Yea I'm actually pretty embarrased of this ... kind of stupid thing to do since we're going to find out ANYWAY what these nations plan on doing.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yea I'm actually pretty embarrased of this ... kind of stupid thing to do since we're going to find out ANYWAY what these nations plan on doing.

You should be embarassed about a lot more than just this.

quote:

Originally posted by Nalin You should be embarassed about a lot more than just this.

And you should post something intelligent and relevant to the topic rather than trying to incite everyone to start a flame war.

You're pathetic ... you have nothing meaningful to contribute.

I agree with both of you.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

i think we should all be more worried about the increasing irrelevance of the UN in this post cold war society.

its clear that the US doesnt need the UN to fight Iraq, yet when consulted about the war it leads to more world wide division. and then when N Korea begins threatening the entire conintent of Asia, the UN feels the US needs to speak directly to Pyongang- when this is clearly a much bigger threat than the Iraqi conflict in world wide terms.

everyday i see people around the world protesting the war, but very few people actually DOING something. i fear that the world has convinced itself that the US is such a threat that no one will actually stand up for themselves - and i dont consider diplomatic bickering a solution either.

when i posted this article, it seemed that no one was surprised, yet now it is turning into another 'i told you so' 'evil empire' *debate* with no relevant or current ideas. anyone have anything to add?|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

Well, I for one am doing something. I publish a website, learn all i can, help organize rallys, write letters, and tell everyone i know.

what else can i do? go be a human shield in iraq? go do "weapons inspections" in the US?

I suppose i could, but i'd probably get arrested or killed, so i think i can do more good doing what i am doing right now.

Second, as for the statement "The US doesn't need the UN to go to war", i think that's bullshit. The US needs it just as much as North Korea needs UN approval to go to attack SK, or as much as iraq needs approval to attack kuwait.

In short, without UN approval ANY offensive action is against international law, including an american "coalition of the willing" against iraq. If an attack is to happen, it's the mandate of the UN to stop it, by condemning the attack and demanding that the US and UK stop immediately. If they do not, a second resolution should be passed authorizing military action against the US and UK to save iraq, much like one was passed to save kuwait from iraq.

Of course, this will never happen. Even if it were put to a vote, the US is an econmic powerhouse, it would be a very simple matter to bribe and coerce other countries not to support this. And they always have their veto as well.

Even if a resolution was passed, No one nation on earth, in fact probably not ALL the nations on earth put together have the military might to take on the US. not to mention that doing so on a large scale would be foolhardy, as the nukes would start to fly and possibly plunge entire areas of the planet into nuclear winter.

So, basically the situation is the US is the most powerful, and they will do as they please. This is exactly the sort of situation the UN was designed to circumvent, but since one of it's member states has gotten much too powerful, they basically have their hands tied.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

Biznology, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point he was trying to get at is the ineffectiveness of the UN as an international governing body. I agree that the US shouldn't be the decision maker in world affairs but the UN does not appear to be stepping up to assume the responsibilities of that position. What I would like to see is a UN body actually DOING something in today's climate besides issuing condemnations and resolutions that accomplish nothing. For example, people critisize the US media for not fully covering Rwanda and some critisize the US for doing nothing ... Well what did the UN do in Rwanda? Aren't THEY the authority responsible for intervening during crises like that??? Nothing. What about Kosovo? Besides a bunch of resolutions condemning the genocide nothing really. If I recall, NATO was the driving force in enforcing peace in that region, capturing war criminals, etc. It seems that the UN rarely if ever inserts peacekeepers and then when the going gets rough they withdraw them. To me the UN is like an elderly grandparent that waggles their finger and clucks their tongue when you do something wrong rather than a parent to actually punish you. If the US isn't going to do something than who is??? What we need is a UN that actually asserts authority rather than relinquish it to others.

well, your post confuses me. I was answering biznologogy in regards to:

quote:

everyday i see people around the world protesting the war, but very few people actually DOING something.

as for my comments about the US, what i am trying to say, is it's not the US place to make decisions on global security. this is the job of the UN.

now, i could be wrong, but i belive that the UN does not ENFORCE it's resolutions, this is not it's purpose. It asks a member state to do so, such as when the US stopped iraq from invading kuwait in the gulf war.

If the UN were to actually enforce it's resolutions, it would need it's own army, capable of taking on any other nation, which of course is impractical.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well, your post confuses me. I was answering biznologogy in regards to: as for my comments about the US, what i am trying to say, is it's not the US place to make decisions on global security. this is the job of the UN. now, i could be wrong, but i belive that the UN does not ENFORCE it's resolutions, this is not it's purpose. It asks a member state to do so, such as when the US stopped iraq from invading kuwait in the gulf war. If the UN were to actually enforce it's resolutions, it would need it's own army, capable of taking on any other nation, which of course is impractical.

Well maybe it should have a significantly sized army in which every member state should be forced to contribute and maybe it should enforce its own resolutions. What member state is going to volunteer their troops to intervene in situations such as Rwanda? But you failed to comment on whether the UN is an effective institution or not ... personally I don't think so at all and I think a lot of people would agree with me. Maybe that's why a lot of people in the US feel that in order to maintain global security, the US needs to step up.

- He, I allready posted about the US spying, no new news to me.. hehehe, at least something is been done.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well maybe it should have a significantly sized army in which every member state should be forced to contribute and maybe it should enforce its own resolutions. What member state is going to volunteer their troops to intervene in situations such as Rwanda? But you failed to comment on whether the UN is an effective institution or not ... personally I don't think so at all and I think a lot of people would agree with me. Maybe that's why a lot of people in the US feel that in order to maintain global security, the US needs to step up.

I think the UN is an effective institution, and in fact an excellent one. True, it has failed in some respects, due to lack of enforcement. I agree that possibly a good way to solve this problem would be for each nation to contribute to a UN army. It would have to be based on percentage, so that larger armies like the US would contribute more solidiers and equipment.

However, leadership of the army would not be under proportionately under more US control, it would be determined by resolutions of the Security Coucil. Of course it can be argued that the Security Council itself is under mostly US control, but with the way things are going, i think that the UN is holding up excellently.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage