As i said, no matter what you might think about it. It is democratic and is not just based on the opinions of one nation - its the only way to do it to be fair - needs a lot of improvements of course...
The UN is only as good as its member states, it is NOT an independant entity operating outside of any interference by other countries. Almost all of the UN's Iraqi resolutions were put forward by the US, and btw, the US basicaly controls the UN anyway because it pays a good deal of it's bills and has a veto. Now the US has used its veto by far more than any other nation, even more than Russia (as USSR) or G.Britain combined, mostly to avoid being condemed by the rest of the world or to help out Israel. The UN is not democratic because of this veto, but its better than not having any type of legitimate world body.
If the U.S. controlled the U.N., where are the U.N. peacekeepers in Iraq? It is a good concept in theory, but the U.N. is just like America in her early colonial days. The congress had no "real" powers to assert over the individual states. They didn't even have the power to collect taxes. It was a body that had no enforcement powers and thus had to really on the individual states to maintain their militias to defend the country. Just like the U.N.; no bite to back up the bark,if they even decide to do that.
How about the USA getting out of the UN. The UN is mostly anti-USA anyway. Let the UN move to France. Let the French deal with "Diplomatic" immunity when it comes to the arrogance of all those ambassadors and their indifference to local laws. I would hate to be a New York City traffic Cop/meter maid. If the USA is so bad, why do we have so damn many people wanting to immigrate here. If thier home countries are so wonderful, why do they want to leave? That the US controls the UN is ludicrous. The US is looked to, to fund too much of the UN budget. Yes, the US has VETO power. Probably because the proposals would have had America pony up more cash for all those deadbeat countries.
It most certainly doesnt control the UN. The UN obviously has its faults, but there needs to be something in place to regulate countries foreign policies around the world. Action like the IRaqi war just past, should only happen in sanction by all, which it clearly wasnt
"..should only happen in sanction by all," but clearly, it would not be sanctioned because the individual countries (France, Russia and others) had side deals for oil and did not want to lose their agreed upon deals with Iraq. If this body truly is to function for the good of all, the members have to stop thinking about the good of their individual countries!
Thats exactly what has to happen. What really has to happen is an integrated UN which makes policy decisions on behalf of the others. Then we go back to a very similar debate as the one with the EU at the moment. Do we all hand effective control over to Geneva or do we not become an intergrated state?
The US does have enormous influence on the UN because so many member countries are beholding to the US for aid whether it is in the form of cash gifts, trade, or military aid. That being said the US needs the UN as much as it needs the US. If we’d taken just a little more time in our negotiations we might not be in the mess we are now. The world’s growing smaller and our enemies are many and growing and despite the United States’ great power we need allies because we can’t take on everyone alone. Remember General Custer and Little Big Horn, or perhaps the Athenians and The Peloponnesian war.
"beholding to the US for aid whether it is in the form of cash gifts, trade, or military aid. That being said the US needs the UN as much as it needs the US. If we’d taken just a little more time in our negotiations we might not be in the mess we are now." If these countries are sooo beholding, where are they at now? Where were they when they voted against helping us? Military aid??? I beg to differ. How much longer should we've waiting? As previosly posted, we almost waiting too long in the previous World Wars. Should we wait until they became like North Korea and then act? Again, where is the U.N. with North Korea? Again, no one has addressed the chemicals recovered that could've killed thousands a few days ago.
Other UN members were making the good decisions that our government failed to make. We should never have gone into Iraq and everyone new it but Bush who was too busy working on his own private agenda. Being beholding doesn't mean stupid. The so called possible chemical weapon agents that were found may well be a "Red_Herring," there are legitimate uses for those "possible chemical weapons agents" as well. Imagine finding pesticides at an agricultural complex. So far these chemicals haven't been properly tested so I'm going to wait until they are before I make a final judgement regarding them, but it wouldn't be the first time that agricultural chemicals were found. _X_X_X_X_X_[small]If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson [/small]
Sounds like your mind is already made up about the chemicals...You can't have it both ways; The U.S. either has control of the U.N. or it doesn't! The U.N. realized that going into Iraq was wrong so they stood up against the bullying U.S. and not go?! More like side deals were made for their votes not to go if anything.
Side deals were made to get members to vote FOR the resolution, and to get states to send troops to iraq. Obviously if there had been actual and provable reasons to go to Iraq, then the US would not have had to try and bribe Turkey with 30 billion in no-interest loans, and even then Turkey did not participate.
"bribe Turkey with 30 billion in no-interest loans, and even then Turkey did not participate." Yet Turkey still got their funding from us! Who got screwed there? Seemed like they used us to get funding. They could've allowed us to pass through their terroritory to get our tanks to the front lines-yet they graciously allowed us to fly over their borders, what an ally! What harm was it to not actively participate, but allow us to pass through? Oriphus, I was rebutting Sophocles that the U.S. doesn't control the U.N.
1. Who were the recipients of the oil futures under the UN Oil for Food Program? France, Germany and Russia??? (Or influential citizens of those countries) 2. Seems like I heard that the terrorists who planned to attack Aman Jordan were associated with Al Queda and received training in Iraq, per their taped & televised confession(s) 3. Until Bush gave the green flag, everyone said that Iraq had WMD's. That includes Bill Clinton and the UNSC. 4. Didn't the Vietnam war start when the French were there? Trying to keep their "colony"? In hindsight, maybe the US should have supported Ho Chi Min before he was driven into the arms of the USSR. Now we get our payback from the French once again. 5. Have not all nations entered into aliances,they would otherwise have shunned, if it were not for the circumstances they are faced with? Be realistic when you start talking about the US support for Saddam Husein & others. Have a good night. I'm going to bed.
All of the previous statements make strong arguments, but the questions still remains... What do we do now? We are already there, so what is the best recourse? If we leave the country like it is now, it will be a major defeat, plus an encouragement that the U.S. can't win a lengthy campaign. Not to mention more terrorist acts will continue. If we stay, we will go back on our word about turning over the reigns at an agreed upon date, and sustain more U.S. casualties from urban/guerilla warfare. The enemy will not use direct attacks against our military, but use subtefuge and hit and run tactics engage U.S. forces. which door do we choose? _X_X_X_X_X_[small]Silent Assasin[/small]
Well getting out would be nice, but obviously that's much easier said than done. The US cannot leave Iraq as it is, It would lose what credibility it has left. The US needs to do several things, and focus on them almost exclusively. Restore basic things like running water and electricity, hell they could even pick up trash. But that is nation building and the US has not had any recent experience doing that. The UN however, has (after reflection, i take back what i said about the US controlling the UN, they are however very influential in its running i.e. the veto). Allowing some former ba'ath party members to participate in some fashion in the government is a good idea (better late than never), but allowing one of Hussein’s generals to take control of an entire town is just ridiculous. The winning of the "Hearts and minds" is a good idea. That comes along with the whole restoring of basic services and security. But ever since the release of those photos, depicting how some soldiers acted out their homo-erotic fantasies on Iraqi prisoners, the prospect for gaining the Iraqi peoples trust has most likely diminished. It's not like the US is not trying to do these things, it's just that they are not succeeding in any endeavour. I was opposed to this war, but that point is now mooted by the fact that the US is now in Iraq and cannot leave that country in this current state. Illidan kicks ass, btw ;p
I am an ex-AJ who has served and seen first hand what terrorism can do. If the UN was just not a political bung fight where countries use their voting power to enhance their monetary value by doing deals with the country that can offer the best deal, we may one day have a united front on the war on terror. To this day every conflict the UN has been involved in, the country in which the UN was meant to help has been left in a sh## fight. Whilst I do not agree with all the decisions made by the Americans, at least they had the balls to react and give the terrorists something to think about.
Ever since the IRA developed Urban and Suburban Gorilla Warfare, it has no longer been the same way for large countries with vast resources. The Vietnamese used these tactics against a very strong AMerican force which lost its will to win the war. The same is being attempted by the Iraqi's now. For stability, i think more Special Service forces need to be used to stay hidden and infiltrate/anihilate the small bands that are leading the trouble. That done, the majority of IRaqis just want to be free from Saddam, the US, the UK, the UN and run themselves.
