UN or US
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-02-2004, 08:47 AM
now that the matter of no weapons of mass destruction is well known. I'd like to see what people think of the UN. Detail please no one liners like "its crap"
Seeing as the UN and its weapons inspectors were right in saying that Sadamn had feck all don't you think they were right not to get involved.
Seeing as the UN and its weapons inspectors were right in saying that Sadamn had feck all don't you think they were right not to get involved.
YogsVR4
03-02-2004, 09:41 AM
At what point did they say he didn't have any? If they believed he didn't have any, why did the UN pass so many resolutions demanding that he give them up? The fact still remain that the weapons he had are unaccounted for.
The UN is quickly going down the road of the League of Nations. Its a bloated bureaucracy. It has a group that can veto anything which has three representatives from one country that technically doesn't exist any more. The second most populous country in the world isn't represented. Two continents have no one on that panel. Two tiny countries have a vote. (Don't get me started on France being there).
The UN did nothing to calm waters during the cold war. The UN was inneffective at doing even declaring a war or the like. They handcuffed (as poloticians usually do) the forces on the ground. Korea, Iraq, Somalia and a few others quickly come to mind as half assed. You don't send people into the line of fire with limited goals. You send them in to win as fast as possible.
Did the UN do anything while a million Rwandans were slaughtered? Nope. Even when asked by the UN representative on the ground they were told not to intervene.
Did the UN make any moves to stop the Chinese from taking Tibet? Nope.
Did the UN stop Britian and Argentina fighting over the Fauklands? Nope.
Did the UN force Iran to give up US hostiges back in 84? Nope.
The list can go on and on. The point is that they sit around passing resolution after resolution that accomplish practically nothing.
Not a singe success they had couldn't have (and isn't done) by nations coming together of their own accord. The UN doesn't even act as a framework for that anymore.
The League of Nations fell on the onset of WWII. The UN probably won't take a War of that magnitude to fall in on itself. But, its inevitable that a paper chasing debating society falls apart.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
The UN is quickly going down the road of the League of Nations. Its a bloated bureaucracy. It has a group that can veto anything which has three representatives from one country that technically doesn't exist any more. The second most populous country in the world isn't represented. Two continents have no one on that panel. Two tiny countries have a vote. (Don't get me started on France being there).
The UN did nothing to calm waters during the cold war. The UN was inneffective at doing even declaring a war or the like. They handcuffed (as poloticians usually do) the forces on the ground. Korea, Iraq, Somalia and a few others quickly come to mind as half assed. You don't send people into the line of fire with limited goals. You send them in to win as fast as possible.
Did the UN do anything while a million Rwandans were slaughtered? Nope. Even when asked by the UN representative on the ground they were told not to intervene.
Did the UN make any moves to stop the Chinese from taking Tibet? Nope.
Did the UN stop Britian and Argentina fighting over the Fauklands? Nope.
Did the UN force Iran to give up US hostiges back in 84? Nope.
The list can go on and on. The point is that they sit around passing resolution after resolution that accomplish practically nothing.
Not a singe success they had couldn't have (and isn't done) by nations coming together of their own accord. The UN doesn't even act as a framework for that anymore.
The League of Nations fell on the onset of WWII. The UN probably won't take a War of that magnitude to fall in on itself. But, its inevitable that a paper chasing debating society falls apart.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
justacruiser
03-02-2004, 11:09 AM
At what point did they say he didn't have any? If they believed he didn't have any, why did the UN pass so many resolutions demanding that he give them up? The fact still remain that the weapons he had are unaccounted for.
The UN is quickly going down the road of the League of Nations. Its a bloated bureaucracy. It has a group that can veto anything which has three representatives from one country that technically doesn't exist any more. The second most populous country in the world isn't represented. Two continents have no one on that panel. Two tiny countries have a vote. (Don't get me started on France being there).
The UN did nothing to calm waters during the cold war. The UN was inneffective at doing even declaring a war or the like. They handcuffed (as poloticians usually do) the forces on the ground. Korea, Iraq, Somalia and a few others quickly come to mind as half assed. You don't send people into the line of fire with limited goals. You send them in to win as fast as possible.
Did the UN do anything while a million Rwandans were slaughtered? Nope. Even when asked by the UN representative on the ground they were told not to intervene.
Did the UN make any moves to stop the Chinese from taking Tibet? Nope.
Did the UN stop Britian and Argentina fighting over the Fauklands? Nope.
Did the UN force Iran to give up US hostiges back in 84? Nope.
The list can go on and on. The point is that they sit around passing resolution after resolution that accomplish practically nothing.
Not a singe success they had couldn't have (and isn't done) by nations coming together of their own accord. The UN doesn't even act as a framework for that anymore.
The League of Nations fell on the onset of WWII. The UN probably won't take a War of that magnitude to fall in on itself. But, its inevitable that a paper chasing debating society falls apart.
What he said!
Their ability to affect the world, or at least the part of the world that needs affecting, has been limited at best, even when the UN was at its strongest. The UN has never been anything more than a handicap to the G7 and a crutch for MUCH smaller countries to have power over much larger ones.
Yogs, I think the UN is more comparable to the Articles of confederation, each member of the confederation supplied it's own military to support any other member who needed it, (but whether or not they supplied a military was the problem), each member had an equal vote no matter their size and each member retained their soveriegnity.
It fell apart in about 8 years or so, so I don't know why they've kept the UN, which has the same doctrine, alive so long. Probably just to show the populaces of their respective countries that they were cooperating with each other.
The UN is quickly going down the road of the League of Nations. Its a bloated bureaucracy. It has a group that can veto anything which has three representatives from one country that technically doesn't exist any more. The second most populous country in the world isn't represented. Two continents have no one on that panel. Two tiny countries have a vote. (Don't get me started on France being there).
The UN did nothing to calm waters during the cold war. The UN was inneffective at doing even declaring a war or the like. They handcuffed (as poloticians usually do) the forces on the ground. Korea, Iraq, Somalia and a few others quickly come to mind as half assed. You don't send people into the line of fire with limited goals. You send them in to win as fast as possible.
Did the UN do anything while a million Rwandans were slaughtered? Nope. Even when asked by the UN representative on the ground they were told not to intervene.
Did the UN make any moves to stop the Chinese from taking Tibet? Nope.
Did the UN stop Britian and Argentina fighting over the Fauklands? Nope.
Did the UN force Iran to give up US hostiges back in 84? Nope.
The list can go on and on. The point is that they sit around passing resolution after resolution that accomplish practically nothing.
Not a singe success they had couldn't have (and isn't done) by nations coming together of their own accord. The UN doesn't even act as a framework for that anymore.
The League of Nations fell on the onset of WWII. The UN probably won't take a War of that magnitude to fall in on itself. But, its inevitable that a paper chasing debating society falls apart.
What he said!
Their ability to affect the world, or at least the part of the world that needs affecting, has been limited at best, even when the UN was at its strongest. The UN has never been anything more than a handicap to the G7 and a crutch for MUCH smaller countries to have power over much larger ones.
Yogs, I think the UN is more comparable to the Articles of confederation, each member of the confederation supplied it's own military to support any other member who needed it, (but whether or not they supplied a military was the problem), each member had an equal vote no matter their size and each member retained their soveriegnity.
It fell apart in about 8 years or so, so I don't know why they've kept the UN, which has the same doctrine, alive so long. Probably just to show the populaces of their respective countries that they were cooperating with each other.
zebrathree
03-02-2004, 05:39 PM
I'll post tonight when I get home.
UN.
UN.
zebrathree
03-03-2004, 05:34 AM
I am in favour of the UN.
We would have had numourus nuclear incidents if not for this organisation.
Yes, of course it has had its failures. But it also has had its smashing successes.
The US is not an island (figure of speech). It needs the UN, just as every other country in the world does.
We would have had numourus nuclear incidents if not for this organisation.
Yes, of course it has had its failures. But it also has had its smashing successes.
The US is not an island (figure of speech). It needs the UN, just as every other country in the world does.
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-03-2004, 06:29 AM
Hans Bliks said they had none he was the chief UN weapons inspector - Remember him he's the guy England and the US didn't listen to. He was they guy who said he doesn't have anything.
a couple of points
going against china would mean world war 3
the fawlklands were part of britain. Argentina was in the wrong.
Why should the rest of the UN give a shit about the US when it goes off on its own all the time
Fighting in Korea was a waste of time. Now you have a devided nation with part of it being communist and having paranoid brainwashed people who hate the US more than death. They even have posters and billboards reading we have nuclear weapons we will crush the US. (note the BBC were allowed into north korea to do a few things)
Note the league of nations was an american idea and wasn't backed by the american's. Which pretty much sums up america's opinion of the rest of the world which seems to be we are right no matter what.
a couple of points
going against china would mean world war 3
the fawlklands were part of britain. Argentina was in the wrong.
Why should the rest of the UN give a shit about the US when it goes off on its own all the time
Fighting in Korea was a waste of time. Now you have a devided nation with part of it being communist and having paranoid brainwashed people who hate the US more than death. They even have posters and billboards reading we have nuclear weapons we will crush the US. (note the BBC were allowed into north korea to do a few things)
Note the league of nations was an american idea and wasn't backed by the american's. Which pretty much sums up america's opinion of the rest of the world which seems to be we are right no matter what.
YogsVR4
03-03-2004, 01:00 PM
Hans Bliks said they had none he was the chief UN weapons inspector - Remember him he's the guy England and the US didn't listen to. He was they guy who said he doesn't have anything.
a couple of points
going against china would mean world war 3
the fawlklands were part of britain. Argentina was in the wrong.
Why should the rest of the UN give a shit about the US when it goes off on its own all the time
Fighting in Korea was a waste of time. Now you have a devided nation with part of it being communist and having paranoid brainwashed people who hate the US more than death. They even have posters and billboards reading we have nuclear weapons we will crush the US. (note the BBC were allowed into north korea to do a few things)
Note the league of nations was an american idea and wasn't backed by the american's. Which pretty much sums up america's opinion of the rest of the world which seems to be we are right no matter what.
Thank you for making my points. The UN is useless and a waste.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
a couple of points
going against china would mean world war 3
the fawlklands were part of britain. Argentina was in the wrong.
Why should the rest of the UN give a shit about the US when it goes off on its own all the time
Fighting in Korea was a waste of time. Now you have a devided nation with part of it being communist and having paranoid brainwashed people who hate the US more than death. They even have posters and billboards reading we have nuclear weapons we will crush the US. (note the BBC were allowed into north korea to do a few things)
Note the league of nations was an american idea and wasn't backed by the american's. Which pretty much sums up america's opinion of the rest of the world which seems to be we are right no matter what.
Thank you for making my points. The UN is useless and a waste.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-09-2004, 08:10 AM
Just because US opinion is completely contradictory to what most other nations think doesn't mean its useless
UN was right not to agree to invading iraq
UN was right not to agree to invading iraq
syr74
03-09-2004, 01:54 PM
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY NSX-R: Fighting in Korea was a waste of time. Now you have a devided nation with part of it being communist and having paranoid brainwashed people who hate the US more than death. They even have posters and billboards reading we have nuclear weapons we will crush the US. (note the BBC were allowed into north korea to do a few things) ////END QOUTE///
So, let me make certain I am "getting this right". You can be certain that if the U.S. had not fought the Korean war the whole of Korea would now be a brainwashed, enslaved, third world hell-hole; not simply the North. And, according to you this eventuality was preferable to the one we have? I am glad to see the force of reason still holds sway over the masses. :screwy:
BTW, the United Nations had about as much to do with actually fighting the Korean war as Bill Gates has to do with washing his car. Of course he thinks it's a good idea, but he sure isn't going to do it.
So, let me make certain I am "getting this right". You can be certain that if the U.S. had not fought the Korean war the whole of Korea would now be a brainwashed, enslaved, third world hell-hole; not simply the North. And, according to you this eventuality was preferable to the one we have? I am glad to see the force of reason still holds sway over the masses. :screwy:
BTW, the United Nations had about as much to do with actually fighting the Korean war as Bill Gates has to do with washing his car. Of course he thinks it's a good idea, but he sure isn't going to do it.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025