The UN should be scrapped.

wow lets vote to sit on our buts while people are forced to suffer under harsh dictatorships while we sit back and 'monitor' the situation. or we can just turn a blind eye so that we can get re-elected. The UN started out well enough but it has long fallen into disgrace and disrepair. The goverments care little for the victims and more for what is in their pockets. And as to the countries that oppose US action in iraq you should see who provides for their oil reserves.

[Tactitus]

It's even crazier than you think.

The inmates are running the asylum.

[Dante Hicks]

The UN isn't a world government. They aren't "supposed" to do anything. It's just a forum for interaction for countries. America and whomever they want are free to act unilaterally or bilaterally or whatever.

But yes, the UN should be scrapped in it's current form.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Tactitus
It's even crazier than you think.

The inmates are running the asylum.

How american of you to shift blame and whine about the rules when they don't fit you.

The rule was there for a reason, it still is.

[G_frog]

the UN at the moment is just a tool for interest groups to try to legitimise their use of power.

we could have a true world government with the same relation to states (and their citizens) as states have to individuals, with the usual precautions. This means a full international apparatus of courts, police etc.

or we could have a completely free association of states as individuals, with relations governed only by mutual agreements, which means giving up juristiction over the activities of other states completely until they infringe on someone else.

[Nofutcha]

Also its way outta line that the US never pay their fee's yet the UN lickes their bums

[iain50]

Originally posted by ParraCida
How american of you to shift blame and whine about the rules when they don't fit you.

The rule was there for a reason, it still is.

can a man be a judge at his own trial?

neutral people, better than you or I have said that in their time inspecting weapons in iraq, they have come up against opposition, and have indeed found enough evidence to condemn iraq to another war. Who are you, infront of your computer, to say that these people are wrong, they have far more information to work off, and far more background to call on. You, a spotty pasty (dont see enuff sunlight) gimp say they are wrong. How arrogant can you get? this is their job.

[Nodrog]

http://www.xs4all.nl/~dzlng/stuff/europeanparliament.jpg

Stolen from somethingawful.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally posted by G_frog
the UN at the moment is just a tool for interest groups to try to legitimise their use of power.

we could have a true world government with the same relation to states (and their citizens) as states have to individuals, with the usual precautions. This means a full international apparatus of courts, police etc.

or we could have a completely free association of states as individuals, with relations governed only by mutual agreements, which means giving up juristiction over the activities of other states completely until they infringe on someone else.

Be careful with that line of thought, you might just prove the most famous of books right.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by Event_Horizon
Be careful with that line of thought, you might just prove the most famous of books right.

Please explain. most famous of books? the bible? or what? (usually people are referring to 1984 but i can't see how that could be it)

I wasn't particularly advocating either approach, as i hoped would be clear from my description of them.

Nod: heh.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally posted by G_frog
Please explain. most famous of books? the bible? or what? (usually people are referring to 1984 but i can't see how that could be it)

I wasn't particularly advocating either approach, as i hoped would be clear from my description of them.

Nod: heh.

Aye, that I meant the Bible. Not to condemn you or anything. I just thought it was interesting what you said because there is great truth behind it. I was/am concentrating more on your first idea.

[Raging.Retard]

Originally posted by AnGeLiS
while people are forced to suffer under harsh dictatorships while we sit back and 'monitor' the situation.

Id rather suffer under a harsh dictatorship while someone monitors me than have be bombed by some arrogant nation that thinks it has the right to shape the world as they dont conform to their opinion of what life should be like.

Suffering or death? Perhaps people would chose death, but its for them to decide, not some big *cough* heavenly *cough* body like the US.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Raging.Retard
Id rather suffer under a harsh dictatorship while someone monitors me than have be bombed by some arrogant nation that thinks it has the right to shape the world as they dont conform to their opinion of what life should be like.

Suffering or death? Perhaps people would chose death, but its for them to decide, not some big *cough* heavenly *cough* body like the US.

So you support a war against Iraq then, because as I posted a few weeks ago, the Iraqi people do. They want Saddam taken out of power, and the sooner the better. So since it is their choice, and they are ready and eager to see Saddam fall, then by your own words you support it as well.

[RexDrax]

Ah yes lets see now. Some person/dictator is abusing his citizen in Africa, South America or some other Asian country and the UN and the rest of the world strongly critizices that country and passes some resolutions calling on a trade embargo. This of courses makes the country poor and is used as an excuse by the regime to blame the world and direct their hatred and despair. The people do not have the power to overthrow the goverment due to lacking organization and of course military might.

The same thing happens in ..... oh lets take a wild guess...some country invades Kuwait. Dear God thats not right, lets send in the troops......

I could cite several examples but I think you guys get the picture. The UN is a hollow shell that stands for western intrest and coroperations. If it actually followed its mandate it would have intervened in Temor much earlier. Stopped the massacers in the Balkans and also overthrow the Dictators in Africa and South America. But of course there are 'political' considerations to take into account.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by ParraCida
How american of you to shift blame and whine about the rules when they don't fit you.

Nice stereotyping. Come back when you have some actual arguments.

The rule was there for a reason, it still is.

Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions; not America's rules. The only way Iraq is qualified to chair--or even participate in--the Disarmament Conference is if there are absolutely no qualifications (or disqualifications) whatsoever.

The UN appears more concerned about giving everyone a "turn" than actually having their resolutions taken seriously. Perhaps it's not surprising, then, that they aren't taken very seriously.

[Texan]

The United Nations is in danger of going the way of the League of Nations. The only way to "fix" the problem is to enforce UN resolutions, rather than say "well let's give them some more time."

I'm including Israel also. Let's make everyone do what they are supposed to do. I think there are enough military forces in the world to enforce the resolutions against both Israel and Iraq.

If the Israelis and the Palestinians are not happy after the UN resolutions are enforced, let them plead their cases before the United Nations. If they are so unhappy that they would prefer to fight rather than go to the UN, then let them die facing the might of a united world.

Sincerely,
Texan
President
Terrans Against Individuals Creating Havoc Incorporated
(Tai-Chi)

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
The United Nations is in danger of going the way of the League of Nations. The only way to "fix" the problem is to enforce UN resolutions, rather than say "well let's give them some more time."

I'm including Israel also. Let's make everyone do what they are supposed to do. I think there are enough military forces in the world to enforce the resolutions against both Israel and Iraq.

If the Israelis and the Palestinians are not happy after the UN resolutions are enforced, let them plead their cases before the United Nations. If they are so unhappy that they would prefer to fight rather than go to the UN, then let them die facing the might of a united world.

Sincerely,
Texan
President
Terrans Against Individuals Creating Havoc Incorporated
(Tai-Chi)

im sorry, but who endangers the uno?
to me the biggest thread to the uno is Mr. Bush, who said he wants a new resolution, but if he doesnt get it, hell attack anyway, what kind of crap is that??

PS good morning

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
im sorry, but who endangers the uno?
to me the biggest thread to the uno is Mr. Bush, who said he wants a new resolution, but if he doesnt get it, hell attack anyway, what kind of crap is that??

PS good morning

Good morning. I'm meeting a buddy for lunch in a couple of hours, but I thought I would rattle my sabre at you for a bit until I have to go take a shower. After lunch (we always drink quite a bit of beer and wine) my arguments may not make much sense.

The biggest threat to the United Nations is not Mr. Bush. The biggest threat is two handfuls of nations who want to eliminate the Iraqi threat now versus the rest of the world who want inspections and sanctions.

If the United Nations Security Council does not authorize war against Iraq, and 10 or 12 other nations make war on Iraq without UN sanctions, then the United Nations will lose a lot of credibility. The United Nations was not able to stop genocide in the Balkans. It required a NATO effort. The United Nations was not able to stop genocide in Rwanda. The people just died because NATO did not care about Rwanda.

The people must force the varied alliances to do what is right. You think inspections are right and war is wrong; however, inspections include sanctions. Many people think war is the best choice.

Make war. Change the regime. Feed the people and get rid of the WMD.

[inf]

Originally posted by AnGeLiS
wow lets vote to sit on our buts while people are forced to suffer under harsh dictatorships while we sit back and 'monitor' the situation.

I know, it's terrible to see the americans suffer at the hands of Bush.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
im sorry, but who endangers the uno?
to me the biggest thread to the uno is Mr. Bush, who said he wants a new resolution, but if he doesnt get it, hell attack anyway, what kind of crap is that??

PS good morning

true, and why can he endanger it? because the un isnt worth anything, it is dependant on the mood of the bigger countries and since the "big guns" dont want to hurt each other nothing will happen if the us decide to go it alone.
the un is just a place to whine for those nations not strong enough to enforce their interests on their own.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
true, and why can he endanger it? because the un isnt worth anything, it is dependant on the mood of the bigger countries and since the "big guns" dont want to hurt each other nothing will happen if the us decide to go it alone.
the un is just a place to whine for those nations not strong enough to enforce their interests on their own.

would you rather have a situation where the stronger gets whatever he wants? in that case saddams invasion of kuwait would have been ok.
after all we dont live in the middle ages anymore, the uno had sucess many times in resolving a conflict peacefully. the current problem is that there is only one superpower left, there is no balance anymore.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
would you rather have a situation where the stronger gets whatever he wants? in that case saddams invasion of kuwait would have been ok.
after all we dont live in the middle ages anymore, the uno had sucess many times in resolving a conflict peacefully. the current problem is that there is only one superpower left, there is no balance anymore.

conflicts were only solved peacefully, if one of the bigger nations had an interest in solving it. this would have happened without the un as well.
in the end it comes down to this: every country wants to strengthen its position, with every mean at their hands, they just have to ask themselves, what the consequences of their actions will be.
in the case of iraq invading kuwait saddam gambled to high and lost. make no mistake, kuwait would have been liberated with or without the un, possibly even faster without it. the un is just an instrument, that is being used to make actions look more legitimate in the eyes of the public.

[wu_trax]

so lets just forget of all atempts of international law?

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
so lets just forget of all atempts of international law?

yes, because there is just one law: survival of the fittest

PS Das Politikforum is ganz lustig, aber bei manchen weiss ich net ob ich mich totlachen soll oder magenkrämpfe vor wut bekomme

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
yes, because there is just one law: survival of the fittest

hell, we dont live in stoneage anymore

PS Das Politikforum is ganz lustig, aber bei manchen weiss ich net ob ich mich totlachen soll oder magenkrämpfe vor wut bekomme

wenn du die kommunisten und die ultra-rechten ignorierst isses eigentlich ganz nett da

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
hell, we dont live in stoneage anymore

Thats what we want to believe, but reality is: we are no better than animals, in fact we are worse because we have disrupted natures balance

Originally posted by wu_trax
wenn du die kommunisten und die ultra-rechten ignorierst isses eigentlich ganz nett da

hab bis jetzt nur kommunisten gesehen, das hat schon gereicht, die ultrarechten würden mir dann den rest geben