Skip Navigation

Religion and Politics.

Travel Forums Off Topic Religion and Politics.

Page 1

Last Post

71. Posted by HafJafMark (Respected Member 291 posts) 9y

Mel
I think NATO got involved(taking over is not the phrase I would use), as a last resort. Also, I dont what NATO did was going to war. They disabled Serbia, using the minimum force possible, to put a stop to the war. Because like u said, human misery and violation of human rights, in Europe cant be ignored.

NATO declared war on Milosovich on the 24th of March 1999, because after UN Dutch troops watched the massacre of 8000 people (including many children), powerless to do anything because of UN beurocracy failed to give them permission to intervene.

Both the EU and the UN miserably lacked the moral conviction to do what was neccessary, so once again America had to save the day.
Its getting frankly embarrassing that we (europeans) cant even prevent genocide in our own backyard without American help.

In Rwanda, Kofi Annan refused permission for UN troops to raid the arms stores of Hutu Militias, allowing them to massacre and estimated 200,000 innocent Tutus.

And once again the UN refuses to use force to protect those in Darfur. China has vetoed Britians call for a no fly zone to stop the Janjaweed bombing villages. Why? Because China has lucrative oil contracts with Sudan, so African children are burned alive so that people in Beijjing can drive to work. Its repulsive.

Im my opinion the UN is an enournmous waste of space, and do more harm than they do good.

72. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting HafJafMark

Im my opinion the UN is an enournmous waste of space, and do more harm than they do good.

What harm, do u think the UN do?
At the very least, I think they act as withnesses, to atrocities.

73. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting HafJafMark

Im my opinion the UN is an enournmous waste of space, and do more harm than they do good.

My boyfriend wants to reply the following, to u.

That, IMO, is neither the consequence nor the logical conclusion of the UN being what it is or what it does. It's the most massive organization on earth, providing (despite all its faults and sometimes laming bureaucracy) aid on all possible levels, world-wide.

Unilateral action by the US, with permission from and cooperation by the other NATO countries, did good in the Serbian conflict. The same 'we'll save the day on our own if the need be' attitude has also led to the failing occupation of Iraq and the deaths of at least half a million Iraqi, however.

No matter how frustrating, the only way forward is cooperation on a global scale. If you ask me, the veto-ing should be removed from the UN and the security council, because it's being abused all the time. China don't want their oil flow stopped, the US block any condemnation of Israeli misconduct in their attempts to stop Palestinian violence etc, etc.

74. Posted by HafJafMark (Respected Member 291 posts) 9y

I think removing vetoes will only make it more unworkable. When resolutions start getting passed about the powerful members (i.e. US or China) it would quickly expose how irrelevant the UN is to these countries. Imagine how the US would react to the inevitable resolution condemning it for its support of Israel for example. It would just pull the plug on funding (a whopping 25% of the UN’s budget).

You are correct in saying that the problem lies in the sheer size of the UN, a mammoth organisation like that naturally moves with the speed of an elephant. Unfortunately, world events unfold at a greater speed than the centralized UN can respond to. (They can’t even agree that the killing of 200,000 people in Darfur is ‘genocide’ (thanks again China))
My objection is that many people view the UN through rose tinted glasses, believing it to be some kind of enlightened force for peace and international co-operation, when in reality it’s just a trading post of national interests run by the winners of WW2. The oil for food scandal reveals how corrupt many of its institutions are.

I would rather see an alliance of democratic and transparent nations (not just western ones), that would include the likes of Japan, India, South Africa and Mercosaur (South American Group), than corrupt, self serving nations like China, Russia (even France to a degree).

As to your assertion that half a million Iraqis that have died since the invasion, I am assuming that you are basing that figure on the Lancet report. This report was commissioned by a left wing think tank in Washington, and has been highly discredited. It made its calculations by knocking on doors and asking how many people they know that have died. Granted, many produced death certificates, but most of this work was done in the Sunni Triangle, but the trend was applied to the whole of Iraq, which is far less violent.

Morgues, cemeteries and hospitals have officially recorded around 70,000 deaths. While I don’t doubt that that is an underestimation, the figure of 500,000 seems unlikely (the equivalent of 5 Hiroshima’s!). In any case it is substantially less that the five millions exhumed from mass graves that died under the Hussein regime.

I also note that you use the word 'occupation' of Iraq. Whatever your objections to the invasion, the new Iraqi government was legitimally elected by the Iraqis in an election that was deemed fair by international observers. The multinational forces have a UN mandate to be there, and are there at the request of the Iraqi government. Countless surveys show that the majority of Iraqis want them there. It is no occupation.

75. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

My boyfriends reply

Only by agreeing to removing vetoes, a country shows its true dedication to democracy, I'd say...

The UN is the only organization in the world, where (almost) all countries have a voice. In a world without it, wars would occur more often for lack of moderating diplomacy. 'They're useless' is overdramatic and not factual.

As for the precise details on Iraq: I'm not gonna discuss all that by proxy (and no, I'm not joining TP :D), but your arguments seem somewhat on the rose-spectacled side from my point of view. The Iraqi have seen and are in for a whole lot more death and destruction thanks directly to the unilateral war waged upon them. (Well, not even on them. They're 'collateral damage', how is that for ignoring peoples interests.)

76. Posted by SeeTheSky (Respected Member 558 posts) 9y

its very simple.
people take themselves too seriously.
thats it

77. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting SeeTheSky

its very simple.
people take themselves too seriously.
thats it

Arent there some things, that should be taken seriously?;)

78. Posted by HafJafMark (Respected Member 291 posts) 9y

Only by agreeing to removing vetoes, a country shows its true dedication to democracy, I'd say...

True, but no country will give up their vetoes. Not even in the EU can we convince countries to give them up, what hope do we have of persuading the US and China to do so?

The UN is the only organization in the world, where (almost) all countries have a voice. In a world without it, wars would occur more often for lack of moderating diplomacy. 'They're useless' is overdramatic and not factual.

Ok, perhaps I am being overdramatic. The UN has some good elements, such as the World Health Organisation, The Economic and Social Council etc. Its the General Assembly,security council that provide paralysis and prevent peacekeepers doing their jobs. The WTO keeps millions in poverty in the third world, and the World bank prevents debt cancellation for them.
But when such corrupt governments weild so much power, how can it be anything else? With no permanant representitive from Africa or South America how can it pretend to act in the interests of the everyone?

but your arguments seem somewhat on the rose-spectacled side from my point of view. The Iraqi have seen and are in for a whole lot more death and destruction thanks directly to the unilateral war waged upon them. (Well, not even on them. They're 'collateral damage', how is that for ignoring peoples interests.)

What nobody seems to want to acknowledge is that the Iraqis were suffering greatly under the old regime too (hence 5 million bodies) and the oil for food program. The Iraqis want the troops to stay.. and be honest if you lived there wouldnt you too?

What wars have the UN stopped? I cant think of a single one.

Page 1