Do we need the United Nations anymore?

64 posts in this topic

 

I don't see any evidence Bush has tried to undermine the UN

This was your original remark; appointing as ambassador a man who believes the UN should act like a loyal puppy dog is hardly going to be seen as a mark of respect or cooperation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The very fact he was making a presentation in front of the UN is evidence against your claim.

??? later Powell said he regretted making that presentation.

But anyway, I am not following your logic. Powell made a presentation based on false material, trying to mislead the other members of the Security Council.

How is that not undermining the UN?

 

 

Did Bill Clinton undermine the UN by bombing the Serbs without UN approval?

Yes, I also think the Serbia problem was not handled correctly by Clinton.

 

 

As for false statements and false information, surely you aren't so naive as to think it doesn't happen every day there. Are you going to accuse other countries of undermining the UN by making false statements?

Absolutely. A lot of it coming from China these days (Sudan, Tibet...). But what's your point? We were talking about Bush 43.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This was your original remark; appointing as ambassador a man who believes the UN should act like a loyal puppy dog is hardly going to be seen as a mark of respect or cooperation.

I'd say that Bolton and the US showed a lot of respect for the UN by trying to reform it (funny that you ignore his deeds and focus like a laser beam on one remark).

 

Speaking of remarks about the UN, do you feel Hugo Chavez showed the UN a lack of respect and/or undermined it with the following remarks:

 

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1538655,00.html

When I say these things I believe I'm speaking for many people, because they too believe this moment is our opportunity to stop the threat of a U.S. empire that uses the U.N. to justify its aggression against half the world.

 

But anyway, I am not following your logic. Powell made a presentation based on false material, trying to mislead the other members of the Security Council.

How is that not undermining the UN?

Yes, I also think the Serbia problem was not handled correctly by Clinton.

Absolutely. A lot of it coming from China these days (Sudan, Tibet...). But what's your point? We were talking about Bush 43.

Did no other nation's representative make false remarks in front of the Security Council, which was free to draw its own conclusion? Was Saddam Hussein's system of kickbacks undermining the UN?

 

The point is if you are going to single out Bush for certain things, make sure no other person is doing something that you would construe as "undermining" the UN. Would you say that China is undermining the UN?

 

As for Clinton, why do you merely say he didn't handle the Kosovo issue correctly instead of also accusing him of undermining the UN? Fair is fair.

 

Was Iran's president undermining the UN, and especially the Security Council, with the following comments:

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7011938.stm

He denounced the "arrogant" and "bullying" permanent members of the UN's Security Council, which has imposed sanctions on Iran over its uranium enrichment programme.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Speaking of remarks about the UN, do you feel Hugo Chavez showed the UN a lack of respect and/or undermined it with the following remarks:

Did no other nation's representative make false remarks in front of the Security Council, which was free to draw its own conclusion? Was Saddam Hussein's system of kickbacks undermining the UN?

The point is if you are going to single out Bush for certain things, make sure no other person is doing something that you would construe as "undermining" the UN. Would you say that China is undermining the UN?

 

As for Clinton, why do you merely say he didn't handle the Kosovo issue correctly instead of also accusing him of undermining the UN? Fair is fair.

 

Was Iran's president undermining the UN with the following comments:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7011938.stm

He denounced the "arrogant" and "bullying" permanent members of the UN's Security Council, which has imposed sanctions on Iran over its uranium enrichment programme.

Hang on a second.

When somebody starts to defend Chavez, Hussein, Iran and China in this thread I will start to respond to them.

Since, as far as I can see, nobody in this thread has expressed a positive opinion about any of them, I don't see why I should discuss that.

We were talking about Bush 43.

Of course if you want you can keep on changing topic with "there are other who do the same"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Speaking of remarks about the UN, do you feel Hugo Chavez showed the UN a lack of respect and/or undermined it with the following remarks

 

 

Did no other nation's representative make false remarks in front of the Security Council

A philosophy of "if they can do it we can do it" or "two wrongs do make a right if one of them is ours"

 

I would have thought that someone old enough to hold down a job would be beyond such simplistic reasoning.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the crux of your argument:

 

Well, Bush 43 had high ranking officers in his administration (Richard Pearle) going around calling the UN "the chatterbox on the Hudson".

And another one (Powell) showing false data on Iraq's WMD to the Security Council.

The Perle thing I have already corrected you on, so that leaves Powell.

 

 

Hang on a second.

When somebody starts to defend Chavez, Hussein, Iran and China in this thread I will start to respond to them.

Since, as far as I can see, nobody in this thread has expressed a positive opinion about any of them, I don't see why I should discuss that.

We were talking about Bush 43.

Of course if you want you can keep on changing topic with "there are other who do the same"

The thread is about the UN in general, not GWB, so why was the topic changed to Bush? If others are doing the same thing you are criticzing Bush for, I think it is fair that you acknowledge that, especially given that you have charged Bush with undermining the UN based on some flimsy evidence. The UN as an institution was not undermined by Powell's presentation.

 

William, what you apparently wish to do is to solely blame Bush/Bolton for weakening the UN. If comments by Bolton have weakened the UN, as you claim, when then why would you ignore comments by others that also call into question the UN's efficacy? It is your reasoning that is lacking. None of the comments or actions have undermined the UN as an institution. The problems the UN has have nothing to do with anyone's comments or presentations- the UN is based upon fundamentally flawed premises.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, an hour long meeting and this thread mutates into the Bush thread. Obviously actions of the US are very relevant (much more than Venezuela or Iraq)because it is the one country that wields a lot of control in the scheme of things. And "comments" do matter because in the 'statement' games it indicates who is at the power center. So any comment undermining the UN is going to make smaller less powerful countries have lesser faith in the institution. As is obvious, it is this faith in the institution that holds things together.

 

@MrNosey, ofcourse the members make the UN, so when I mention the UN, I mean the member countries have to start being more reactive. The central issues are,

 

  1. if there is enough will from the member nations to do this - apparently there seems to be, looking at the polarisation of the world on several issues
  2. if the current UN framework allows a majority group of democratically elected responsible nations to take sensible action on the offenders - this does not seem to be the case

That was the reason for the thread in the first place. When I criticize the UN, I criticize the structure which does not allow its member nations to solve problems in the best way .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have always been cynical about the power of the United Nations, but recent events kinda made me realize the incapability of this organization to deal with a crisis of any kind.

That's not its function. The UN exists to prevent war between nations, not to co-ordinate responses to emergencies. It's been mostly successful, apart from a couple of rogue nations which insist on starting wars of aggression every now and again. Did you even read the text you quoted?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprise! I actually did read it! What you state ( preventing war) is the first point in the charter I quoted, would like to draw your attention to the next three. Actually this is just the preamble, there are 19 Chapters to the Charter of the United Nations in the link I provided below the quote.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quid pro quo to get nations to sign up was that they would be free to act within their own borders. Otherwise none of them would have.

 

Hence, all countries have the right to deal with internal emergencies as they see fit. If they do that, badly, how is that the fault of the UN?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is there an alternative system (stronger regional organizations with influence over not just sovereign governments but corporate organizations) out there?

An alternative would be to officially declare that waging war is again a legitimate means of politics and thus the UN is not needed anymore.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Wheel, when can an issue be deemed as internal and when as a humanitarian cause? 'Internal' issues ( the major ones) are a thing of the past. In today's globalized world, any issue eventually seeps across into other ( atleast neighbouring countries) and it becomes an international conflict (Eg: Mass migration of Zimbabwean people into South Africa and the resulting conflicts).

 

Well, isnt it exactly what is happening right now?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

William, what you apparently wish to do is to solely blame Bush/Bolton for weakening the UN

I make one statement and from that you derive an entire strategy - absolutely gobsmacking presumption.

 

The discussion was about the UN until some people turned it into "let's defend the biggest fuckwit on the planet", try sticking to the subject matter in future.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The thread is about the UN in general, not GWB, so why was the topic changed to Bush? If others are doing the same thing you are criticzing Bush for, I think it is fair that you acknowledge that...

The thing is, though - The US and Bush are one of the 5 permanent members of the security council. They have veto power and thus more responsibility to uphold the respectibility and relevance of the organisation than Venezuela and Iraq.

 

When a small rogue nation tries to undermine the UN, that's one thing - nobody really listens or gives a shit. When the US does it, it's far more serious.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United Nations was founded sixty years ago when the world could not have been more different. It has been incapable of adapting to geopolitical changes and I wonder how anyone can expect it to be an efficient organization today and not realize that it needs profound reform and a litltle introspection instead of the usual kneejerk reactions blaming the Bush Administration and United States for its ills.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every permanent member of the security council is responsible. Each has looked after it's own self interest in the past.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jules, this was a discussion of how the UN should be reformed until certain people turned it into a defense of Bush and/or the US, if there are knees jerking it's on the side of the defenders not those attempting to discuss the UN.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will read the thread carefully, however something tells me that it turned into a critique of the US government before people started to defend it...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jules, this was a discussion of how the UN should be reformed until certain people turned it into a defense of Bush and/or the US, if there are knees jerking it's on the side of the defenders not those attempting to discuss the UN.

Read post #3 - as much as Bush is a worthless douchenozzle, the woes of the UN are far from his fault.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now