Question about UN

[Raptor]

What does it take for the UN to use force? Something like 13 out of 14 votes? not sure on this thats why I am asking

[Scootter]

what force does the UN have, pray tell

I have never seen the UN Army

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Raptor01
What does it take for the UN to use force? Something like 13 out of 14 votes? not sure on this thats why I am asking

No vote is necessary. All you need is one country within the U.N. to decide that enough resolutions have been violated and simply invade.

[Pongo]

Actual votes are not really the issue. You must get by the 5 permanent members on the security council and thier vetos.
The US state department figured it didnt have a majority and even if it gained a slight one it would have to get by Soviet, Chinese and French Vetos.

seeing as how they had no evidence at all of WMD its not supprising they coudnt scare up enought votes to be sure. Being defeated would have been near unthinkable. So they didnt ask.

[Holden McGroin]

AFAIK, Korea and the Gulf War are the only examples of UN actually resorting to the use of military force. (Yugoslavia was NATO)

In Korea, the US led a UN coalition of 16 countries including SK, and absorbed 94% of the non-Korean deaths, 91% of non-Korean casualties.

S Korea took 4.5 times more casualties than did the USA but would have absorbed that loss regardless of UN involvement.  

So the short answer is what the UN needs to project force is the US.

[Pongo]

but when the US doesnt take the UN..it seems to fail. Wierd isnt it.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Pongo
but when the US doesnt take the UN..it seems to fail. Wierd isnt it.

no it is a powerless body built on Idealism of a world peace utopia.

Specifically Iraq.....12 resolutions concerning them and Iraq was still playing cat/mouse games w/ inspecters.

Sadam was a threat to the world (or would have been eventually) and the majority of countrys apposed to actions had secret dealins with him.

Keeping in mind Sadam had over 500 tons of raw uranium...AFTER THE INVASION....that equates, after enrichment, to 142 bombs of medium yeild.


Back to the UN.  Seriously, this "world organization" puts countrys like China in charge of "human rights" issues.  I cannot see this as any sort of effective body.

[SOB]

He wasn't a threat to the world when we invaded, and that he "would have been eventually" is nothing more than conjecture.

[TweetyBird]

>>He wasn't a threat to the world when we invaded, and that he "would have been eventually" is nothing more than conjecture.

<<

If the report of UN corruption is accurate, he WAS a threat. Does that report of UN corruption not disturb you?

AND big old edit: If the report is accurate, he is not the only threat.
Do you take kindly to UN being (edit:  used as a )money launderer for a tyrant?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SOB
He wasn't a threat to the world when we invaded, and that he "would have been eventually" is nothing more than conjecture.

the guy was sitting on 500 tons of uranium....


according to his scientists he had the means to enrich it burried....waiting for the world to turn a blind eye and offer sympothy for the us "starving the Iraqi people" through the oil for food program.

[Staga]

Time to take your green pill... or was it red?  

[Krusher]

Originally posted by GScholz
Actually they did and they lost with 4 aye votes vs. 5 nay votes, the rest abstained. They needed 9 aye votes to get the resolution passed so no one needed to veto it. So the simple fact is that the invasion resolution was rejected by the UNSC, but still the US and UK invaded.

hard to get the votes you need when 3 of the countries involved where on saddams payroll.

[Suave]

When Iraqi soldiers were shooting at UN inspectors, what did the UN do?

If the US forces in desert storm would've went on to baghdad and ousted Saddam in '91 all of the nations of the coalition would've enthusiasticly marched along with us. (Thank you very much Mr "you break it you buy it" for stopping that from happening)

The UN also did a bangup job in Rawanda didn't they? The UN wouldn't even supply their personel with bodybags for their dead. And how did the UN "peacekeeping" forces retaliate when a dozen of them were killed ? They promptly left the country.

The UN is a  good idea, a community of civilized countries that will intervene and depose murderous tyrants. But, tragically, in implementation it has been more of a fascilitator of oppresion and  genocide than a liberator.

[Ripper29]

Originally posted by Suave

The UN also did a bangup job in Rawanda didn't they? The UN wouldn't even supply their personel with bodybags for their dead. And how did the UN "peacekeeping" forces retaliate when a dozen of them were killed ? They promptly left the country.

The UN is a  good idea, a community of civilized countries that will intervene and depose murderous tyrants. But, tragically, in implementation it has been more of a fascilitator of oppresion and  genocide than a liberator.

The problem with the UN is that they do not have a "standing" army and can not deploy rapidly to any place in the world on short notice, it relies on it's member states to provide this type of response.  If one of the permanent members of the security counsel vetoes a course of action the result is what ever action is put on hold.  

It becomes complicated when the interests of the member sates are in conflict with the proposed actions, there is lot's of reference to the food for oil program and the response of the Germans, Russians and French.  However no one member state has not done something similar in the past, I don't mean the food for oil type thing.  As an example in June 2002 the US refused to renew the mandate for a continuation of the UN Mission in Bosnia until they received an exemption for the World Court, it seems they were concerned that their soldiers might be held accountable for their actions (BUSH made reference to the world court in the debate last night).

You made reference to Rwanda, the only troops committed to this mission that were non African were Belgian, and as Rwanda was a former French Belgian colony it was felt that the mission commander should be from somewhere else.  A Canadian was chosen, Romeo Dallaire, he reported to the UN that the danger of mass killings was growing and requested additional troops be sent.  None of the member states would agree to provide the troops, including the US who were still dealing with the fallout of the Somalia Mission.  The 10 Belgian peacekeepers that were killed resulted in the Belgian government ordering the remaining soldier home.  Once this happened there was nothing to stop the genocide from continuing.

The UN has admitted that it failed in protecting the innocents in Rwanda and that it failed to act sooner to the reports being sent from Rwanda.  But, again unless the member states agree to a course of action there can be no course of action.  It also admitted it failed in Srebrenica during the Bosnian war.

The value and the strength on the UN will always be dependent on it's member states and more importantly it's permanent members.

[Suave]

Yes I know that the UN is dependant upon it's members to provide troops. Or in the case of Rwanda, not withdraw them.

That's the problem with the UN, it's dependant on indecision makers and politicians with electoral ambitions. While Dallaire was asking for troops they UN authorities were pontificating the definition of genocide.

I think they should move the UN HQ to auschwitz, so that next time they're debating how many hundred thousand murders need to occur for an intervention to be ethical, they can do it sitting in front of those big ovens.