3 days goes by and nobody critisizes the UN for this ridiculousness. I wonder how long the US would have survived .... Probably not very long before being called a state sponsoring terrorism. Personally I hate the UN. I believe it is a complete failor. It doesn't have enough action to back up its words and it doesn't have words to back up its purpose.

I'd like to thank you for being the first to respond and speak your peace against the inaction of the UN!
If only more people would state their thoughts and opinions on this matter, we could perhaps get a little discussion going....

The UN is not only a failure, but also a body that contridicts its mission statement!!

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive.

Last edited by melech_mike on Jan-12-2003 at 09:13

quote:

Originally posted by occrider 3 days goes by and nobody critisizes the UN for this ridiculousness. I wonder how long the US would have survived .... Probably not very long before being called a state sponsoring terrorism. Personally I hate the UN. I believe it is a complete failor. It doesn't have enough action to back up its words and it doesn't have words to back up its purpose.

I dont hate the U.N because even though it doesnt do as much as it should, it still makes some contributations, that wouldnt have happened otherwise. And besides a small gain, is better than no gain.

I like how everybody regards any statement by the UN as the word of God yet nobody really sticks up for the UN. For example ... the UN doesn't officially support the No fly zone policies in Iraq so it MUST be a corrupt and illegal practice. However, the fact that the UN doesn't condemn that policy is an interesting issue as well. Here's my ultra basic take on the UN. People are typically for or against NATO. Those for NATO believe that what the US and allies are doing is just and warranted. Those against it believe that the US and allies are violating national sovereignty and are basically uppity assholes. Meanwhile ... the UN is sitting on the fence like a godamned pussy. They aren't taking any actions against Iraq for treaty violations nor are they condemning the US for its supposed illegal aggressiveness. There is one side that is right and there is one side that is wrong! The issue being as it is is a simple as that! Yet this governing body is too inept, weak, or un-ableminded to make a discision one way or another. The UN is the ultimate in politician like characteristics and politically correctness to be an effective institution.

The UN is utterly useless. The UN isnt allowed to work just like the League of Nations. It only works if the USA lets it work. Which is almost never. If it had an independant military force it could achieve something but it never will.

Did the UN do anything to stop Rwanda massacres?
Did the UN do anything to stop East Timor massacres?
Did the UN do anything about US invasion of Panama?
Did the UN do anything about US bombing of Cambodia?
Did the UN do anything about Russian atrocities in Chechnya?
Did the UN do anything about US bombing of Libya?
Did the UN do anything about US sanctions against Cuba?
Did the UN do anything about CIA backed atrocities in Latin America?
Did the UN do anything about Israels(backed by the US) utter contempt for the UN. One of the UNs first resolutions called for Israel to allow for the right of return of the palestinians driven out of their homes. Do you think Israel complied with it. Why should it? The UN has no teeth.

The lesson that the UN shows the poor and dispossessed of this world is there is no point trying diplomacy, even if you get a resolution at the UN nothing happens.

The only way that anyone can get their message across in this world is to blow things up and kill people.

quote:

Did the UN do anything about US sanctions against Cuba?

what does that have to do with the UN? sanctions are a sovergnty issue each country can decide on its own

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Did the UN do anything about US invasion of Panama? Did the UN do anything about US bombing of Cambodia? Did the UN do anything about Russian atrocities in Chechnya? Did the UN do anything about US bombing of Libya? Did the UN do anything about US sanctions against Cuba? Did the UN do anything about CIA backed atrocities in Latin America? Did the UN do anything about Israels(backed by the US) utter contempt for the UN.

Did the UN do anything about General Manuel Noriega invasion over panama?
Did the UN do anything about North Vietnemese Army invasion of Cambodia?
Did the UN do anything about Chechnyian terrorist atrocities committed agianst Russia?
Did the UN do anything about the terrorist military camps in Libya?
Did the UN do anything about oppressing, inhumane rebel focres in Latin America?
Did the UN do anything about iraq's(backed by the EU) utter contempt for the UN.

glad to see we agree the UN sucks, to bad its for opposing reasons.

let me also add here a post specificly about why the UN sucks from an israeli point of view, this is taken from one of my earlier posts, so sorry for those who have already read it

*i'll be ther first to say there are many many many 'Security Council' resolutions condeming Israel, but not once have they adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of arab attacks agianst israel.

*the security council has set up Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly to deal with israel on varied occasions, but never have they been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters of Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. agian i dare you to prove me wrong.

* In order to be on the UN security council you have to be a member of a regional group. Arab countries have barred israel from joining the asian group. and although in may 2000 israel accepted an invitation to be a temporary member of the Western Europe and Others (WEOG) reginal group, it still has no access to have any say on the security council.

* in 1974 resolution 3379 slandered Zionism (the jewish nationalist movement) by branding it as a form of rasicm. it was only repealed in 1991 and I think it was about two years ago in a UN summit in south africe that the word zionism was almost equated to racism agian, luckly that didnt pass because of strong US pressure. and it was only in Nov 1998, 50 years after the founding of the UN that the word anti-semetism appeared in a UN resolution.

* Of all of the condemnations that The Commission on Human Rights has put forth, 26% refer to israel alone (!!!) and yet rouge states like syria and libya have never been critized.

* both the madrid (1991) and oslo peace accords (1992) call for direct and bilateral negotations, but the UN constantly undercuts this principle. the general assembly routinely adopts resolutions that attempt to impose solutions to critical issues. Ironically, security council reolutions 242 and 338 that everyone refers (the ones after 1967) to call for bilateral negotiations as well but are still undermined by UN general assembly resolutions.

*The hizbollah routinely fires rocket rounds into israel proper from within lebanon and the UN does abosolutley nothing about it, not even a single condemnation of violence.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy what does that have to do with the UN? sanctions are a sovergnty issue each country can decide on its own

well put

quote:

Did the UN do anything about General Manuel Noriega invasion over panama? Did the UN do anything about North Vietnemese Army invasion of Cambodia? Did the UN do anything about Chechnyian terrorist atrocities committed agianst Russia? Did the UN do anything about the terrorist military camps in Libya? Did the UN do anything about oppressing, inhumane rebel focres in Latin America? Did the UN do anything about iraq's(backed by the EU) utter contempt for the UN.

and well put again, everyone is so quick to blame the U.S..... *sigh*

Well, the UN is not a world police. The distribution of power in the UN is more or less the same as it is in the real world. Therefore, US are more powerful than Albania. UN can't do much against the decisions of the US because it has no army of its own (I wouldn't consider the UN peacekeepers as an army), and also because US has many of its people in high positions inside. As long as we live in a world with all the countries having their full national sovereignity, the UN can't be more successful than it is now. It is true that it is not a decision making factor, but it still is an influence, and a positive one. So it's better to have it than not to have it, although its success is not always guaranteed.

The only way UN can be more successful is that it becomes more powerful, but there's a problem. Most major countries don't want the UN to get stronger, because of influencing their own decisions.

Anyway, it's not very useful or efficient, but better that than nothing.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, the UN is not a world police. The distribution of power in the UN is more or less the same as it is in the real world. Therefore, US are more powerful than Albania. UN can't do much against the decisions of the US because it has no army of its own (I wouldn't consider the UN peacekeepers as an army), and also because US has many of its people in high positions inside. As long as we live in a world with all the countries having their full national sovereignity, the UN can't be more successful than it is now. It is true that it is not a decision making factor, but it still is an influence, and a positive one. So it's better to have it than not to have it, although its success is not always guaranteed. The only way UN can be more successful is that it becomes more powerful, but there's a problem. Most major countries don't want the UN to get stronger, because of influencing their own decisions. Anyway, it's not very useful or efficient, but better that than nothing.

But it's not the same as it is in the real world. The US has only one seat on the security council. It shares that with 4 others. Other than the security council each nation shares a vote in the general assembly. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be) but if the US complains so much about the inaction of the UN in general how is the UN a US puppet?

what a naive comment... it has only one chair... come on, they have veto, they can block what ever they want. One or two hundreds chairs, one veto is enough.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek what a naive comment... it has only one chair... come on, they have veto, they can block what ever they want. One or two hundreds chairs, one veto is enough.

Your comment is as naive, if not more! ONE CHAIR. The US only has one. Therefore ANY kind of resolution the US puts forward has 3/4 of a chance of being blocked by whichever member of the security council wishes! ARE you saying the US veto is worth 4 TIMES any other veto????????