War in the Middle East?

[DonBilly]

Originally posted by Ripper@Jul 28 2006, 04:03 AM
I for one hope that Israel bomb the UN some more... what the hell has the UN done for the world?

Come on Ripper! What is the UNO according to you? Is it kind of exogene organization just fallen from Mars?

It is made of the vast majority of the nations of this planet, so they do what the nations eventually agree on what they (the UNO) must do. No more no less. You remind me this antic tradition which was to kill the messenger who had carried a bad news...

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by DonBilly+Jul 28 2006, 03:35 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ripper

@Jul 28 2006, 04:03 AM
I for one hope that Israel bomb the UN some more... what the hell has the UN done for the world?

Come on Ripper! What is the UNO according to you? Is it kind of exogene organization just fallen from Mars?

It is made of the vast majority of the nations of this planet, so they do what the nations eventually agree on what they (the UNO) must do. No more no less. You remind me this antic tradition which was to kill the messenger who had carried a bad news... [/b]

That still doesn't answer my question...

What has the UN done for the world?

The League of Nations had the majority of the world at the time as members, and had nations doing the same sort of useless junk, does that mean it was a good thing?

 

[..::ERIC::..]

If only captain planet could see you now ripper...

 

[DonBilly]

Originally posted by Ripper+Jul 28 2006, 04:45 AM-->

Originally posted by DonBilly@Jul 28 2006, 03:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Ripper

@Jul 28 2006, 04:03 AM
I for one hope that Israel bomb the UN some more... what the hell has the UN done for the world?

Come on Ripper! What is the UNO according to you? Is it kind of exogene organization just fallen from Mars?

It is made of the vast majority of the nations of this planet, so they do what the nations eventually agree on what they (the UNO) must do. No more no less. You remind me this antic tradition which was to kill the messenger who had carried a bad news...

That still doesn't answer my question...

What has the UN done for the world?

The League of Nations had the majority of the world at the time as members, and had nations doing the same sort of useless junk, does that mean it was a good thing? [/b]

You don't know what the UNO encompass, many organizations such as the UNESCO, the UIT, the IEC, UNICEF, etc. are agencies or administration reporting to the UN and they are generally considered useful to all.

Your question is a complaint in disguise, my point is that it's not about the UN you should complain but on the nations of this world which disagree, that's all. You're missing the right target. A bit like complaining about a car going to fast and not about the driver of this car.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by Ripper@Jul 28 2006, 02:03 PM
I for one hope that Israel bomb the UN some more... what the hell has the UN done for the world?

The UN themselves don't necessarily have an awful lot of power to prevent catastophies, but what they provide is a forum in which states can readily air their issues and as such have helped provide us with what has been termed a more "mature anarchy" in international relations. They also provide the necessary frameworks with which countries can (although it's far from foolproof) use to solve their differences diplomatically.

Just while we're on the topic though, how many people know that the UN was originally supposed to have a massive standing army that encompassed 10% of every member states military? It was under the banner of 'collective security', but essentially failed to stand because larger nations such as the US, France UK the Soviets etc were all put off by the idea that a massive international military force would be in a position to attack them were they to ever find it necessary to break any significant treaty laws.

 

[DonBilly]

Originally posted by sanzar+Jul 28 2006, 05:05 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ripper

@Jul 28 2006, 02:03 PM
I for one hope that Israel bomb the UN some more... what the hell has the UN done for the world?

The UN themselves don't necessarily have an awful lot of power to prevent catastophies, but what they provide is a forum in which states can readily air their issues and as such have helped provide us with what has been termed a more "mature anarchy" in international relations. They also provide the necessary frameworks with which countries can (although it's far from foolproof) use to solve their differences diplomatically.

Just while we're on the topic though, how many people know that the UN was originally supposed to have a massive standing army that encompassed 10% of every member states military? It was under the banner of 'collective security', but essentially failed to stand because larger nations such as the US, France UK the Soviets etc were all put off by the idea that a massive international military force would be in a position to attack them were they to ever find it necessary to break any significant treaty laws. [/b]

Are you sure of this last comment? As far as I know all these countries are ine the security council whit a veto right and such an army cannot intervene without a positive decision of the security council so with their veto rights they would block any decision against themselves like they do nowadays by the way.

UN cannot send any army to enforce UN decison in Israel or in Lebanon because either the US or Russia or China will oppose their veto.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by DonBilly+Jul 28 2006, 03:36 PM-->

Originally posted by sanzar@Jul 28 2006, 05:05 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Ripper

@Jul 28 2006, 02:03 PM
I for one hope that Israel bomb the UN some more... what the hell has the UN done for the world?

The UN themselves don't necessarily have an awful lot of power to prevent catastophies, but what they provide is a forum in which states can readily air their issues and as such have helped provide us with what has been termed a more "mature anarchy" in international relations. They also provide the necessary frameworks with which countries can (although it's far from foolproof) use to solve their differences diplomatically.

Just while we're on the topic though, how many people know that the UN was originally supposed to have a massive standing army that encompassed 10% of every member states military? It was under the banner of 'collective security', but essentially failed to stand because larger nations such as the US, France UK the Soviets etc were all put off by the idea that a massive international military force would be in a position to attack them were they to ever find it necessary to break any significant treaty laws.

Are you sure of this last comment? As far as I know all these countries are ine the security council whit a veto right and such an army cannot intervene without a positive decision of the security council so with their veto rights they would block any decision against themselves like they do nowadays by the way.

UN cannot send any army to enforce UN decison in Israel or in Lebanon because either the US or Russia or China will oppose their veto. [/b]

Yeah, they are the 5 UNSC members (althought I didn't mention China), but the concept I have mentioned (if I remember which text book I read it from I'll tell you) was one discussed before the SC was set in stone. Anyway the proposition never got very far because of the obvious conflict of interest with so many countries individual national interests.

Anyway, I just wanted people to keep that point in mind when they sit their *****ing about the ineffectiveness of the UN.

 

[sanzar]

Just as an addition, originally the UN was supposed to multilaterally attack (as the last resort) ANY country that used force for any other reason than as a retaliatory attack, and in which case the UN forces would be there to help THEM.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by sanzar+Jul 28 2006, 04:41 PM-->

Originally posted by DonBilly@Jul 28 2006, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by sanzar@Jul 28 2006, 05:05 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Ripper

@Jul 28 2006, 02:03 PM
I for one hope that Israel bomb the UN some more... what the hell has the UN done for the world?

The UN themselves don't necessarily have an awful lot of power to prevent catastophies, but what they provide is a forum in which states can readily air their issues and as such have helped provide us with what has been termed a more "mature anarchy" in international relations. They also provide the necessary frameworks with which countries can (although it's far from foolproof) use to solve their differences diplomatically.

Just while we're on the topic though, how many people know that the UN was originally supposed to have a massive standing army that encompassed 10% of every member states military? It was under the banner of 'collective security', but essentially failed to stand because larger nations such as the US, France UK the Soviets etc were all put off by the idea that a massive international military force would be in a position to attack them were they to ever find it necessary to break any significant treaty laws.

Are you sure of this last comment? As far as I know all these countries are ine the security council whit a veto right and such an army cannot intervene without a positive decision of the security council so with their veto rights they would block any decision against themselves like they do nowadays by the way.

UN cannot send any army to enforce UN decison in Israel or in Lebanon because either the US or Russia or China will oppose their veto.

Yeah, they are the 5 UNSC members (althought I didn't mention China), but the concept I have mentioned (if I remember which text book I read it from I'll tell you) was one discussed before the SC was set in stone. Anyway the proposition never got very far because of the obvious conflict of interest with so many countries individual national interests.

Anyway, I just wanted people to keep that point in mind when they sit their *****ing about the ineffectiveness of the UN. [/b]

Huh... all you've done is shown a UN Failure/Weakness and I assume your trying to promote your corrupt, powerless organisation you beatniks are so in love with.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SAN "I hate every First World Country" ZAR)</div>

Just as an addition, originally the UN was supposed to multilaterally attack (as the last resort) ANY country that used force for any other reason than as a retaliatory attack, and in which case the UN forces would be there to help THEM. [/b]

So in theory, all the members of the UN should be invading America, Australia, the UK and Palau as we speak?

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by Ripper@Jul 28 2006, 04:57 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SAN "I hate every First World Country" ZAR)

Just as an addition, originally the UN was supposed to multilaterally attack (as the last resort) ANY country that used force for any other reason than as a retaliatory attack, and in which case the UN forces would be there to help THEM.

So in theory, all the members of the UN should be invading America, Australia, the UK and Palau as we speak? [/b][/quote]
Wow! You're quicker than I gave you credit for!

It's just a reminder that the actions of states, when relating to the use of force, are almost NEVER connected to the fuzzy wuzzy moral crap they pretend it does... I know you blind Bush backers like to pretend that there is some imaginary moral devide and that we're on the side of the 'goodies' against the evil 'baddies', but there isn't. There are a whole bunch of countries and other actors out there looking to secure their interests by whatever means will be most effective for them and which will result in the greatest gains. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[DonBilly]

Huh... all you've done is shown a UN Failure/Weakness and I assume your trying to promote your corrupt, powerless organisation you beatniks are so in love with.[/b]

Again UN fails because the nations which drive it fail. As far as I know I've not seen promotion in what has been written above, rather neutral actually.

 

[St Helens RLFC]

The UN are the biggest waste of time since the League of Nations. Classless, clueless, toothless.

 

[sanzar]

Did you not read DonBilly's last post StHelens?

 

[St Helens RLFC]

I did indeed, just contributing my thoughts like. Although I can never resist twisting the knife when it comes to the UN or indeed any other unrealistic international organisation...

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by St Helens RLFC@Jul 28 2006, 07:20 PM
I did indeed, just contributing my thoughts like. Although I can never resist twisting the knife when it comes to the UN or indeed any other unrealistic international organisation...

What is so unrealistic about them? You seemingly will support the Americans in almost any action they take, but they are country with equally unrealistic perspectives on foreign policy... Do you, for example, believe that the promotion of democracy all around the globe is actually a realistic or reasonable aim for any one state?

 

[DonBilly]

Originally posted by St Helens RLFC@Jul 28 2006, 09:20 AM
I did indeed, just contributing my thoughts like. Although I can never resist twisting the knife when it comes to the UN or indeed any other unrealistic international organisation...

What would you suggest then?

The issue is not the fora used for regulating the international relations but the selfishness of the different nations which all defend their own interests which don't go all toward the same direction. Time to time nations show more willingness to compromise but this is rather unfrequent and quite difficult to maintain.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by DonBilly+Jul 28 2006, 08:35 PM-->

Originally posted by St Helens RLFC@Jul 28 2006, 09:20 AM
I did indeed, just contributing my thoughts like. Although I can never resist twisting the knife when it comes to the UN or indeed any other unrealistic international organisation...

What would you suggest then?

The issue is not the fora used for regulating the international relations but the selfishness of the different nations which all defend their own interests which don't go all toward the same direction. Time to time nations show more willingness to compromise but this is rather unfrequent and quite difficult to maintain. [/b]

I know, imagine that, nations actually putting their own interests and people first... GOD FORBID. No doubt being the good citizen of the world you are Donbilly you donate all your money to UNICEF and live in the same conditions as your African brothers... well, since you live in France, you probably do.

<!--QuoteBegin-GOD
What is so unrealistic about them? You seemingly will support the Americans in almost any action they take, but they are country with equally unrealistic perspectives on foreign policy... Do you, for example, believe that the promotion of democracy all around the globe is actually a realistic or reasonable aim for any one state?

But a corrupt, hypocritical body which allows genocide and who's goal is to enforce their will on every nation on earth should have that sort of power?

The only thing unrealistic is the United Nations - they think that they have the right to send an envoy from Mexico to enforce their will on so called "Human rights" abuses in New Zealand (i.e. the New Zealand Governments decision to refuse Maori's request that they should control the beaches around the country), this from the same organisation which allowed Rwanda to happen and allowed Pol Pot's government to have a seat on the UN... even the Vietnamese invasion and the revalations of his mass murdering deeds.

 

[DonBilly]

You're making always the same mistake Ripper. For example if Pol Pot's government was the representative of Cambodia it was because the Chinese and the US were against having the pro-sovietic government installed by the Vitenamese instead.

This is not a semi-god called UN which made this decision but the two countries I've just mentioned.

About Rwanda it is known that the UN and all the members of the security counsil were aware of what was happening, none of them wanted to enter in a conflict in a non strategical area. France negotiated kind of mandate with the agreement of the other nations represented there, to send the French army to defend the European and the allies of France who were the Hutu who have been killing the Tutsie for a month or two. In this case it's not the semi-god UN but all the 5 permanent members and all the elected members of the security counsil which made this decision.

I know, imagine that, nations actually putting their own interests and people first... GOD FORBID. No doubt being the good citizen of the world you are Donbilly you donate all your money to UNICEF and live in the same conditions as your African brothers... well, since you live in France, you probably do.[/b]

I live in France because a big part of my family here were political refugees that had to flee their country because of Franco's dictature, I don't if you heard about it.

But I think you misunderstood what I wrotte. There was no "moral" or "ethical" judgement about the behavior of the countries, just a statement of fact. I know this is very difficult to get some coordination in countries policy. I live in Europe and as all the inhabitants of this part of the world we are pretty aware on the lengthy negotiation that take place when the EU members meet. Each of them tries to defend its interest and has actually been elected for that. The real progresses happen when acceptable compromises are found.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by Ripper+Jul 28 2006, 08:52 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-GOD

What is so unrealistic about them? You seemingly will support the Americans in almost any action they take, but they are country with equally unrealistic perspectives on foreign policy... Do you, for example, believe that the promotion of democracy all around the globe is actually a realistic or reasonable aim for any one state?

But a corrupt, hypocritical body which allows genocide and who's goal is to enforce their will on every nation on earth should have that sort of power?

[/b]

Wait, are you describing the US or China here???

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by Ripper+Jul 28 2006, 03:45 AM-->

Originally posted by DonBilly@Jul 28 2006, 03:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Ripper

@Jul 28 2006, 04:03 AM
I for one hope that Israel bomb the UN some more... what the hell has the UN done for the world?

Come on Ripper! What is the UNO according to you? Is it kind of exogene organization just fallen from Mars?

It is made of the vast majority of the nations of this planet, so they do what the nations eventually agree on what they (the UNO) must do. No more no less. You remind me this antic tradition which was to kill the messenger who had carried a bad news...

That still doesn't answer my question...

What has the UN done for the world?

The League of Nations had the majority of the world at the time as members, and had nations doing the same sort of useless junk, does that mean it was a good thing? [/b]

But America (the worlds strongest nation since 1918) never joined the league and it was very biased. For one Germany wan't even allowed to join.