The UN is becoming more stupid by the day.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sandman


Having the history, capability and the will to use force also does not lead to security.



They are also extraordinarily effective at giving non-aggressive nations pause, and are also extraordinarily effective in the hands of aggressive nations. If they are so effective, why are you still launching them?

umm this isnt even a rebuttal. u've obviously ran out of points. u can't get over that sometimes the peace needs enforcing. and as the UN has made abundantly clear and as I will repeat for the 4th? time. the UN has neither the history, will or capability to use the force neccessary to keep the peace.

and I don't understand ur last sentence in the slightest. maybe it should be, "if they are so effective why dont we build more?"

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by yavoon


umm this isnt even a rebuttal. u've obviously ran out of points. u can't get over that sometimes the peace needs enforcing. and as the UN has made abundantly clear and as I will repeat for the 4th? time. the UN has neither the history, will or capability to use the force neccessary to keep the peace.

This is perhaps the most worrying part of the UN bashers. They're serious about quitting, about every state out for it's own again, with no forum for debate and decision making outside of the Bilderberg group.

You want a safer place to live? Cos that isn't the way...

The UN may be a hamstrung, beaureaucratic peice of junk - fixing it makes more sense than ditching it.

Put it another way - how many world wars since the UNs been operational?

Do you WANT to glow in the dark?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Cruddy


This is perhaps the most worrying part of the UN bashers. They're serious about quitting, about every state out for it's own again, with no forum for debate and decision making outside of the Bilderberg group.

You want a safer place to live? Cos that isn't the way...

The UN may be a hamstrung, beaureaucratic peice of junk - fixing it makes more sense than ditching it.

Put it another way - how many world wars since the UNs been operational?

Do you WANT to glow in the dark?

the UN was not the cog in the cold war. nato was. and while I didn't explicitly say it I suppose you are inferring it from my other opinions.

I am not saying ditch the UN instantly. but I am beginning to wonder if the price we pay to the UN+ the sovereignty we give up to the UN is worth it.

if I left the UN(as the US). I would still work jointly w/ them on goals, but I would remove their ability to encroach on my sovereignty.

[Cruddy]

Well, fair enough Yavoon - I've got no problem with people questioning the UN, or trying to improve it, or otherwise feeling uncomfortable with it.

Fact is, it has done a lot of good for a lot of people. I hope it can do a lot more and act as an alternative to war.

If it can't - well, there's no harm in trying, is there?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Cruddy
Well, fair enough Yavoon - I've got no problem with people questioning the UN, or trying to improve it, or otherwise feeling uncomfortable with it.

Fact is, it has done a lot of good for a lot of people. I hope it can do a lot more and act as an alternative to war.

If it can't - well, there's no harm in trying, is there?

there are some unilateral goals that the UN can do.

remove landmines

lower the mortality rate in africa so we have larger #'s of starving people(no skepticism here!).

maybe even troops in africa. since I imagine only two camps concerning africa, ppl who don't care and ppl who know its a craphole.

maybe even disaster relief, tho it hasn't proven that great in tempering the difference between disaster relief and just a nation thats fundamentally screwed up.

[Sandman]

umm this isnt even a rebuttal. u've obviously ran out of points. u can't get over that sometimes the peace needs enforcing. and as the UN has made abundantly clear and as I will repeat for the 4th? time. the UN has neither the history, will or capability to use the force neccessary to keep the peace.

How do you explain:

The thousands of peacekeepers on duty around the world, the constant attempts to negotiate peace settlements, the attempts to control the proliferation of weaponry and the fact that we're not piles of radioactive sludge?

Since you're using big words like rebuttal, I expect you to explain what all the peacekeepers are doing in various warzones around the world, and how it shows that they don't have the will or capability.

and I don't understand ur last sentence in the slightest. maybe it should be, "if they are so effective why dont we build more?"

When something is "extraordinarily effective", you need fewer of them to do the job. It's elementary common sense.

[GePap]

Hmmm, lets see, with a name like the United Nations, whom do you think would be in it? Could it perhaps be the vast plurality of all states in the world today? Yes, I think so...hmm, and some of them are not dmeocracies right? Yup..and decisions are made by vote, which means people can vote for whatever they want, no? Yup?

Oh so of course this is a completey unexpected event..



If we scrap the UN, lets replace it with the New World Order one government..then lets see people complain about ineffectiveness...

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sandman


How do you explain:

The thousands of peacekeepers on duty around the world, the constant attempts to negotiate peace settlements, the attempts to control the proliferation of weaponry and the fact that we're not piles of radioactive sludge?

Since you're using big words like rebuttal, I expect you to explain what all the peacekeepers are doing in various warzones around the world, and how it shows that they don't have the will or capability.



When something is "extraordinarily effective", you need fewer of them to do the job. It's elementary common sense.

exactly what you said. they are peacekeepers, police w/ bigger guns. the United States has an actual military. and you need that sometimes. sure if u wanna try to patrol the streets of some horrifically third world nation w/ a few thousand troops to satisfy bleeding hearts in the western world thats all nice n good.

but can u keep china out of taiwan? could u have removed saddam from kuwait? could u keep Israel from being ethnically cleansed? What kind of leverage does the arsenal of the UN posess in relation to places like north korea?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sandman


When something is "extraordinarily effective", you need fewer of them to do the job. It's elementary common sense.

didn't see your last sentence. ur tripping a lil on logic there though. ur assuming 12 is enuff to do the job. maybe we actually need 20, or some equivalent monetary expenditure(not all on carriers). and that 12 is merely doing our best to fulfill our needs given our constraints.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Cruddy


This is perhaps the most worrying part of the UN bashers. They're serious about quitting, about every state out for it's own again, with no forum for debate and decision making outside of the Bilderberg group.

You want a safer place to live? Cos that isn't the way...

The UN may be a hamstrung, beaureaucratic peice of junk - fixing it makes more sense than ditching it.

Put it another way - how many world wars since the UNs been operational?

Do you WANT to glow in the dark?

Typical Euro love of process over content.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh so of course this is a completey unexpected event..

Personally I got more of a kick out of Iraq being tapped to head the UN Conference on Disarmament.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by TCO


Typical Euro love of process over content.

Stereotyping 8itch aren't you?

Well, let's here it for how the US made the world a safer place...

Over to you TCO. Let's here how ditching the UN, ignoring the wishes of anyone but the ruling US admin, is going to keep the radiation level down.

You up for explaining that? Any fool can criticize, it takes a bit more smarts than you've got to come up with something better.

Chat tomorrow about it.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Stereotyping 8itch aren't you?

Well, let's here it for how the US made the world a safer place...

Over to you TCO. Let's here how ditching the UN, ignoring the wishes of anyone but the ruling US admin, is going to keep the radiation level down.

You up for explaining that? Any fool can criticize, it takes a bit more smarts than you've got to come up with something better.

Chat tomorrow about it.

The stereotype has a grain of truth. And you fit it well. Love of process and appearance over substance.

[TCO]

And it is not up to me to "show that the US makes the world better." You are like a little baby who sees fault in a parent and equates it with reall evil.

[Cruddy]

No, you are not up to it. I knew you weren't, just wanted your own words to damn you.

You're great at slagging opposition - but when it comes to presenting facts to back up your case, you really are Mr Hector Blowhard, aren't you?

Guess some folks really do want to glow in the dark.