|
Post by face it on Oct 20, 2004 17:02:54 GMT -5
UN is full of a bunch of globalists who want to end national sovereignity and replace it with one world government. Kophi Anan would love to be in control of the world. They want to boss US troops while US provides most of the manpower, equipment and money. Look at Korea, US troops took orders from UN while Chinese didn't have to. GET OUT OF THE UN now!
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 21, 2004 6:32:48 GMT -5
Don't be ridiculous. The purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in the Charter, are to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends. Now what's wrong with that? www.un.org
|
|
|
Post by The Problem on Oct 21, 2004 8:01:51 GMT -5
Don't be ridiculous. The purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in the Charter, are to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends. Now what's wrong with that? www.un.orgThe problem is that it means the US cannot act on its own. With a leader who can't see past noon today, who has the intelligence of a house cat, and is unable to admit ever making a mistake you can see how having to listen to the advice of others might be a burr under his saddle!
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 21, 2004 21:16:12 GMT -5
Bertine -- please, please open your eyes to the utter failure the UN has been in its "mission" of maintaining international peace and security. It has proven to be a corrupt organization that conveniently looks the other way while mass murder is being carried on throughout the world. Oh yes, they hold their little diplomatic "talks" and "meetings" -- while nothing gets done, and people keep getting killed. But then again, you're from a European socialist pacifist region, so maybe all of that "talking" sounds like a smashing success to you.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 22, 2004 1:51:25 GMT -5
Of course I know the UN has failed at times, but that doesn't mean we can do without. The Oil for Food scandal is still under investigation. People within the organisation that will be found guilty with corruption will have to get out, but We CANNOT do without this organisation. As I wrote elsewhere, the UN is just a hollow shell, a framework, and the member states make it to what it is and will have to make it work together. The UN can't do anything when the members don't cooperate. If you really think the UN conveniently looks away, you have no clue about the work of its employees. I'm probably more on the left for an American point of view, and more willing to put off war.... so shoot me.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 22, 2004 8:57:19 GMT -5
The UN is really making a difference in the Sudan these days, aren't they..........?
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 22, 2004 11:37:09 GMT -5
Sure we can.
If you really think the UN has been effective at maintaining world peace, I'm not the one without a clue..
Don't worry, there are plenty of leftists over here. They'd be real at home in Europe, I'm sure.
Exactly. Just one of many examples of the big joke that the UN has become in its "effectiveness" at maintaining world peace.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 22, 2004 15:33:57 GMT -5
I can't seem to get my point across. My point is not that the UN is currently effective in maintaining world peace (where did i say that?!?), but that doesn't mean it should be dissolved becos it just 'sucks'. That view is so shortsighted it makes me ill. How can you say we can do without the UN? It's is a very broad organisation made for nations to work together on a large scala of issues. How can you be against cooperation? It's not only an international organ for international peace and security. A list of the issues on the UN agenda: Africa, AIDS, Atomic Energy, Children, Climate Change, Culture, Decolonization, Demining, Development Cooperation, Persons with Disabilities, Disarmament, Drugs & Crime, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Family, Food, Governance, Health, Human Rights, Human Settlements, Humanitarian Affairs, Indigenous People, ICT, Intellectual Property, International Finance, Iraq, Labour, International Law, Law of the Sea & Antartica, Least Developed Countries, Palestine, Peace and Security, Population, Refugees, Science and Technology, Social Development, Outer Space, Statistics, Sustainable Development, Terrorism, Trade & Development, Volunteerism, Water, Women, Youth. Now it may not be equally effective on all issues, that doesn't mean we have to give up on it. Maintaining World Peace is quite a task. It's probably impossible. Especially Africa seems a basket case. The UN has it on its agenda, but the UN- as I pointed out stands and falls with what its memberstates want. It's a cooperative organ, not a seperate world police! If it fails to get something done like on Darfur, you can't blame the UN as a whole, and say they 'conveniently' just talk and look away. That is NOT true. Kofi Annan is desperate for action. UN workers (especially those who've been to Darfur) are totally comitted to the people of Darfur. The problem lies with the states that have conflicted interests that are the Security Council: in this case China and Russia. Furthermore, the UN relies on the various governments for financial and military resources. The United Nations is just what it is, an organisation of united nations, and it's powerless when the nations are not united. Here's an interesting article, called A Broken System, on Darfur and the international community: www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/0913broken.htmThe whole world cries out for 'something to be done' on Darfur. Anyone who sees the atrocities going on there has that cry. But it's an extremely complicated conflict, and there seems to be no answer yet what effectively and realistically could be done to stop the horrors once and for all. A quote from the article referred to above: There is a moral and political void in the world when it comes to coping with catastrophes in Africa -- a void that will not be filled by reforming the Security Council. The problem is the states that make up the council.
Darfur shows that dedicated advocacy can move democracies to denounce atrocities and provide generous humanitarian help. What the earnest advocacy rarely does is propel the powerful to stop the killing. For that to happen, righteous clamor must reach a high enough pitch that politicians in democratic states are persuaded to do a difficult thing: take domestic political risks in pursuit of polices that do not serve their immediate interests, that can be financially costly and that provide no clear-cut exit strategies.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 23, 2004 18:20:58 GMT -5
Same here.
Okay, then it should just stick to humanitarian issues, and stay out of what it CAN'T do -- which is maintain world peace.
The view that the U.N. is something the world just CAN'T do without is so shortsighted it makes me ill.
Quite easily -- we can. There. I said it.
Yet another example of Militant Islam rearing its ugly head.
You don't understand, Bertine. I'm not against "cooperation". I'm against the UN as an effective or legitimate tool for maintaining world peace, since it has proven what a FAILURE it is at that endeavor, and since it has exhibited willingness to be bought off by Saddam in order to NOT take action on its OWN RESOLUTIONS against him! And as far as humanitarian missions/issues -- the UN isn't a NECESSITY for dealing with those things; there are other organizations and ways of providing humanitarian aid to people throughout the world.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 23, 2004 21:21:09 GMT -5
You do get your point accross, I just vehemently disagree. And I doubt if you fully understand what the UN is about. We cannot easily do without the UN. I think even Bush understands that. We need cooperation on *all* the issues above, and the UN was made for that. You say we can do without the UN... How would the US manage elections in Afghanistan for example, if it wasn't for UN support? You can't seem to get my point that you can't badmouth the UN as a whole, becos it is just a framework for cooperation. The problems lie with the memberstates! Funny how you are so eager to focus on the good of the US endeavours and complain it doesn't get enough attention, but so keen on focussing on UN's FAILURE of peacekeeping. Did you read that article? Do you have any idea how complicated maintaining world peace is, or in Africa alone already? It is almost impossible! Does that mean the UN has to but out and stop trying? No! Yes. But did you know Christians and Animists in that region kill too? Yes, the UN has known humiliating defeats. (At least they admit their failures unlike some..) But it had its successes too in the last decade in Cambodia, Eastern Slavonia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mozambique and Namibia. Look at their full record in a timeline from the late 1940's till now: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_UN_peacekeeping_missionsIf you think we can do without, what's your alternative to the UN as a whole?
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 23, 2004 23:41:31 GMT -5
Same here.
I doubt you fully understand the extent of ineffectiveness and corruption that is part of our modern UN.
|
|
Questions and more questions
Guest
|
Post by Questions and more questions on Oct 24, 2004 2:21:39 GMT -5
I doubt you fully understand the extent of ineffectiveness and corruption that is part of our modern UN. What of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the US? And you eagerly focus on the good of the US and the wrong of the UN. The US does not do so well either. There isn't? What is the US doing to help? What is yours?
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 24, 2004 4:57:30 GMT -5
Bertine I fully agree and support you.
However, I do not think the p r i c k s who participate in the discussion (especially this arrogant, fundamentalist and nationalist zealot of no name) will ever understand what peace, cooperation and mutual understanding is all about. Most of them americans are on their way to blood bath the world - exactly as the Germans (with Hitler), the French (with Napoleon) and so many other nations did in the past when they turned fascist.
Any discussion is futile ... they have their agenda and wear the blinkers their Big Leader gave them to wear, so why spare time and energy to persuade them in logical terms ...
I think that Europe should develop its own nuclear capabilities and armies to resist the yankees - and be able to speak on an equal footing with them. This is the only language they understand - good pistol, good gun and some feathers and tar.
To conclude, if an ignorant or fool thinks that the UN is useless let him/her believe so. After all there are so any psychopaths around one can not deal with every one of them ...
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 24, 2004 5:07:44 GMT -5
What really happened to the League of Nations
By David North 20 September 2002
...
It should be recalled that the United States never joined the League of Nations. Though President Woodrow Wilson was one of the principal motivators of the League, the US Senate rejected the treaty that had led to its creation.
This rejection highlighted one of the basic weaknesses of the League’s political foundation, which was inherent in the realities of an imperialist world system: the absence of any viable means of compelling a major capitalist power to subordinate whatever it considered to be its overriding national interests to an international consensus.
As the world economic crisis that began with the collapse of Wall Street in 1929 intensified in the 1930s, the League of Nations was shattered by insoluble conflicts between the major imperialist powers. When an alleged terrorist incident in 1931 (the destruction of a portion of the track of the South Manchurian Railway) was seized upon by the Japanese military as a pretext to invade Manchuria, China called on the League of Nations to intervene. But the Japanese—falsely claiming that China had violated treaty obligations—rejected all mediation.
The other major imperialist powers, particularly the British and French (but also the United States, though not part of the League), did not consider it advisable to confront imperial Japan at this point. Unless the interests of one of the other great powers was directly affected to the extent that it was willing to go to war, the League was not prepared to stop another major imperialist power from having its way with a weak, semi-colonial country.1
The notorious invasion of Ethiopia by Italy in October 1935 was yet another example of imperialist hypocrisy and savagery that prepared the conditions for the outbreak of full-scale world war by the end of the decade. Italy’s invasion, which the dictator Mussolini ordered for the purpose of reinvigorating his crisis-ridden regime with the mirage of military glory, would not have been possible without the behind-the-scenes acquiescence of Britain and France. Still hoping to win Mussolini’s support against the far more threatening imperialist aspirations of the Nazi regime in Berlin, the French and British governments quietly encouraged Mussolini’s ambitions in East Africa. Mussolini was given clear indications that Britain and France would not object to the gradual transformation of Abyssinia into an Italian protectorate.
But Mussolini wanted a military conquest, and his invasion placed strains on his relations with France and Britain—which objected, not to the dictator’s territorial objectives, but to the means he had employed to attain them. But Italy insisted that it had the right to take whatever actions it saw fit in Ethiopia, “since this question affects vital interests and is of primary importance to Italian security and civilization.”
Anxious to cover up their own role in abetting Italy’s aggression, Britain and France orchestrated a meaningless condemnation of the invasion of Ethiopia by the League of Nations. But nothing was done to translate this toothless condemnation into action, because none of the major imperialist powers had any real interest in defending the independence of Ethiopia. Its leader, the Emperor Haile Selassie, appealed pitifully to the League of Nations for its support in an “unequal struggle between a Government commanding more than forty-two million inhabitants, having at its disposal financial, industrial and technical means which enabled it to create unlimited quantities of the most death-dealing weapons, and, on the other hand, a small people of twelve million inhabitants, without arms, without resources ...”
The League of Nations, the pliant tool of British and French imperialism, did nothing of substance to help Ethiopia. The limited economic sanctions that it had approved did not include an embargo on oil exports to Italy, upon which Mussolini’s military machine depended. And who was the principal provider of Italian oil? None other than the United States, which doubled its oil exports to Italy during the Ethiopian war.2
The League of Nations did not “fail” because weak and underdeveloped countries refused to abide by international law. Rather, it collapsed because there did not exist any means by which the major imperialist powers could be compelled to disavow violence in pursuit of their interests.
If an analogy is to be drawn from the events of 1935, the role of Ethiopia is being played by Iraq. That of Italy is being played by the United States. And that of England and France is being played by ... well, England and France. ...
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 24, 2004 5:19:53 GMT -5
HA, I do appreciate your support, but it's not much of a help when you resort to rude insults. You do not call a lady a p r i c k if you disagree with her and her totally different worldview!
No Name, with all due respect, you fail to address the issues and you answer my questions with questions that are no answers! I asked first, you answer first! If you think we can do without something, YOU have to give the alternative that will make things better!
I have not much to boast about, but I think I have been a bit more willing to give a balanced view bringing up the good and the bad. I have admitted the good the US is capable of doing and the failures and shortcomings of the UN. But if you think those failures are valid reasons to get rid of the UN, you do not understand the extent of the role it has in our world today. Ofcourse you conveniently skip over my issue of UN involvement in the Afghan elections as example.
All i hear you do is badmouth the UN, Europe, the Left and anything that is not American, with no concessions but only polarizing more. It's not helpful in a discussion.
The truth is always somewhere in the middle...
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 24, 2004 14:08:13 GMT -5
A lady - my eye. More Calamity Jane holding a a gun and playing it «boss» ... And americans of her denomination do not just disagree - they turn the world in a blood bath just to get oil for their gig uneconomical and polluting cars and serve their «strategic interests» even if this means rumpy pumpy i n g everybody else. You just waste your time trying to reason with her. She is probably not satisfied s e x u a l l y so she stays long hours on her PC to flame the world with nonsense ... just like her ignoramus of a Big Leader ...
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 24, 2004 15:20:56 GMT -5
Bioterror threat is growing, say medicsBy Severin Carrell 24 October 2004 The world faces a growing risk that terrorists will use new biological weapons created by genetic engineering, the British Medical Association will warn this week. Advances in research make it more likely that virulent and lethal forms of influenza and laboratory-enhanced strains of smallpox could be used as weapons, the BMA claims. The warnings are spelt out in a report on the threat posed by biological warfare, released tomorrow by the BMA. The association, which represents 128,000 GPs and medics, will call for international action to curb the threat posed by these weapons. Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's head of science and ethics, said: "We have a small window of opportunity to make the world safer. The fact is that window is getting smaller." The report lists a series of recent experiments creating lethal new viruses and bugs. The BMA will argue there are grounds for using biowarfare tests to find defences against threats from terrorist and rogue states. But it warns there are no international treaties to control these tests. It is understood the BMA report will focus on recent tests including: * Russian admissions that they created genetically enhanced anthrax. * The creation by US scientists of a new type of smallpox - which is eradicated worldwide by a global vaccination programme - from the vaccine itself. This new bug, called SPICE, is 100 times more potent than the original.* A new generation of weapons designed to attack the human nervous system or immune system with "catastrophic effects", perhaps using genetically modified natural toxins. from news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=575474bertine, while we speak these immoral americans are pereparing the next generation weapons - and you try to reason with them !!!
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 24, 2004 15:41:53 GMT -5
I read in the Sunday Telegraph an article saying that «A devil-worshipping non-commissioned officer in the Royal Navy has become the first registered Satanist in the British Armed Forces.» I went to the site of the Church of Satan ( www.churchofsatan.com/home.html) where I read : The Nine Satanic Statementsfrom The Satanic Bible, ©1969, by Anton Szandor LaVey It is evident bertine that people like k, no name and band are more Satanists than they will be ready to admit. And certainly the US is the most Satanic state on earth - the evil empire ...
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 24, 2004 21:21:38 GMT -5
Poor HA What a disturbed individual. Bertine -- I disagree almost 100% with you on these political issues, but you are an awesome gal -- Nope. Perhaps. Sometimes not. Maybe you've said good things about the US, but since I've been back -- from my perspective, all I hear you do is badmouth the US, Bush, Americans who support him, and our reasoned and justified stance for taking out Saddam. You may think the UN is a wonderful organization, worthy of heaping praise upon it; I do not trust the UN (or other countries who refused to help us) to protect OUR country. In which case, the US is obliged to protect itself -- with or without the support of the holy UN. With the information that he had, Bush made the RIGHT decision to protect his country. After 9/11, he would have been a fool to not act on what our intelligence agencies were telling him -- in ADDITION to the intelligence of various countries AND the UN that CONFIRMED and often WARNED ABOUT the danger that Saddam posed. The problem for the UN was -- they never intended to actually DO something definitive about him.
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 25, 2004 2:04:23 GMT -5
Wont speak to you, you american psychotic fasicist ...
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 25, 2004 20:55:24 GMT -5
Becoming more and more unhinged . . .
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 26, 2004 2:34:44 GMT -5
Becoming more and more unhinged . . . I will soon be termed a «terrorist» and deserve a nice bombing from the perfect americans who have received the truth by revelation ... and have been self-proclaimed world policemen - disregarding the agreements they have initiated and signed. And this is the road most of today's «terrorists» followed: they were trying to get their message through to people who said they wanted to be of help, but never heard the oposite side as they were deep inside more than facists.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 26, 2004 5:27:11 GMT -5
LOL.
Actually, in a world governed by the aggressive use of force, your kind will never be considered terrorists, just irrelevant. There will always be terror, those who fight against it and those who passively try to take the middle ground while attempting to gain some attention for themselves. Problem is that both the terrorists and those who resist them are too busy to be concerned with those who are afraid to take a side.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 26, 2004 10:23:49 GMT -5
Actually, in a world governed by the aggressive use of force, ... Waht an nice world you american facists and your Big Leader are creating ... ... your kind will never be considered terrorists, just irrelevant. That's how you treated arabs and muslims until now - insugnificant entities. But you are paying it dearly in Iraq ... There will always be terror, those who fight against it and those who passively try to take the middle ground while attempting to gain some attention for themselves. Problem is that both the terrorists and those who resist them are too busy to be concerned with those who are afraid to take a side. I took a side long time ago - with the oppressed against the dictators and their lakeys. And I can tell you that at least in one occasion we were successful in overthrowing a military junta supported by the CIA and the US government. And I am sure that the policy of the USA in Iraq and the Middle East will have the same result. Either americans start understanding that absolute power will not ensure them the unproblematic governance of the world or they (you) will have to learn their lesson - as the nazis, the facists, the communists, and so many other dictatorships (including the Taliban and Saddam) readily understood. It may take numerous victims in the USA and elsewhere but the result will always be the same: Facism is unwelcome - Yankees go home
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 26, 2004 10:42:20 GMT -5
You say this, but not once have I seen you rail against or condemn dictators like Saddam... in fact you find yourself on the side of Saddam and the terrorists... in opposition to the US. It is ironic where your hatred and/or misunderstanding has led you.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 26, 2004 13:22:32 GMT -5
You say this, but not once have I seen you rail against or condemn dictators like Saddam... in fact you find yourself on the side of Saddam and the terrorists... in opposition to the US. It is ironic where your hatred and/or misunderstanding has led you. This is not true. I have protested in due time the Saddam atrocities and supported Iraqi dissidents (we have some of them here in Europe you know) against him. However, as I fully object the use of a canon to kill a (certainly annoying fly), I also object the invasion of Iraq by the USA - not to overthrow the Saddam regime (it could have been done ten years ago during the Gulf war), nor to destroy WMD (which were never found) but to ensure the control of the Iraqi oil reserves. And I am not animated by hatred or misunderstanding - I just used some of the expressions and style many americans use in this fora and the mass media (An Coutler being one of a species) to advance their cause against the UN, the Palestinians and all other opressed people of the world - who like the americans of the American revolution (who were considered terrorists by the British) use guerilla warfare to fight for their just cause: departure of the Israelis form Palestine, departure of US forces from Iraq, Afganistan etc. etc. etc. I think that if John Paul Jones comitted savage acts against the British in the name of the american revolution, some poor Arabs can certainly commit several «terrorist» acts against targets of the world's superpower - after all as you said it is a «world governed by the aggressive use of force». Well, I am sure you will not agree with the term guerilla warfare (as was the case of no name in the past) but if you read the Encycopedia Britannica article on the subject (part of which was written by another big «terrorist» T.E.Lawrence) you may start understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 26, 2004 14:18:33 GMT -5
I am sorry, but that sentance is totally illogical and doesn't even square with what you said here: Once again you seem to demonstrate that your hatred and/or ignorance has blinded you to logic. Robb
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 26, 2004 16:19:32 GMT -5
I am sorry, but that sentance is totally illogical ... I already said that you do not want to understand ... As for the hatred, I think the USA are turning the world in a blood bath because of the hatred they have for anything not conforming with their way of life.
|
|