Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on April 30, 2003, 12:58:17 PM
-
I was under impression that United Nations was created in October 1945 in order to prevent another world war - which was the main concern of the US or at elast should have been.
How the heck all kinds of crap was inserted into the Charter like "human rights" and "dignity of the person" (not available yet in segregated US) and "equal rights of men and women" (a recent invention in US) and "social progress" and "better standards of life" and "freedom" - crap that allowed creation off all kinds of commeeties and "bodies" that due to the UN democratic principles got taken over by the scum of the earth and now tell us what to do?
The only reason I could think of is that US was feeling powerfull and superior and wanted to push other countries around but with the decline of it's power and influence - at least in the UN - the plan backfired.
If US kept to the original purpose - prevention of the world war - all the issues discussed today, maybe even the Gulf War (not being a trigger to a world war by any stretch of imagination) would not even arise.
There was certainly no need to include any country beyong half a dosen that really matter militarily to start a world war.
The rest of the good deeds could be left to charity.
BTW, Rep. Ron Paul (R. Texas) intoduced American Sovereignty Restoration Act, H.R. 1146, in the House of Representatives that would will end US participation in the UN.
If it passes, a more reasonable and specific international body could be established including all nuclear nations and maybe few major ones.
You may wish to write directly to your representatives to support that bill.
miko
-
Or.. if it passes... a couple of different international bodies could be developed that have conflicting agendas.
The U.N. has been shown to be outdated and powerless. The U.S. realized it and went around them. Seems France, Germany and Russia have realized it too.
Seems the U.N. has proven that you can never have too many people being paid to sit in a room and decide that "its best if we do nothing".
MiniD
-
miko, i believe that even though the US & allies did actually upheld that primary purpose of the UN charter.
The coalition forces didnt go 'around' the UN, it was just a matter of *some* UN members not willing to act on resolutions they put their signatures on when the time came to act.
Hussein was trying to get a nuke program going, and he already had chemical and biological weapons; which are being actively sought by Bin Laden and his likes.
A world war is a war fought on a global scale with massive casualties. dozens or more terrorist organizations seeking to get a hold of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, each capable of killing more people in 6 months than all those that died in WW2 ; these terrorrist organizations based and in some cases supported by, several countries is in my book, a clear cut case of a world war.
Destroying the source of WMD's and hunting down these organizations before they can strike is the UN's duty as per their charter.
-
Um... OIO... they went around the U.N. It was not un sanctioned. Members of the U.N. did aprove, but officially, it was not U.N.
Basically, you define it as splitting off from the U.N. That was not the case either. This was not a U.N. action, it was a separate action performed by coalition forces because the U.N. was too logged down in beurocracy to do anything about it.
The U.N. was based on a good idea. But, it learned that if you insist on the whole world agreeing on something before doing anything, you'll never get anything done.
MiniD
-
Wasnt UN sanctioned?
Have Toad give you a little lecture ;)
-
No... a majority of the U.N. backed it. But not everything needed was in place. Letter of the law.
Now... I'm not saying it violated any kind of "international law" either. I'm just saying that the U.N. was set asside on this one.
At best, the operation got "U.N. aproval in hindsight"
Toad can lecture away. It won't change that.
It also won't change the fact that U.N. loopholes were being used by countries with less than honorable intentions.
The U.N. has become too beurocratic for its own good. They never seem to reach a consensus on anything and only react to a U.N. memeber's own initiative in spite of them. Then, it seems only to be a face saving measure.
The U.N. needs to evaluate what it is trying to accomplish and why it is unable to accomplish those goals. Right now, it is useless. Sending food without real security into areas that need both is useless.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The U.N. was based on a good idea. But, it learned that if you insist on the whole world agreeing on something before doing anything, you'll never get anything done.
MiniD
Like putting Cuba on the human rights council...hehe
-
The UN..?? Do they still have that section where the members put aluminum pots on their heads and bang them with wooden spoons?:eek:
-
Think yourselves shreckin lucky that you have no experience of the EU.......
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Think yourselves shreckin lucky that you have no experience of the EU.......
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
Hehehe, thats the freakin truth.
-
OIO, if you're talking about Iraq II: Comical Ali's Debut, I don't think you'll find ANYWHERE that I've said it's UN sanctioned.
I have said MANY times that I would have preferred that it be done under UN sanction, but it wasn't.
Doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason to do it. But the baby blue flag wasn't involved in the combat.
-
Thanks for clearing that up toad. I haven't read even 1/3 of the posts in regards to the justification of the war because it got redundant. I assumed I must have missed something because I didn't recall anyone saying what OIO implied you were saying.
MiniD
-
Just took me a while to get to this thread. ;)
So many interesting jousting contests going on in here.
-
*reels in*
:D
-
Originally posted by OIO
*reels in*
:D
Um... ok. So... misquoting/misrepresenting someone then having them simply say they didn't say it is trolling and hooking?
Ya. Right.
MiniD
-
So dumping all the international relationship and becoming a facistic kind of country helps?
-
Fishu: So dumping all the international relationship and becoming a facistic kind of country helps?
What, did anyone suggest recalling US ambassadors from all countries? Reneging on all treaties? Did anyone recommend not to participate in specific goal-oriented international agreements?
Were all countries "facistic" before the UN was created?
Aren't you exaggerating just a little bit?
For that matter, weren't "facistic kind of countries" pretty active in international relations? Isn't "facistic" state determined by internal arrangement of political and economic control rather than international relations of a country?
Shouldn't you look up the actual meanings of the words before you use them in public, to avoid embarassment? Maybe look up a word "isolationist" or "aloof" to see if they fit better than "facistic"? Or even just to see how to write the adjective "fascist" correctly? Or was that finicistic spelling you've used? :)
miko
-
Let's see about that 20 years from now, if US policy keeps going on the same track.
-
Fishu: Let's see about that 20 years from now, if US policy keeps going on the same track.
US policy has an attention span of a mayfly and in 20 years we may all well live under totalitarian dictatorship if the current trends persist.
But that is not a reason to call my current views "facistic" just because I do not want to make a mockery of Human Rights by my country participating in a Human Rights Commission headed by Libya or Cuba.
miko
-
But, it learned that if you insist on the whole world agreeing on something before doing anything, you'll never get anything done.
Gawd! I'm in complete agreement with Mini D for the second time on the same day!
Some people might be thinking that the UN is useless in a gloating/self glorifying way. I believe the same thing, but in a dismayed, head-shaking kind of way.
I feel the same about Europe - a united Europe could be great! But we see certain countries acting covertly in their own selfish interests. United States of Europe? Like the single currency, could be great if it would work.... As things stand now? No thanks.