Reminding everyone why the UN and Intl' Law are good things

[Calm2Chaos]

The day you allow the UN to determine your security, is the day your screwed for good

 

[ludahai]

The day you allow the UN to determine your security, is the day your screwed for good

When China feels it is strong enough to throw its weight around, it will ignore the UN like Italy and Japan ignored the League of Nations in the 1930s. Due to appeasment in countries like Russia and France, it may result in World War III and a dissolution of the United Nations.

 

[nkgupta80]

im bettin that because of nukes, it'll just be another series of proxy wars between China and the US in central and southeast asia instead of an all out world war III. But yeah, either way, the UN won't be havin much support.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

When China feels it is strong enough to throw its weight around, it will ignore the UN like Italy and Japan ignored the League of Nations in the 1930s. Due to appeasment in countries like Russia and France, it may result in World War III and a dissolution of the United Nations.

Lets get it over with. I see no real use for the UN anymore. It was a good idea that failed

 

[jakurus]

Failed toooo do what?

Congress gets nothing done, should we dissolve it?

The UN includes diverse interests, yet it still plays a positive role in the world, if not a sweeping and resolute role as the protector of the weak.

You have to be ignorant of the UN's purpose to think it should be dissolved,

and you have to be an idiot to think that the US thinks it's a bad thing that it is not a ressolute body.

If the US or any other country wanted, it could form an orgnanization capable of taking swift action.

Yet for the most part, they do not.

Why? Ask yourself that. Maybe they enjoy having the UN to blame for it's impotency in places like Darfur, because that allows them to at least maintain that the only reason their country did not get involved in the conflict was that the UN did not want to. It's just an excuse.

 

[jakurus]

When China feels it is strong enough to throw its weight around, it will ignore the UN like Italy and Japan ignored the League of Nations in the 1930s. Due to appeasment in countries like Russia and France, it may result in World War III and a dissolution of the United Nations.

China is a totalitarian nation that pushes 'communism' to keep the country unified and productive. They are essentially a huge corporation in control of a country and its people.

Maybe they become militant in the future, but for the most part it seems that the most they would ever use their military power would be in the way the US does now, to protect and extend its interests.

I don't think a state-controlled capitalist machine like that is going to worry about getting in land-wars.... I hope I'm right.

 

[cnredd]

Since the topic of this thread is "Reminding everyone why the UN and Intl' Law are good things", I have a question....

I think we can all agree that there are many bad things going on in the world today....

What is China doing to prevent this? Do they bare no responsibility, or is it just a US problem, since the US is the only "superpower"?

The US gets crapped on for lifting a finger...Where are the critics for those that sit on the sidelines and do NOTHING?

 

[SKILMATIC]

Failed toooo do what?

Do i really need to make a list for you?

Congress gets nothing done, should we dissolve it?

Your an idiot, gee I guess the profound passing of the iraqi and afghanitan war was nothing. Your right what do we need this for?

You have to be ignorant of the UN's purpose to think it should be dissolved,

Hes ignorant to know unlike some that the UN hasnt done or helped in a damn thing on the war on terror? Really? So the UN were the ones who proposed the idea of the afghan or iraqi war? O and they also proposed the idea to let the sunis and hutus basically inhiliate themselves over rediculousness. Yeah your right the UN is the most active and positive organization the world has ever see.

If the US or any other country wanted, it could form an orgnanization capable of taking swift action.

Yet for the most part, they do not.

Why? Ask yourself that. Maybe they enjoy having the UN to blame for it's impotency in places like Darfur, because that allows them to at least maintain that the only reason their country did not get involved in the conflict was that the UN did not want to. It's just an excuse.

No becasue your an idiot. We already tried (bushes org) we deneid what the UN told us about the iraqi war but we went to war anyway casue we knew the UN were apathetic. So bush and his admin already took a swift action. And now everyone blames bush not the UN. Its so ironic isnt it?

And now you want us to go into Sudan. Wow I can totally see it coming. "Bush invades Sudan cause the Sudanese(janjaweed militias) are taking over and forcing the Darfur region out and to face starvation."

Liberals say "that Godam bush never listens to the Godly UN." "We need to impeach bush for not listening to the international war." Sound familiar?

 

[SKILMATIC]

"We need to impeach bush for not listening to the international war."

Meant to say international law.

 

[ludahai]

China is a totalitarian nation that pushes 'communism' to keep the country unified and productive. They are essentially a huge corporation in control of a country and its people.

Maybe they become militant in the future, but for the most part it seems that the most they would ever use their military power would be in the way the US does now, to protect and extend its interests.

I don't think a state-controlled capitalist machine like that is going to worry about getting in land-wars.... I hope I'm right.

China already is becoming more militant. They have been militant in the past: Tibet, India, Viet Nam, but are showing signs of increased militancy.

China seeks the acquisition of territory, both for ideological purposes as well as for resources.

China claims that the entire South China Sea basin belongs to them, as well as the center line between Hainan Province and northern Viet Nam. Neither claim stands up under scrutiny according to international law, especially previous treaties China has signed and past proclamations of the Chinese government. However, considering the increased sabre rattling coming out of Beijing, I don't think such niceties are going to stop them once they gain increased ability to project power from their shores.

Same in the East China Sea. They claim islands and EEZ lines that have no basis in international law. They essentially claim a line extending virtually to the shores of the Ryukyu Islands, and have been caught by both Japanese and Taiwanese naval vessels with nuclear subs in Japanese and Taiwanese territorial waters, as well as so called "survey vessels" in the waters of both nations.

Then there is Taiwan. They have no legal claim to Taiwan, yet they recently passed a "law" authorizing military force against the island-country.

If you monitor internal Chinese news and ongoinings (admittedly a difficult task if you can't read simplified Chinese characters), you would understand that the current dictator, Hu Jintao, is more hardline than his predecessor. Jiang Zemin had strong support in the military, and while he is undoubtedly a criminal, he was far more restrained than Hu has to be. Hu doesn't have the connections in the military that Jiang did. Hu needs to keep the military happy by increasing arms procurement and taking a hard line on issues like Taiwan and territorial waters. I don't see China taking much in the way of overt acts leading up to the 2008 Summer Games, however, after that, the gloves will come off.

It will be interesting to see how China reacts to the 2007 Taiwanese legislative elections and the 2008 Presidential election (the later of which will take place a few months prior to the Olympics.) The pro-localization parties are gaining strength (strength that will be measured in local elections later this year) and due to the ongoing demographic shift (younger people tend to be more pro-localization), there will be a confrontation between the two countries. I see it happening in the aftermath of the 2007/08 Taiwanese elections.

The U.S. elections, also timed for the end of 2008 will also be a factor. If a weak kneed liberal (i.e. Hilary) wins the election, China will almost certainly take that as a green light for invasion of Taiwan should the Pan-Green localization forces win both elections in Taiwan and push the pro-localization agenda.

Japan will have to get involved because a Chinese occupation of Taiwan would give it direct access to threaten southern Japanese islands, some of the EEZ areas associated with them are thought to be rich in fossil fuel reserves. The U.S. should also be involved, or else its credibility in the entire region (which is still considerable) will be forever compromised. A Chinese victory over Taiwan would signal a radical shift in this region of the world that the United States can't afford to have happen.

 

[128shot]

China says it'll use nukes against us if we step in on Taiwans behalf.

 

[ludahai]

China says it'll use nukes against us if we step in on Taiwans behalf.

Which should be an indication of the nature of the people in charge in Beijing. They have no regard for the destructive power of those weapons nor do they respect international law. If they did, they would have accepted President Chen's offer to have the ICJ adjudicate this.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by cnredd:
The US gets crapped on for lifting a finger...

Only when its the middle finger!

 

[cherokee]

All you hear from the news and political commentators these days is that the UN is weak, corrupt, and useless. International law is laughed at.

And from these beliefs, many of those people go on to say that the UN and International law should not exist. They get angry and lament how dirty, inefficient, or silly the practices seem.

I want to remind everyone that just because an institution fails to prevent a problem, that does not make it useless. Yes, the UN did not act in time to stop the genocide in Rwanda, but if the UN did not exist, it would been even worse.

Both the UN and Intl' law have positives that provide benefits far greater than an intl' system without them could provide. They have very few negatives, far outweighed by the good that having an orderly body to at least talk to other countries provides.

It really bothers me when I hear politicians and commentators say we should leave the UN and let it dissemble. They are making a simple flaw in logic.

Ok then will you listen to someone who has served in a UN mission?
The UN is weak, corrupt, and useless because its ran by politicians.

The main reason (as I see it) is its roped up in to much bs. When one member can stop an operation because they feel the need to talk a bit more is beyond stupid.
And this pertains to ALL the UN members even the US.
Besides the first gulf war when have they ever gotten anything right?
When did they not stand by as 100’s of thousands of people were being killed only to step in at the last moment?
How many genocides has the world witnessed since the UN was created?

The ways in which it works today is wrong.
Can it be re-made better? Yes it can.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Darfur is the UN and EU's business and they are doing one lousy job.The EU wont even call it genocide.It seems that Sudanese oil is an interest of the Europeans.
I remember the BS about America and Iraqi oil.We should be busting their chops big time.Make them publicly explain why their doing so little.
The USA should ship supplies to Chad or Cameroon and let someone else deliver them inside Sudan.

 

[ludahai]

Darfur is the UN and EU's business and they are doing one lousy job.The EU wont even call it genocide.It seems that Sudanese oil is an interest of the Europeans.
I remember the BS about America and Iraqi oil.We should be busting their chops big time.Make them publicly explain why their doing so little.
The USA should ship supplies to Chad or Cameroon and let someone else deliver them inside Sudan.

FINALLY, someone else who sees the hypocrisy of Europe and oil.

 

[Kelzie]

FINALLY, someone else who sees the hypocrisy of Europe and oil.

I was under the impression that it was China, and not the EU that wouldn't call it genocide.

 

[ludahai]

I was under the impression that it was China, and not the EU that wouldn't call it genocide.

China and the EU (specifically France).

 

[128shot]

Odd.


I just realized something.

Whats worse?

The fact that the UN has no power

or

the fact that the UN has no power because nations know damn well what other nations are doing and won't step in because of special interests?

This includes every nation on the UN...

 

[jakurus]

The UN has power, it just doesn't have universal power that it can use swiftly in most cases.

The UN's job is not to fight the war on terror or to declare nations that may or may not be rogue states not worthy of sovereignty w/o following a process.

The UN does some good things. It's a large organization, so it has its innefficiencies, but such is the price you pay for its size.

The UN has a net positive effect on the world. It's a forum for most countries to at least discuss issues. It's a forum for things like an intervention in Darfur to at least take place. It's also a shield countries use to defend themselves when they take no action or take swift but controversial action. Be thankful.

Now UN reform, that is a different issue. Obviously every institution constantly needs to monitor itself to ensure that its structure and enforcement of its rules are conducive to its goal.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Failed toooo do what?

Everything

Congress gets nothing done, should we dissolve it?

No congress is what runs our country. Thats the system we use like it or not

The UN includes diverse interests, yet it still plays a positive role in the world, if not a sweeping and resolute role as the protector of the weak.

The UN can't protect anyone. How ignorant can you be if you think thats there job and they actually are capable of doing it. They don't have the power or the teeth to protect anyone.

You have to be ignorant of the UN's purpose to think it should be dissolved,

It's purpose is pointless. Unless the whole purpose of the UN is to hand out the occasional food bundle. It is a place for pontification and squawking. There is no real ability to do anything

and you have to be an idiot to think that the US thinks it's a bad thing that it is not a ressolute body.

They serve no purpose for the US. Let france host the UN for now on. Still not seeing how they help us. Let alone anybody. Sorry but we have organizations to hand out food already. And they are a lot more trustworthy and organized then the UN

If the US or any other country wanted, it could form an orgnanization capable of taking swift action.

Yet for the most part, they do not.

Yes we do. It's called the US Marines :2razz: :lol:

Why? Ask yourself that. Maybe they enjoy having the UN to blame for it's impotency in places like Darfur, because that allows them to at least maintain that the only reason their country did not get involved in the conflict was that the UN did not want to. It's just an excuse.

The UN is an arena for countries like france and germany to bad mouth the US. They have no international pull so they feel this gives them a pulpit to scream how bad the US is. Other then this, the current set up is not working. I say we just send canada in for the aid part. Problem solved......

 

[Calm2Chaos]

The UN has power, it just doesn't have universal power that it can use swiftly in most cases.

The UN's job is not to fight the war on terror or to declare nations that may or may not be rogue states not worthy of sovereignty w/o following a process.

The UN does some good things. It's a large organization, so it has its innefficiencies, but such is the price you pay for its size.

The UN has a net positive effect on the world. It's a forum for most countries to at least discuss issues. It's a forum for things like an intervention in Darfur to at least take place. It's also a shield countries use to defend themselves when they take no action or take swift but controversial action. Be thankful.

Now UN reform, that is a different issue. Obviously every institution constantly needs to monitor itself to ensure that its structure and enforcement of its rules are conducive to its goal.

If talk is what they want. Start a chat room and they can discuss to there hearts content. They can talk talk talk. And when spomething actually needs to get done, someone else will actually take care of it. Talking it to death although a popular idea is very ineffective...:rofl

 

[SKILMATIC]

If talk is what they want. Start a chat room and they can discuss to there hearts content. They can talk talk talk. And when spomething actually needs to get done, someone else will actually take care of it. Talking it to death although a popular idea is very ineffective...

Kinda like what were doing here.

 

[jakurus]

Diablo 2 is the best game ever,

but your posts made absolutely no sense Calm2chaos. Sorry.

Who told you the UN's role was to protect anyone against the will of its member countries? The United States and its allies are full well authorized by UN treaties to go into Darfur right now, but they choose not to call it a genocide.

Stop complaining about the organization. Its members, including the US, use it as they want. It serves a positive role in the world, if not perfectly.

 

[ludahai]

Diablo 2 is the best game ever,

but your posts made absolutely no sense Calm2chaos. Sorry.

Who told you the UN's role was to protect anyone against the will of its member countries? The United States and its allies are full well authorized by UN treaties to go into Darfur right now, but they choose not to call it a genocide.

Stop complaining about the organization. Its members, including the US, use it as they want. It serves a positive role in the world, if not perfectly.

If I recall correctly, it is the U.S. that did in fact claim that it was a genocide. It was the Europeans who were against using that designation.