50 replies to this topic

[Spectacles]

Quote

Pallas: I think the underlying assumption that the international community is falling over themselves to offer aid is hilarious and a bit pathetic.

OK...I'm missing that. Where is it?

Quote

I honestly have no idea how this would even pan out. Who would want to send troops to Iraq now given the circumstances, the bloodshed and general craziness?

No one in their right mind would *want* to, but this may be a matter of have to. Let's say the U.S. leaves Iraq. Let's say the Sunni-Shiite conflict widens and involves the entire region. Do other countries in the world have interests in that region?

The U.S. made a royal mess out of Iraq--no doubt about it. I'm just concerned that the costs may be great for *all* the West. Therefore, it might make sense to help us simmer things down in Iraq--IF that's possible. And I'm still on the fence about that one....

Quote

G to UN: "By the way it was your resoultion we went in to defend. But hey if you are going to make up papers that do not mean anything we can just stop comming to you."

We tried that already. See Iraq.

[Sinister Dexter]

G1223, on May 24 2007, 04:22 AM, said:

"Well then here are your parking tickets fines and warrents for breaking our laws. And a bill for back rent on the building you are squatting in."   Then look at them and say. "What did the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

The complex and the land it sits on was handed over to the United Nations when it was built, as part of the “above all national interests” deal. After all, I can't see the old USSR agreeing to follow the UN if they're just an arm of the American government.

Maybe they should have been based out of somewhere neutral, maybe Switzerland (like the ill-fated League of Nations), but New York's a major city and it made more sence at the time.

Truth be told, I would think that this is another nail in the coffin of the “the United Nations is the New World Order/World Government” conspiracy theories.

Edited by Sinister Dexter, 24 May 2007 - 09:54 AM.

[Kosh]

G's post doesn't make much sense, but I suspect we agree on this one. The UN has never shone any kind of backbone before, has passed various resolutions, then not followed them up. They wont take action now if they wouldn't enforce there own resolutions.

[ilexx]

^Politics, especially foreign politics, is the art of finding out about what is possible and come up with a way to do it. The UN failed to do so a couple of times (granted, more often than not), but it has also performed quite well a couple of times (not often enough, but still...).

Other than that: what Spectacles said.

As to them 'occupying buildings' in NYC: it is also a major economical factor in keeping that town running. And they have their second headquarters in Geneva. So I wouldn't tempt them too much, if I were American. It's not as if everything - economically speaking - is running really soo smoothly that they could afford having the UN move out.

[G1223]

All the rervenue for the unpaid parking tickets they earn. A number of years ago The Leauge of Useless Nations MkII had a number of members who seemed to think they could park where they wanted to. Even blocking traffic with their cars.

That is where the comment about unpaid parking tickets comes from.

As to giving land and taking away land is a buisiness the government is good at. We call imminate domain and show them the door. What are they going to do stay? We shut off the power water and block anyone leaving. Soon it will smell worse than the moral corruption that fills the place.

[Sinister Dexter]

G1223, on May 24 2007, 03:22 PM, said:

As to giving land and taking away land is a buisiness the government is good at. We call imminate domain and show them the door. What are they going to do stay? We shut off the power water and block anyone leaving. Soon it will smell worse than the moral corruption that fills the place.

Yeah, because that would get them on your side sooo quickly...

Softly-softly catches the monkey.

[Sinister Dexter]

G1223, on May 24 2007, 03:22 PM, said:

That is where the comment about unpaid parking tickets comes from.

Considering the almost legendary list of motoring offences that the American embassy in London has racked up over the years, I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on...

[G1223]

Actully if the car is marked from the Embassy then no. But some of these folks do not have proper immunity or are driving personal cars without the marking to give it immunity.

[Pallas]

Spectacles, on May 24 2007, 05:58 AM, said:

Quote

Pallas: I think the underlying assumption that the international community is falling over themselves to offer aid is hilarious and a bit pathetic.

OK...I'm missing that. Where is it?

Sorry. Allow me to clarify myself. I meant that the Bush Administration's underlying assumption that the international community will be willing to help (as characterized by their plans "hand off" responsibilities) strikes me as wryly amusing--sort of like a tongue-in-cheek plead for help. I don't know whether to take it seriously or scoff loudly.

Spectacles said:

Quote

I honestly have no idea how this would even pan out. Who would want to send troops to Iraq now given the circumstances, the bloodshed and general craziness?

No one in their right mind would *want* to, but this may be a matter of have to. Let's say the U.S. leaves Iraq. Let's say the Sunni-Shiite conflict widens and involves the entire region. Do other countries in the world have interests in that region?

The U.S. made a royal mess out of Iraq--no doubt about it. I'm just concerned that the costs may be great for *all* the West. Therefore, it might make sense to help us simmer things down in Iraq--IF that's possible. And I'm still on the fence about that one....

Undoubtedly but UN peacekeepers are supplied by willing member nations and they are technically not obligated to do so if they don't want to. See Rwanda for a very clear example.

I also forsee an obligation to go under a chapter VII mandate which I'm not sure people would be willing to bear the cost for, primarily because of the increasing levels of violence in the region. (A Chapter VII, for those who don't know, specifies the use of active military force as opposed to a Chapter VI which is the conventional peacekeeping definition that most people are familiar with).

The necessity of the need however, is not lost on me. I do believe that the UN should step in and try to stabilize or contain the violence within Iraq because that is one of its duties, a fact that has been severely undermined by the American government's position.

[G1223]

Hard to undermine something that allowed 'Ethnic Cleansing' in Bosnia and Rwanda. That sent a weak limp wristed finger shake at China over the killing of students over  deacade ago.

Yeah the Leauge of uselss Nations mkII has done so well without US help. I see them going far with Dafur. That is if you expect to see the Muslim militais getting to kill more people. Or simply enslave them.

[Godeskian]

And yet, for all your complaints,  Bush seems quite eager to hand over Iraq to htem

[Pallas]

G1223, on May 24 2007, 09:44 AM, said:

Hard to undermine something that allowed 'Ethnic Cleansing' in Bosnia and Rwanda. That sent a weak limp wristed finger shake at China over the killing of students over  deacade ago.

Yeah the Leauge of uselss Nations mkII has done so well without US help. I see them going far with Dafur. That is if you expect to see the Muslim militais getting to kill more people. Or simply enslave them.

Okay....well, would you prefer your soldiers to continue dying by the droves over there while the American people bear the brunt of the financial cost.

In the end, if the UN doesn't involved, everybody loses. That's all.

Edited by Pallas, 24 May 2007 - 09:41 PM.

[G1223]

Excuse me but the droves you are talking about are far short of the dead from any of the wars the Us has fought. Far short of the dead who have died from accidents in the US let alone ententional deaths.

This country had at one point the abilty to accept having more men die in a hours time in combat than have been lost in the entire time of the four years we have fought in Iraq.

[Spectacles]

Quote

Pallas: Sorry. Allow me to clarify myself. I meant that the Bush Administration's underlying assumption that the international community will be willing to help (as characterized by their plans "hand off" responsibilities) strikes me as wryly amusing--sort of like a tongue-in-cheek plead for help. I don't know whether to take it seriously or scoff loudly.

Ah. Now I see what you're saying. I still kind of disagree, though. But I may be foolishly assuming that there are people in the Bush administration who have some sense. I can't imagine how anyone would think that other nations would be itching to help us out. After all, the "coalition of the willing" has shrunk drastically over the last four years and we've been unable to woo others to join us for all the love or money we could toss their way. We've pretty much tapped out "the willing."

Getting the UN involved may be a necessity for us to draw down, but it will cost us--plenty.

Quote

G: This country had at one point the abilty to accept having more men die in a hours time in combat than have been lost in the entire time of the four years we have fought in Iraq.

Those were the days....

Seriously, I think that if the majority of people thought that the Iraq War was necessary, (a) the casualties wouldn't be such an issue and (b) they'd be signing up themselves to fight it.

Edited by Spectacles, 25 May 2007 - 08:17 AM.

[QueenTiye]

G1223, on May 24 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

Hard to undermine something that allowed 'Ethnic Cleansing' in Bosnia and Rwanda. That sent a weak limp wristed finger shake at China over the killing of students over  deacade ago.

Yeah the Leauge of uselss Nations mkII has done so well without US help. I see them going far with Dafur. That is if you expect to see the Muslim militais getting to kill more people. Or simply enslave them.

As has been said numerous times - the UN is unable to do any of what it could and should do if the sovereign nations of the world don't want to do it.  Strong US diplomacy, as a permanent member of the security council (if you were looking for special treatment - there it is - only 5 nations, so far as I understand it, have PERMANENT status) to lead the world to effective peace-keeping, is 100% necessary, as is US funding (higher than other nations in the same way that rich people's taxes wind up being more than other people's taxes).  We don't get to have it both ways.  If we want the UN to succeed, we in the US must insist upon our elected officials using the US influence in the UN more effectively and responsibly.  We are only one voice in the UN, but we are one of the MOST authoritative voices in the UN - so UN failures in peacekeeping are at least partially our fault.

Some of the world's anger with the US over Iraq is the US decision to go at it without the blessings of the Security Council.  I remember the debates and the UN scandal that eroded public opinion of the UN in dealing with Iraq, and I remember France's dirty hands on the subject (also Russia, IIRC).  For all of that - given the US influence - it is not unreasonable to state that we could have pushed a lot harder diplomatically, to create a viable UN-aided solution.

Now that Bush wants UN involvement, it seems that people are willing to consider it - albeit while holding their noses.  I think it might be a good time to get a good look at just what the US's position in the UN is - how the US supports it and influences it - so that we can see a bit more clearly that UN success and UN failure are things that the US shares responsibility and credit for.

QT

[Sinister Dexter]

QueenTiye, on May 25 2007, 02:34 PM, said:

only 5 nations, so far as I understand it, have PERMANENT status

Indeed: America, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France all have permanent seats on the UN Security Council, and can all veto a UN resolution. The other, elected members each serve a couple of years, then someone else takes over.

But one thing that everyone needs to remember is that the UN is a diplomatic organisation, not a military one like NATO: they're supposed to stop the wars happening, not fight them when they do. Why do you think it was NATO who stepped in when Kosovo kicked off?

[G1223]

Spectacles, on May 25 2007, 09:16 AM, said:

Seriously, I think that if the majority of people thought that the Iraq War was necessary, (a) the casualties wouldn't be such an issue and (b) they'd be signing up themselves to fight it.

No I think it is not that. I think too many people have the opinion that they have some sort of special hide worth saving. We are seeing the 'Me' generation's legacy. They would give the last coin in their pockets to not have to do anything. Add in a media where every death is a tragedy which must be shared with a nation. God if the media we had today had been around for the death of the Sullivan brothers. Oh sweet Jesus we would have a crowd of people demadning we find terms to end the war with Japan. "It is not worth the cost in lives." would be the comments from talking head. "No more need to die for Mr. Roosevelt's War"

[G1223]

QueenTiye, on May 25 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

As has been said numerous times - the UN is unable to do any of what it could and should do if the sovereign nations of the world don't want to do it.  Strong US diplomacy, as a permanent member of the security council (if you were looking for special treatment - there it is - only 5 nations, so far as I understand it, have PERMANENT status) to lead the world to effective peace-keeping, is 100% necessary, as is US funding (higher than other nations in the same way that rich people's taxes wind up being more than other people's taxes).  We don't get to have it both ways.  If we want the UN to succeed, we in the US must insist upon our elected officials using the US influence in the UN more effectively and responsibly.  We are only one voice in the UN, but we are one of the MOST authoritative voices in the UN - so UN failures in peacekeeping are at least partially our fault.

Some of the world's anger with the US over Iraq is the US decision to go at it without the blessings of the Security Council.  I remember the debates and the UN scandal that eroded public opinion of the UN in dealing with Iraq, and I remember France's dirty hands on the subject (also Russia, IIRC).  For all of that - given the US influence - it is not unreasonable to state that we could have pushed a lot harder diplomatically, to create a viable UN-aided solution.

Now that Bush wants UN involvement, it seems that people are willing to consider it - albeit while holding their noses.  I think it might be a good time to get a good look at just what the US's position in the UN is - how the US supports it and influences it - so that we can see a bit more clearly that UN success and UN failure are things that the US shares responsibility and credit for.

QT

LOL the LUN mkII has always had a strong ANTI-America mindset. It was not just Bush. It has also gone so far as to have a terrorist speak at it's functions. QT it is a idea come up with by people who wanted to try and have a organization that would fix the problems. Like a Landlord hiring a handman to be in the building to fix things as they break.

The LUN is unable to figure out how many mass killings count as multiple acts of genocide as the because if it was just ONE act they could avoid having to invoke the rules in the Charter that call on the UN to LEAD the way on taking MILITARY action. It happened in Rwanda. The UN did a wonderful backflip and spin to avoid doing what it needed to have happen there.

Simply this the League is a toilet has needed to be flushed and no one want to pull the chain.

[Kosh]

QueenTiye, on May 25 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

G1223, on May 24 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

Hard to undermine something that allowed 'Ethnic Cleansing' in Bosnia and Rwanda. That sent a weak limp wristed finger shake at China over the killing of students over  deacade ago.

Yeah the Leauge of uselss Nations mkII has done so well without US help. I see them going far with Dafur. That is if you expect to see the Muslim militais getting to kill more people. Or simply enslave them.

As has been said numerous times - the UN is unable to do any of what it could and should do if the sovereign nations of the world don't want to do it.  Strong US diplomacy, as a permanent member of the security council (if you were looking for special treatment - there it is - only 5 nations, so far as I understand it, have PERMANENT status) to lead the world to effective peace-keeping, is 100% necessary, as is US funding (higher than other nations in the same way that rich people's taxes wind up being more than other people's taxes).  We don't get to have it both ways.  If we want the UN to succeed, we in the US must insist upon our elected officials using the US influence in the UN more effectively and responsibly.  We are only one voice in the UN, but we are one of the MOST authoritative voices in the UN - so UN failures in peacekeeping are at least partially our fault.

Some of the world's anger with the US over Iraq is the US decision to go at it without the blessings of the Security Council.  I remember the debates and the UN scandal that eroded public opinion of the UN in dealing with Iraq, and I remember France's dirty hands on the subject (also Russia, IIRC).  For all of that - given the US influence - it is not unreasonable to state that we could have pushed a lot harder diplomatically, to create a viable UN-aided solution.

Now that Bush wants UN involvement, it seems that people are willing to consider it - albeit while holding their noses.  I think it might be a good time to get a good look at just what the US's position in the UN is - how the US supports it and influences it - so that we can see a bit more clearly that UN success and UN failure are things that the US shares responsibility and credit for.

QT

It's not us, it's the other four permenant members.  China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom.

The USA resolutions and requests for action on resolutions usually die 3-2. The way things are going right now, I wouldn't be surprised if the UK voted against UN involvment. It doesn't matter who is in thje White House, it's been this way almost from the start.

Edited by Kosh, 25 May 2007 - 11:34 AM.

[Lord of the Sword]

Godeskian, on May 23 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

Petty maybe, but I could see the UN turning round and saying "Well, you went in without us, you can get out of it without us."

I would so LOVE to see that happen....Just to see the expression on Bush's face.