The United Nation's

I see there are not topic's about this so i decide to start one so i was just wonderinng what people think.... Why did the Untied Nation's go to hell in Rwanda not just becuase of rasticsm at the time...thoughts

 

The UN is useless. We all know that.

 

Im guessing your saying that becuase your an American and have your head up ur anus Un works Just needs to be listen to and not have Morons puting it down.



(The UN is useless. We all know that.)

 

Wow it smells like Der PanzerPenguin here! The reason why I like this forum is precisely because I can talk with people who don't neceserely have the same opinion as mine. Actually sometimes I love to hate them and I think it's fun and constructive. As long as people don't start with the clichés and providing they use their own opinion , not the one that is trendy in their respective country or imposed by the media.
So I suggest we go back to the topic. My opinion is the following: the reason why the UN.'s political decisions are not always respected is because the mandates are not granted enough military power. In Lebanon they have the right to shoot back and it works. In Yougoslavia they had their hands tied and it was a failure. It's as simple as that. When UN. soldiers will stop being targets and play Santa Claus only, things will go a lot better. Of course the humanitarian branch must go on, but if two brats have a fight you don't give them cookies, you seperate them and if they resist you separate them by force, not by asking.

 

I will expand on Col Hessler's description as the UN being useless. It is not only the ability to listen to the UN that is needed, but also for countries to abide by the decisions made at/by the UN in order for it to do any good. Now, that is not the case which then does make the UN useless. At least in the sense of its conception. Is it any better than the League of Nations? Did that organization prevent WWII?

Looking at today, it is the UN that should be the police of this planet Earth. It always seems like the US (not always correctly) takes up that role. Only when it affects its own interests mind you but does so when it is the UN that should be intervening. Look at the Dafur situation. Or, lets look at Iraq. If the UN was an effective force, it should be able to intercede, and guide Iraq towards selecting a new governement regardless of the type and yet this is not happening. So, in my opinion, the UN is useless.

BTW, this was a good topic to bring up.

I will also add this, I will not supersede Otto's posting but if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to dress for the position. Follow Otto's recommendations and you will get great answers to your postings and be a respected representative of your Nation.

 

Agreed and plus what is needed is the backing of all member nations. This way, if a certain country is becoming 'bullyish', then when the UN intercedes, it carries the weight of all member nations and can then be taken seriously. I would not want to be a dictator and go against the whole world.

 

Now we are talking: PzJgr, I agree on some points but at some places we must admit the peacekeeping works. Do you really believe the U.S. ALWAYS takes up the role? What about Tchad, Lebanon , Kosovo , Cyprus and many other mandates where international coalitions work together successfully?

 

I totally agree. The US only intervenes in areas that would affect "national security". Forget about the other places you mention plus many others. That is why I disagree with a lot of the US's foreign policy and wish that the UN would be a force to be reckoned with.

Peacekeeping does work in some countries. Would peacekeeping work in the 38th parallel? It would be nice to have an organization that could mediate and resolve disputes without having to go to war. But I suppose that is human nature. Good points Skipper.

 

Agreed

Here I will disagree. Yes, while it might be the UN's job to try to stabilize internal problems in a country or region, which its own government can not or will not do, I am not sure that this claim can be referred to Iraq. Iraq (unlike Darfur )was a stable country and no matter what kind of a man Saddam was he had full control of his people. The instability only occured after the US entered, therefore it is NOT a job for the UN but a job for the country which caused the instability.

 

I was trying to word it in a way that portrayed the UN's role in a post conflict situation. Ideally, the UN would have intervened during the escalation prior to the invasion and investigate the allegations (now bogus) made by the US against Iraq. The UN could then stand in between the two nations until issue resolved. In a case where an invasion took place too quickly for the UN to intervene, then the UN could go into the invaded country and work out a plan for the withdrawal of the belligerent country (US) and stablize the country that was invaded. Maybe I'm dreaming but such is my thinking.

So in the end, I agree with you with the addition that the invading country is monitored while it cleans up its own mess. How is that?

 

Much better

But unfortunately we also know that the UN will never go against the US as the US is a permanent member, which kind of makes this a paradox.....

 

Sound nice in theory but Serbia did not rebuilt Sarajevo and Israel not Lebanon either. What about Tchad (civil war) ?

 

I agree and I cannot understand how the US can get away with not paying their dues. I believe they are/were behind several years. I think that either there not be permanent members or because of their size (therefore needed) that there should be some kind of consequence for not paying their fees. Maybe like losing voting priviledges until their account is settled.

 

Yes and that is because the UN is not the organization it needs to be, therefore, Serbia and Israel got off the hook. Did not say it was perfect now nor even workable.

 

I only wish it was that easy, unfortunately the situation is far more complicated this is truly when demacrocy at its best

But I think we are pretty much are all in agreement here.

 

I am sorry Otto for making fun of people this is a place for talking i was out of line im sorry...

But yes Iraq Un has no power there really becuase the country and other countrys around it are always attacking it Iraq has been at war so many times its hard to have it stablized i don't think it ever will unless Every one pulls out even then it will be a civil war so Iraq wont really be "fixed" for a couple more years....

I also find it funny that The Us was surprisded about the amount of weapons that Iraq and Afghi has since the Us gave them weapons to help defend against other attacking countrys..

 

Well almost everybody sold weapons to these guys at one point or another.

 

ya witch doesn't help now that another war has started there