Originally posted by Hortlund
How much do you know about what happened in Congo 1960, and how much do you know about the original conflict and why the UN went in?
Just what's in the history books. Initiially another European colonial problem from my point of view. The mutiny of the troops resulted in Belgian paras going in and UN troops going in to get the Belgian paras out. They did that and then were also used to crush the rebellion in Katanga and Stanleyville against the DRP central government but nonetheless the ethnic fighting continued and rebellion continued in many of the provinces.
Shall I go on?
Monica Lewinsky? That undoubtedly played a role. But what is undeniable is that all the UN/Euro maneuvering and troop-sending into the former Yugoslavia achieved nothing until the gloves came off and the Serbs got lit up.
North Korea - 1950, still there. No war since we kicked them back across the 38th and signed the truce.
Don't think we sent troops to the rest of them. And there's still serious fighting in those places. Go figure. But UN's been to all of them right?
Here you go.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
So, by Charter, there's a lot of those places that the UN shouldn't have intevened in by Charter. Purely domestic slaughter isn't UN business. But the UN's been to some of those situations anyway, haven't they? Of course, they're still killing in all of them.
The US intervention was a violation of the NATO charter. Do a search, I've said it many times before.
Obviously the lesson is that neither the UN or NATO can do anything "legally" about internal genocide. So why pretend like they can?
Ah, I see. The boycott of the rest of the world would have brought about change in SA without the US participation. Fine. Have it your way.
Well, Hortlund, I'm educated enough not to make personal attacks in the very least. Can you say the same?
The UN is nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its member nations.
That is true. And when you have a system that puts Libya in charge of the Human Rights aspect and Iraq in charge of Disarmament, you have a totally dysfunctional system.
I'm sorry but the idea that "all nations are equal and equally worthy" is clearly bogus. The system doesn't work because the ability to actually do anything is hindered if not prohibited due to the inherent design of the system.
Now, I've got really busy day, so toodle-pip.
