Is the UN effective?

[Alejandro1]

Can an organization with no military power enforce law in the world? I question the capabilities of the UN and wonder why we have it at all. How long will it last? Is the UN just a repeat of the League of Nations?

[NJDeadzone]

At 4/2/03 05:30 PM, alejandro1 wrote: Can an organization with no military power enforce law in the world? I question the capabilities of the UN and wonder why we have it at all. How long will it last? Is the UN just a repeat of the League of Nations?

actually, the UN does have some military strength, that's why it's different than the League, along with the security council veto rule. And it's evident that the UN is effective in creating a basic worldwide opinion, it's just the US doesn't care, and that the UN will ride things out in the meantime.

[Commander-K25]

At 4/2/03 07:28 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: actually, the UN does have some military strength, that's why it's different than the League, along with the security council veto rule. And it's evident that the UN is effective in creating a basic worldwide opinion, it's just the US doesn't care, and that the UN will ride things out in the meantime.

The U.S. is annoyed with it now because it is becoming an ineffectual debating society. It has some military power but rarely uses it. They are becoming the League of United Nations.

[AsiaNsKyTrancE]

no UN suck. they dont do shit to help US win the war. shame on them...

[Jiperly]

At 4/2/03 08:29 PM, AsiaNsKyTrancE wrote: no UN suck. they dont do shit to help US win the war. shame on them...

The UN was made after WWII to enforce PEACE, not enact WAR. and NO where in resultion 1441 or the Resolution for the gulf war does it mention Military action against Iraq.

Ignoring the UN proves the flaws of Democercy ironicly before we force government change on another Nation without world wide support- remember, the UN didn't hold you back- 2/3 of the sercurity council wasn't convinced. And when we are debating issues that could cost human lives, I think you better damn well be sure Iraq has those weapons

[BinLadenmustdie]

The UN is mainly good at humanitarian efforts and beaucracy. Contrary to what some people think (or hope for), the UN is not a one-world government.

[Jiperly]

At 4/2/03 08:08 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 4/2/03 07:28 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: actually, the UN does have some military strength, that's why it's different than the League, along with the security council veto rule. And it's evident that the UN is effective in creating a basic worldwide opinion, it's just the US doesn't care, and that the UN will ride things out in the meantime.

The U.S. is annoyed with it now because it is becoming an ineffectual debating society. It has some military power but rarely uses it. They are becoming the League of United Nations.

The League of Nations was a group of countries that did everything so long as there is an ecconmic gain- thats all it was about- gain. The UN defends peoples rights and prevents wars. The League never did any of that. The UN has plenty of cash to gain from Iraq if it invades- but since they don't they are the League of Nations? just because they do not agree with the America public? do you know that according to international law put down with the assitance of America, America , Britian , and all other collition countries could be hit with sanctions for going against International Law, which is ironnicly what has been causing poverty and death in Iraq for the last 12 years? Did you know that the UN estimates 500,000 children have died from the sanctions and the weekly bombings that Iraq has received since 1991?

But wait.....since they don't agree with the US, then they are the League of Nations.....

The UN isn't the US's puppet- its a revoltuary debate that we should always keep. Just because Bush has decided that Dipolmacy won't get him what he wants doesn't mean it is worthless.

[BinLadenmustdie]

Don't try to make the UN out to be some altruistic haven for truth and justice. Did you know that under the 1991 sanctions, the UN receives 28% of all Iraqi oil profits? Yeah, no $$$ influence involved there at all.

Ask Saddam where all the humanitarian aid went that was supposed to go to all the dying children.

[Jimsween]

At 4/2/03 10:10 PM, BinLadenmustdie wrote:

Ask Saddam where all the humanitarian aid went that was supposed to go to all the dying children.

And he'd probably say, "What dying children?"

[Der-Ubermensch]

The UN represents the will of sovereign nations, that of the free world. What the US did was spit in the face of those who preach and ask for peaceful resolutions to conflicts. The world will remember this, for some time. The United Nations will recover and prosper even after this incident and one day, the US is likely to regret its decision.

[BinLadenmustdie]

The US is the one that was spit upon by the gutless countries without the balls to stand up and enforce a resolution they themselves signed, passing 15-0. They saw it as an opportunity to make the USA the bad cop and do the dirty work while they can sit back and preach about how horrible & evil the USA is.

That's fine. We in America have long memories too. Ask Saddam.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 4/2/03 11:55 PM, BinLadenmustdie wrote:

...That's fine. We in America have long memories too. Ask Saddam.

You need to do your homework regarding resolution 1441.

[biteme2514]

Well, Bush pretty much ignored the UN when he was told that he shouldn't proceed with the war... And he's the friggin' president! What kind of example does that set for all the other countries?

[BinLadenmustdie]

The US had 10 votes lined up for a second resolution that said we were to war. (We didn't need it, but did it for Tony Blair's sake.) You only need 9 for a resolution to pass. That's when France came out saying they would veto any resolution, no matter what. When they say that, why waste everyone's time with something that will get vetoed unilaterally by thr French? They are the ones that spit on the UN's approval, not the US.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 4/3/03 10:45 AM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: The US had 10 votes lined up for a second resolution that said we were to war. (We didn't need it, but did it for Tony Blair's sake.) You only need 9 for a resolution to pass. That's when France came out saying they would veto any resolution, no matter what. When they say that, why waste everyone's time with something that will get vetoed unilaterally by thr French? They are the ones that spit on the UN's approval, not the US.

Russia would probably have vetoed that one as well, and I doubt Germany would have agreed either.

[BinLadenmustdie]

At 4/3/03 11:55 AM, Ruination wrote:

At 4/3/03 10:45 AM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: The US had 10 votes lined up for a second resolution that said we were to war. (We didn't need it, but did it for Tony Blair's sake.) You only need 9 for a resolution to pass. That's when France came out saying they would veto any resolution, no matter what. When they say that, why waste everyone's time with something that will get vetoed unilaterally by thr French? They are the ones that spit on the UN's approval, not the US.

Russia would probably have vetoed that one as well, and I doubt Germany would have agreed either.

Before France pulled their veto stunt, Russia was flip-flopping on a veto or not. Germany didn't ever say they would veto, from what I saw. If 10 countries voted for the resolution, I don't see any way that Russia would have vetoed. They would have abstained. Probably the same for Germany. France is the one that wanted to paint the US in a corner. It didn't work.

[RoboTripper]

How many of those 10 countries were bribed by the U.S. into promising a yes vote? And I would have to say that Bush didn't need any help from France or anyone else to paint himself into a corner.

[implodinggoat]

U.N. approval is meaningless for a sovreign nation. While having U.N. approval is a nice public opinion victory it has little meaning. The U.S. doesn't need the U.N.'s military support and it doesn't need their approval. Under the constitution the United States government has the sovreign power to delcare war. I am glad that the U.S. went ahead without the U.N. because it taught the U.N. that they have no authority to tell their member nations when they can declare war.

[BinLadenmustdie]

At 4/3/03 12:52 PM, Crack_Smoker wrote: How many of those 10 countries were bribed by the U.S. into promising a yes vote? And I would have to say that Bush didn't need any help from France or anyone else to paint himself into a corner.

The same amount of countries France sent diplomats to in an attempt to undermine the US.

[TheEvilOne]

At 4/3/03 12:52 PM, Crack_Smoker wrote: How many of those 10 countries were bribed by the U.S. into promising a yes vote? And I would have to say that Bush didn't need any help from France or anyone else to paint himself into a corner.

Ahh... the bribery accusation. Absolutely groundless.

I've said it before, and I'll say it one more time: the United States has the right as a sovereign nation to declare war. People whine and whine about how the US is violating international law. Never mind the fact that Saddam's regime spits in the face of international law, and that some countries in the UN are too spineless to do anything about it. People say that what we are doing shows that we don't care about international law. I say that we are doing it because we DO care about international law, unlike some countries (France and Russia).

If Saddam can get away with what he's doing, then there is no such thing as international law, and if there's no such thing as international law, then we don't need ANYONE'S approval to go to war.

[Disguy-youknow]

The UN has a major problem which prevents it from enforcing its treaties: vetos. The majority of the members in the UN favors war in Iraq, but a resolution authorizing it would fail due to France and, possibly, China's veto (despite what some of you have said, Germany doesn't have veto power). In the past, the USSR abused the hell out of the veto, then Russia abused the veto by refusing to do anything regarding teh Serbian genocide. Now, France said that it would never approve a UN resolution authorizing war with Iraq under any condition . This is not a reasonable position and is based on a larger power struggle between France and the US. Also, China has reportidly implied that if the US allows China to invade Taiwan, then China won't veto. This dirty politicing is disgusting, and the majority is drowned out by angry vetoing countries.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/3/03 02:43 PM, Disguy_youknow wrote: The UN has a major problem which prevents it from enforcing its treaties: vetos. In the past, the USSR abused the hell out of the veto, then Russia abused the veto by refusing to do anything regarding teh Serbian genocide. Now, France said that it would never approve a UN resolution authorizing war with Iraq under any condition .

if we can turn to the US use of the veto on over 50 ammendments that criticise Isreal. they haven't used it much other than on things that make isreal look bad.

[y13gregace]

At 4/3/03 03:42 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/3/03 02:43 PM, Disguy_youknow wrote: The UN has a major problem which prevents it from enforcing its treaties: vetos. In the past, the USSR abused the hell out of the veto, then Russia abused the veto by refusing to do anything regarding teh Serbian genocide. Now, France said that it would never approve a UN resolution authorizing war with Iraq under any condition .

if we can turn to the US use of the veto on over 50

ammendments that criticise Isreal. they haven't used it much other than on things that make isreal look bad.

sure if u want

[Alejandro1]

Vetos put a drag on the UN system. How many times has the US used its veto? Under 15 times. How many times has the USSR used its veto? About 400 times. This is wrong. If a govenment disagrees with the idea, the whole system is held up.

On top of that, how many times has the US shunned the UN? Once or twice. How many times has Iraq shunned the UN? 16 times in 12 years sounds right. But that doesn't matter because the UN is anti-American.

Then again, what has the UN done to enforce international law? I can only think of UN intervention during the Korean War. The UN did not help at all during the Vietnam War, the Cold War (ex. Cuban Missle Crisis), and didn't enforce post-Gulf War agreements. Who solved these problems? The good old United States.

[ChiBangin101]

At 4/2/03 05:30 PM, alejandro1 wrote: Can an organization with no military power enforce law in the world? I question the capabilities of the UN and wonder why we have it at all. How long will it last? Is the UN just a repeat of the League of Nations?

The UN is full of countries who hate each other, the UN just gives them an "opinion of importance." Libya
heads the committee on human rights and Iraq heads the global disarmament committee... great!

[Jiperly]

At 4/2/03 11:55 PM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: The US is the one that was spit upon by the gutless countries without the balls to stand up and enforce a resolution they themselves signed, passing 15-0. They saw it as an opportunity to make the USA the bad cop and do the dirty work while they can sit back and preach about how horrible & evil the USA is.

That's fine. We in America have long memories too. Ask Saddam.

no where in Resolution 1440 does it speak of military action if Saddam fails to comply- only the Security General of the UN can make that decision.

Funny thing is who America blames for not getting their way- only 5 nations have ever held a Veto in the UN- Russia(formerly communist, and thus could be considered an attack on their old enemies if they blamed them), China( currently communist, same reasons as Russia) UK,( agrees with America, so they wouldn't Blame them), America, and France.

there are 3 anti-war countries that held a Veto, but France got attacked for it. Why? because the government knew they could win the PR war over it.

[Jiperly]

At 4/3/03 10:45 AM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: The US had 10 votes lined up for a second resolution that said we were to war. (We didn't need it, but did it for Tony Blair's sake.) You only need 9 for a resolution to pass. That's when France came out saying they would veto any resolution, no matter what. When they say that, why waste everyone's time with something that will get vetoed unilaterally by thr French? They are the ones that spit on the UN's approval, not the US.

inncorrect! they had 5 definate votes, 5 undecided, and 5 against votes. So only 1/3 of the council agreed with him whole heartly.

[Jiperly]

Wow! and i thought this was an educated debate, alejanrol!

At 4/3/03 05:00 PM, alejandro1 wrote: Vetos put a drag on the UN system. How many times has the US used its veto? Under 15 times. How many times has the USSR used its veto? About 400 times. This is wrong. If a govenment disagrees with the idea, the whole system is held up.

America has used its Veto over 70 times, including once where some Isreal soldiers killed British citizens. Reading how wrong the rest of your arguement is, i'm assuming these numbers are being pull out of your hat

On top of that, how many times has the US shunned the UN? Once or twice. How many times has Iraq shunned the UN? 16 times in 12 years sounds right. But that doesn't matter because the UN is anti-American.

Name the only (proven) Nuclear power in the Middle East. Name the country that occupies other nations territories. Name the country that refuses to let UN weapon inspectors in and the country that recently invaded their neighbour within the past year. Did you say Isreal? good! you get a gold star

I didn't want to get into this, since the whole issue with attacking Isreal is bad, since its a jewish country, but If you invade Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction, why do you not invade another? If you cliam that the country is dangerous because it will not declare all of its weapons, but your ally does the exact same thing and gets away with it, thats okay?

lets treat all countries alike, shall we?

Then again, what has the UN done to enforce international law? I can only think of UN intervention during the Korean War. The UN did not help at all during the Vietnam War, the Cold War (ex. Cuban Missle Crisis), and didn't enforce post-Gulf War agreements. Who solved these problems? The good old United States.

The UN WAS in the cuban missile crisis. It was the main area of debate. as for the Veitnam war, it was about a country wishing to be communist in a time where communist equals being evil. So America was willing to destory their revoltution so they could stop one more communist state....and 57,000 American troops died for that war.

[Alejandro1]

At 4/3/03 08:46 PM, Jiperly wrote: America has used its Veto over 70 times, including once where some Isreal soldiers killed British citizens.

Sorry bout that. It was supposed to be under 75 but I was doing my homework at the time and it was prob 15 and I typed that (my bad). But to put my point across, we do not over-abuse our veto like our Soviet friends.

I've never been fully taught about the Israeli conflicts in the past half century so I looked into the matter. Frankly, I think the US has been quite "nice" to them in the past but the Israeli occupation of parts of Egypt and Syria and the attack on Lebanon should have been repremanded by the UN. Anyway, the only reason that gov. is still running is because we give them quite a bit of funding. I guess this Israeli favoritism is a big cause for Arab hate of the US and since the US has the largest influence in the UN, we should set an example and treat the Arabic nations with the same kind of respect we treat Israel.

Also, I do believe that there should be a main peace keeping body in the world like the UN, but it must be given more power to enforce the international laws it creates and to smite losers like Saddam who don't comply to the laws.

[Alejandro1]

At 4/3/03 08:46 PM, Jiperly wrote: The UN WAS in the cuban missile crisis. It was the main area of debate. as for the Veitnam war, it was about a country wishing to be communist in a time where communist equals being evil. So America was willing to destory their revoltution so they could stop one more communist state....and 57,000 American troops died for that war.

Actually, the Cuban Missle Crisis was not a "main area of debate" for the UN. In fact, it was brought up by the US and maybe tossed around for a while but in the end, the UN did not do anything to loosen the tension between the US and the USSR. This conflict was resolved when we met personally with the Soviets and agreed to remove missles from Turkey and they agreed to remove their missles in Cuba. I guess this goes to show that even rough situations can be fixed peacefully.

As for Vietnam, I suppose that the communists could not be stopped because the majority of the people in the country voted for Uncle Ho as leader. Anyway, I'm not sorry that the French lost Vietnam because they make they never thanked us for the aid we sent them during the rebellion (it was over a billion).