Did the UN fail?

[yavoon]

they drafted it up in hopes of it passing, they didnt have it voted on cuz they knew that it would be veto'd. some might say that they didnt put it up to be vetoed cuz they didnt have the 9 votes.

some might also say they didnt put it up cuz they had a resolution that wasn't being complied w/, and if they failed to pass a new one(the vetos) it would hurt the legitimacy of acting on 1441.

the US had no good faith in dealing w/ the UN never has. doesn't make the UN any less inept. and doesn't make france/russia/china's faith ne more noble.

[Velociryx]

Zen....too soon to say 'bout "Operation Iraqui Freedom" I'd say.

As to the rest...not much point in putting the second resolution up for a vote when a veto-holding member says he'll veto ANY second resolution.

Sorta takes the sting out of your interpretation of "Serious Consequences" too, don't it?

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Most of the UN members are actually democracies.

Good, the trend is favorable. But will you agree that there is at least one permanent member that continues with one-party rule?

I think I already explained that the UN does in fact promote democracy officially even if it is not explicity stated in the charter. [

Did the UN ever insist on a democratic Iraq, a democratic Palestine, a democratic Vietnam?

However I will concede that the effort to promote human rights indirectly promotes democracy.

Also, consider that true liberty is allowing countries to choose their destiny. Hitler got to power democratically just in case you forgot.

How can the world ever forget Hitler?

Even though Hitler and his party were democratically "elected" (I believe that Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg), Germany turned into a one-party police state. I do not think that we must accept brutal one-party police states if they get into power through democratic processes. I think rather that we must oppose them and depose them in the name of humanity and a human rights. One such a party is in power, it subverts democracy such that it continues to exist in name only. We know this from too many examples in history.

Castro continues to exist solely because of the deal Kennedy made with Khrushchev to end the Cuban missile crisis. I only hope that Kennedy's deal extended only to Castro personally and that when he is gone we can install democracy in Cuba.

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.

Backlash by the peoples? Hah! We all know the communist party was probably behind those demonstrations.

The contest of ideology continues. Democracy is winning. But, communism on the left, and fascists (Iraq/Syria) and theocracies (Iran) on the right continue to fight.

I believe the tide turned in favor of democracy with the election of Thatcher and Reagan. It has blossomed mightily with the elevation of Blair, Clinton and Bush II.

[SlowwHand]

"Backlash by the peoples? Hah! We all know the communist party was probably behind those demonstrations."

Bingo. Just ask Che.

The U.N. failed as miserably as a condom with a hole in it.

[Ned]

Vel, I really liked your screenplay.

One definition of insanity includes doing the same thing repeatedly with the expectation that the next time you do it to you will succeed.

While this is slightly off-topic here, I note that communism continues to have adherents even though all prior examples of communism are failures and even though virtually all examples of democracies are successes.

[gsmoove23]

Yeah, Reagan a champion of democracy. How many dictatorships around the world did he and the American government before and after him prop up. Sorry, America has historically only been a real champion of democracy within its own borders. Outside its successes are negated by its failures. It has no moral high ground to stand on, certainly not in regard to the UN. (we were supporting Iraq under Reagan)

[Ned]

Gsmoove, you forget the cold war. Reagan helped drive the USSR into the ashcan of history thereby freeing hundreds of millions of people from cruel oppression.

[Sandman]

The UN partially failed, but at least kept it's legitimacy in the eyes of the world by not rubberstamping America's war.

[Velociryx]

Thank ya, Ned...and Amen to that re: your dead-on comment on Communism!

-=Vel=-

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ned
Gsmoove, you forget the cold war. Reagan helped drive the USSR into the ashcan of history thereby freeing hundreds of millions of people from cruel oppression.

I don't remember freeing people from cruel oppression. The struggling new "democracies" are certainly not free of cruel oppression yet. However capitalist could sigh with relief and McDonalds is currently invading Moscow.

The cold war was more about capitalism then anything else and during it we would cheerily prop up the worst dictators just as long as they weren't the least bit red.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned
Gsmoove, you forget the cold war. Reagan helped drive the USSR into the ashcan of history thereby freeing hundreds of millions of people from cruel oppression.

Why do you insist in thinking the US does everything to promote democracy? The US did everything to defeat the USSR as a rival superpower, a challenge to its own supremacy, not to save those people from dictatorship!!!

Just how many dictators did the US support during the Cold War??? That is proof enough of the true intentions of the US. The US might promote democracy in itself, it has been far from willing to do the same abroad.

[Velociryx]

Welcome back Zen....no snappy answer to my question?

And you're right. In the ideological struggle against Communism, we did a number of things not to be proud of. Now that that struggle has ended, perhaps we can come closer to living up to the ideals we were founded on.

Good thing we were founded on ideals then, as opposed to something silly, like say....the divine right of Kings, or the iron will of a dictator, eh?

-=Vel=-

[Master Zen]

Didn't see your post so here goes:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Zen....too soon to say 'bout "Operation Iraqui Freedom" I'd say.

Once again, was the main intent of that operation to free the iraqui people or just a side-effect? Think clearly about it.

As to the rest...not much point in putting the second resolution up for a vote when a veto-holding member says he'll veto ANY second resolution.

Sorta takes the sting out of your interpretation of "Serious Consequences" too, don't it?

-=Vel=-

My interpretation? I did not write that resolution. I'm telling you as it is, it's not an interpretation that I'm making up. The reason for not stating outright that war was going to be used is because France and others could have vetoed it from the start. The use of the phrase "serious consequencies" was the trade-off off getting the resolution passed unanimously, nothing else.

Plus, you need a resolution to say that you have been in breach of another. Nothing the SC says counts unless it is in writing, and the only way to do this is by making another resolution. This is pretty logical and easy to understand. Nothing about having a 2nd resolution then should be such a surprise but as I have said, not many people apparently know how the UN works.

[GePap]

IN 1975 NOrth Vietnam invaded its neighbor South Vietnam and annexed it.
In 1979 Vietnam invaed its neighbor Kampuchea and overthrew its government and installed a proxy government.

The successor of that government is still in power.

By your extremely simplified thinking Vel, Vietnam is a dangerous threat to its neighbors...why? Becuase the communist government of vietnam has invaded it neighbors in the past. But the fact is Vel, that your simplified method of thinking is wrong. The real world is not a fable, nor is it a playground writ large. It is a deeply complex place win which many variable lead to actions.

You constantly ignore any argument about, you know, examining why Saddam invaded Iran in 1980, and then Kuwait in 1990. For you, the reasons why are irrelevant, but for me they are not. Saddam had a reason to invade Iran in 1980, and that person at the fence, be it the US or Europe, allowed him to go on, enocuraged him and helped him then..becuase they feared Iran more. You constantly ignore that, but I won't.

Your argunment is built entirely on shallow and simplistic sound bites, devoid of deeper understanding or reason. They are a smug facade, a Potemkin village of an "intelligent argument".

Now, for those that keep *****ing about the UN:

Grow UP. The name is United nations, not United peolples, not united democracies, no, United NATIONS. It does not have the power to overrule the decsions of the great power, simply because the great powers would never allow it. You guys complain that the UN odes not intervene in this war and that war, well, Master Zen has already made it obvious why..because the great power won't let in interfere when they are involved, and won;t back serious action in some other wars because for the UN to act, somone has to put up troops since the UN has none, and that means incurring costs to end suffering elsewhere.

In short your arguments against the UN are basically hypocritical circles. You think the UN failed cause it is powerless, but you are uttelry unwilling to give it power. Well, choose: do you want a UN with the power to act? or no UN at all? My guess is you guys want and end to any notion of collective security worldwide.

[Master Zen]

Very well put GePap

STEEEERIKE THREE... YER OUT!

If find these arguments to be similar to the ones the war party says about the peaceniks: you blame the US for acting up and also when it does nothing. You people are using the same arguments: UN doesn't do enough, yet we don't want to give it enough power.