Has the UN failed?

[lord of the mark]

something from oxblog on this topic

"First of all, I'd like to inject a dose or reality into conservative dreams and liberal nightmares about an unauthorized war with Iraq crippling of the United Nations. The past six months have made clear just how much the UN matters to Europe. 1441 played a critical role in persuading almost all of Europe's governments to support the United States.

If the US goes to war over a French and/or Russian veto, that will show that the French and Russian vetos are worthless, not that the UN is irrelevant.

As for "the system of collective security" that the NYT is so fond of, might I ask to whom it has provided security? I believe that the UN plays a critical role in international politics, but providing security is not something that it has ever been able to do. Ask the Bosnians. Ask the Kosovars. Ask the Rwandans. What the UN does do is help rebuild nations after dictators have wrecked them and/or the United States has overthrown those dictators with force."


I think this opinion makes sense.

[gunkulator]

Would you like to justify Saddam having WMD?

Can they reach us? No. Has Saddam been successfully contained for 12 years? Yes. Is there really a Clear and Present Danger to US? No. IMO, the first to use WMD in the region will be the embattled Israelis.

Still, if the US's primary concern was to control oil, then installing a military junta in Kuwait in the name of security, would have surely been the most beneficial financial outcome

At the cost of losing all our allies not only the ME, but many other places. If we refused to reinstall the Kuwaiti royals, what kind of message would that send to the Saudis? Losing our interests in SA is too big a risk.

but don't these Arabs realize that the SUV drivers are keeping them and their harems in the manner to which they are accustomed?

It's a tricky game they have to play. The amazing thing about SA given all the fundamentalism there is that it is still a monarchy and not a theocracy. The lesson of Iran is all too real for the royals in SA: Get too close to the Great Satan and we'll depose you.

Why, however, put money into an unstable region, if you don't have to? Its not like their aren't better bets in the world.

To quote the Onceler from Dr. Suess: If I didn't do it then someone else would.

There is a limited amount of captial to invest. Emerging technologies... like fuel cells and emerging markets like Canada offer better AND (more important) more stable returns.

Technology investments do not typically provide stable returns. Also right now with interest rates at an all time low, there are ridiculous amounts of investment capital around.

Any investment in the ME is unstable by the nature of the region.

Not true. Except for a brief time in the 70's OPEC has been more than happy to provide our petroleum needs.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins India, NK and Pakistan haven't but they aren't destablising US Strategic concerns.

Israel would never disseminate nuclear devices, particularly to neighbors/terrorists.

Bingo!!!

US Strategic concerns are uneffected so it's OK. The US
and the UN can ignore it. Right the whole of Kashmir is
a powderkeg.

Where do you think Israel got the tech from to become
a nuclear power in less that 20 years?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ozz
Where do you think Israel got the tech from to become
a nuclear power in less that 20 years?

Sameplace as Iraq, France.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Sameplace as Iraq, France.

Same as India, France. again. But its not cheap, the
US paid for it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ozz
But its not cheap, the
US paid for it.

We paid the French to proliferate nuclear technology?

[Jack_www]

I really do think the UN is useless. They only things they do right is giving out humantrian aid and helping people in the thrid world. As far as prevent wars and such, the UN can never gets its act togather fast enought to act. Also they never can agree on anything. And even when they are able by some mircle to send peace keeping troops to a hotzone while the conflict is still ongoing, the troops dont do anything to protect people or stop mass killings. Some times the troops themselfs join in. So with all things I dont think the UN will ever be usefull for peace.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Can they reach us? No. Has Saddam been successfully contained for 12 years? Yes. Is there really a Clear and Present Danger to US? No. IMO, the first to use WMD in the region will be the embattled Israelis.

They can reach us... yes... witness the 1993 WTC bombing. So... yes, they are a clear and present danger. They can also use WMD's to blackmail other nations, like Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, given half a chance.

At the cost of losing all our allies not only the ME, but many other places. If we refused to reinstall the Kuwaiti royals, what kind of message would that send to the Saudis? Losing our interests in SA is too big a risk.

The only significant reason we are allied with SA, is to ensure good oil supply. If we owned our own oil rich state, then it would be irrelevent whether the Saudi's liked it or not. So what if they don't sell us oil... or that OPEC won't sell us oil? We would have more than enough oil, under our thumb.

*snip*
To quote the Onceler from Dr. Suess: If I didn't do it then someone else would.

and someone else is about to lose their shirt, due to a regime change in Iraq.

Technology investments do not typically provide stable returns. Also right now with interest rates at an all time low, there are ridiculous amounts of investment capital around.

Very little of which is being exported to foreign projects right now.

Not true. Except for a brief time in the 70's OPEC has been more than happy to provide our petroleum needs.

Them being happy to supply us with oil for cash, is not the same thing as it being wise to invest in capital projects in countries where the regime may not be stable... like, say... Iraq.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We paid the French to proliferate nuclear technology?

The Israelis couldn't have afforded both a nuclear
program and a large enough conventional force to
take on the Arabs without large injections of cash
and weapons. I believe the US is still supplying them.

If the US didn't want a nuclear Israel, they could have
just pulled the plug.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ozz

Bingo!!!

US Strategic concerns are uneffected so it's OK. The US
and the UN can ignore it. Right the whole of Kashmir is
a powderkeg.

*SNIP*

Absolutely. The US should be prepared to go to war to protect US Strategic Concerns. I'd expect nothing else.

Whether the world agrees doesn't matter one little bit.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Absolutely. The US should be prepared to go to war to protect US Strategic Concerns. I'd expect nothing else.

Whether the world agrees doesn't matter one little bit.

Exactly the attitude that has the rest of the world thinking the US maybe is just a thug after the oil.

[MrBaggins]

Explain why the US shouldn't preserve US Strategic concerns, then? Because it might be viewed as a bully?

I'd rather be labeled a bully than let an 'off the reservation dictator' have nuclear weapons and biological weapons, thanks very much.

[MrBaggins]

As a side topic, consider....

"Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared"
(The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli)

In this case... its better to be feared... Islamic Extremists simply don't understand the 'live and let live' principal... so why try and be popular?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
I'd rather be labeled a bully than let an 'off the reservation dictator' have nuclear weapons and biological weapons, thanks very much.

Bit late then for Pakistan then are'nt ya.

"off the reservation?" Don't like North America Indians?

You should try out for the lead if they ever do a remake
of All in the Family, your a natural.

Mr Baggins? I think Mr Bunker is closer to the truth.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
As a side topic, consider....

"Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared"
(The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli)

Machiavelli and his kind made and kept Italy a total
basketcase until almost the 1900's.

Machiavelli=