|
The Destabilization of the Korean Peninsula (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Cyrus King |
| Listen...i know of this book, and it is like beleiving everyhtiung Nostradamus has predicted....give me a break... no book can ever tell the future....There is no set future in our demension of reality. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJBARON
who wrote the bible? |
People from various cultures whose works and ideas ended up scrambled together in a single book known as the Bible written by several self proclaimed prophets. |
|
|
| occrider |
| In retrospect, I wouldn't worry about the whole Korea thing ... I mean, we do have the UN to resolve and avoid any crises that develop! And they are ALWAYS on the ball! And considering their staggering omnipotence in forseeing developing crises I'm sure they're doing SOMETHING to mitigate any future hostilities, right? Right? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
In retrospect, I wouldn't worry about the whole Korea thing ... I mean, we do have the UN to resolve and avoid any crises that develop! And they are ALWAYS on the ball! And considering their staggering omnipotence in forseeing developing crises I'm sure they're doing SOMETHING to mitigate any future hostilities, right? Right? |
The UN is only as strong as it's leading members want it to be. It is not the world ubergovernment, it is a joint project of all the nations in the world to have a single council where the differences are to be resolved, and therefore it does rely upon the good will of major powers, especailly the US to function properly. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
The UN is only as strong as it's leading members want it to be. It is not the world ubergovernment, it is a joint project of all the nations in the world to have a single council where the differences are to be resolved, and therefore it does rely upon the good will of major powers, especailly the US to function properly. |
Ok, so what has kofi annan said about Korea? How is the US inhibiting in any way the UN's efforts to ward off a crisis in Korea? The UN never proactively does anything to prevent crises, they only step in to react after the crises have occurred, much often after all the damage has been done, and therefore at a position of weaknesses. So, I'm still waiting for UN pressure to bear down on N. Korea after all these threats. Is the US, Japan, China, and S. Korea the only states concerned about their threats? It certainly appears to be as no other nation seemingly cares to speak up. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Well, for the UN to get involved, a member country should ask it to do so. But what can the UN do in this situation anyway except to support negotiations that are already taking place? Besides, US is a member of the security council, it may well ask for economic sanctions or something like that. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, for the UN to get involved, a member country should ask it to do so. But what can the UN do in this situation anyway except to support negotiations that are already taking place? Besides, US is a member of the security council, it may well ask for economic sanctions or something like that. |
Well the UN could start with a global trade embargo, backed by a global flotilla....
Or then again if that doesn't work it could also authorize an attack on the NK recator's by the Americans, and responde in diplomatic wording that the UN would have no problem if the US would nuke NK if they aggrevated the conflict.
I think that would be its proper function. Just with a UN threat of accepting a nuclear attack as reciprical for the elevation of conflict, you will have a very good threat, and very small risk you would actually have to use them (which nobody wants...).
Oh wait.. sorry, we were talking about the UN right? I must of had to much to drink.. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Well the UN could start with a global trade embargo, backed by a global flotilla....
Or then again if that doesn't work it could also authorize an attack on the NK recator's by the Americans, and responde in diplomatic wording that the UN would have no problem if the US would nuke NK if they aggrevated the conflict.
I think that would be its proper function. Just with a UN threat of accepting a nuclear attack as reciprical for the elevation of conflict, you will have a very good threat, and very small risk you would actually have to use them (which nobody wants...).
Oh wait.. sorry, we were talking about the UN right? I must of had to much to drink.. |
Let's see what would be more effective ... A UN resolution condeming North Korea's actions and bringing the entire weight of the world down on its shoulders with a possible embargo? Or the US, China, Japan, S. Korea, and Russia trying desperately to avoid a nuclear N. Korea? Oh yea, the latter because the former would never happen ... |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Well, for the UN to be functional its member states must agree with what it says. Since the primary UN nation blatanltly showed it doesn't care at all about the UN opinion, how can you expect UN to still have the authority of telling its member countries what to do? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, for the UN to be functional its member states must agree with what it says. Since the primary UN nation blatanltly showed it doesn't care at all about the UN opinion, how can you expect UN to still have the authority of telling its member countries what to do? |
Ah, and why do you think the primary UN nation doesn't care about its opinions? The UN has been committed to inaction since its inception. It's inevitable that over time, its members begin to consider it an ineffective, bureaucratic institution. Perhaps if it actually took measured, proactive steps in situations such as this (and actually grew a backbone) its member states wouldn't regard it as an obsolete organization.
Edit: This reminds me of U Thant's decision to immediately remove the UNEF from the Sinai. Yes great foresight there in avoiding war. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Ah, and why do you think the primary UN nation doesn't care about its opinions? The UN has been committed to inaction since its inception. It's inevitable that over time, its members begin to consider it an ineffective, bureaucratic institution. Perhaps if it actually took measured, proactive steps in situations such as this (and actually grew a backbone) its member states wouldn't regard it as an obsolete organization.
Edit: This reminds me of U Thant's decision to immediately remove the UNEF from the Sinai. Yes great foresight there in avoiding war. |
Ok, so let's examine the UN decision of being opposed to the war in Iraq, and more so the results of the war. No WMD's have been found, people of the country are far worse off than they were before, the american temporary government is unable to stop violence and terrorist attacks. Even more worrying is that fundamentalist organizations are thriving more and more each day. Considering the fact that shiites are a majority in Iraq, and that they're not quite a secular bunch, it is very likely Iraq will turn into an Iran-like state sooner or later. All the events point to the war as being a complete failure. UN made the right decision in being opposed to it in the first place. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Ok, so let's examine the UN decision of being opposed to the war in Iraq, and more so the results of the war. No WMD's have been found, people of the country are far worse off than they were before, the american temporary government is unable to stop violence and terrorist attacks. Even more worrying is that fundamentalist organizations are thriving more and more each day. Considering the fact that shiites are a majority in Iraq, and that they're not quite a secular bunch, it is very likely Iraq will turn into an Iran-like state sooner or later. All the events point to the war as being a complete failure. UN made the right decision in being opposed to it in the first place. |
I'm not speaking with respect to the most recent UN decision. I'm talking about the long term history of the UN. The UN is nothing more than the League of Nations with more countries and a more modern name. Simply because it made the "right" decision with respects to this most recent event does not validate it as an effective institution historically or in the present. |
|
|
|
|
