 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
NeoPhono
Übermensch

Registered: Sep 2003
Location: In Orbit
|
|
|
I think the "relevancy" of the UN is in its politics. As a governing body, or as an international organization that carries any real authority, I do not see the UN as having any major impact, or hope of one in its current form. However, it is a great place for international discussion and politics to occur. If the UN comes onboard in Iraq, I really don't see it changing the situation there much, except by offering a bigger arena for debate and for the US, it gives the ability to say there is "International Cooperation" in Iraq.
If you ask me, I really don't see this lack of real UN power as a bad thing. When you hope to have every country on Earth sit down and come up with meaningful agreements or courses of action, I wish you good luck. Besides, look at the Isreal/Palestine situation and tell me how good the UN really is at being relevant anyway. (somebody's going to kill me for that comment ) In summary, the UN is a great place for discussion but a bad means for any concrete real-world action.
|
|
Jan-17-2004 20:11
|
|
|
 |
 |
NYCTrancefan
Destination Everywhere!

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: New York City in a Café del Mar mood
|
|
|
Jan-18-2004 04:30
|
|
|
 |
 |
nic01445
Was guckst du?
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: HERE AND NOW
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by failsafe
I think the UN should stay out. This is americas mess. they went in without UN approval, they should clean the mess they created. The yanks just want other peoples money going into rebuilding iraq. You break it you buy it. Now that all the reconstruction contracts have been filled by american companies it's time to bring the UN in? FUCK that. |
if america wanted funding from other countries, don't you think it would at least let the other countries (that did not participate in the actual war) contract in iraq?
|
|
Jan-18-2004 04:34
|
|
|
 |
 |
NeoPhono
Übermensch

Registered: Sep 2003
Location: In Orbit
|
|
|
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but in both Somalia and Yugoslavia, the US went in as "UN peacekeepers," not at US soldiers, per se.
The biggest problem with Somalia is that after the humanitarian goals had been achieved, the UN generals decided to start going after war lords, that's when all the bad stuff happened, and what eventually led to Clinton pulling US troops out of there. Afterwards, the remaining UN peacekeepers from other countries that remained also decided to pull out after their loss of American support.
As far as Yugoslavia is concerned, that was also initiated by UN actions. The US did try to get the Dayton peace accords, I believe unilaterally, but the inital push into Yugoslavia was by the UN. Now it is actually NATO that is in control of the peacekeepers that remain, not the US. Just thought I'd throw that in before Iraq gets groupped with those two events that were actually both initiated by the UN, not the US.
|
|
Jan-18-2004 11:13
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:36.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|