and world concensus do matter, and the UN is one (or the only, depending on your position) way to get it, then doesn't it immediately follow that the UN does matter?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Israel is in direct contravention of the most UN resolutions of any nation on the planet. Why do you think the UN hasn't attempted to forcibly enforce these resolutions? I'll tell you. It's because they are completely incapable of doing so unless given authority and resources from the US, a concept that is laughable to anyone with basic knowledge of UN and US history.

This is just as bad as the UNSC being incapable of enforcing any resolutions on "the best friend" of another P5 country.

They agreed - since the resolutions passed - that Israel was doing something bad... yet didn't/couldn't include any teeth in the resolutions. (US influence)

They agreed that Iraq was doing something bad.. yet didn't / couldn't include any teeth in the resolutions. (France / Russia / China oil influence)

They agreed that Lebanon militias should be disarmed.. yet didn't / couldn't include any teeth in the resolutions.

This is my criticism. Resolution after resolution, with no action. What's the point? Obviously nothing is resulting from those resolutions. This is where the improvement needs to occur.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So, the UN doesn't matter... but, because of public opinion, it should still be tried because it does matter?

If you're going to assert that public opinion and world concensus do matter, and the UN is one (or the only, depending on your position) way to get it, then doesn't it immediately follow that the UN does matter?

It sounds like what he's saying is; The UN matters to the US insofar as it can make US foreign policy decisions 'look better'. Had the UN approved of the Iraqi invasion it would have been very useful to the US. Given that it didn't provide said approval the US went in anyway, as was always their intention.

You don't see how the US having support from the UN would have made the invasion of Iraq more 'popular', both at home and abroad? Isn't this vitally important, given that past US wars were brought down due to public perception? I think thats all he's saying...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

This is my criticism. Resolution after resolution, with no action. What's the point? Obviously nothing is resulting from those resolutions. This is where the improvement needs to occur.

What types of improvement? I know you're interested in providing criticism so that things can get better, rather than just complaining. So what can be done to change this situation? Care to expand?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So, the UN doesn't matter... but, because of public opinion, it should still be tried because it does matter?

If you're going to assert that public opinion and world concensus do matter, and the UN is one (or the only, depending on your position) way to get it, then doesn't it immediately follow that the UN does matter?

no, because regardless of UN opinion, the US does what it wants.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sounds to me that we believe in the same things. We both want the UNSC to have more support from the P5 states, we both want to see the UNSC take a more active and beefed up role in conflict-situations, and we both agree that there is room for improvement.

This latest incident is only the latest example being used for criticism. Don't fool yourself into thinking that people's memories are this short.

I don't think the support from the P5 states will come on their own. There are too many self-surving interests for this to happen. There has to be some other way to get them together - some kind of "force", or "incentive", or "leader", or whatever.

For example (and just thinking out lout), some kind of clause that the P5 countries must each contribute x troops or x dollars or both in order to keep their veto. I don't know if it's practical or not, as it just came into my mind, but something needs to be done. It won't happen on its own.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You don't see how the US having support from the UN would have made the invasion of Iraq more 'popular', both at home and abroad? Isn't this vitally important, given that past US wars were brought down due to public perception? I think thats all he's saying...

I see exactly how having UN support would have helped the US... this is exactly what I'm using to contradict his "UN doesn't matter to the US" stance.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

no, because regardless of UN opinion, the US does what it wants.

Why is this so hard to understand?

If the UN (and everything that goes along with it) didn't matter, the US wouldn't bother. They'd have ad campaigns all over spewing their message. They'd talk to other governments, outside the UN structure, and try to get support that way. They wouldn't both with the UN.

It was only when they had enough of the red tape and walls that they acted on their own.

Obviously, the UN does matter to the US.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

This latest incident is only the latest example being used for criticism. Don't fool yourself into thinking that people's memories are this short.

I don't think the support from the P5 states will come on their own. There are too many self-surving interests for this to happen. There has to be some other way to get them together - some kind of "force", or "incentive", or "leader", or whatever.

For example (and just thinking out lout), some kind of clause that the P5 countries must each contribute x troops or x dollars or both in order to keep their veto. I don't know if it's practical or not, as it just came into my mind, but something needs to be done. It won't happen on its own.

For someone who complains about academics not having real-world applicable ideas, I find it rich that you're proposing that states who've shown virtually nothing but their intense greed for power would impose upon themselves limitations to their own power.

Can you imagine what would happen in the US congress if a senator, congressman or president were to propose that their hegemony in the world be linked to the whims of other states like Russia, China or France? I'd fear for their physical safety after a statement like that, let alone their political career.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Obviously, the UN does matter to the US.

He is saying the UN matters to the US to a point. Its not 100 or 0, thats Azure's game. Obviously the UN doesn't matter enough to the US to stop it from invading Iraq? But it clearly does matter enough for the US to try and get the UNSC to approve of the invasion. There are degrees of necessity here, not just all or none.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

He is saying the UN matters to the US to a point. Its not 100 or 0, thats Azure's game. Obviously the UN doesn't matter enough to the US to stop it from invading Iraq? But it clearly does matter enough for the US to try and get the UNSC to approve of the invasion. There are degrees of necessity here, not just all or none.

That may be your stand, but it's not his.

"ugh, it doesn't, as can be seen by numerous examples of american nose-thumbing. I even gave you examples."

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

For someone who complains about academics not having real-world applicable ideas, I find it rich that you're proposing that states who've shown virtually nothing but their intense greed for power would impose upon themselves limitations to their own power.

Can you imagine what would happen in the US congress if a senator, congressman or president were to propose that their hegemony in the world be linked to the whims of other states like Russia, China or France? I'd fear for their physical safety after a statement like that, let alone their political career.

If I had all day to sit around and dream up academic ideas, and research their applicability, I'm sure I"d come up with a better example than one off of the top of my head.

Their interests and influence are already partially linked to the whims of other states. I'm sure that the US (etc) had to negotiate with other security council members in order to put in that 15,000 soldier force in the buffer zone. Without the whims of other states, that wouldn't happen.

Linking the veto to supplying the UN with resources would sure give the US an incentive to supply resources, don't you think?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

If the UN (and everything that goes along with it) didn't matter, the US wouldn't bother. They'd have ad campaigns all over spewing their message. They'd talk to other governments, outside the UN structure, and try to get support that way.

What do you call the 'coalition of the willing'? I'd call that talking to other governments outside the UN structure, trying to get support that way.

American Media in the lead-up to the invasion was the ad-campagins, spewing their message.

It was only when they had enough of the red tape and walls that they acted on their own.

Can we be serious here for a second? The argument put forth by the states was that Iraq posed a real and imminent threat to regional and american security. The security council and the vast majority of UN member states disagreed, on the basis of their own intelligence which later proved to be 100 % correct, and which anyone who didn't rely on CNN for their information could see. Also, regardless of whether Iraq did pose a 'real and imminent' threat, unilateral invasion of a sovereign state is in direct contravention of the very basic tenant the UN was founded on. Red Tape and Walls? Give me a break.

Obviously, the UN does matter to the US.

Really, is it obvious? The UN matters so much, the US is willing to bankrupt it based on a grudge that was a result of their own state sponsored terrorism in latin america?

The UN matters so much to America that they are willing to completely disregard it's findings and violate the very basic tenant of the organization?

World opinion matters so much to the US that they are willing to stand alone against 134 other countries against a resolution calling for the, "Establishment of a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation."? Or in a 145-1 vote calling for the end of the racist apartheid of South Africa?

You can continue to ignore the historical record about how much the US cares about world and UN opinion all you want, but that isn't going to change what the facts are.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

That may be your stand, but it's not his.

"ugh, it doesn't, as can be seen by numerous examples of american nose-thumbing. I even gave you examples."

To the extent of changing or altering policy, the UN does not matter. As a form of political cover, sure, it matters, but insignificantly.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Linking the veto to supplying the UN with resources would sure give the US an incentive to supply resources, don't you think?

Sure it would, but why would they want to change the status quo?