Has the UN failed?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ozz


Bit late then for Pakistan then are'nt ya.

*SNIP*

Pakistan isn't exactly threatening the US. If you've not noticed Musharraf and the White House have been awfully friendly lately.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ozz


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

and lets just avoid the topic at hand...

Machiavelli is just as relevant today as he was back in the day. Not much has changed in the nature of human discourse or diplomacy.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Pakistan isn't exactly threatening the US. If you've not noticed Musharraf and the White House have been awfully friendly lately.

Just like Saddam and the White house before and during
the Iraq/Iran war.

[MrBaggins]

Pakistan is now partially under the protection of US forces... due to its cooperation. They want the cooperation with the US, for economic and security reasons and might ultimately fully disarm, given a guarantee of US protection.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
and lets just avoid the topic at hand...

Machiavelli is just as relevant today as he was back in the day. Not much has changed in the nature of human discourse or diplomacy.

Err. Democracy, the French Revolution, Public education.

Italy wasn't a country until just before WW1. Couldn't
even with the Barbary pirates making slave raids on
the coasts of Italy.

So much for the genuis of Machiavelli, a recipe for chaos.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Pakistan is now partially under the protection of US forces... due to its cooperation. They want the cooperation with the US, for economic and security reasons and might ultimately fully disarm, given a guarantee of US protection.

ROFL

[MrBaggins]

which discredits him how?

His writings were seminal works on political philosophy.

[lord of the mark]

It would be well to keep seperate the 2 questions A> does the US have Casus belli if the UN fails to act 2. Is the UN a failure should it fail to act.

The US has the legal basis for action in this case, unique compared to the other situations under discussion, because the 1991 war (initiated as result of Iraqi aggression) was ended by a ceasefire conditional on Iraqi disarmament. Iraq having failed to disarm, the US and Iraq are again in a state of war, without respect to UNSC action.

This however does not establish that the UN is a failure for failing to deal with the Iraqi, problem. Or at least not for that reason alone. As has been pointed out, the development of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan, though a far different situation strategically, was also a problem the UNSC proved unable to deal with. As was argued in the quote i posted above, those claiming that failure of the UN to act now would be THE definitive failure of the UNSC as a security organization, have an unreasonably idealistic view of what the UNSC has ever been. Again the UNSC manifestly failed wrt to Kosovo and Rwanda. The UNSC (not just the specialized agencies) has value - as a place where some issues can be discussed profitably, as a basis for UN peacekeeping operations WHERE there is already a peace to keep, and for helping rebuild failed states. A failure now certainly lessens the value of the UNSC in US eyes, as far as addressing a problem like Iraq which the US sees not only as a problem to itself, but also to the region and the world. One cannot deny the right of other permanent member of the UNSC to judge differently from the US what a threat is - the way they have handled it, passing a resolution they did not take seriously, and making the US the issue rather than Iraq, has certainly impacted US views of the behaviour of certain permanent members. However this does not mean the US will not in the future participate in the UNSC, but that we may take a narrower view of what can be accomplished there, and how things occur there.

[Ned]

It's not that the U.N. will not act forcefully when the breach of international security is extreme as we saw in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, but it is clear that the U.N. will never authorize use of force when only the U.S. and some of its allies national interests are at stake. It appears rather that the U.N. wants to remain "neutral" on international disputes involving United States.

Obviously, opponents of the US will take heart. As well, the US will take heed.

[Odin]

The UN only works if there are 2 or more super-powers to keep each other's power in check. If a super-power dosen' comply with a UNSC resolution the other super-powers will work with member nations to get the other super-power to comply.

[Drake Tungsten]

The UN only works if there are 2 or more super-powers to keep each other's power in check.

Bull****. The UN was effectively paralyzed during the Cold War because the 2 superpowers vetoed each other's initiatives. The collapse of the Soviet Union gave the UN a new lease on life, but it seems like the French are willing to throw that away...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ozz


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

Machiavelli=

Machiavelli was a product of his times, and he wrote using historical examples. You think he created the Italy of his times?