quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith 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.

See that's where we differ. I think the UN is more or less a joke. It should be a body of world government ... not a body of arbitration. It should dictate the ways governments should act rather than respond at the last minute and issue condmenations when the line is finally crossed. And there are so many cases when it has failed to intervene or lend assistance to countries that were faced with illegal aggression. Civil strife in Africa is one case in point. Everybody cares about what's going on in Europe and the Middle East but when it comes to places like Africa you hear nothing. The UN is more like a civil court rather than a criminal court and it is inconsistent in its practices.

well then, what would you contend is the solution? abolish the UN and let the US run things because they have demonstrated the disregard for human life that is neccesary to deal with delicate situations?

I don't think that's a good idea. I think we should give the UN more power, more support, more money, more force. Then we can begin to TRULY fight terrorism.

The alternative is a primal game of survival of the fittest, played by the elite politicians using thousands of innocent lives as currency.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

the UN does have an army... they're called UN peacekeepers and many countries do contribute to the force whatever their mission may be..

as for the comment that no one is DOING anything, what you mean by DOING something is fighting, other than that you see no other action as a valid solution to the problem. the fact is many people are doing MANY things... its just that people who want to see war see their actions as nothing.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well then, what would you contend is the solution? abolish the UN and let the US run things because they have demonstrated the disregard for human life that is neccesary to deal with delicate situations? I don't think that's a good idea. I think we should give the UN more power, more support, more money, more force. Then we can begin to TRULY fight terrorism. The alternative is a primal game of survival of the fittest, played by the elite politicians using thousands of innocent lives as currency.

JohnSmith, this is a very intelligent post that cuts to the very heart of the matter.

Despite the arguments for- and against- the war, and for/against the UN itself, what things boil down to, in the end, is human life, the loss of it, and suffering.

We are seeing more of that every day, as much due to "evil" wills as "good" intentions.

I think the worst case scenario is that the UN gets diminished in efficacy and/or entirely abolished. As JohnSmith says, that would degenerate the world into a survival-of-the-fittest game. But seeing how the current global situation is, it would actually turn into lone-superpower-asserts-dominance. Why? Human nature! It is natural for humans to pursue power at the expense of others.

When the UN was formed, and when the second World War was finished, people had hoped to create a New World where wars would not occur anymore.

Obviously this has not happened. I would like to say that this conflict with Iraq, if it occurs (and it most likely will), will herald the end of the "new" world, and the reverting back to the "old" world and old world mentality. Of course, the players (err..playER) and strategies have changed, but the goals are the same: dominance and power.

We're seeing the new Roman Empire emerging today. Of course, it is at a much greater scale than the actual Roman Empire ever was. Now, if the U.S. continues its current mindset, tactics, and goals, then it will essentially tread the same path as the Romans did, and that is:

Republic -> Tyranny -> Despotism -> Dissolution and Anarchy

That's the way the world works! No one pays attention to history anymore, and history shows that humans (and their states) develop and live in predictable cycles.

It's really too bad that people can never learn from their mistakes. Today's mistakes, today's debates, today's wars, everything that is happening today, has happened quite literally thousands of times in the past. The context might have been different, but the events, and consequences, have all been seen. If the earth could speak, it would be sighing - but actually laughing! - at human ignorance.

The key, I think, is to find an inner balance, and accept the idiocy happening around us (on everyone's part!). Things certainly are not going to change. They haven't in the past, and there is no indication that they will.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well then, what would you contend is the solution? abolish the UN and let the US run things because they have demonstrated the disregard for human life that is neccesary to deal with delicate situations? I don't think that's a good idea. I think we should give the UN more power, more support, more money, more force. Then we can begin to TRULY fight terrorism. The alternative is a primal game of survival of the fittest, played by the elite politicians using thousands of innocent lives as currency.

No no no not at all. As a matter of fact your conclusion is the same one I'm trying to convey. We should make the UN stronger, more powerful, and give it the ability to enforce its policies. Like I said, it should be a governing body rather than a body of arbitration. It would be pretty pretentious of me to suggest that the US should be that body, and in no way do I suggest that the US should have that kind of discretionary power. The way I see things, Iraq does not fear the UN ... it seems that they enjoy playing games of deception and prolonging. So if the UN says something and it ACTUALLY means business, such that it is respected by every nation, then I think a lot of Americans would feel confident in letting the UN resolve everything. Yea this would only happen in an idealistic world but maybe future generations will be intelligent enough to put it in place. Darwin needs to work faster dammit.