Armed Intervention
then why do you support a nation acting in an imperialist manner against the UN ? You can not have it both ways.
Would you support a country handing over a leader to be put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity ? What if the country wasn't Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, but was ${LEADER} of the ${SUPERPOWER} ?
Would you support a country handing over a leader to be put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity ? What if the country wasn't Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, but was ${LEADER} of the ${SUPERPOWER} ?
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Yes, because the U.N. is woefully incapable of protecting people now.
The reaility is that the U.N. runs like a chicken every time in the face of token resistance.
Most recently, Haiti was hit by those big hurricanes. Food shipments are seized by gunman for themselves or sale to the public.
The U.N. can't even control the distribution of food on a small island.
A couple pick up trucks with gunmen can neutralize or control the U.N. (when not protected by REAL troops)
Score card: Angry, murdering ,racist,mobs 1
U.N. 0
next recent, is the Sudan. The U.N. gives the government 30 days to stop militias from raping/murdering/enslavement of Black Christians by the thousands. Millions face starvation because of the displacement.
Arab's rape the black women so they will have "lighter" babies.
The 30 day mark has almost passed(I think), The militia forces are way to much for the U.N. to handle.
Score card: Angry, murdering ,racist,mobs 2
U.N. 0
Albanians go on rampages, burning dozens of Christian churches and homes, killing scores. The French led U.N. units run like chickens.
Score card: Angry, murdering ,racist,mobs 3
U.N. 0
Rwanda, 800,000+ civilians murdered with machetes, etc....
U.N. forces were eventually encircled, they pullout, leaving the locals they were protecting to certain death.
Some ask to be shot in the head by the U.N. , instead of being hacked to pieces by machetes.
Score card: Angry, murdering ,racist,mobs 4
U.N. 0
When the U.N. protects even ONE person's human rights, write back and tell me about it.
-n
The reaility is that the U.N. runs like a chicken every time in the face of token resistance.
Most recently, Haiti was hit by those big hurricanes. Food shipments are seized by gunman for themselves or sale to the public.
The U.N. can't even control the distribution of food on a small island.
A couple pick up trucks with gunmen can neutralize or control the U.N. (when not protected by REAL troops)
Score card: Angry, murdering ,racist,mobs 1
U.N. 0
next recent, is the Sudan. The U.N. gives the government 30 days to stop militias from raping/murdering/enslavement of Black Christians by the thousands. Millions face starvation because of the displacement.
Arab's rape the black women so they will have "lighter" babies.
The 30 day mark has almost passed(I think), The militia forces are way to much for the U.N. to handle.
Score card: Angry, murdering ,racist,mobs 2
U.N. 0
Albanians go on rampages, burning dozens of Christian churches and homes, killing scores. The French led U.N. units run like chickens.
Score card: Angry, murdering ,racist,mobs 3
U.N. 0
Rwanda, 800,000+ civilians murdered with machetes, etc....
U.N. forces were eventually encircled, they pullout, leaving the locals they were protecting to certain death.
Some ask to be shot in the head by the U.N. , instead of being hacked to pieces by machetes.
Score card: Angry, murdering ,racist,mobs 4
U.N. 0
When the U.N. protects even ONE person's human rights, write back and tell me about it.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Tsiang. said:
----------------
Would you support a country handing over a leader to be put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity ? What if the country wasn't Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, but was ${LEADER} of the ${SUPERPOWER} ?
---------------------
Excellent point, this is exactly what you are opening yourself for if your country is a signatory to the I.C.C.
Judges in far away, European nations can call for your leaders extradition, trial, and sentencing.
I think Tony Blair has already had charges leveled against him by some country.
I half-expect something like this to happen to George Bush.
When Hillary is president, she will join us into the I.C.C., and someone will call for charges against Bush.
OR
Bush will foolishly allow it to happen to himself, while trying to be "progressive".
----------------------------------------------------
History is chock full of leaders who were removed and then put in front of the firing squad.
-n
----------------
Would you support a country handing over a leader to be put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity ? What if the country wasn't Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, but was ${LEADER} of the ${SUPERPOWER} ?
---------------------
Excellent point, this is exactly what you are opening yourself for if your country is a signatory to the I.C.C.
Judges in far away, European nations can call for your leaders extradition, trial, and sentencing.
I think Tony Blair has already had charges leveled against him by some country.
I half-expect something like this to happen to George Bush.
When Hillary is president, she will join us into the I.C.C., and someone will call for charges against Bush.
OR
Bush will foolishly allow it to happen to himself, while trying to be "progressive".
----------------------------------------------------
History is chock full of leaders who were removed and then put in front of the firing squad.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
Cause the UN is a weak piece of shit for all the reasons Nathan stated. They are bumbling idiots. France had dirty deals going on with Saddam as did Russia, both of which carry veto power and planned to use it. Now that the docs are flying around, it is apparent that they are not innocent in all of this and should be held accountable for their actions. Yet under the weak ass UN rules, they can mask their deception with a mere vote of NO. So we side-stepped them.then why do you support a nation acting in an imperialist manner against the UN ? You can not have it both ways.
Fact is, the UN wasn't going to do a damn thing. But that wasn't the question. The question was should they. And my answer is YES, they should. Do they? No, they suck ass.
With regards to giving up Bush to be tried for war crimes? I can't even dignify that with a responce. Please
.Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
So, Tony Blair is brought up on charges because he started this illegal war and the US got dragged into it because of the faulty British intel . . .
You think it is wrong to put Blair on trial ? You don't think ${LEADER} of ${COUNTRY} should be held responsible for actions that brought instablity to a whole region of the globe, increased the terror threat for the whole globe [Making you and your family less safe, not more] , gave an A-OK to torture prisoners, recuited terrorists to an area they didn't used to occupy, left millions without electricity and running water, and used banned landmines in the fight -- ALL during an ILLEGAL war ?
I generally support holding ${LEADER} accountable, I thought you would too. Don't you believe in personal responsibility and morals ? Why does ${LEADER} deserve a pass ?
You think it is wrong to put Blair on trial ? You don't think ${LEADER} of ${COUNTRY} should be held responsible for actions that brought instablity to a whole region of the globe, increased the terror threat for the whole globe [Making you and your family less safe, not more] , gave an A-OK to torture prisoners, recuited terrorists to an area they didn't used to occupy, left millions without electricity and running water, and used banned landmines in the fight -- ALL during an ILLEGAL war ?
I generally support holding ${LEADER} accountable, I thought you would too. Don't you believe in personal responsibility and morals ? Why does ${LEADER} deserve a pass ?
I don't think Tony Blair should be brought up on charges for any reason.
But that is Britain not the US.
This is a falacious argument meant to overwhelm those who read it with evidence that is unverifiable. And to point fingers at one person and say he is solely responsible and should be brought up on charges is rediculous. You and Dan Rather have a lot in common.
It is unrealistic to imagine that a war against an enemy who does not fight by the laws of war, could be subdued as quickly as you would have us believe. It takes longer to lay pipelines and reconstruct roads, than is expected of a rather small coalition of the willing. It will take years, not months to rebuild. Be realistic.
And if Bush were to come under charges, who would file them? The UN? Laughable again. You will see Kofi Annan up on charges for coruption during the Oil for Food program before Bush on an illegal war.
Another fact, Bush has placed an executive order to have his, his fathers, and president Clinton's files sealed until death. So good luck getting any damning evidence on Bush. And he did this before 9/11. So much for your "He's a dumbass" theory.
But that is Britain not the US.
What is funny to me about your statement is that you assume a war can be fought without electricity being cut off, or water, that Bush himself new about the prison abuse, and that the whole globe revolves around Bush and an illegal war. Laughable.You think it is wrong to put Blair on trial ? You don't think ${LEADER} of ${COUNTRY} should be held responsible for actions that brought instablity to a whole region of the globe, increased the terror threat for the whole globe [Making you and your family less safe, not more] , gave an A-OK to torture prisoners, recuited terrorists to an area they didn't used to occupy, left millions without electricity and running water, and used banned landmines in the fight -- ALL during an ILLEGAL war ?
This is a falacious argument meant to overwhelm those who read it with evidence that is unverifiable. And to point fingers at one person and say he is solely responsible and should be brought up on charges is rediculous. You and Dan Rather have a lot in common.
It is unrealistic to imagine that a war against an enemy who does not fight by the laws of war, could be subdued as quickly as you would have us believe. It takes longer to lay pipelines and reconstruct roads, than is expected of a rather small coalition of the willing. It will take years, not months to rebuild. Be realistic.
And if Bush were to come under charges, who would file them? The UN? Laughable again. You will see Kofi Annan up on charges for coruption during the Oil for Food program before Bush on an illegal war.
Another fact, Bush has placed an executive order to have his, his fathers, and president Clinton's files sealed until death. So good luck getting any damning evidence on Bush. And he did this before 9/11. So much for your "He's a dumbass" theory.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
FlexThis wrote:This is a falacious argument meant to overwhelm those who read it with evidence that is unverifiable.
Bullshit. The landmines are real. The photographs are real. Statements were recorded The world opinion is real. The only thing that hasn't been real is what Bush and Co have told us. There was no threat. There were no weapons. There was no Al-Quida connection. We were not greated as liberators. There is no peace in Iraq. The oil did not pay for the war. There was no yellow cake purchase. There was not 50000 tons of weaponized mustard gas. The Iraqies did not topple the statue. The war is not over. The peace has not been won. The "allies" have not been victorious. We are not safer.
I don't mean to overwhelm you . . . if you pay attention I post more links to the original stories than any other liberal on this forum. You can live in denial, but it does not make you and your family safer.
Placing a link to a not so known liberal Website, doesn't make the information any more creditable than if it were posted else where. Your stories are liberal opinion from people with specific agendas against that of President Bush. Hog wash!
Show me proof that our country is not safer? How many terrorist attacks have we had since 9/11. I believe ZERO is the correct answer. And while you purport that the terror levels are unneccessary, I say they did their job.You can live in denial, but it does not make you and your family safer.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
Hundred, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people have been detained without reason . . . Civil rights have been revoked. We now have a fucking " free speach zone " for christs sakes. LOOK AT THE STATE OF THE COUNRTY . . . To wonder if you will be held in gitmo, without a lawyer, without rights, without knowing why . . . Yes, the country is less free and less safe than it was when Bush took office. The citizens have lost consitutional protections and rights granted through law. The loss of protection, by definition, means less safety.FlexThis wrote: Show me proof that our country is not safer? How many terrorist attacks have we had since 9/11. I believe ZERO is the correct answer. And while you purport that the terror levels are unneccessary, I say they did their job.
If ONE innocent person was held without being informed of their charges, without access to council, without a right to trial . . . this country is sufficiently less safe that I want a regime change. We KNOW more than ONE exists, and they exists strictly because of their name, they headwear, or their immigration status.
or we could go this approach . . .
The biggest boost to terror recruitment has been the war in Iraq. --TIME (who also had Bush as man of the year of while back . . . fucking liberal press)
You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs.
I think you are getting yourself all worked up for nothing.
Gitmo isn't even in the US, it's in Cuba. Complain to Castro, I'm sure he's got time to smoke a phat cigar with ya.
And I'm not a terrorist so I don't need to worry about Gitmo anyways.
Like I say and say, I take care of me. If everyone else did the same, we wouldn't need health care reform, welfare, taxation out the ass, and the need to bomb the shit out of Saddam.
But no, liberals want everyone to have the same thing, and access to the same treatment. LIFE AIN'T FAIR. And being an American doesn't gaurantee fairness no matter who runs the country.
The puppet KERRY, which is about your only choice this election, has just as many conservative views as Bush. So the problems you deem important will not be solved any time soon I'm afraid.
Damn Cameron, if you care that much about your fellow man, then join the peace corp, or better yet the US military and make a fucking difference. The more problems you list, the more pesimistic you become.
Does the glass have to always be half empty with you?
I think you are getting yourself all worked up for nothing.
Gitmo isn't even in the US, it's in Cuba. Complain to Castro, I'm sure he's got time to smoke a phat cigar with ya.
And I'm not a terrorist so I don't need to worry about Gitmo anyways.
Like I say and say, I take care of me. If everyone else did the same, we wouldn't need health care reform, welfare, taxation out the ass, and the need to bomb the shit out of Saddam.
But no, liberals want everyone to have the same thing, and access to the same treatment. LIFE AIN'T FAIR. And being an American doesn't gaurantee fairness no matter who runs the country.
The puppet KERRY, which is about your only choice this election, has just as many conservative views as Bush. So the problems you deem important will not be solved any time soon I'm afraid.
Damn Cameron, if you care that much about your fellow man, then join the peace corp, or better yet the US military and make a fucking difference. The more problems you list, the more pesimistic you become.
Does the glass have to always be half empty with you?
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
You missed my point completely.
Think of the horror and hell that would be Yourself captured in a sweep, and shipped to cuba. You don't get a phone call. You don't get to notify family. You don't get a lawyer. You aren't being held to await trial. You don't know why you are there. They don't care, because everyone there has no idea why they are there. Your white with a southern accent and you probably won't ever have to worry. What about the hundreds to tens of thousands of people who also aren't terrorist, who are being held ?
As you say, a few eggs may have to be broken to make an omlette. The laws protecting our freedom were broken. This is not an egg. This is the goose that lays the egg. If we sacrifice our freedom to preserve our safety, then we have neither safety nor freedom.
--Tsiangkun
Sorry to have taken this thread off topic . . . I now return you to your regularly scheduled diversion from topic
Think of the horror and hell that would be Yourself captured in a sweep, and shipped to cuba. You don't get a phone call. You don't get to notify family. You don't get a lawyer. You aren't being held to await trial. You don't know why you are there. They don't care, because everyone there has no idea why they are there. Your white with a southern accent and you probably won't ever have to worry. What about the hundreds to tens of thousands of people who also aren't terrorist, who are being held ?
As you say, a few eggs may have to be broken to make an omlette. The laws protecting our freedom were broken. This is not an egg. This is the goose that lays the egg. If we sacrifice our freedom to preserve our safety, then we have neither safety nor freedom.
Benjamin Franklin wrote:“Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free.”
Samuel Clemens wrote:Those who can read and don't are no better off than those who can't."
I guess you either see it like the unheard of liberal wacko Franklin, or like the ultra conservative well known Jennings said it to the world. Sameul Clemens made a good point in the middle. I concede this discussion, as I have already stated my stance in favor of UN intervention and this is going way off topic.Peter Jennings wrote: On 9-11-2001, Peter Jennings (CFR) gleefully reported that two thirds of those polled in a national survey said they would sacrifice personal freedom in order to be “safe” from terrorism. (Source: Peter Jennings, ABC News)
--Tsiangkun
Sorry to have taken this thread off topic . . . I now return you to your regularly scheduled diversion from topic
Interesting.
Question: Flex, would you cede the UN the right to try any leader it wanted for a garuntee of intervention in extreeme human rights cases; for example the ethnic clensing in Rwanda? (i realise, but don't care how difficult it it would be to get the US or France or anyone to agree to this; I'm asking you.)
Question: Flex, would you cede the UN the right to try any leader it wanted for a garuntee of intervention in extreeme human rights cases; for example the ethnic clensing in Rwanda? (i realise, but don't care how difficult it it would be to get the US or France or anyone to agree to this; I'm asking you.)
-Dale Jury
To answer Frenzal, no I would not. Which is why the UN is not putting Saddam on trial. How does Kofi Annan know what is and is not acceptable under Iraqi law. He doesn't make them, Iraq does. So while the gov. is in transition Saddam will sit and wait. Eventually he will be tried by his peers, just as any of us would be tried by our peers.
However if during a Legitimate war (to satisfy the liberals) a leader were captured such as Saddam and the laws that were broken were those of international law and evidence could prove this to be true. Then Yes I would allow the UN to have a trial for those crimes only. Damn I sound like I got some authority or something, which I don't.
To answer Cameron,
I see your point about innocent lives being taken away on a whim without access to Lawyers and the legal system. But those are rights that American citizens enjoy, not suspected terrorists. If an American (and I'm sure you have examples) were to be swept away to Gitmo and treated poorly, then I would agree with you 100%. If this is happening as we speak then I concede to your view and abandon my own.
Freedom is important it all it's forms as guaranteed by the constitution. If Bush or anyone else is breaking those guarantees under false pretenses, then we have a serious a problem and I agree with you.
Point taken.
However if during a Legitimate war (to satisfy the liberals) a leader were captured such as Saddam and the laws that were broken were those of international law and evidence could prove this to be true. Then Yes I would allow the UN to have a trial for those crimes only. Damn I sound like I got some authority or something, which I don't.
To answer Cameron,
I see your point about innocent lives being taken away on a whim without access to Lawyers and the legal system. But those are rights that American citizens enjoy, not suspected terrorists. If an American (and I'm sure you have examples) were to be swept away to Gitmo and treated poorly, then I would agree with you 100%. If this is happening as we speak then I concede to your view and abandon my own.
Freedom is important it all it's forms as guaranteed by the constitution. If Bush or anyone else is breaking those guarantees under false pretenses, then we have a serious a problem and I agree with you.
Point taken.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
Another question: Why should <b>suspected</b> terrorists (And your military has absolutely no fucking track record at getting this shit right) be denied basic human rights (including in all probability torture).
Do you agree that all military operations should be conducted in line with the Geneva Convention?
If so: How can you support your troops and government that defile this precious document?
If not: What's your problem with terrorism?
Do you agree that all military operations should be conducted in line with the Geneva Convention?
If so: How can you support your troops and government that defile this precious document?
If not: What's your problem with terrorism?
-Dale Jury
You got a loaded gun pointed at me, slow down [He says like GW with a Texas accent].
Basic human rights (needs rather) would be food, water, and shelter. That's about all a bum on the street can afford. A suspected terrorist belongs to no country until his country of origin can be obtained. If that country does not support terrorism (which none claim that they do), then he is a suspected enemy combatant and should be detained given the basic human needs.
Torture is a harsh word and you will have to give me your personal definition of the word in order for me to properly assess your question with regards to torture.
It is my belief that this war is not like other wars. The enemy is using (you'll love this Cameron) loopholes to try and evade the rules we are governed to follow. How can we defeat an enemy that is not fighting fair and WIN? We cannot, therefore, it is my assessment that the rules of engagement be revised.
We cannot let terrorism run rampant anywhere, or 9/11 will be a daily occurance and anarachy will be the new law of the land. Noone will trade anything with anyone else. That guy that hates your guts for whatever reason will kill you in your sleep.
There are 2 sides to this coin. Good and bad. Good is the Chemo that takes out the cancer. Bad is the cancer that takes out the life.
You cannot sit there and tell me that terrorism is in any way better than any ill treatment at Gitmo. You cannot even tell me that Gitmo is breaking the Geneva Convention. A couple bad (bored is more like it) apples that want to take sexual photos of naked suspects, does not break down the Geneva Convention. Last I heard one bad apple is up for possibly 38 years for posing in a photo. Now how is 38 years worth a none murderous offense? I've seen people in this country get off scott free ...cough OJ cough.
Get back to me with your definition of torture, and I'll get back to you with mine and we can compare.
Questions with an "S".Another question: Why should suspected terrorists (And your military has absolutely no fucking track record at getting this shit right) be denied basic human rights (including in all probability torture).
Basic human rights (needs rather) would be food, water, and shelter. That's about all a bum on the street can afford. A suspected terrorist belongs to no country until his country of origin can be obtained. If that country does not support terrorism (which none claim that they do), then he is a suspected enemy combatant and should be detained given the basic human needs.
Torture is a harsh word and you will have to give me your personal definition of the word in order for me to properly assess your question with regards to torture.
No. That document was established to try and regulate the spoils of war. Fact is in this war the terrorists are not following such a document. How can they? They have no specific country of orgin, they are anarchist on a HOLY quest. Their idea of a fair fight consists of taking and beheading hostages. I didn't read anything about that being allowed in war time as a statute of the Geneva Convention.Do you agree that all military operations should be conducted in line with the Geneva Convention?
It is my belief that this war is not like other wars. The enemy is using (you'll love this Cameron) loopholes to try and evade the rules we are governed to follow. How can we defeat an enemy that is not fighting fair and WIN? We cannot, therefore, it is my assessment that the rules of engagement be revised.
Terrorism instills fear into the hearts of anyone who succomes to it. It breeds like the plague and envelopes who nations and world economies. It reverts us back to barbaric times and reminds us that we are not so civilized.If not: What's your problem with terrorism?
We cannot let terrorism run rampant anywhere, or 9/11 will be a daily occurance and anarachy will be the new law of the land. Noone will trade anything with anyone else. That guy that hates your guts for whatever reason will kill you in your sleep.
There are 2 sides to this coin. Good and bad. Good is the Chemo that takes out the cancer. Bad is the cancer that takes out the life.
You cannot sit there and tell me that terrorism is in any way better than any ill treatment at Gitmo. You cannot even tell me that Gitmo is breaking the Geneva Convention. A couple bad (bored is more like it) apples that want to take sexual photos of naked suspects, does not break down the Geneva Convention. Last I heard one bad apple is up for possibly 38 years for posing in a photo. Now how is 38 years worth a none murderous offense? I've seen people in this country get off scott free ...cough OJ cough.
Get back to me with your definition of torture, and I'll get back to you with mine and we can compare.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
Boy,I'm glad I'm not flex. He gets stuck defending the hardest stuff. Although my admin had me defending killing babies for fun and profit before I realised he had tricked me into defending killing babies for fun and profit. I hate philosophy as much as I love it.
Sorry if this is coming off as a Spanish Inquisition* I 'm having fun.
I said right because i meant rights, not needs.
That bum on the street gets legal representation, is allowed to contact next of kin, has the right to a trial and so on. The amount of secrecy those at Guantanimo bay are being kept in is obscene. I can't say for certain they're being tortured, but when you wont let the Red Cross, UN officials, Amnesty International, Australian representatives even after you acknowledged you were holding two of their nationals, or anyone else in to see what you're not doing to your suspects it makes me very suspicious.
You can point at the terrorists and say "look what they're doing," but that's dodging the point of my question. Northern Ireland escalated in a series of bloody repraisals until civilians were fair game for both sides, same thing in Vietnam "if it's dead it was a viet-cong" to quote a veteran. The only way you can win a war like this is from the moral high ground, you have to cut support for the terrorists because you'll never kill them all. Even if you do revise the rules of war and play by their dirty standards. All that makes you is the strongest terrorist.
*http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Script ... tionSketch
I said right because i meant rights, not needs.
That bum on the street gets legal representation, is allowed to contact next of kin, has the right to a trial and so on. The amount of secrecy those at Guantanimo bay are being kept in is obscene. I can't say for certain they're being tortured, but when you wont let the Red Cross, UN officials, Amnesty International, Australian representatives even after you acknowledged you were holding two of their nationals, or anyone else in to see what you're not doing to your suspects it makes me very suspicious.
You can point at the terrorists and say "look what they're doing," but that's dodging the point of my question. Northern Ireland escalated in a series of bloody repraisals until civilians were fair game for both sides, same thing in Vietnam "if it's dead it was a viet-cong" to quote a veteran. The only way you can win a war like this is from the moral high ground, you have to cut support for the terrorists because you'll never kill them all. Even if you do revise the rules of war and play by their dirty standards. All that makes you is the strongest terrorist.
*http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Script ... tionSketch
-Dale Jury
Sorry I didn't have time to read all that.
Just a couple of points.
The UN is the United Nations. It represents about 99.9% of all countries in the world. It has a number of different forums where the leaders of the world can voice their opinion. When the UN fails at something - it really means that the world is failing. Blaming the UN for it's failings is ignorant of the way the UN runs. The main reason for the UN to fail - and it is very obvious in all the mentioned events is because it is restricted by the leaders of the world who are unprepared to give the UN the control it needs to solve those problems. Haiti and Sudan are great examples of this - it's not the UN that has failed but the countries - ESPECIALLY THE US - that have forced to so many restrictions on the UN. If you ask someone to dig a 10 meter hole in two days and give them a tooth pick - who is blame when they fail? The person who doesn't dig the hole? Or you - who gave them equipment that makes it impossible to achieve the task?
The world isn't black and white and you can't blame somebody for failing to do something when you don't know why they failed - it just makes you look ignorant.
The UN is in need of enourmas reform - that is obvious. It needs to represent the people of the world, not the leaders. It needs to be a demorcratic forum - not something that is run to keep the world powers happy. Unfortuantly it is virtually impossible to change because the powerful countries do not want to see equality - they are happy to have the power and they won't give it up.
If we try to stay on the topic - I don't believe in armed intervention. As I've mentioned before - histroy is full of stories of violence leading to more violence and pacifism and negotiation leading to peace.
Just a couple of points.
The UN is the United Nations. It represents about 99.9% of all countries in the world. It has a number of different forums where the leaders of the world can voice their opinion. When the UN fails at something - it really means that the world is failing. Blaming the UN for it's failings is ignorant of the way the UN runs. The main reason for the UN to fail - and it is very obvious in all the mentioned events is because it is restricted by the leaders of the world who are unprepared to give the UN the control it needs to solve those problems. Haiti and Sudan are great examples of this - it's not the UN that has failed but the countries - ESPECIALLY THE US - that have forced to so many restrictions on the UN. If you ask someone to dig a 10 meter hole in two days and give them a tooth pick - who is blame when they fail? The person who doesn't dig the hole? Or you - who gave them equipment that makes it impossible to achieve the task?
The world isn't black and white and you can't blame somebody for failing to do something when you don't know why they failed - it just makes you look ignorant.
The UN is in need of enourmas reform - that is obvious. It needs to represent the people of the world, not the leaders. It needs to be a demorcratic forum - not something that is run to keep the world powers happy. Unfortuantly it is virtually impossible to change because the powerful countries do not want to see equality - they are happy to have the power and they won't give it up.
If we try to stay on the topic - I don't believe in armed intervention. As I've mentioned before - histroy is full of stories of violence leading to more violence and pacifism and negotiation leading to peace.