Event in my Sig

[Brother None]

Excuse? Excuse?! What the hell?! *excuses* have nothing to do with it. Excuse is, in fact, a non-applicable term to international politics.

The point is very simple, the UN is a forum of nations, not a strong-arm of Western ideology. Yet what does it keep getting burned on? Not supporting the US's prefered course of action.

Again, the UN has done a more decent job in what it is supposed to do than any other institution in history. It has failed at times too, of course, no institution is infallible. And some of its failures are pretty hard to forgive and should've inspired change.

What annoys me is that people seem to think one of these failures was not supporting the US through Iraq. That's moronic. It's not the UN's job to support wars with no clear cause just because the US likes it. Seriously.

 

[Roshambo]

Genocide is the only totally inexcusable action. And frankly, I won't reply to any of your posts ever as that was the most offensive, silly, moronic & pathetic statement I have read on any forum ever.

Stow the drama-queening and read the fucking thread next time. Consider that piece of flamebait to be strike two.

====

About the UN, it should be torn down and rebuilt. It has done many good things, but the political asskissing and ass-scratching has been causing all sorts of problems through recent years. Unless something is done about it, soon the UN will be regarded like a rich country's country club that lets politics make the decisions instead of the UN's charter. Well, even more than it is already.

As for overpopulation, you don't need a biology degree to have a clue of how impossible it is to have the amount of global population sustained by any and all agriculture that would be required. Face it, the world IS overpopulated already and growing, and a species that has managed to curtail some aspects of natural selection is now more populate than any other mammal of its size, which anyone with an understanding of how an ecosystem works would tell you that's an equasion that solves to "fucked". So it is only natural for said species to turn on other members of itself.

Or were you planning on praying to God for a new planet?

 

[John Uskglass]

About the UN, it should be torn down and rebuilt. It has done many good things, but the political asskissing and ass-scratching has been causing all sorts of problems through recent years. Unless something is done about it, soon the UN will be regarded like a rich country's country club that lets politics make the decisions instead of the UN's charter. Well, even more than it is already.

I agree here, but frankly I don't think that anything like the UN can succed in it's mission. It's to big, and to many countries enjoy playing realpolitik.

The point is very simple, the UN is a forum of nations, not a strong-arm of Western ideology. Yet what does it keep getting burned on? Not supporting the US's prefered course of action.

Silliness. If by western idology you mean "anti-genocidal", that's exactly what it is supposed to be.

I don't think it should be an arm of US action. THat's NATO. But this action was totally absurd.

Again, the UN has done a more decent job in what it is supposed to do than any other institution in history. It has failed at times too, of course, no institution is infallible. And some of its failures are pretty hard to forgive and should've inspired change.

Let's look at it's long history of succeses-
1) The Balkans
2) Hutu's and Tutsis-FRIENDS FOR LIFE
3) Creation of Kurdistan
4) Lebanon
5) Palestine
6) Sudan
Ow fuck, it's done nothing about all of these!

What annoys me is that people seem to think one of these failures was not supporting the US through Iraq. That's moronic. It's not the UN's job to support wars with no clear cause just because the US likes it. Seriously.

I had no idea how you reached this conclusion. Sudan simply does not deserve to be on the council.

 

[Tannhauser]

Actually, CCR, I believe people are agreeing with you for part of your argument, the core that this thread was based on. It is your later reactions to later comments and more extreme (somewhat shaky as well) extensions to that argument which are causing conflict.

I really only have one point to add, to your finding fault in the comparison of genocide and condoms. Some people, various religious types, do equate birth control with murder (if you care to put it in extreme terms).
Edit: What happened to that comment? It's been edited out?

Err... strictly speaking, there is enough food grown on the Earth to feed all of human population. The problem lies in distribution, not in a lack of food. Of course, subject to change with population growth. Africa deals somewhat, even with insanely high birth rates, disease evens out the population somewhat. In developed countries like Japan and America, the population is actually decreasing, as people aren't reproducing enough to replace the existing population (though the United States accepts immigrants, and continues to grow, Japan is screwed in a generation).

Of course, we do have all of space to exploit as well. If it wasn't people who wallow in the present, and refuse to spend any money on space. Imagine, if you move some heavy industry off Earth, you reduce pollution and open up more room. That's far in the future, though it's about time to lay the groundwork.

 

[John Uskglass]

Actually, CCR, I believe people are agreeing with you for part of your argument, the core that this thread was based on. It is your later reactions to later comments and more extreme (somewhat shaky as well) extensions to that argument which are causing conflict.

Okay. You'r right, I took it too far. I just think the UN is not as useful as Kharn says. And it's yet to do anything useful against genocide.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

How many times do I have to explain to the ignorant that the UN is not just made up of the security council?!? It it not purely a peacekeeping/war organization. They perform massive amounts of humanitarian duties all over the world, not to mention global trade, and a shit load of other things. Anyone who thinks the UN is worthless or obsolete is just plain IGNORANT.

The problem is, you ignorant oaf, that UN fails miserably in almost all of its duties, not just peacekeeping (which is, and should be, their main purpose and activity). I have seen the extent of humanitarian disaster that befell Croatia and Bosnia in the 90-ies, I have seen the thousands of Bosnian refugees that swarmed Croatia and received food and shelter only through generosity of our government, I have seen dozens of UNESCO monuments scattered across Croatia get obliterated because UN failed to protect them, I have seen 7500 women and children of Srebrenica get brutally slaughtered despite heavy UNHCR presence in the area.

UN performs massive amounts of humanitarian duties, no shit, but it is in times of crisis that efficiency of their performance is put to trial, and UN, for the most part, fails completely. Even if they cannot successfully separate and disarm opposing sides in an armed conflict (and that was the main purpose for which they were deployed in Croatia and Bosnia), they should have at least done something to protect innocent civilians and refugees, supply them with food and water, provide them with shelters and save UNESCO-protected cities, monuments and nature preserves. They had sufficient weapons (including armored units and artillery) to enforce their will if necessary, but they rather chose to bury their heads in the sand and pretend not to see Dubrovnik get ravaged or children of Srebrenica get thrown into pits with a few extra holes in their torsos.

Majority of UN-associated organizations, be it UNPROFOR (abbrevation for "UN protection force", armed UN force established in Croatia with mandate to disarm Serbian separatists in Croatian-Serbian conflict), UNESCO, UNHCR, UNICEF or whatever other, are utterly inept and ineffective in times of crisis (you know, when they are actually needed). Even those few UN organizations that serve a purpose, such as FAO, are too underfunded to make any real difference. On the whole, UN is pretty much a joke, a giant and expensive bureaucratic machinery founded to create an illusion of global unity and cooperation. It would be funny if it wasn't so damn tragic.

 

[Brother None]

Let's look at it's long history of succeses-
1) The Balkans
2) Hutu's and Tutsis-FRIENDS FOR LIFE
3) Creation of Kurdistan
4) Lebanon
5) Palestine
6) Sudan
Ow fuck, it's done nothing about all of these!

No, it hasn't. That means it's a failure? Because it hasn't done something about everything happening around the world? Do you have any idea what the 20th century might've looked like without the UN?

The above is foolish. Let's flip it around:
1. El Salvador 1991-1995, UN ends 12 years of bloody civil war
2. Iraq and Kuwait from 1991 onwards, peace-keeping along the borders
3. Cambodia 1992-1993, UN supported efforts to create a democracy and changed the history of a nation. UN helped repatriate 370,000 Cambodian refugees
4. Mozambique 1992-1995, UN helped create a ceasefire, helped return 1.5 million refugees and organized "free and fair elections"
5. Namibia 1989-1990, UN helps create a ceasefire between Namibia and South Africa, helps with the release of prisoners, helped repeal repressive legislation, creates a new government
6. Afghanistan & Pakistan 1988-1990, UN overseers lead to negotiations and Soviet withdrawal.
7. Golan Heights, 1974 to present, constant UN presence helps prevent any escalation of violence in this region since the 1973 war
8. Suez Canal, Sinay, 1973-1979, UN achieves ceasefire between warring parties and facilitates seperation and withdrawal of troops. Delivers huminatarian aid and helps exchange prisoners etc.
9. West New Guinea, 1962-1963, UN implements all provisions for the peaceful transfer of power in West New Guinea. Assures peaceful negotiations between the Netherlands and Indonesia throughout the process
10. India and Pakistan, 1965-1966, UN monitors ceasefire between the two nations, prevent military escalation along the ceasefire line in Kashmir. Peace is still held with UN support.

Hey, I got 4 points on you. Does that mean I win?

The problem here, I suppose, is that it's easier to see failures than it is to see sucesses, because the failures are glaring and spread over all the papers, while proving that the UN prevented a war...hey, you can't prove a negative. But that doesn't mean it's not true. The UN has done some incredible work in the past, and will continue to do so.

I had no idea how you reached this conclusion. Sudan simply does not deserve to be on the council.

Hey, I remember pretty distinctly, though I might be wrong, that you were one of those crying injustice that the UN refused to support the US attack on Iraq and chanted along with the cries of "the UN needs to be redone!" inspired by Bush.

The war on Iraq was and is an illegal war. The UN-law excuse for it, the WMDs, haven't popped up, hence the invasion was and is as illegal as ze Germans invading half of Europe.

EDIT: Ratty, the UN failure in your region was horrible, but would you please stop judging them on that count only, and pretending like it's an absolute truth that the UN is a terrible peacekeeping organisation because they failed on that count. You have a right to hate the UN, I suppose, but I wish you would stop judging them on one count and then proceding to claim that count makes an absolute truth. How about you analyse the entire history of the UN first?

 

[King of Creation]

Ratty, the UN failure in your region was horrible, but would you please stop judging them on that count only, and pretending like it's an absolute truth that the UN is a terrible peacekeeping organisation because they failed on that count. You have a right to hate the UN, I suppose, but I wish you would stop judging them on one count and then proceding to claim that count makes an absolute truth. How about you analyse the entire history of the UN first?

Exactly.

And Ratty, its not the UN's fault that extreme cultural nationalism is fragmenting entire countries into fighting factions. Its the stubborn refusal of those cultures to bring the violence to an end.

 

[Brother None]

And Ratty, its not the UN's fault that extreme cultural nationalism is fragmenting entire countries into fighting factions. Its the stubborn refusal of those cultures to bring the violence to an end.

Aye aye! I know I was forgetting something

Ratty, you always sound like you're blaming the UN. And it may be a given that the UN is responsible for international peacekeeping, but the UN is not responsible for starting the war. Maybe it's easy to blame those people for the war, but it's not fair. Yes, they failed, but in the same sense that a policeman fails to stop a rape. Yes, it's terrible, but the policeman isn't responsible for the rape happening.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Ratty, the UN failure in your region was horrible, but would you please stop judging them on that count only, and pretending like it's an absolute truth that the UN is a terrible peacekeeping organisation because they failed on that count. You have a right to hate the UN, I suppose, but I wish you would stop judging them on one count and then proceding to claim that count makes an absolute truth. How about you analyse the entire history of the UN first?

UN's failure in Balkan isn't an isolated case, but rather a striking example of UN's proverbial ineffectiveness. I am constantly pulling this argument because I am most familiar with it, and because it encompasses everything that sucks about UN. In most examples you named, UN was successful mostly because there temporarily existed local political will to resolve the crisis, not because they acted particularly decisively. In most of your examples, UN's mediation merely postponed a disaster, as most of these regions are still full of tension and unrest, and in many of them situation escalated shortly after UN's interference. Just look at Afghanistan or India-Pakistan. Quite frankly, I don't think even these "successes" you listed speak in favor of the United Nations. Hell, even in Croatia, UN's presence brought a decrease in number of skirmishes between Croatian and Serbian troops, but they failed to maintain a cease fire and war ultimately ended when Croatia liberated most of its territory in a series of military operations.

 

[Paladin Solo]

It's not the UN's job to support wars with no clear cause just because the US likes it.

I hope you mean the WMD's, not the liberation of a nation. It had some cause, just not "the" reason for the war (freeing Iraq). Personally, I think Bush is a dumbass for trying to fucking play the world and expecting to get away like they were going to forget. What a fucking moron, I hate him for creating this shitty mess, but I support him so that he can do his fucking job and end this damn trouble, get it over with, free the people, and make sure they stay that way, then get the hell out of Dodge. After that, I think he should be tried in front of a tribunal for decieving not only his allies and the world, but also his own people. But not either before we stabalize the region, or he gets voted out of office/retires/resigns. Unless of course, he is assassinated.

 

[Sander]

Once again Sander, I know enough to not appreciate the UN now, although, I do appreciate the fact that it kept us from another world war. The fact is, the UN is crap because it doesn't have the U part. That's why I think its crap. Nations, including the US, don't care for it or their allies anymore. It's just what MadDog said, a forum for nations to decide on who to go to war with, and who's country to try and get unfucked. But even that, it has a hard time deciding on. IMHO, the "U"N needs a common enemy or goal to have a powerful influence and effect on people, not to mention, stay united.

Goddamnit, man, again you're talking about the Security Council. ONLY the Security Council decides about wars, and all the things you've said in here have been about the department of the security council. Look at the human rights commission, UNICEF, UNESCO and various other parts of the UN and tell me that those are failures and stupid.
Because, simply put, they are not.

I hope you mean the WMD's, not the liberation of a nation. It had some cause, just not "the" reason for the war (freeing Iraq).

No, it didn't. You see, the USA only gave one reason to invade Iraq: it was a threat to the world with it's WMD. The USA did not speak about freeing the people from a bloody dictator, so the UN did not start a war over that. And that's exactly why everyone's pissed at Bush.

UN's failure in Balkan isn't an isolated case, but rather a striking example of UN's proverbial ineffectiveness. I am constantly pulling this argument because I am most familiar with it, and because it encompasses everything that sucks about UN. In most examples you named, UN was successful mostly because there temporarily existed local political will to resolve the crisis, not because they acted particularly decisively. In most of your examples, UN's mediation merely postponed a disaster, as most of these regions are still full of tension and unrest, and in many of them situation escalated shortly after UN's interference. Just look at Afghanistan or India-Pakistan. Quite frankly, I don't think even these "successes" you listed speak in favor of the United Nations. Hell, even in Croatia, UN's presence brought a decrease in number of skirmishes between Croatian and Serbian troops, but they failed to maintain a cease fire and war ultimately ended when Croatia liberated most of its territory in a series of military operations.

That and OTPOR>
However, you still don't understand one thing: If two countries want to go to war and kill eachother, it's extremely hard to stop them. That's the main problem with the UN you are judging it by, you are judging it on the basis of things it has not done, but those things are extremely hard.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

If two countries want to go to war and kill eachother, it's extremely hard to stop them.

Wrong. Only one country wanted to go to war. The other one merely wanted to be independant and sovereign (rightfully so), but was brutally invaded by a superior force. UN's response to this invasion was imposing an embargo on import of weapons. This move was not only cruel, but also pointless, as JNA was already heavily armed, so cutting of weapon supplies could in no way stop an armed conflict. Embargo served only one purpose - preventing Croatia from obtaining armaments from the outside and rendering it helpless before Yugoslavian aggression.

I wil agree, however, that Bosnia's case was more complicated. In period from 1992 to 1994, Bosnia was a victim of an aggression by joint Croatian and Serbian forces, and situation was further escalated by strong Bosniak nationalism. The only thing that could have prevented the bloody slaughter was a timely military intervention by UN, something they failed to deliver. In the end, it was NATO that intervened and, after a strong aerial campaign, forced Bosnian Serbs to agree to negotiations, but not before thousands of helpless civilians were killed. Yet another failure of UN, caused by hesitation and ineffectiveness. The most glaring example is Srebrenica - within three days, nearly 8000 civilians were slaughtered while Dutch UN contigent deployed in that area stood by and watched, without so much as attempting to protect them. Blood of those civilians is on their hands as much as it is on hands of their executioners. You might know a thing or two about this, Sander and Kharn... Several years later, entire Dutch government admitted failure of its armed forces in Srebrenica and resigned. Recently, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina filed a lawsuit against the Kingdom of Netherlands regarding their responsibility in Srebrenica massacre. I hope the lawsuit passes, it would certainly be a slap in the face of UN and a lesson to remember. Just because there is a genocide going on in your backyard, it doesn't mean you can ignore it - if you can stop it, it's your duty to do so or face trial for war crimes.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Sander, Bush said countless times he was going in there and free Iraqis and establish democracy. It just wasn't his reason for the war. Don't you watch any news man? Or do you have your own version of Fox/Al Jazeera over there too? And Sander, the security council decides whether or not the "U"N goes to war, not the fucking security council by itself.

 

[welsh]

The UN's role is often to keep peace between to sides that want to have peace. If one side wants war, there is little that the UN can do to stop it. IT is not the UN's game to pick sides. It did that in the Congo Crisis and then got caught up in Cold War rivalries. Since then it has been careful not to repeat the mistake.

I think in the former Yugoslavia you had a lot of folks that were willing to use violence for their own political ends. Short of having an international policeman, there was little that could be done.

But the UN is not a global policeman. It has never had the power to take on that role. Rather it's a forum for countries to agree on ways to stop threats to peace and international stability. But sometimes those countries disagree.

That said, emphasizing only the peacekeeping/ humanitarian missions doesn't cover nearly half of what the UN does.

Don't forget the UN is also the forum in which international law, like the law of the sea, the geneva protocols, etc, are created. The WHO is part of the UN, as is the ILO. It's involved in environmental protection through the UNEP and development, through the UNDP.

When the UN was created there were basically four types of international organizations.

(1) Courts and arbitration bodies- that has been incorporated through not only the World Court but the UN Convention on Arbitration which is an international means by which private conflicts are resolved and judgements are enforced globally.

(2) International administrative organizations like the international postal organizations and others which regulate everything from commerce of vessels to telecommunications. Today these organizations help regulate global trade and maintain stable economies, allow for regulation in currency rates and keep tarriffs low.

(3) Councils of Great powers- based on the Concert of Europe model, the Security Council was a way for great powers to reduce the chance of war and to resolve conflicts among themselves so that global war was avoided.

(4) General Assembly's- Before the UN the Hague Conventions occurred every four years in which lots of nations would get together and make international agreements. Initially these invovled conflicts but Hague conventions also deal with private and commercial matters as well.

The UN has incorporated all those. Not all are about humanitarian issues, although some organizations- like the UN High Commissioner for Refugees does more for international refugees than any state is capable of.

Disaster relief, food for children to avoid malnutrition (the UN for instance has been developing a meals in schools program so that every child gets at least one decent meal a day), election monitoring, the building of state administrations, agricultural support, preservation of international "commons" (like the oceans, atmosphere, Antarctica)

If the UN fails to keep the peace or prevent war let's not forget that the UN was a creature of real politics. The notion that there is too much real politics in the UN is silly. There is always too much real politics and the UN is a creature of that. If the UN was constrained in it's powers it is because the nations that created the UN made it so.

 

[Brother None]

Hear! Hear!

 

[John Uskglass]

Okay, that's a good point, and it is fairly effective at that. But it's become consistently less effective at that (slave trade in Yougoslavia, Oil for French Wepons programs), and the issue is that they elected a genocidal government to a human rights council.

 

[Sander]

Sander, Bush said countless times he was going in there and free Iraqis and establish democracy. It just wasn't his reason for the war. Don't you watch any news man? Or do you have your own version of Fox/Al Jazeera over there too? And Sander, the security council decides whether or not the "U"N goes to war, not the fucking security council by itself.

Watch the bolded font. You said it. The UN cannot go and support a war for a reason which differs from the reason why the war is being fought, because that means that it would at least seem to be supporting the reason that was given.
And, in case you hadn't noticed, many people have said this over and over again, UNICEF, UNESCO, the Human Rights council and even the General Assembly cannot do anything about the decisions made in the security council. Therefore, you should not judge the entire UN by the Security Council alone, which is something you are still doing.

Welsh: I could not have said it better.

the issue is that they elected a genocidal government to a human rights council.

I don't think anyone said that that wasn't bad.

 

[John Uskglass]

And, in case you hadn't noticed, many people have said this over and over again, UNICEF, UNESCO, the Human Rights council and even the General Assembly cannot do anything about the decisions made in the security council. Therefore, you should not judge the entire UN by the Security Council alone, which is something you are still doing.

The Security Council is a huge part of the UN. I have every right to judge at least in large part the UN by the workings of the Security Council.

And it's really not as great as some people belive. It's having an absurd amount of trouble with corruption in Kosovo and Bosnia, and the Oil for French Wepons scandal was fun.

I don't think anyone said that that wasn't bad.

Well then, what was I arguing about?

 

[Sander]

The Security Council is a huge part of the UN. I have every right to judge at least in large part the UN by the workings of the Security Council.

Yes, you have that right, it's just not logical. It's nor logical to say that UNESCO sucks because the Security Council sucks, you need to look at the parts of the UN and evaluate them seperately, not as a whole.

And it's really not as great as some people belive. It's having an absurd amount of trouble with corruption in Kosovo and Bosnia, and the Oil for French Wepons scandal was fun.

Yep, a bit silly. However, as Kharn has said, we notice the failures more than the successes.