Did the UN fail?

[DAVOUT]

Vel, good pedagogy should not be ambiguous; in this case however I would think that the two possible understandings reflect the difficulty of the case.

[Velociryx]

Hey...I liked yours! I'll be curious to see what other interpretations come along...

-=Vel=-

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I like this one... however, i bet it's not going over very well with everyone.

'On Thursday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a Senate panel that the United Nations "can't be in charge." He suggested that Russia, France and Germany could contribute to postwar reconstruction by writing off Iraq's debts.'



and this... hahahahaha i pissed myself laughing at this one...

'Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Friday that Russia was hoping that the U.N. would play "the central role."

"The United Nations is endowed with unique powers that other international organizations do not have," said Ivanov, who was attending a meeting of foreign ministers from former Soviet republics in Tajikistan. "These powers are necessary to use in order to quickly find the route to normalizing the situation in Iraq."'



'endowed with unique powers that other international organizations do not have' ????

like who??? and what??? the UN is a bunch of f* ups. i think the last 3 months pretty much sums it all up - as far as how well the UN would do with iraq rebuilding.

[centrifuge]

I think that I took the Rabid dog story in the way that I believe Vel intended. It would seem at least from my perspective that there has been somewhat of a "forgive and forget" (mainly forget) mentality by a few members of the UNsc.
This dog has been rabid for a very long time, so it was necessary to have it put to sleep, not only because it has caused harm in the past, but so that it can't continue to cause harm.

...and now, those that refused to deal with the Rabid dog, want to have control over his back yard.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The UN will always be handicapped by the guff about sovreign nations being able to do what they want to their own people. Until a set of ideals and rights are agreed on and are enforceble the UN is always gonna have problems. Take Rwanda, the UN charter says that intervention is ok with genocide but anything below that is left to the country concerned, so what does the UN do, say that it isn't genocide. Mass murder of people whether genocidal or not should not be allowed to go on but the UN whilst saying that it shouldn't go on does nothing to stop it.

I am very glad that others are now seeing that the UN cannot succeed unless it has an ideology of good government. Democracy and the guarantee of human rights is the only acceptable ideology, IMHO. But we know that so long as most of the members, including some who are permanent members, are of the non democratic flavor, the UN cannot officially be in favor of democracy. So what are we to do with the UN?

But to think that we could turn Iraq over to the UN and get democracy is fantasy. The UN cannot impose a form of government on a people.

However, the US can and will.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The UN will always be handicapped by the guff about sovreign nations being able to do what they want to their own people. Until a set of ideals and rights are agreed on and are enforceble the UN is always gonna have problems. Take Rwanda, the UN charter says that intervention is ok with genocide but anything below that is left to the country concerned, so what does the UN do, say that it isn't genocide. Mass murder of people whether genocidal or not should not be allowed to go on but the UN whilst saying that it shouldn't go on does nothing to stop it.

Actually the UN's standards for intervention go way beyond just genocide. Read Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

[Velociryx]

"UN Standards"....isn't that like saying "Military Intelligence"?

-=Vel=-

[SlowwHand]

The U.N. will resemble the former U.S.S.R., no longer existing.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned


I am very glad that others are now seeing that the UN cannot succeed unless it has an ideology of good government. Democracy and the guarantee of human rights is the only acceptable ideology, IMHO. But we know that so long as most of the members, including some who are permanent members, are of the non democratic flavor, the UN cannot officially be in favor of democracy. So what are we to do with the UN?

But to think that we could turn Iraq over to the UN and get democracy is fantasy. The UN cannot impose a form of government on a people.

However, the US can and will.

Most of the UN members are actually democracies. I think I already explained that the UN does in fact promote democracy officially even if it is not explicity stated in the charter.

Also, consider that true liberty is allowing countries to choose their destiny. Hitler got to power democratically just in case you forgot. The OAS (kind of an American version of the UN) recently signed the "democratic charter" in which it stated more or less that democracy should be the only accepted form of government in the region (it was donde just to screw Cuba and Venezuela actually). Most countries signed it but there was a huge backlash by most peoples in these countries.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Velociryx
"UN Standards"....isn't that like saying "Military Intelligence"?

-=Vel=-

yeah, just like saying "Operation Iraqui Freedom" too right?

[SlowwHand]

[yavoon]

so ur saying the agreed upon "serious consequences" is that they will get another resolution? ur a joke, and the very fact that u think that proves howmuch of a joke the UN is.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by yavoon
so ur saying the agreed upon "serious consequences" is that they will get another resolution? ur a joke, and the very fact that u think that proves howmuch of a joke the UN is.

first go and take a lesson in diplomatic language and how the UN works, then come back and post something intelligent.

[yavoon]

isnt that at the heart of the problem tho? "how the UN works." I mean many ppl call it a useless organization and ur only proving their case w/ utter trash like that.

think about it, draft one resoultion, if u dont comply we will draft another resolution that might or might not permit us to declare war. doesnt comply.....france decides to veto resolution, point becomes moot, entire house of cards falls. UN is once again useless.

I mean dont make my pt for me too well.

[Master Zen]

The US knew all along how this worked. If they didn't, why did they draft up the 2nd resolution which never got voted on?