- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31,346
- Reaction score
- 19,891
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?
What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?
Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?
What am I missing?
In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?
What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?
Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?
What am I missing?
In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?
What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?
Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?
What am I missing?
I really don't understand why people engage in such childish whining about the U.N. It is toothless because everyone prefers is that way.
What you are missing is the most basic knowledge about how the U.N. works. Only the security council can authorize force and Russia will simply veto everything as Syria's ally. That isn't a flaw, that is how the system was designed. The U.S. does exactly the same thing whenever anyone messes with one of our allies.
I really don't understand why people engage in such childish whining about the U.N. It is toothless because everyone prefers is that way. If you give the U.N. the unilateral power to punish nations for war crimes, we'd have found ourselves on the chopping block for Iraq.
In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?
What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?
Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?
What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
The U.N. has always been an organization where the representatives of states that do not believe in democratic principles make a mockery of the notion by acting as if they are actually engaging in them.
It's a club without standards for admission, and a case of garbage in, garbage out.
If democratic principles was a requirement of membership, then the US would never have been allowed in.
Then again, it depends on the definition of course..
And if you only want an organisation where membership is based on democratic principles and human rights, then you would have a very small organisation.. it would basically be the EU, Canada, US, South Korea, Japan and Australia, who could not do anything but invade non democratic countries.. is that what you want?
[Snip...]
Nope, I would say the US congress is far more useless and inept than the UN.
Yeah, because all those other international bodies like the Arab League, NATO, G20 etc are all doing such a bang-up job. The UN appears to be the only organisation that is actually doing anything to mediate, alleviate suffering of the displaced and apply pressure on the combatants. It's efforts achieve less than they could perhaps, because their work is constantly hampered by the supposedly big, important countries undermining confidence and reducing efficiency.In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?
The UN is providing the only leadership that seems to be around at the moment. Who else is?What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?
Absolutely, I'll defend them. They do an amazing job under impossible circumstances made infinitely harder by the attacks of the so-called super-powers.Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?
Everything that the UN has been doing, obviously.What am I missing?
it would basically be the EU, Canada, US, South Korea, Japan and Australia, who could not do anything but invade non democratic countries.. is that what you want?
They US has control over a military force to back up their wishes, the UN has hot air.
I'd like to add a few countries to our team (Kenya, for example),
and yes. Non democratic countries will come around pretty quick if we continue whupin' ass. No more of this 'having a genocidal dictator is good because it keeps the country stable' crap. The UN could have a motto: "Mr. Dictator, you might be next".
Kenya, you mean this Kenya with this leader?
ICC prosecutor says Kenyatta case will go to trial | Reuters
They elected a man charged with crimes against humanity... /clap.
Oh they would? Lets see... Europe, Australia, US, Canada.. under 1 billion people... those on the other side... China, Russia, Indonesia, .. hell even India... 2+ billion easy... yea that is really a fight that "we" would win..
Best democracy in Africa.
I think India is with us, and even Russia. Besides, we wouldn't fight them all at the same time - that would be stupid.
Which means it's toothless, useless, redundant, and a gigantic waste of time and money.
Err okay, if you think "democracy" is a system where political parties/persons advocate the mass murder of opponents and actually carry them out in near genocide riots... sure great democracy.
2007
India, maybe.. but certain aspects of Indian society is not exactly democratic... and there are massive internal problems.
Russia.. HHAHA you have got to be kidding.. It is a dictatorship, and one of the worst ones out there.. arresting and jailing anyone who dares speak up against Putin... and that is the lucky ones... the unlucky ones get poisoned with uranium or shot in the streets...
The U.N. has always been an organization where the representatives of states that do not believe in democratic principles make a mockery of the notion by acting as if they are actually engaging in them.
It's a club without standards for admission, and a case of garbage in, garbage out.
I'm well aware of what happened in 2007. I was in Kenya in 2003 and 2005. And I was there after the violence for two years, 2010-12. It's still be most open and transparent democracy in Africa. It also has a (new) world-leading constitution. It was successful in running Al Shabaab from Somalia and has received extensive Western aid militarily and otherwise.
Certain aspects of every country are undemocratic. They're still on our side.
And you think they're telling the truth about Syria?
Seriously, you are defending a mass murderer.. and his government in a country known for rigged elections? I understand you like the country and its people, but that does not mean that their political system is a democracy or anywhere near it.
I think they would be neutral and only enter if China or Pakistan threatened their borders. India does not have a history of meddling in others affairs.
Yes and no. There is no doubt that they have a vested interest in propping up Assad and his government .. just as the US has a vested interested in getting Assad kicked out and hence also the Russians. That is why one has to question motivations of all sides in the conflict and the gas attack.
And then there is the fact that the rebels have been caught, both in Syria and outside of Syria with chemical weapons material, so saying that it is only then Assad government that has gas... is bull****. Anyone with a bit of knowledge and materials can make this gas supposedly used. It is the same gas as used in Japan by that nutso religious nut a few decades ago.
For all I know it could be some of Assads people who did it, without Assads knowledge.. just as it could be a faction within the rebels.. .. but one thing is sure... it should be those who carried out the attack who should be punished not someone who is innocent of the crime.
The US is a country, the UN is not..
In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?
What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?
Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?
What am I missing?
The UN is also not a government and as such as no jurisdiction over any territory or people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?