The United Nations - A waste of Time?

36 replies · 464 views

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

The Western Sahara thread got me thinking. With the issues with Burma strong in mind, are the United Nations a complete waste of time having not achieved the goals they were set out to do back in 1946. Kosavo springs to mind as another example.

Are the United Nations a toothless bunch? They have access to all the modern solutions as well as any military resources yet they refuse to use any.

In Burma, really they should have plowed in with their he;lecopters and dropping off relief supplies straight away to help those poor people.

In Zimbabwe, they should have taken a more proactive role in the elections to ensure a fair playing feild.

In Iraq, tey shoulds have kept the US in Check but then also allowed their own forces to defend themselves.

have the United Nations really achieved what they set out to do since their formation?

I just thought I'd start a debate on this wonderful organisation. Remember Aunty Helen was after the "President of the United Nations" job after the last fella had completed his commitment.

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I hate to sound like a "hater" LG but why can't each country just worry about themselves?

Let the Zimbys look after their own sh!t
Let the Iraqis blow eachother to smithereens
Let the Kosovo-ians hunt eachother down with AK-47s

While here in NZ we can all continue to live in relative harmony....

Thats just my opinion.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Fair point, in NZ's case, we have enough issues here that need attention let alone sending our staff all over the world.

It'd also be interesting to see how the world would go if the USA withdrew all it's international aid efforts (& it's military interventions)

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

that also is a good point LG. Some would say my views on terrorism and the "war on terror" are somewhat bigoted as I am very "Pro-Bush and Pro-War" - thats just my opinion. I worry that sometimes people focus too much on the "bad" stuff the USA does, as opposed to some of the good work they do.

This is what the forum is for. Intelligent discussion.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

The UN is a complete waste of time, its pretty much ruled by the US and their sanctions etc, if the UN want to do anything they need the UK (corrupt) and the US (something worse) to back it.....disband the whole organisation and let every country do what it needs to do!

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

to find corruption we need to look no further than our own immigration system theprof.

this forum is a haven for "Yankee Bashers" - gettin a bit old if you ask me

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

The UN ain't what it could be. It's effectively left toothless by unecessary bureaucracy but more so by countries who abuse their security council vetos to serve their own interests rather than the good of the whole (read USA).

Sadly, I don't think that the UN will ever be able to act in the capacity that it should.

Don't get me started on the "war on terror" though. Ironic that it's being spearheaded by the biggest modern day terrorist regime.

But that's a whole other thread...

Milky Pisswit2008-05-20 16:00:40

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Oh here we go, another anti-us "for no good reason except thats what all my mates say its what I should think" forumite.

If the USA didnt have a presence in most of the war-torn areas of the world then this planet would be in even more disarray than it currently is.

Viva La War, Viva La Bush, Viva La Nuke the Middle East.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Just some of what I could find on US interventions. Basically includes invasion, attempted or actual government overthrows, backing of right wing militias, installation of puppet governments, things my mates tell me to think etc...

Year Country Action Reason Given Actual Reason 1947 France Election Finance;
Economic Coersion Communism Wanted pro-USA government and French recolonisation of Vietnam. 1947 Italy Election Finance;
Economic Coersion Communism Wanted pro-USA and pro-business government. 1947 Greece Military Backing Communism Wanted pro-USA government and military bases. 1947 Philippines Election Finance None Military bases. 1948 Peru Military Backing None Control of government. 1948 Vietnam Military Backing Communism Support for French recolonisation. Fear of independent Vietnam. 1948 Nicaragua Military Backing None Pro-USA government and access to plantations. 1949 China Arms Sales;
Bombing Communism Access to a pro-USA and pro-business government. 1950 Colombia Food Aid Humanitarian Destruction of an agricultural rival. 1950 Korea Killing Civilians None Unknown. 1950 Puerto Rico Military Action None To crush independence movement. 1953 Philippines Election Finance None Wanted pro-USA government and military bases. 1954 Vietnam Military Backing Communism Fear of united and powerful independent country. 1955 Europe Election Finance None Wanted united pro-USA, pro-NATO and anti-socialist Europe. 1956 Egypt Sanctions Communism Country took ownership of its Suez Canal and opposed USA Middle East policy. 1957 Jordan Military Training None Wanted strong pro-USA government. 1958 Lebanon Military Action None Removal of anti-West dissidents. 1958 Indonesia Election Finance None Government is against USA business interests. 1958 Japan Election Finance None To keep pro-USA governments in power. 1959 Haiti Military Action None To crush rebellion against pro-USA government. 1959 Nepal Covert Action None To help pro-USA government win power. 1960 Congo Assassination None Wanted to remove popular and nationalist leader; access to minerals. 1960 Cuba Trade Embargo Communism Country using its resources for its own people. 1960 Iraq Destabilisation None Leader founds and supports OPEC. 1961 Cuba Secret Invasion None Country using its resources for its own people. 1961 Dominican Republic Assassination None Unknown. 1962 Vietnam Military Action Communism Country wanted unity and independence. 1962 Cuba Economic Sabotage None Country using its resources for its own people. 1962 Brazil Election Finance None Wanted pro-business government. 1962 Dominican Republic Political Coersion None Unknown. 1963 Iraq Assassination;
Intelligence Communism Previous government against USA oil interests; removal of dissidents. 1963 El Salvador Advisors Communism Removal of anti-USA dissidents. 1964 North Vietnam Bombing None Removal of independent government. 1964 South Vietnam Torture Training Communism Suppression of independence movements. 1964 Panama Military Action Law and Order Suppression of movement demanding return of canal. 1965 Vietnam Military Action Communism To keep the country from uniting. 1965 Dominican Republic Intervention Communism To keep elected leader from returning to power. 1965 Indonesia Intelligence Communism Removal of dissidents. Helping a pro-business regime. 1965 Laos Destabilisation;
Bombing Communism Denial of support for Vietnam. 1965 Thailand Military Aid None Support for pro-USA government; military bases. 1965 Peru Military Aid None Support for pro-USA government. 1966 Vietnam Village Clearing;
Bombing Communism Political control of the country. 1966 Laos Bombing None Denial of support for Vietnam. 1966 Central Africa Finance None Access to uranium. 1966 Bolivia Election Finance None Access to minerals and oil. 1967 Vietnam Military Action Communism Political control of the country. 1967 Cuba Assassination None Removal of popular leader. 1968 Vietnam Village Clearing;
Bombing Communism Political control of country. 1969 Cambodia Secret Bombing None Denial of support for Vietnam. 1969 Vietnam Military Action Communism Political control of country. 1970 North Vietnam Bombing None Control of country. 1970 Uruguay Torture Training None To keep opposition from taking power. 1970 Oman Military Assistance None Unknown. 1971 Laos Invasion None Control of country. 1971 Vietnam Military Action None Control of country. 1972 North Vietnam Blockade;
Bombing None Control of country. 1972 Nicaragua Troops Business interests Support for business and pro-USA government. 1972 Australia Election Finance None Did not like Labour Party foreign policy. 1972 Iraq Aid to Kurds Humanitarian To destabilise Iraq as it had a quarrel with USA ally, Iran. 1973 Cambodia Bombing None Control of country. 1974 Vietnam Trade Embargo Communism The Vietnamese were winning against the USA. 1974 Zaire Military Aid None Control of resources. 1974 Portugal Election Finance None Did not want socialist government to take power. 1975 Vietnam Economic Attack Communism To stop country developing as a model for the region. 1975 East Timor Support of Invasion None Did not want a new independent state; oil. 1975 Iraq Change of Support None Kurdish rebels no longer of use. 1975 Morocco Support of Invasion None Morocco grants use of military bases in return. 1976 Indonesia Military Aid None Support for pro-USA government. 1976 Philippines Military Aid None Support for pro-USA government. 1977 Pakistan Military Aid None Support for unelected pro-USA government. 1977 Egypt Economic Coersion None To remove Egypt from the anti-Israel camp. 1977 Zaire Military Aid None Support for pro-USA government. 1977 Indonesia Military Aid None Support for pro-USA government. 1978 Guatemala Military Aid;
Economic Aid None Support for unelected pro-USA government. 1979 Iran Habouring Dictator None New government wants control of its resources, especially oil. 1979 Central Africa Economic Aid None Support for pro-business government. 1979 Afghanistan Military Aid Repel USSR To repel USSR and break their economy. 1979 Cambodia Aid to Khmer Rouge None To please new ally China; to antagonise Vietnam. 1979 Vietnam Economic Blockade Communism To stop country developing as a model for the region. 1979 Yemen Military Aid None To please ally, Saudi Arabia. 1980 El Salvador Military Aid Communism Stop opposition to pro-USA government. 1980 Honduras Troops Communism Protect resources and create anti-Nicaragua bases. 1980 Iraq Military Aid Islamic Iran Wanted to destabilise new anti-USA government of Iran. 1980 Cambodia Military Aid None To destabilise Vietnamese backed government and to please new ally, China. 1980 Italy Terrorism None To discredit socialist election candidates and to heighten fear of the USSR. 1980 South Korea Military Aid;
Political Support None Suppress opposition to pro-USA government. 1981 Tanzania Economic Coersion Communism Wanted the country to change its economy to suit USA companies. 1981 El Salvador Military Aid Communism Stop opposition to pro-USA government. 1981 Libya Provocation Terrorism To destabilise an anti-West government. 1981 Indo-China Economic Coersion Communism To stop the independent development of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. 1982 Lebanon Troops Humanitarian To help Israel remove Palestinians. 1982 Guatemala Military Aid None To suppress opposition to pro-USA government. 1982 South Africa Financial Aid Terrorism To help South Africa destabilise the region. 1982 Afghanistan Military Aid Communism To replace USSR backed government by the USA backed government. 1982 Iraq Military Aid Islamic Iran To support Iraq's war against the anti-USA government of Iran. 1983 Lebanon Troops;
Bombing Peace Keeping To ensure pro-USA factions won the civil war. 1983 Nicaragua Blockade;
Arming Rebels Communism To replace government with pro-USA regime. 1983 Zimbabwe Economic Coersion None Government had too independent foreign policy. 1984 Mozambique Economic Coersion Communism To stop support for democracy in South Africa. 1985 Lebanon Car Bomb Assassination To remove anti-Israel and anti-USA dissidents. 1985 New Zealand Economic Coersion None Country backed nuclear free Pacific. 1985 Chad Military Aid;
Financial Aid None Support for non-elected pro-USA regime. 1985 Honduras Military Aid;
Training Communism To destabilise elected government of Nicaragua. 1986 Nicaragua Military Aid Communism To destabilise elected government. 1986 Libya Bombing Terrorism To destabilise the country. 1987 Iran Provocation Terrorism To destabilise the country. 1988 Iran Provocation Terrorism To destabilise the country. 1988 Iraq Military Aid Islamic Iran Support for Iraq in its war against Iran. 1988 Colombia Military Aid Drugs Support for pro-USA government. 1988 El Salvador Military Aid Communism Support for pro-USA government. 1988 Turkey Military Aid None Support for pro-USA government. 1989 El Salvador Military Aid Communism Support for pro-USA government. 1989 Panama Invasion;
Diplomatic Violation Drugs To ensure control over the Panama Canal. 1989 Cambodia Military Aid None To destabilise Vietnamese backed government and to please China. 1989 Libya Provocation Terrorism To destabilise the country because it is anti-USA and pro-Palestinian. 1990 Nicaragua Election Finance Communism To ensure that a pro-USA government was elected. 1990 El Salvador Military Training Communism Support of the pro-USA government. 1990 Guatemala Military Aid Communism Support for the pro-USA government. 1990 Bulgaria Election Finance Communism Did not want a socialist government in power. 1990 Germany Document Theft None Unknown. 1991 Iraq Invasion;
UN Violation;
Sanctions Free Kuwait To ensure that Iraq became less powerful. 1991 Philippines Disinformation None Military bases. 1992 Somalia Invasion Humanitarian To ensure that a pro-West government took control. 1992 Colombia Military Aid Drugs To remove anti-USA elements. 1992 Albania Election Finance Communism Did not want a socialist government in power. 1992 Angola Military Aid Communism Wanted access to oil and diamonds. 1993 Iraq Bombing UN Violations To ensure that Iraq does not flood the oil market, lowering the price. 1993 Cuba Trade Embargo Communism Country using its resources for its own people. 1994 Haiti Troops;
Document Theft Democracy To ensure that a pro-west government is elected. 1994 Jordan Financial Aid Humanitarian To obtain agreement with Israel's view that Palestinian refugees do not have a right of return. 1994 Colombia Military Aid Drug Trafficking To suppress opposition to pro-USA government. 1995 Turkey Military Aid None To keep a pro-USA government happy while it attacks Kurds. 1995 Iraq Sanctions;
Bombing UN Violations To ensure that Iraq does not flood the oil market, lowering the price. 1995 Mexico Military Aid Drug Trafficking To crush opposition to USA business interests. 1995 Iran Sanctions Terrorism Country using its resources for its own people. 1996 Iraq Sanctions;
Bombing UN Violations To keep the country weak and to destabilise the government. 1996 Mongolia Election Finance Communism To help elect a pro-USA government that would allow electronic monitoring of China. 1997 Rwanda Military Aid None Support for pro-West government. 1997 Iraq Sanctions UN Violations To replace the government with one that is more pro-West. 1998 Afghanistan Bombing Terrorism To destroy terror camps built by the USA to fight the USSR and now suspected of being used against the USA. 1998 Iraq Sanctions;
Bombing UN Violations To replace the government with one that is more pro-West. 1998 Sudan Bombing Terrorism Unknown. 1998 Turkey Military Aid None Support for pro-USA NATO country. 1998 Guatemala Military Aid None Suppression of opposition to pro-USA government. 1998 South Korea Food Aid Humanitarian To make the country dependent on USA produced food. 1999 Yugoslavia Bombing Humanitarian European business interests. 1999 Iraq Bombing UN Violations To destabilise independent Arab regime. 1999 Guatemala Military Aid None Suppression of opposition to pro-USA government. 2000 Israel Military Aid;
Economic Aid;
Political Support Terrorism Support for a strongly pro-West country in the Middle East. 2000 Kyrgyzstan Financial Aid Humanitarian To gain influence in oil rich Central Asia. 2001 Colombia Military Aid Drug Trafficking To protect USA oil companies from dissidents. 2001 China Provocation Communism To obtain secrets and intimidate independent country. 2001 Israel Military Aid;
Economic Aid;
Political Support Terrorism Support for a strongly pro-West country in the Middle East. 2001 Iraq Sanctions;
Bombing UN Violations To replace the government with one that is more pro-West. 2001 Afghanistan Bombing;
Invasion Terrorism To replace the government with one that is more pro-West. 2002 Afghanistan Bombing;
Invasion Terrorism To gain influence and control over oil rich Central Asia. 2002 Angola Intelligence Terrorism To remove their no longer needed former client. 2003 Iraq Invasion Banned
Weapons To gain control of oil rich country and impose a government friendly to the USA. 2007 Somalia Bombing;
Support of Invasion Terrorism To install a pro-USA government.

expecting thread lockdown in 5, 4, 3, 2...

Milky Pisswit2008-05-20 16:01:44

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

care to list the good stuff the states have done in that case Milky?

always 2 sides is there not?

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Oh, for sure there's some good things. Never denied that. I'll leave the list to you though, can't think of anything off the top of my head...

I'm exretmely cynical when it comes to the US government, mainly due to it's history of deceit, brutality, terrorism and interference...

EDIT: want to make it clear that I'm not anti-american though. Their government and the elite that control it can take a long walk off a short plank though...

Milky Pisswit2008-05-20 15:30:55

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Barber21 wrote:

I hate to sound like a "hater" LG but why can't each country just worry about themselves?

Let the Zimbys look after their own sh!t
Let the Iraqis blow eachother to smithereens
Let the Kosovo-ians hunt eachother down with AK-47s

While here in NZ we can all continue to live in relative harmony....

Thats just my opinion.

how often were they blowing themselves up pre the iraq war ?? not very often at all i reckon

the U.N is a joke let's be honest they send peace keepers to countries and stand by and watch the genocide happening in front of their eyes,then what do they do, send a strongly worded letter to the governments involved,while hundreds upon thousands of people are murdered or displaced and abandoned by the same organisation that was set up to stop these things happening.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Barber21 wrote:

to find corruption we need to look no further than our own immigration system theprof.

this forum is a haven for "Yankee Bashers" - gettin a bit old if you ask me

Never mentioned that our (NZ's) system was perfect, don't think I was particularly US bashing either, but as the list above indicates the US has been a major player in some of the worst military events in histroy....sure there have been some good moments but as discussed I can't think of any at this point.

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Barber21 wrote:

care to list the good stuff the states have done in that case Milky?

always 2 sides is there not?

hmmm truly altruistic good stuff? not much really - feel free to tell me though!

USA only entered WW2 at the last minute, and only cos if they didn't they'd suffer themselves. The USA government used to have a philosophy of non-intervention, like what you'd champion by the sounds of it - oh how they've changed...

I like tautologies because I like them.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Barber21 wrote:

but you said you think it should be every country for itself?

I like tautologies because I like them.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Really the UN should be in the position where they tell the member countries what and how they want things done but to me they have as much push as a wet bus ticket. It would also be nice if every member country actually paid their membership fees.

I also wonder why the UN wait for the USA to make the first move before they come out with some inane statement on that particular event. Surely, the UN shoiuld be leading the world in either some humanitarian cause or military move.

Classic examples being Zimbabwe and the obvious tactics of its dictator and another example is Tibet and the bullying/interference by China.

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

If the USA hadn't intervened in the Great War it would have kept dragging on for another couple of years and if they handn't got involved in WWII Germany might still be controlling most of mainland Europe and Japan the entire pacific. So, thats two things.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Barber21 wrote:

Oh here we go, another anti-us "for no good reason except thats what all my mates say its what I should think" forumite.

Its not bashing if they bring up valid points. They are contributing very well to the discussion and you are just passing off their views as insignificant by saying "oh you're just USA bashing"

Allegedly

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Critical_Lemon wrote:

yeah but Japan bombing Pearl Harbour was the main reason for the US effectively ending WW2...a US base...so they're hardly defending others for the sake of it...also, why did they leave it so long? the Nazis would've eventually taken on America if they had destroyed the Allies
Cosimo2008-05-20 19:18:44

I like tautologies because I like them.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Lonegunmen wrote:

Sadly, that's the way it is LG. The way the UN was set up (security council especially) meant that particular countries have overwhelming power over minority UN stakeholders (US/UK/RUSSIA/CHINA etc...). The very nature of the orignal UN structure left it open to abuse, in the way it gave VETO power to a select group.

Giddyup was bang on when he said the peacekeeping etc. was a joke. It's more a tool for powerful nations to dictate to the weak than it is for powerful nations to protect the weak.

As Metallica would say...

Sad but True...

Milky Pisswit2008-05-20 23:03:55

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Cosimo wrote:

Critical_Lemon wrote:

They left it so long because of their policy of isolation. Kind of like Barbers idea on leaving countries to sort their own sh*t out..... Problem is The U.S did this and then they get caught out at Pearl Harbor

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Critical_Lemon wrote:

Well, to put it nicely, bollocks.

The American impact in WW1 has been greatly over-estimated; that war basically ended because the Germans realised they simply couldn't win whatever they did, regardless of the American involvement. If the Germans had known the terms the stupid allies would impose on them for giving up, they wouldn't have done it and the war would have mindlessly carried on for God knows how long.

As far as WW2 goes, it was Russia who defeated Germany. The D-Day and subsequent operations on the Western Front accelarated the German defeat, but the Ruskies would have done it on their own without any trouble. Although admittedly the Yanks defeated the Japanese on their own, with little help from the Brits and the Ozzies.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

chocnut wrote:

Cosimo wrote:

Critical_Lemon wrote:

I don't want to enter into a prolonged philosphical discussion, but Barber's comments on 'letting each country take care of its problems' entirely miss the mark in this case. The countries/nations/states are supposed to, and in fact do, take care of their own business, it's not UN's job to tell them how to do it.

The purpose of the UN is to protect the weak and disenfranchised from the unscrupulous and powerful. The basic idea was to protect smaller countries (like NZ, I might add, this is why Peter Fraser, our PM at the time of the setting-up of the UN was so enthusiastic about the organisation) from being dominated and taken over by bigger and more powerful countries. Furthermore, the UN was also intended to protect general populations from the abuses of their own Governments, if the same are clearly established.

So to relate this to the Barber's comment, some countries simply aren't strong enough to deal with their problems, either because of the influence of more powerful and abusive parties, or through their own ineffective/corrupt Governments. In this way, the role of UN in world politics was designed to reflect that of the Police force in a civil society - to prevent the excesses and abuse of the weak by the strong. This in itself is a very worthy goal, but the problem that the UN faces is that it can fulfil that role only as far as it's allowed to by the major super-powers, most notably USA, China and Russia. Now all these countries realise that there needs to be some sort of moral balance operating in the world, which is why they broadly support the concept of the UN, but every time the interests of the UN and super-powers (whoever they may be) clash, the superp-power will always seek to protect its interest first and foremost, thereby rendering the UN toothless. Thus UN often fails to live up to its proclaimed aims and appears ineffective, but I reckon that a world with an ineffective UN is still better than a world without UN.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Cosimo wrote:

Critical_Lemon wrote:

Nothing is more frustrating than the rampant anti-Bush and anti-American feeling at the moment. Yes, both the U.S.A. and George Bush have made mistakes, but as Barber21 said, all the good they both do is completely overlooked. I accept that some people do have a genuine problem with America and Bush, and they are allowed their own opinions, but so many people who say they have a problem with either actually don't have a clue, they are often bandwagoners (not saying anybody on here is, but it's something I've noticed).

And Cosimo, if the U.S.A. had entered World War II when it started, then everybody would've been up in arms over them getting involved in something that I guess effected them economically but in not many other ways at all. Before they joined the war they had been in favour of Britain (and her allies), but had no reason to join the war (until the bombings of Pearl Harbour). And you can say that they only joined the war to defend themselves if you want, but even if that is true they still did good in it by speeding up the war, especially in the Pacific.

How do you know the Nazi's would've eventually taken on America if they had destroyed the Allies? During the early years of WWII Hitler wanted an alliance with Great Britain, so I'd say it is more likely the Nazi's would've tried (if they'd defeated the allies) to ally themselves with the U.S.A., not take over it. And they wouldn't have had a much of a hope of taking over the U.S.A. even if they had defeated the Allies. In the war they had Germany (which just had the Sudetenland added to it), Austria (united with Germany under Anschluss), Italy, and Japan plus a few other smaller nations - if these countries did defeat the allies I doubt many of the allied troops would've turned around and fought for them, so they wouldn't gain many more troops than they already had (in fact they'd probably lose more due to the amount of fighting it'd take to conquer the allies) so they'd be in no state to take on America economically or military-wise.
loyalgunner2008-05-21 00:17:54

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

loyalgunner wrote:

Cosimo wrote:

Critical_Lemon wrote:

um, the Nazi's were allies with Russia at one point - and it was pretty stupid taking them on, but hey, they did. And that point kinda proves my point - if America gets involved, it's mainly to help them. Even if the consequences are good for other countries, it doesn't make them beacons of justice. I could kill your enemy to steal his wallet - doesn't make me a good person, even though it benefits you. But yeah, it's balance - no country's "bad", all countries look out for themselves - but many people have REASONS for disliking American foreign policy, that's all - it's not just cos my "mates tell me too" or some other such stupidity
Cosimo2008-05-21 07:52:43

I like tautologies because I like them.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

and when are we going to hear about all this good that America does? i agree that anti-America feeling has gotten crazy - especially since many Americans don't even like Bush and much of their government's decisions - but i still want to know what the American government does that is so great, great enough that many people seem to blindly agree with everything they do...

EXAMPLES

I like tautologies because I like them.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

oh yeah, WW2, back in the '40s...

I like tautologies because I like them.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Guys, the USA position for the wars can be another thread. Can we get back to the position of the United nations? Lonegunmen2008-05-22 20:10:14

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Cosimo wrote:

if it wasnt for the US most of us would have been studying Mein Kempf instead of "Great Expectations"

but yes, the UN........All i know is they wear blue berets (which were made in Tawa for a while believe it or not) and have peackeeping duties. On the administrative side of it, I have only seen stuff on the news with general assemblies and what-have-you

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Barber21 wrote:

if it wasnt for the US most of us would have been studying Mein Kempf instead of "Great Expectations"

Like I said earlier, Russia deserves much more credit in beating Hitler than the US.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I think the US take a little more credit for ending the war thwan they deserve - they did only decide to get involved when Pearl Harbour was attacked and that was an opportunist attack byu the Japanese because the US was playing blind to what was happening. Sure they helped but I tjhink the allies and Russia would have done it anyway.

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Like I said earlier, the Americans won the war in the Pacific pretty much on their own.
In Europe however, the Ruskies would have defeated Hitler even without the American help.

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Hitler kind of defeated himself (to a degree anyway) by fighting the Russians in the Russian winter and by pulling out of the Battle of Britain. loyalgunner2008-05-21 19:05:41

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

the war had turned in europe by the time of pearl harbour. the attack on russia was the beginning of the end and rommels failure in north africa had massive implications for supply and oil. also from what ive read hitler had given up on invading britain in the near future after losing the battle of britain.
on the real topic im not sure where i stand on the un. i think they do some good, i think in some cases they are toothless. the political realities of the situation in terms of constant veto powers mean that many things will die in the security council.
it certainly will play a key role as the balance of power shifts futher from the us towards india and china and as the eu becomes more of a power as a collective force, once the member states of the eu give up there ideas of grandeur they feel about there nations

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink

almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

el grapadura wrote:

The purpose of the UN is to protect the weak and disenfranchised from the unscrupulous and powerful. The basic idea was to protect smaller countries (like NZ, I might add, this is why Peter Fraser, our PM at the time of the setting-up of the UN was so enthusiastic about the organisation) from being dominated and taken over by bigger and more powerful countries. Furthermore, the UN was also intended to protect general populations from the abuses of their own Governments, if the same are clearly established.

...but I reckon that a world with an ineffective UN is still better than a world without UN.

Well put...

Another thing to point out is that the structure of the UN greatly determines it's effectiveness. The Security Council is where the decisions on peacekeeping, sanctions and military action are made. As the five permanent members have veto power on any resolution put forward, it effectively gives them the power to preserve their own interests and put themselves ahead of the greater good.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/resources.cfm?id=345

The United Nations and the Responsibility to Protect - interesting read.

Profile pic. Should you be interested. Lakhsen, on the right, lost touch with him.
Mohammed, on the left, I'm still in touch with. He's now living in Agadez, Niger. More focused on his animals now as tourism has dried up. Is active with a co-op promoting local goods, leather work and bijouterie, into Europe.
20/5/20

Permalink