What happens to the U.N?

[Bearguin]

So, if the US and whatever allies invade Iraq without a UN resolution, what will this do to the future of the UN?

 

[Kodiak]

So, if the US and whatever allies invade Iraq without a UN resolution, what will this do to the future of the UN?

I don't care...

 

[Tmy]

BAH! I say its time we bailed on teh UN. It looks more like they are against the US. As if putting us in our place takes priority over anything else. I say we move the UN to Newark as a punsihment.

I say we become the big bad nation they portray us to be. F the Un and there votes. We have the Spainards on our side!

 

[Jocko]

So, if the US and whatever allies invade Iraq without a UN resolution, what will this do to the future of the UN?

Two words.

Un
Necessary.

Like the League of Nations... if at first you don't succeed...

 

[richardm]

The UN will probably just pretend that the whole thing never happened. To be fair, this is just one element of the UN.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: What happens to the U.N?

Two words.

Un
Necessary.

Like the League of Nations... if at first you don't succeed...

The UN's charitable organizations do a lot of good worldwide, but the security council can go the way of the dinosaur if you ask me...

 

[Troll]

Re: Re: What happens to the U.N?

I don't care...

Very well said. Short. simple. Right to the point. Okay, now I'm being wordy. I agree

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: What happens to the U.N?

The UN's charitable organizations do a lot of good worldwide, but the security council can go the way of the dinosaur if you ask me...

But wouldn't the money be better spent if the contributing countries gave their charitable aid directly to the receiving countries? That way, you eliminate one middle man, and money spent to run the U.N. charity organizations can go directly to people who need it.

 

[rikzilla]

The UN is a legislator. They write "international law" that only people like UCE think is binding.

A legislature can write all the laws they want. The way that the society enforces the law is through their police or military. The UN makes law, but this law lacks the enforcement mechanism of a police or military.

In other words this international law is not worth the paper it's printed on. It's bogus...it's superfluous.

The UN is a mythical legislator. It's past "laws" only enforceable if there is the will of a world power to support it. The myth of UN "law" is now being exposed by Saddam's disregard of it, and will be exposed further by the US's disregard of it when we launch the attack into Iraq.

This bumper-sticker comes to mind:
THE US OUT OF THE UN, THE UN OUT OF THE US!!!

-zilla

 

[Kodiak]

Don't be surprised if France or one of the others veto the resolution authorizing military action, then, after we invade anyway, draft and unanimously approve a resolution officially expressing friendship and continuing allegience for the US even though they do not approve of our use of military force against Iraq.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What happens to the U.N?

But wouldn't the money be better spent if the contributing countries gave their charitable aid directly to the receiving countries? That way, you eliminate one middle man, and money spent to run the U.N. charity organizations can go directly to people who need it.

Absolutely, that's why I originally said "I don't care".

 

[bignickel]

The UN will probably do the same thing that they did when we invaded Panama.

Anyone ever see that cartoon with one smaller fish about to be eaten by a bigger fish, who in turn is about to be eaten by an even bigger fish?

Small fish: "Life isn't fair."
Bigger fish: "Life is mostly fair."
Biggest fish: "Life is fair."

 

[ssibal]

Invade without resolution? What do you call 1441?

 

[Reginald]

Prior to the disbanding of The USSR it did very little, they couldn't it always vetoed for the silliest of reasons. The UN had it's chance to shine after that, twas a shame that "after that" came the Iraqi invasion of kuwait. and then it passed plenty of resolutions, none of which it was prepared to back up. Hence it proved itself impotent in resolving acts of conflict.

It couldnt even sort out the Cyprus issue, its been hammering away at that for decades.

 

[aerocontrols]

The same thing that's happened to it every time a powerful country has gone its own way. It will adapt (or not) and move on.

MattJ

 

[Hypocolius]

Re: Re: Re: What happens to the U.N?

The UN's charitable organizations do a lot of good worldwide,

Hmmmm. Having seen many of the UN's organizations in "action" I can tell you that... they spend a lot of money trying to do good, do they actually achieve very much? Debatable. Anyone here ever worked for a UN agency?

 

[Doctor X]

This is based upon a conversation with a person I know who works for the State Department.

I asked what use the UN had. Let us be frank: for better or worse, the UNSC is ineffective. Depending upon the stance ye want:

1. The US/Britain/Et Cetera want oil, revenge, a new parking lot

2. France/Russia/Germany/Et Cetera care more about their profits from Iraqi contracts than human rights

what will happen will happen.

So, what is the point?

The "point" is that the UN provides a venue for very small countries who cannot afford missions and embassies in many countries.

I would like to see the UN reformed, if possible.

I would also like to date Shakira, Uma Thurmon. . . .

--J. "If You Wish Upon a Star" D.

 

[John Bryce]

Gen. MacKenzie, who was commander of UN forces in Sarajevo during the Bosnian civil war and who led one of the relatively few successful international peacekeeping and stabilization operations in recent years, challenged head-on the Chrétien government's mantra that it will act in the Iraqi situation only with the approval of the UN.

Not only is the UN's credibility as either a peacemaker or a peacekeeper minuscule (which is why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization decided to go around it in both Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia), but sticking to its current position means Canada has abdicated one of its most important foreign-policy decisions in decades to France, whose veto will likely determine the UN position on war.

Gen. MacKenzie cites major disasters of UN peacekeeping where this weakness applied: the failure of the UN to protect civilians in designated safe areas in Yugoslavia; the UN takeover from American forces in Somalia; East Timor, where the Australians had to go in to protect UN workers; Sierra Leone, where the mission was so badly executed the British had to go in and rescue the peacekeepers; and Rwanda, where the UN peacekeeping bureaucracy in New York and the member states consistently ignored Gen. Romeo Dallaire's pleas for help.

"This is the organization that should decide whether we go to Iraq or not? Give me a break."

MacKenzie's critique has a ring of truth

 

[Tmy]

The UN lost all credibilty when they started wearing those powder blue helmets. Powder blue does not strike fear into your enemies.

 

[Doctor X]

Hmmmm . . . French military hats . . . UN hats . . . history of failure . . . connection?

--J.D.