the UN

[blackhole123]

what power does the UN really have? What are they going to do? say "you better stop developing nukes or we'll be forced to send you an angry letter!!!"

[ecoli]

I suppose if it turned hot, they can send peace keeping force in. But, realisticalyl that's not even close to happening. What's more likely, is organizting economic or political sanctions on the country. I'm not sure how affective that would be though.

[Sisyphus]

The UN is not really an independent organization. The point of it is more to act as a common forum where all nations can be in constant contact and collectively discuss problems and work together for solutions. "The UN" can't do anything, but the nations of the Security Council, for example, might all decide in the UN to collectively intervene somewhere.

[ecoli]

The UN is not really an independent organization. The point of it is more to act as a common forum where all nations can be in constant contact and collectively discuss problems and work together for solutions. "The UN" can't do anything, but the nations of the Security Council, for example, might all decide in the UN to collectively intervene somewhere.

 

Good point... I think this thread is mostly concerned with the security council.

[Glider]

The UN, as with any such organisation, only has the power that member nations give it. If member nations choose to ignore the UN, then it has no power.

[Skye]

They have lots of options. The Korean War started with UN authorisation, remember.

[GutZ]

They will send their special agent in. Simons, Richard Simons.

 

Offending Country: "For the love of God, Noooo!"

Simons: "Come people lift those knees, Thats right, feel the burn".

 

I really don't understand the point of the UN. It's suppose to govern the global aspect of everything based on the agreement of all countries. The only friggin time they will agree if its already peaceful! Practically every other scenerio you will have a few disagreeing, which makes it all very frickin pointless.

 

From Wiki

 

"The UN was founded after the end of World War II by the victorious allied powers with the hope that it would act to prevent and intervene in conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible or limited."

 

Working out just fine....

 

p.s.

 

I might be a bit baised.

[Dr. Dalek]

They have lots of options. The Korean War started with UN authorisation, remember.

Yeah but what have they done since then except threten with sanctions and resolutions that they never act on?

[Sisyphus]

Once again, the UN is not supposed to "govern." It is a forum in which nations can discuss problems, and a framework under which nations can act, if necessary. And yes, it has prevented many conflicts, we just don't hear about them as often because it's not generally big news when a war doesn't happen. It probably was crucial in keeping the Cold War cold, for example. And leading to the unity and prosperity of Europe. And the very existence of South Korea.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah but what have they done since then except threten with sanctions and resolutions that they never act on?

 

And neglect illegitimate dictators that break cease-fire agreements...

[Sisyphus]

And neglect illegitimate dictators that break cease-fire agreements...

 

Is that a reference to North Korea? I haven't been following the other thread.

[ParanoiA]

Is that a reference to North Korea? I haven't been following the other thread.

 

Nah. In reference to Iraq. Since a number of cease-fire agreements had been broken without any doubt or ambiguity, we were already justified in resuming active war. The UN wasn't concerned enough about these agreements to get tough on them for violating them. Which, incidentally, is exactly what Bush campaigned on in the beginning.

[Sisyphus]

Ah. So "illegitimate" just means not democratically elected? Or did you have something else in mind?

 

Anyway, to be fair, it's not quite so clear cut as all that. I mean, yes, Iraq definitely had violated lots of UN mandates, which if you look at it in isolation was certainly just cause. But then, UN "mandates" have also been violated by pretty much every country in the world, with similar lack of reprecussions. (Israel and Turkey have ridiculously long lists of such "violations.") Not saying it was an unjustified war (if nothing else, that's not an argument I want to have right now), but it certainly wasn't as clear cut as "you broke the law, you pay for it" or something.

[ecoli]

Ah. So "illegitimate" just means not democratically elected? Or did you have something else in mind?

 

Anyway, to be fair, it's not quite so clear cut as all that. I mean, yes, Iraq definitely had violated lots of UN mandates, which if you look at it in isolation was certainly just cause. But then, UN "mandates" have also been violated by pretty much every country in the world, with similar lack of reprecussions. (Israel and Turkey have ridiculously long lists of such "violations.") Not saying it was an unjustified war (if nothing else, that's not an argument I want to have right now), but it certainly wasn't as clear cut as "you broke the law, you pay for it" or something.

 

The problem is, that UN resolutions aren't necesarily in the best interests of the country (at least according to that country). The UN seems to be interested in day-to-day peace.

[ParanoiA]

Ah. So "illegitimate" just means not democratically elected? Or did you have something else in mind?

 

Both. I don't think fear and threats by government during voting makes it necessarily democratic. And, he's a psycho that has used weapons of mass destruction in the past and is responsible for so much death and torture it numbs the mind. Only the likes of hitler could relate.

 

 

(Oh...and after reading Peak Oil Man's posts, I'm starting to wonder if we went in Iraq to sieze the oil because they believe Peak Oil is coming...)

[JesuBungle]

The whole structure of the UN is outdated. It was formed as a sort of union to defend against the Soviet Union. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there really is no purpose for the UN anymore. Pretty much all they can do is sit back and judge countries, which most countries, including the US, already do themselves. And the countries that disobey their rules, the ones that aren't afraid of how they look in the eyes of the world(North Korea and Iran) are rarely punished, since the UN has little to no power over them.

[Dr. Dalek]

(Oh...and after reading Peak Oil Man's posts, I'm starting to wonder if we went in Iraq to sieze the oil because they believe Peak Oil is coming...)

A firend of mine used to believe that, but I didn't give the idea much credit because he said the reason he thought this was because of Operation Iraqi Liberation.

I mean; that seems to be a rediculous reason to be formulating conspracy theorys.

[ParanoiA]

A firend of mine used to believe that, but I didn't give the idea much credit because he said the reason he thought this was because of Operation Iraqi Liberation.

I mean; that seems to be a rediculous reason to be formulating conspracy theorys.

 

Actually, I don't know how much of a conspiracy theory it really is. A typical conspiracy theory usually involves multiple "supposed" calculated moves and etc. - there's not a lot of dots to connect for this. It doesn't really matter if you believe it could happen now, or 50 years from now, it still makes sense to get your hands on the oil - when you've invested your entire way of life on oil.

 

I know what you mean about conspiracy theories though - great episode on that on Southpark last night - but I don't see any conspiracy here, anymore than I would see a conspiracy in a thug leader hiding WMD's. It's just the typical power struggle.

[Skye]

Yeah but what have they done since then except threten with sanctions and resolutions that they never act on?

Not alot, but then no-one has wanted much else to happen.

[ParanoiA]

Not alot, but then no-one has wanted much else to happen.

 

Good point, but then that also serves Dr Dalek's point as well. With the advent of the UN and its coveted "sanctions", no one wants to do anything until the usual "flow chart" criteria has been satisfied. And apparently, that's a never ending loop in some cases.

 

The UN almost gives the countries of the world an excuse not to really do anything. A resolution, in their eyes, is doing something.

 

Some issues don't warrant sanctions, but rather immediate action. If the UN approved a bombing campaign of both NK's and Iran's nuclear facilities, we'd already be past that. Sure they'd be pissed about it. Like they're not pissed now? What has restraint really done for us in these situations?

[CPL.Luke]

if the UN approved a bombing campaign of NK and Iran it would destroy itself as a legitimate international body.

 

Why not bomb the UK, they got nukes what makes them better than Iran

 

or how bout israel they got nukes and I don't think a single person in the mid east thinks they should have them

 

While the western world may not want NK or Iran to have nukes their's no way an international body should value their oppinions over the oppinions of everyone else in the world

 

Furthermore the UN does do a good job of using military action when its needed and everyone agrees, just look at gulf war 1, that was done under the UN flag and it happened fast and it was effective. Also, the UN has approved peace keeping forces in a few dozen countries where genocides were occuring, and they stopped them.

 

There was also some misinformation in this thread about why the UN was formed, the UN was not formed as an anti-Soviet Union The soviet union was in it, and it served as a meeting place between the warsaw pact and the NATO nations for more than 40 years and it staved off war more than once, While the UN is in major need of overhall it definately serves a purpose and will continue to serve for many many years.

 

 

PS: hey 1000 posts

[ParanoiA]

Why not bomb the UK, they got nukes what makes them better than Iran

 

That fact that they no longer believe that god wants them to kill everybody who doesn't believe and behave their way. Iran's government is made up of religious nutjobs bent on destroying the west and Israel, and don't mind sacrificing their own or anybody else's life to achieve it.

 

 

or how bout israel they got nukes and I don't think a single person in the mid east thinks they should have them

 

And the exact same people don't even think they should be alive. Hell, the people you speak of, even have a religion practically dedicated to their destruction. Are we supposed to seek approval from our enemies?

 

I would think if your enemy doesn't want you to have something, you should probably get it - alot of it.

 

 

While the western world may not want NK or Iran to have nukes their's no way an international body should value their oppinions over the oppinions of everyone else in the world

 

Actually they should, because it's the west that provides most of the resources and manpower for their means. Like the Gulf war I you brag about in the next paragraph.

 

But, I still get your point. Which is why I don't care for the U.N. I prefer my country to be the superpower of the world, picking off competition before they become competition - such as restricting nuclear ambitions - without directly oppressing anyone nor imperialising. And I prefer to do that without anyone's permission, just sheer might.

[JesuBungle]

Good point ParanoiA. People always bring that question up. "What makes it ok for the US to have nukes and not other countries?". It's the fact that we don't give the other countries names like Small Satan(Israel) and Great Satan(U.S.). There's no doubt in mind that as soon as Iran gets a nuke, they're going to use it themselves, or give it to someone else that will. As long as it's against The Infidel.

[JohnB]

I prefer my country to be the superpower of the world, picking off competition before they become competition - such as restricting nuclear ambitions - without directly oppressing anyone nor imperialising. And I prefer to do that without anyone's permission, just sheer might.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is exactly the type of comment that makes even your allies wonder if they're backing the right horse.

 

You suggest "picking off the competition" through "sheer might". How on Earth can you reconcile this with "without directly oppressing anyone nor imperialising"? Make up your mind. Is this the new American diplomacy "We are your friends, so do as you're told or we'll blow you up."

[ParanoiA]

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is exactly the type of comment that makes even your allies wonder if they're backing the right horse.

 

Especially since it mirrors their own feelings and intentions as well. Every country wants to dominate, they're humans. This should be obvious to you already.

 

You suggest "picking off the competition" through "sheer might". How on Earth can you reconcile this with "without directly oppressing anyone nor imperialising"? Make up your mind. Is this the new American diplomacy "We are your friends, so do as you're told or we'll blow you up."

 

Let me help you reconcile it then. If you try to make a nuclear bomb, I'm going to blow up your facilities and materials that you are trying to make it with. Period. If you view that as oppression or not, I don't really care (hence, indirect oppression, as opposed to occupation and slavery) and I'll attempt to still be your friend, but it will be a conditional friendship since I'll never allow you to have nuclear weapons, if you don't like that - tough.

 

I'm not interested in fair or just. I'm interesting in preservation of my life. There isn't a single predator on earth who's the least bit concerned about "fairness". I prefer to recognize the playing field for what it is, rather than fluffy misrepresentation and naivety.

 

North Korea and Iran are your enemy, no matter how nice you want to be to them, they will remain your enemy. I suggest getting past that, and quit trying to win their favor and try winning the conflict they are engaged in with you.