How the UN should work

[Cbass]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Cbass I believe you are greatly misguided. The UN cannot exist without the US. The US by far has been the largest single contributer overall to the UN.

When the US pays their UN dues, which does not happen nearly as often as it should.

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i

The UN is wrong in its stance on this war. While War should always be the last resort sometimes it MUST happen.

The UN represents world opinion, which is against the unilateral action of the US. The world wants the inspectors to do their jobs, and verify destruction of those weapons. Unfortunately, that's not what Bush wants.

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i

Saddam must go and unfortunately this is the only way to rid the world of him.

I really don't see why Saddam must go. He's not threatening anyone, and before the UN imposed sanctions, he was by far the most benevolent dictator in the region. Compare him to US allies such as teh Saud family, and General Musharraf, and you see he is rather benign.

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i

I cannot understand those that take such a stance when they have not seen the horrors of war up close and personal. What the media shows is but a small glimpse of what actually takes place. My father, grandfather, great grandfather were all milatary men and every single one of them saw combat. Now my nephew takes up because my sons are still to young to do this. I've seen action in two seperate conflicts. I was the one that pulled the trigger. It will put a lump in the throat of any man. But you must remember that freedom and liberty for all comes with a cost

No one wants war, and we're all familiar with the horros of war, either through the media, or unfortunately for all too many, through personal experience.

Yes, war is at times necessary, but personal greed is not a just cause for war. If Bush was concerned with weapons of mass destruction, he'd let the inspectors do their jobs. I'm certain that the US will "find" weapons of mass destruction there, because if they didn't, the US would forever have damaged relations with it's allies, or former allies if it comes to that.

When Bush said that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were responsible for 9/11, every nation jumped in and supported the US, including every nation that now opposes the war in Iraq. To my knowledge, there was no credible proof that they had anything to do with 9/11, but every nation still supported the US.

The situation in Iraq is quite different. The US claims Iraq poses a vague threat, and this is sufficient reason to go to war. The rest of the world disagrees, save a few nations who side with the US for their own gain. Why couldn't Bush just let the inspectors do their job?

[dolla_bill0913]

The UN will never work until every country has a say, not just the superpowers. The countries that should have the biggest say are the countries around Iraq, that have to worry about being attacked by saddam. Why should the french, german, etc. be able to say no lets not go to war, when the countries around iraq have to live in fear of saddam and they dont have a say.

[Cbass]

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
The UN will never work until every country has a say, not just the superpowers. The countries that should have the biggest say are the countries around Iraq, that have to worry about being attacked by saddam. Why should the french, german, etc. be able to say no lets not go to war, when the countries around iraq have to live in fear of saddam and they dont have a say.

Everyone has a say, but it's ludicrous to suggest that Luxemberg should have as important an opinion as the US, or France.

The countries surrounding Iraq DO have a say, it's just that the US refuses to acknowledge it. Iraq's neighbours, even IRAN are againts this war. The only nation in the region that supports unilateral action is Israel

[1985_BMW318i]

Alot of countries voice an opposing view against this war publically. Wait until all is said and done and you will find out that like many times in the past some of these "opposing" countries will have lent help one way or another privately because unlike the Coalition Countries they are afraid to voice public support

[inferno]

Straying a little off track, but there are some good suggestions that I have seen. Do you suppose a punishment should be issued in the future for nations that go against the will of the UN? Clearly if a fine of some sort were to be levied on nations that oppose the will of the UN(actually the UN never made a decision on this matter as there was no vote because of stall tactics by opposing nations to the use of force), there would be less opposition if the nations wish to continue recieving their UN benefits and securities.

[GTStang]

A lot of you who think the U.S. is the scurge of the earth in the U.N. I think you need to look at the building blocks of the U.N. starting with the league of nations and move forward. The U.S. is not the only creator of the U.N. but you surely must admit it is one of the largest. Also the monitary and military support given to the U.N. by the U.S. is they largest percent. But I think you need to honestly ask yourself what would the U.N. be if the U.S. was not part of it?

I'm not saying that this should give the U.S. the right to spit on the U.N. I like the U.N. and I think it helps keep peace and balance of power in the world. Right now wether the U.S. is right or wrong it has created an obvious showing of the inbalance of power thier is in the world right now when the U.S. doesn't adhere to the U.N.

Also people of the U.S. need to understand that just cause we the only remaining superpower and we in a lot of the ways are the U.N.. We need to respect that the U.N. serves us and has helped to protect us, while we flourished into a superpower. The U.S. is a loaded gun to the rest of the world and the U.N. is what helps the rest of the world believe that we are not a truly a threat to them.

Sure the U.N. has flaws but that does not mean we should give up on it. It's like the U.S. government, it's not perfect but it's the best we got. Just cause it's good we should not rest but strive to improve it.

[dolla_bill0913]

Originally posted by Cbass


Everyone has a say, but it's ludicrous to suggest that Luxemberg should have as important an opinion as the US, or France.

The countries surrounding Iraq DO have a say, it's just that the US refuses to acknowledge it. Iraq's neighbours, even IRAN are againts this war. The only nation in the region that supports unilateral action is Israel

So if 5 small countries say yes and one large one says no, the large countries opinion counts more then the 5 small countries? I think the countries that are most influenced by UN decissions should have the biggest say. Hey Cbass dont Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, etc. count.

[inferno]

I agree that some of the bigger contibutors should have more power in the UN, but not so much that it otherwise overwelms the smaller countries. If it were just about size, Russia would be the most powerful followed by the US. Also, if it were just about contributions, the US would be the most powerful. There has to be a balance somehow....any suggestions?

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by inferno
I agree that some of the bigger contibutors should have more power in the UN, but not so much that it otherwise overwelms the smaller countries. If it were just about size, Russia would be the most powerful followed by the US. Also, if it were just about contributions, the US would be the most powerful. There has to be a balance somehow....any suggestions?

Size is subjective in this argument. Russia has land size but what does that mean? China and India have billions of people - should that count for more? How about Economic power. Recourses. Previous contributions. Anyway you cut it on those the US comes in 1-3 in everyone of them. Though I am very much in favor of the US being in the forefront of most everything. Let me say “big F’n deal”. Its the fact a pipsqueak countries like Britain or France can veto an action of the US, China, India, Russia or anyone else is beyond ludicrous. It would be ludicrous regardless of who vetoes who.

There are a lot of things that should go into how much "say" a country has in an organization. Besides the other well documented failings of the UN, the distribution of power is one of the dumbest ever conceived. Libya in charge of human rights. Iran then Iraq in change of disarmament. Shear stupidity.

Why are both France and Britain still permanent members of the security council? Europe needs 2 (since Russia is arguably more Euro centric then Asian then 3) votes? Why does Russia keep all three of its votes when they were given as part of the Soviet Union? Why didn’t the Ukraine or one of the other CIS members get one of the votes? Where is India, any African or South American representative?

The UN says it wants to treat everyone as equals, but the entire organization is not constructed that way. Let it die.

[TexasF355F1]

I like you sig Yogs.

[T4 Primera]

Yogs sig,

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return." -- Colin Powell

...."And the land and airspace to leave a trail of fully operational military bases in their wake long after the conflict has been settled and forgotten" -- Fact, not rhetoric

[taranaki]

Originally posted by YogsVR4



The UN says it wants to treat everyone as equals, but the entire organization is not constructed that way. Let it die.

The U.N. will never die as long as enough countries believe in the original mission statement of the U.N. charter.


WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.

Unfortunately,George Bush has got it into his head that he is the supreme authority on international affairs,even though he lacks the skills to change the course of history without recourse to war.The first line of the charter is of paramount importance,avoiding war is the principal objective.When America gets a President who understands and respects these concepts,the U.N. will still be there.

[inferno]

Originally posted by taranaki
When America gets a President who understands and respects these concepts,the U.N. will still be there.

Also, when France and others don't use stall tactics and threaten to veto a resolution before they even see it. I understand that you don't like Bush, but you keep neglecting the fact that other countries are abusing their power within the UN. Restructure the UN and it will survive, but if it stays exactly how it is, it won't last much longer.

[taranaki]

Every country tries to create the most favourable results for itself when dealing with foreign affairs and trade.New Zealand was doing very well supplying milk powder to Iraq under the U.N. 'oil for food' programme.now that has been suspended,the replacement stock for the Iraqi people will be supplied in the form of 'humanitarian aid' by the U.S. from government-owned stocks. Our trade and industry officials are also speculating as to the effect of New Zealand's reluctance to commit to the 'liberation' of Iraq on future trade deals with the United States.Trade can be a very powerful tool when used as political leverage.The company that supplies catering services to U.S. Marines mess halls at home and overseas is currently being targetted by at least one Republican senator.Not because they are failing to perform to the agreed standards of their contract,but their 800 million dollar contract is at risk because the company is owned by the French.In every conflict there will surely be winners and losers.In this one,the losers will be the countries that traded with Saddam, and the winners will be those that side with America.Many of the countries that support the invasion by allowing use of airspace,military bases or other tactical support are being generously compensated with 'aid' packages.

[450HPviper]

Let the UN Die.