Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As long as there are countries with a veto it will be worthless. How many times has the US vetoed resolutions to condemn Israel for its astrocities? Over 20 last time i checked.

With good reason, though. The resolutions the US vetoes slam Israel's actions without mentioning a word about Palestinian terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah the Veto's suck, but thats why they changed it so the general assembly can overturn a veto w/ a 2 thirds majority vote. (hey it happened a couple times)

 

Oh and for who commented on the fact the US supplies 25% of the UN's budget. Forgive me I'm going off what I remember from grade school, but doesnt the US owe the UN billions in back dues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general assembly uses a majority vote, however the security council (the one that deals with hostile nations) needs the approval of half of the members elected and all 5 permanent members. Also, there have been resolutions presented that did deal with Palestinian issues and they were passed, only the Israeli resolutions were vetoed by the States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as there are countries with a veto it will be worthless. How many times has the US vetoed resolutions to condemn Israel for its astrocities? Over 20 last time i checked.

With good reason, though. The resolutions the US vetoes slam Israel's actions without mentioning a word about Palestinian terrorism.

Much as I hate to correct someone with a Stone Roses avatar, the resolutions predate the terrorism. Also, what Ham_Ahoy said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOT

 

The dude in charge of the peace initiative to stop Hutus/Tutsis lived in MTL. He was a great man, good commander, but his job drove him crazy and depressed because there was so much possible to do, but so little they could do under the international law, and by the time they figured out what they could do, the genocide squads were always one step ahead.

All talk, no action, and lately, no talk, no action.

 

But it's a good foundation, one day it'll be great. Hopefully we won't need some giganormous human massacre/disaster to reach that, hopefully it'll be a slow progression of nations that are getting increasingly "1st world" and responsible, and less ignorant at the same time, banding together. IT BETTER BE!

Oh well, frankly the environment is probably more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOT

 

The dude in charge of the peace initiative to stop Hutus/Tutsis lived in MTL. He was a great man, good commander, but his job drove him crazy and depressed because there was so much possible to do, but so little they could do under the international law, and by the time they figured out what they could do, the genocide squads were always one step ahead.

All talk, no action, and lately, no talk, no action.

 

But it's a good foundation, one day it'll be great. Hopefully we won't need some giganormous human massacre/disaster to reach that, hopefully it'll be a slow progression of nations that are getting increasingly "1st world" and responsible, and less ignorant at the same time, banding together. IT BETTER BE!

Oh well, frankly the environment is probably more important.

I believe you are speaking of Romeo Dellaire. He's a good man, i met him, he came to our school to talk about Rwanda. Id suggest everyone read his book " shake hands with the devil" its really great. He clearly illustrates the beaurocratic bullshit of the UN and its lack of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with the war in Iraq, the USA and Bush made a "good" job dismantling the power and function of the UN... I think it is something necessary for international law, cooperation and agreement...

 

Just hope that the UN recovers its power and its function to avoid unfair and unilateral actions like the war in Iraq

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me, I'm new and going through old threads, finding things that interest me.

 

Dallaire had more to say about how the UN was paralyzed by the lack of Western nations wanting to contribute anything to the process. There was so much bureaucratic back play that nothing ever was done until the very end. He lays much of this at the feet of the US and Britain, for good reason I think.

 

The pervasive attitude at the time was that Rwanda was not at all strategically important to anyone, hence the reason for no one to get involved.

 

Kind of makes the USA's current stand on human rights a bit of a joke if you ask me.

 

BTW, don't know if anyone was aware or not, but Dallaire was recently made a Senator.

 

As for the UN itself, it has never had the authority necessary to be really anything other then a place for smaller nations to comment on how it is oppressed or ignored by the major powers, at which point the smaller nation is summarily dismissed.

 

The major obstacle for anything getting done is the fact that there are a) 5 permanent members and B ) those permanent members can veto anything with a single vote. Make the security council's vote a majority with no overriding veto and you have yourself a more effective tool, I'd think.

 

D

Edited by Doc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

very well stated, Doc... the main problem is that most of the countries have the impression that although whatever they decide in the UN is a "join decision", it seems that everything depends on what the USA decides: if there is a veto, it is always the USA the ones who control the situation... how many UN resolutions against the nazist behavior of Sharon and Israel against Palestinians have the other countries tried to pass and they have never been passed because of the USA's veto?

 

this is what makes me mad and sad: that the UN is an international forum but everything depends on what the USA "likes" or "dislikes"

 

and one way to solve that could be - as Doc suggests - that there wouldnt be that rigid division between permanent and non-permanent members who have the power to decide lonely on something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with the war in Iraq, the USA and Bush made a "good" job dismantling the power and function of the UN... I think it is something necessary for international law, cooperation and agreement...

 

Just hope that the UN recovers its power and its function to avoid unfair and unilateral actions like the war in Iraq

Recover there power? The UN has been inept for years. They are at best a humanitarian institution. They have no ability to handle and real issues. If they stuck to handing out food and medicine they would be okay. But they do not have the teeth to handle major global issues. Blaming it on the US is the common thing. But when something needs to be done. Those blue helmeted peace keepers aren't the ones they send in to the killing fields

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UN gives sanction to dictatorships. I prefer to call it "the democracy of dictatorships" where you have countries like Sudan and Libya (or was it Syria.. same difference) on the Human Rights Committee.

 

All it does is give the worst nations of the world a voice in global affairs that they aren't entitled to. And, oh yea.. it's good for making money on humanitarian programs that are designed to "help" those under terrible conditions (*cough* Oil for Food)

 

http://www.unisevil.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who has the right to say who doesn't have a voice? Really, we may not agree with the democracy system in some countries, but we do not have a right to exclude them from the U.N. on those grounds. Also by excluding these countries they are more likely to go further into the system we disagree with and deal only with people of the same philosphy because that's the only people they can deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who has the right to say who doesn't have a voice? Really, we may not agree with the democracy system in some countries, but we do not have a right to exclude them from the U.N. on those grounds. Also by excluding these countries they are more likely to go further into the system we disagree with and deal only with people of the same philosphy because that's the only people they can deal with.

specially on what grounds someone can decide who "can" be a member of the UN? I mean, why can't some countries which could perfectly be a member of this international organization belong to it whereas other countries (like Israel) who permanently violate all UN resolutions (with the USA's support, of course) are permanent members?

 

too much hipocrisy, in my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoted words from the United Nations Charter (24 October 1945):

 

"The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems."

 

For more info about the UN you can go to their official page (www.un.org) or a webpage I found with clear explanations of the UN function (http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/unintro/unintro.asp)

 

 

The UN logo shows the world held in the “olive branches of peace”.

post-23-1115665716.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that as long as the US hold as much power over the UN (and the world for that matter) that it will be very hard for it to serve it's purpose...

as long as it's purpose is to hand out food then it can do very welll. If it is to be used for force or peace keeping it doesn't have a shot. That's when we get called in to do the biting so the UN can get what they want and still complain about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

slappin.gif

Need I say more?

Yepper,

 

No threat there, they just harbor, train and support terrorist. They pay the families of suicide bombers and allowed the current crop safe refuge within there borders. Yeppers no threat at all..

 

Hope Kofi's all finished up with that oil for food scandal. Would hate to see the UN become even more inept.

 

We could always bow to terrorist and terrorist supporters, some countries prefer that technique

Edited by calm2chaos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think invading Iraq was the proper response to the threat of terrorism? How about Syria, Jordan, etc, etc, etc,? Do you feel they all need to be invaded now too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.