Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raptor on October 08, 2004, 10:59:01 PM
-
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
-
what force does the UN have, pray tell
I have never seen the UN Army
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
but when the US doesnt take the UN..it seems to fail. Wierd isnt it.
-
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.
-
He wasn't a threat to the world when we invaded, and that he "would have been eventually" is nothing more than conjecture.
-
>>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?
-
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.
-
Time to take your green pill... or was it red? :aok
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Suave..
I think we are arguing the same thing here. My point was the UN is not an independent organization but made up of representatives of all it's member states. We really cannot blame the UN for failing when it's member states can't agree on a course of action.
I have worked in a UN environment and have seen the results of ethnic cleansing (what a nice way of saying mass murder), I have seen mass graves and the results of ethnic hatred. I have also seen rebuilding and resocializing and the results of intervention by the global community.
It's not a perfect solution or organization but I don't see any other way of doing it.
-
Originally posted by Ripper29
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.
What is a "French Belgian colony" ?
As far as I know Ruanda was a former German colony and after 1914-18 Belgium got a mandate over this area ... it was not properly a colony.
-
yep. the biggest failure of the UN is that it relies on its members for military forces.
To illustrate the problem... imagine that Italy invaded the Vatican.
The vatican asks the UN for help.
In the UN security council:
USA: Hey that aint cool, doesn't that nice old priest guy live there? vote yes military action
France: We need to put sanctions on italy so they back off. vote NO to military action
Russia: not our problem, vote abstained .
Britain: If the US says yea we say yea. Besides, we like the old fart.
China: not our problem, vote abstained.
UN council result: One vote 'no' vetos the military action even though it 'won' the vote count.
Negotiations begin to have Italy back off. Sanctions are put in place.
A Year goes by. 1 Year in which the italians do whatever they want in the Vatican.
The situation gets real ugly. UN council meets to discuss what to do next:
France: Sanctions are not working. Lets do a resolution against them.
USA: k... but if those dont work we go in.
Britain: *sigh*
China: whatever rocks your boat, not our problem.
Russia: absent during this meeting.
Several years go by with several resolutions passed and gone... Italy is still partying in the streets of the Vatican.
UN council meeting #3:
China: i told you its not my problem, vote abstained.
British: But we havent even decided what to vote on how can you abstain...
China: dont care, dont bother us with this.
British: *sigh*
Russia: The vatican situation is very serious, we should do something about it.
France: yes we should.
USA: *sigh*
British: we could each mobilize some military forces around italy, show them we mean bussiness. Give the chaps a show of force.
Russia: Yes yes you go ahead and do that.
France: I agree
USA: If that doesnt work we go in.
France: *sigh*
British: Ok we're agreed. Let's assign the forces we'll send. Commonwealth troops will deploy to the north of italy
Switzerland: cant take sides sorry, you cant put troops here.
Germany: nein. No foreign troops in our soil.
Austria: we'll allow it if you give us trade benefits in return
British: *sigh*
Russia: Our economy is not in a position to support a military operation, we will happily commit support personel and materiel.
France: Our foreign legion is too far away to deploy to italy
USA: just use your regular armed forces you dont need the foreign legion
France: you want our help or no?
USA: wouldnt hurt
France: then we send the legion. But since its too far away we will only be able to help with air and a few units on le ground.
USA: *sigh*
China: *eats popcorn, chuckles to itself*
Russia: and the americans invade from the south
France: yes yes their 2 armies will land in..
USA: *sigh*
British: *sigh*
A year later Italy is invaded, Vatican liberated. However, certain problems arise from italy being invaded.
UN meeting #4
USA: Things are under control, we have several army divisions on the ground and transition of the italian gov. is going smoothly. The pope sends a thumbs up.
British: What ^ they said.
Italy : ow did you have to gang up on us like that?
Germany: Hey our economy took a big hit thanks to your stupid invasion, we had trade deals with Italy...
France: The americans have made several mistakes that shouldn't have happened....
British: *sigh*
Russia: hey italy if you want we can talk about those rebuilding contracts over dinner...
China: why did you call me to this meeting?
USA: We're doing the best we can France
France: not good enough.
Australia: can we get our troops home now? It was a long trip for the mates.
British: France we're doing the best we can with what we have, nobody couldve done better.
USA: yeah, what ^ said.
France: "We have a plan"
Australia: our boys even took souveneirs on their way to Italy..the foreign legion even sued some of our boys for tavern brawls on their way to the italian front....
and you get the idea.
-
Originally posted by straffo
What is a "French Belgian colony" ?
As far as I know Ruanda was a former German colony and after 1914-18 Belgium got a mandate over this area ... it was not properly a colony.
Sorry I should have made this more clear, I was using my failing memory and should not have said French Belgian, as it was not the French at all….or a colony my mistake and I apoligise for any discomfort it may have caused..
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/History%20of%20Rwanda
"Rwanda entered into another period in its history as Germany was ousted from its African colonies at the end of World war I. The League of Nations mandated Rwanda and its southern neighbor, Burundi, to Belgium as the territory of Ruanda-Urundi. Belgium became the new possessor of Rwanda"
-
No discomfort nor hard feeling Ripper
It just looked strange :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
No discomfort nor hard feeling Ripper
It just looked strange :)
No problem, I was just being lazy when I posted it and was trying to remember my history lessons. :D
-
Why would we need to invade Italy to change their government? Wouldn't it fall apart on its own soon enough anyway? :)
NO BLOOD FOR SPAGHETTI!
J_A_B
-
The UN is way passed its use by date.
In our region the only thing the UN did for us in the East Timor conflict is provide some pretty blue berets so our soldiers heads would stick out nicely in the jungle.
-
Here is what I think of "UN force."
(http://www.bhdani.com/arhiva/235/srebrenica.jpg)
The above is a picture taken in a city called Srebrenica in 1995, a city decaled by the UN as "safe haven" during the Bosnian civil war of the 1990s.
The people in the picture are bosnian refugess.
The Bus in the picture is a serbian bus.
Those people were put on the busses, taken to killing fields and killed. Some 8,000 to 10,000 of them.
What you dont see in the picture are the UN soldiers who did squat as the serbs came into this UN "safe haven" and did this.
Well squat is unfair, the UN "soldiers" did manage to fuel up those busses for the serbs - yep they gave them fuel for the death busses.
But thats not all, the UN "forces" commander of Srebrenica did manage to have a drink with the Serb commander as this genocide was going on..
(http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/nelson/rohde/images/peacekeeperkarremans.jpg)
Anyway that how I feel about UN force.
Thankfully the USA came in after this and cleaned up the situation with airstri kes and by helping train and coordinate a new joint Croatian-Bosnian force in defeating the serb killers which led to the Dayton accords...
I piss on the UN.
That bastard Karremans should be shot.
-
Ever hear of the Mendak pocket GH?
"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 yei"
lots of great fantasy stuff here.
The inspections worked. The UN worked.
There were no terrorist groups funded by or orginised by Iraq.
Diplomacy and sanctions worked. 100%
It seems the only way you would recognize that the UN worked is if Iraq was a smoking hole. That was not the declared aim of the sanctions.
-
Originally posted by Scootter
what force does the UN have, pray tell
I have never seen the UN Army
Never heard of the Smurfs?
:(
-
Some question :
- who created the UN ?
- who created the UN powerless ?
-
- Which country has used most Vetoes in Security Council ?
-
Originally posted by Pongo There were no terrorist groups funded by or orginised by Iraq. [/B]
You forgot about the US$20000 Saddam was giving to Palestinian suicide bombers families.
Short memory huh pongo?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Your memory seems to be downright faulty. Iraq paid the families of any Palestinian who got killed by the Israelis ... including suicide bombers, but not exclusively. You make it sound like they were paying the terrorists.
Are you sure you were clear on this last statement?
Did you actually mean to say suicide bombers (who by definition kill themselves) are killed by Israelis?
If they were paying suicide bombers (who are by definition terrorists) they were paying terrorists.
-
So if I pay a Norwegian mother to talk her child into walking into a restaurant in Oslo and machine gunning everyone inside that's okay with you?
-
I have seen a few interviewed that have said they would be proud to have their child become a martyr to the intifada.
So yes, I do think that.
-
Just a note about Iraq, Afganistan, And the rest of the middle East
Am I the only one in the bloody world that knows whats going on here? No ione has ever beat the muslims on their own land. Vald Tepez, with the Order of the Draco, stoped fighting them at the end of eastern europe, he knew, if his army flollowed them into muslim land they'd all die, in the crusades, English soldiers got their arses handed to them, Russia in the 80' scouldn't beat the simple people in Afganistan, Isrreal has been trying for thousands of years to beat the muslims. the United States cant find one man named Osama Bin Laden. And as for the inisergents in Iraq, anybody with any common sense know that their the Iraq army with different clothes on. We're loseing the Iraq war, we just don't know it
-
Originally posted by sb1086
Just a note about Iraq, Afganistan, And the rest of the middle East
Am I the only one in the bloody world that knows whats going on here? No ione has ever beat the muslims on their own land. Vald Tepez, with the Order of the Draco, stoped fighting them at the end of eastern europe, he knew, if his army flollowed them into muslim land they'd all die, in the crusades, English soldiers got their arses handed to them, Russia in the 80' scouldn't beat the simple people in Afganistan, Isrreal has been trying for thousands of years to beat the muslims. the United States cant find one man named Osama Bin Laden. And as for the inisergents in Iraq, anybody with any common sense know that their the Iraq army with different clothes on. We're loseing the Iraq war, we just don't know it
It's 9am, do you know where your false teeth are ?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Control your anger Grun. The UN was not aware of the executions until after the fact, and even if I disagree with Karremans actions (or rather inaction) he really cold not have stopped the Serbs with the forces at his disposal. Are you going to piss on me as well?
I am controling my anger, you know this is prolly a more measured post of mine on this subject. :(
And yes Pongo, the huge difference is that your Canadians fought the Croatian violators of the UN peace lines- which is all I wish that the Dutch had done in Srebrenica..
-
"Some question :
- who created the UN ?
- who created the UN powerless ?"
-UN was created by the victor nations of WW2 and thats why they have Veto power. Why france, a LIBERATED nation whose contribution to the victory in europe and asia is no bigger than that of any other nazi occuppied euro nation, received veto power is one of the greatest mysteries of the 20th century.
-UN was made powerless because nobody wanted to give up control of their armed forces to someone else. Ironically, the majority of said nations rely on US military to do the job while the bulk of their own militaries sit on their fat tulips & their leaders ***** about how they couldve done a better job.
Any more questions?
-
At the time the Palistinians had the support of the US as well. Bush met with the leadership of the palistinians. How can they be terrorists if the US is telling Isreal to negotiate with them? The US doesnt negotiate with terrorists.
The Saudis were doing exaclty the same thing as well. Better turn your army south.
I have forgetten nothing Vulcan. But that is still a great deal more then you know about the issue.
-
Originally posted by OIO
-UN was created by the victor nations of WW2 and thats why they have Veto power. Why france, a LIBERATED nation whose contribution to the victory in europe and asia is no bigger than that of any other nazi occuppied euro nation, received veto power is one of the greatest mysteries of the 20th century.
Document yourself, it's quite obvious.
If within 2 days you still fail to find the answer I'll perhaps take 10 mins of my time explaining you.
-
Originally posted by Suave
It's 9am, do you know where your false teeth are ?
Thats the problem with kids today, speak the truth, and get accused of being old. Ok Ok I might be a little older than some, but all the teeth are still mine.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I think you're delusional.
I'm delusional, yet you are the one who believes rewarding the family of a murderer is okay.
You have an interesting set of values.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Here is what I think of "UN force."
I piss on the UN.
I'm with you Grun- the UN is nothing more than a buncha Bling Bling Gangsta Rapper Wannabees. :mad:
-
I think Grun should go to the Army and get a position in some nice place wearing a blue helmet, like Golan Heights, so he could duck in the foxhole when Israelis are "accidentally" shelling your base.
You little avacado don't know watermelon but you sure have big mouth.
-
makes GH mad that his mother land was populated by rapeing mass murderers. He feels better about it if he blames the UN for what his country men did.At least the UN tried to do something about it. GH just left.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I'm with you Grun- the UN is nothing more than a buncha Bling Bling Gangsta Rapper Wannabees. :mad:
Of course it's a sum of all its parts.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
There were no terrorist groups funded by or orginised by Iraq.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB55/index1.html
Can you try and by more naïve, Terrorist in all these countries, but none in IRAQ, WHY? They’re afraid of Saddam? :rolleyes:
The short list.
Afghanistan
Pakistan
India (Kashmir)
Sir Lanka
Kuwait
Lebanon
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Iran
Syria
Libya
Cuba
North Korea
Sudan
Kenya
Nigeria
Philippians
Thailand
Egypt
Japan (JRA)
-
You dont invade a country because they have a terrorist problem. You invade them because they are a terrorist problem.
And yes. The whole country was afraid of Sadam. And with Western airpower constantly over his country and him trying as hard as he could to get sanctions lifted he made sure that he had no terrorist problem. The US supported him particularly in QUELLING INSURGENCY that was the big fear and focus of the US all through the 70s and 80s..
You can just admit you know absolutly nothing about the topic and crawl back into your fantasy world.
-
US vetoes Gaza action
THE US has vetoed a resolution demanding Israel immediately end military operations in the northern Gaza Strip and withdraw its troops, saying the measure was "unbalanced".
The vote in the Security Council was 11 in favour, one against, and three abstentions.
And then some are b1tching why UN is ineffective. UN needs a new system where one single veto isn't enough so US won't be able to hamper UN's work :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
And then some are b1tching why UN is ineffective. UN needs a new system where one single veto isn't enough so US won't be able to hamper UN's work :)
You know staga we seldom agree but here yiu are right. The UN really needs a new way to get its business done without the US gettingin the way.
I propose that the US leaves the UN, then everyting will be fine!
;)
-
US was crying when EU decided to built its own army, not dependant of NATO, so do you really think US would leave UN ?
Your new homeland is trying its best to stay in heavy weight series but your economy is about fcked up and China and Russia are advancing fast...
Hell will freeze before US leaves UN, even if we both think it would be good for both :)