how iraq was, is, and shall continue to be a total f - up

[-dead-]

Originally posted by NUKE
dead, I pretty much agree.

I just wonder why Russia, China, and France never seem to do any "heavy lifting" in major UN security operations.

Not sure what you mean by "heavy lifting" — transportation? or something more obtuse.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by patrone
The UN is as useless as the countries in SC wants it to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

true, but that does not discount the fact that the UN is useless.

True, the countries control what the UN can or cannot do.....but the end result is that the UN is useless.

[patrone]

Originally posted by -dead-
Not sure what you mean by "heavy lifting" — transportation? or something more obtuse.

He means operations that has been sugested and heavy supported by USA in SC.

[JB88]

no.  it isnt.

[patrone]

Originally posted by NUKE
true, but that does not discount the fact that the UN is useless.

True, the countries control what the UN can or cannot do.....but the end result is that the UN is useless.

Its not useless if everyone honour the Charta they one time signed.

[JB88]

its broken because there is no means to enforce it.

it becomes more of a diplomatic mission with a humanitarian angle.

though i was reading an article that clinton is gunning for secretary general.

i have a feeling that alot would change about it if he did.

[patrone]

Originally posted by JB88
its broken because there is no means to enforce it.

it becomes more of a diplomatic mission with a humanitarian angle.

though i was reading an article that clinton is gunning for secretary general.

i have a feeling that alot would change about it if he did.

Nothing will change because they change the Secretary General and I really doubt Clinton would fit

[JB88]

mmmm, i wouldnt be so sure.

regardless of what you think ofthe man, hes a pretty damn good politician.  i think he could add some serious clout to the organization, while countering some of the less loved elements here at home.

just my 02.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by NUKE
I got your point.

But, you have to concede that in fact, the UN is useless by your own definition. Sure, the host countries may be the cause, but the effect is that the UN is indeed useless.

I like it when someone helps me make my point with their own logic.

No I'd say the UN has loads of uses — but we don't use it properly for peacekeeping. WHO, UNICEF, famine and disaster relief, a forum for discussion and diplomacy: the UN is extremely useful.

The UNSC has questionable value while there are 5 permanent members with a veto, no standing army or other method for levying troops and no mandate to intervene. But that's really a fixable kink: if we have the will to fix it. Whereas you seem to be off to throw away the baby with the bath water.

It's akin to saying capitalism is essentially useless because companies in an entirely free market produce unsafe products and an unsafe working environment. This is fixed when people have the will to, and capitalism grinds on.

[patrone]

Originally posted by JB88
mmmm, i wouldnt be so sure.

regardless of what you think ofthe man, hes a pretty damn good politician.  i think he could add some serious clout to the organization, while countering some of the less loved elements here at home.

just my 02.

The guy is to marked by politics to make a good Secretary General.

[JB88]

thats precisely why you are wrong.

come on man, your progressive, try to see it for just a sec.

[patrone]

Originally posted by JB88
thats precisely why you are wrong.

come on man, your progressive, try to see it for just a sec.

Makes me wanna puke,,,,

[JB88]

lol.

bush too im sure.

lol.

[patrone]

Clinton as Secretary General and Hillary as President of USA?.... hm,,, yes I can see it,,, I CAN SEE THE........................*why did it get so dark all of a sudden?*

[JB88]

lol.

hillary.  NO.

clinton as secretary general.  i think hes the man for the job.

people dont listen to kofee.
right or wrong.  they just dont.


i think he has the clout.