UN
- Thread starter Jeslek
- Start date
MitchSchaft
New Member
That's my point. We don't need anybody's permission to kick another country's ass for supporting terrorists who have openly admitted they want us dead. And that old inspector you're referring to is John Ritter. He's changed his story. His credability is out the window. Do you know who is paying his bills nowadays? He lectures of folks sponsored by Hussein. He makes films for the same. I find that suspect. He was either lying then(Gulf War) or he is lying now.
Bink
New Member
Ain't that the truth. It's no coincidence the issue of US vs Iraq just happened to pop up around September 11th. Peoples fears are being relived, so what better time to play on them and gain support.
Same deal happened last year soon after the attack, when Australia's brown nosing prime minister played on those fears and even applied them to non-related issues such as boat people, and won himself an election :mad2:
I'm not disputing the issue in this topic, just elaborating on media influence in relation to them.
ris
New Member
the whole principal of the un is that in same way as each person is considered equal with basic rights under the us constitution, each countries say is considered important. the un sets out fundamentamental repsect for each countries opinion, even if they are disagreed with - the right to free speech if you will.
the un has been systematically undermined over the last 20 years from many directions. in particualt the constant refusal of countries to comply with resolutions intended to avoid conflict through pre-emptive measures. more importantly it is the refusal of teh un security council to prosecute action on those states in an even way.
iraq has consistently broken resolutions and they should be dealt with, that i agree with. but so has israel, saudi arabia i beleieve, china. there must be equal treatment otherwise it becomes a farce where only the
i don't recall any democratic country where the richest people have more votes than the poor, or can pop down the road and evict people from their houses because they don't like them but have more mandate because they are richer.
the us might be richest/biggest/shiniest etc but not everyone likes and wants your culture.
the securtity council and its permanent members with vetos etc are where the size and importance of the more dominant countries are put into play. the us, like the other permanent members can choose to veto things put in front of them. it is their perogative as being recogniseda s the largest countries.
i think the un has a vital role to play. it needs restructuring and a hard look at how it runs things. but without it we have no scope for trying to solve problems with alternative means and effectively gives rogue states as much scope as they want to attack each other.
the un has been systematically undermined over the last 20 years from many directions. in particualt the constant refusal of countries to comply with resolutions intended to avoid conflict through pre-emptive measures. more importantly it is the refusal of teh un security council to prosecute action on those states in an even way.
iraq has consistently broken resolutions and they should be dealt with, that i agree with. but so has israel, saudi arabia i beleieve, china. there must be equal treatment otherwise it becomes a farce where only the
i don't recall any democratic country where the richest people have more votes than the poor, or can pop down the road and evict people from their houses because they don't like them but have more mandate because they are richer.
the us might be richest/biggest/shiniest etc but not everyone likes and wants your culture.
the securtity council and its permanent members with vetos etc are where the size and importance of the more dominant countries are put into play. the us, like the other permanent members can choose to veto things put in front of them. it is their perogative as being recogniseda s the largest countries.
i think the un has a vital role to play. it needs restructuring and a hard look at how it runs things. but without it we have no scope for trying to solve problems with alternative means and effectively gives rogue states as much scope as they want to attack each other.
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
That's because the UN has failed to live up to its responsability. Just because something(UN) is a democracy does that mean it's always right? Got news for ya, there is still more evil in the world than good. Throughout all written history it's only been the past few hundred years that goverments caring about the individual man and democracy have appeared. Most countries are not based on freedom and democracy and the UN is made up of scores of those nations that could give a shit about freedom.
The UN stood by and watched as Hesbollah launched round after round of morters into Israel. pre-emptive is one thing, but if some guy tells me that somehow, someway he is going to kill my family then i am going to kill him first period and i don't give a shit what my neighbors think. My neighbors after all were not in danger, i was. Equal treatment yes, but each case must be judged individually. So just because the UN thinks it's a people loving democracy doesn't mean it's infallible. America is every bit as diverse as the UN. We are the country of immigrants. There is no blood American, we are all mearly generations of immigrants.The UN is free to make it's own mistakes, but not at my families expense.
ris
New Member
i never said the un was infallible, but when some countries can flout resolutions with impunity and others cannot it will always be seen as weakened. i believe that equitable enforcement of resolutions in vital in ensuring that the un retains its integrity.
if the resolution has been drafted then it has been heard and agreed on my the members, if the permanent members din't agree then it would be vetoed out. if countries feel that the security council only prompts for action in certain cases then faith in the un fails. the un stands for equitable treatment of countries, as the law in most coutnries stands for the fair and equitable treatment of the people.
indeed, many countries do not have a democratic process, but again there are those where democracy is seen as vital and integral and they must not be allowed to not have democracy. and there are others where it is seen as ok, as long as they do what the world wants.
treat all undemocratic systems equally and perhaps there would be integrity, until then it certainly appears that democracy is only fought for when we feel like it.
if the resolution has been drafted then it has been heard and agreed on my the members, if the permanent members din't agree then it would be vetoed out. if countries feel that the security council only prompts for action in certain cases then faith in the un fails. the un stands for equitable treatment of countries, as the law in most coutnries stands for the fair and equitable treatment of the people.
indeed, many countries do not have a democratic process, but again there are those where democracy is seen as vital and integral and they must not be allowed to not have democracy. and there are others where it is seen as ok, as long as they do what the world wants.
treat all undemocratic systems equally and perhaps there would be integrity, until then it certainly appears that democracy is only fought for when we feel like it.
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
The bottom line for me is that the UN has so little integrity. Integrity is something to be earned and as long as the UN is sympathetic to racism and takes steps such as asigning cuba to the human rights counsel, i will continue to have little faith in its ability to govern the world, which is what it wants to do. When it's a well known fact that the Iraqi rashim has sought weapons of mass destruction(including nuclear), used weapons of mass destruction, is proven to have the delivery devices, has attacked its own neighbors pre-emptively, threatens to use everything at his disposel, continues in these footsteps undeterred for a decade and all the while forgoing one hundred and forty billion dollars per year in oil income and the the UN still tells me that the burdon of proof is on my shoulders i am left with the conclusion that the UN is totally irresponsible. The UN will have integrity when it does the right thing and not until then.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
The UN, for all of it's blustering, will always be a 'paper tiger' until it decides to actually DO something rather than debate about it. The war in 1990 was about liberating Kuwait and getting rid of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, all under the umbrella of the UN's charters. We liberated Kuwait, but we still haven't gotten rid of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. John Ritter, who was a US Marine who actually served during the war, has a serious credibility problem with what he's saying now vs what was stated then. You can't deny the fact that his story has done a complete reversal since he was last allowed in Iraq. If memory serves me correctly, John Ritter was the inspector Iraq complained most about. Now, when 12 years have passed since the war, and 4 years have passed since the inspectors were expelled, the UN still wants to talk to Iraq. What is there to talk about? Comply with the UN treaty or face the consequences.
BTW...The UN is one of the most anti-US places on this planet. No matter what the US does, the UN always complains...even if the US does nothing. Where's the credibility in that?
BTW...The UN is one of the most anti-US places on this planet. No matter what the US does, the UN always complains...even if the US does nothing. Where's the credibility in that?
I'm inclinated to agree with Israel on that one.
However i disagree with the case of the US, how come the UK, Germany, France or even Rusia are not complaining about it?
I do know that the US have their own interests, but so does the other countries in this world, the UN should keep a balance. The US is well known in the whole world for putting their interests above all and don't giving a shit about the consequences of their actions, even overruling the disposals of commerce treaties (sp??), the steel comes to my mind.
However i disagree with the case of the US, how come the UK, Germany, France or even Rusia are not complaining about it?
I do know that the US have their own interests, but so does the other countries in this world, the UN should keep a balance. The US is well known in the whole world for putting their interests above all and don't giving a shit about the consequences of their actions, even overruling the disposals of commerce treaties (sp??), the steel comes to my mind.