UN Irrelevant?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3130880.stm
Dubya is planning a speech to the UN Assembly. From the sounds of it, he will basically dismiss the UN's desire to takeover adminstrative duties in Iraq, and yet at the same time seek validation from the UN for the US backed Iraqi Council.
I guess this is a step forward from Rummy's comparisons of the UN to the League of Nations and the infamous "old Europe" comments. However, it still irks me that Dubya believes that he can go it alone (with lap dog allies in tow) in his "war against terror".
Whatever the disfunctions of the UN, it is currently the only body that can come close to claiming it represents world opinion. America was foudned on the notion of democracy: that the will of the people is paramount. If democracy is so important at a domestic level, shouldn't it be equally important at an international level?
Dubya is planning a speech to the UN Assembly. From the sounds of it, he will basically dismiss the UN's desire to takeover adminstrative duties in Iraq, and yet at the same time seek validation from the UN for the US backed Iraqi Council.
I guess this is a step forward from Rummy's comparisons of the UN to the League of Nations and the infamous "old Europe" comments. However, it still irks me that Dubya believes that he can go it alone (with lap dog allies in tow) in his "war against terror".
Whatever the disfunctions of the UN, it is currently the only body that can come close to claiming it represents world opinion. America was foudned on the notion of democracy: that the will of the people is paramount. If democracy is so important at a domestic level, shouldn't it be equally important at an international level?
Comments
I can think of one reason: because the French (and other non-American corporations) may get some of the reconstruction contracts.
Originally posted by Scott
Problem is "world opinion" is just about useless. Remember opinions are like asshole. Everyone has them and they all stink. And world opinion is one planet sized asshole.
Presumably "US opinion" however is totally valid.
You are a lunatic.
Originally posted by bunge
Get rid of the vetos on the Security Council.
Vetos of the security council sucks, but in his current state, UN canno't function without it.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Vetos of the security council sucks, but in his current state, UN canno't function without it.
That's true, but getting rid of the veto should be a goal. I like the idea of full memberships for democratic governments but only half-memberships for countries that don't. With a system like that the veto wouldn't be necessary because the dictators of the world wouldn't have a say.
The only problem would be getting China on board.
Originally posted by bunge
That's true, but getting rid of the veto should be a goal. I like the idea of full memberships for democratic governments but only half-memberships for countries that don't. With a system like that the veto wouldn't be necessary because the dictators of the world wouldn't have a say.
The only problem would be getting China on board.
that's right it should be a goal. I think that UN is the a sort of benchmark of the world. The more civilised, democratic and balanced the word is, the more UN works. In the contrary it's just the reverse.
Saying that UN is irrelevant or worthless, just reflect how in poor shape the world is.
For all of the problems out there the international scene has been relatively peaceful for the last 50 years compared to the prior few centuries. If Russia can hold up and China can continue inching towards the rest of the world the big picture will be pretty good.
Reform the UN by tossing out the undemocratic countries and the institution will be fine. Beyond that the only problems are ones of diverging world views on a relatively moderate scale as manifested in the leadership that some countries have and UN reform isn't going to do anything but exacerbate that.
Maybe those bombs going off at Baghdad's UN headquarters are love bombs. "PLZ COEM YUO!1"
Originally posted by groverat
What gives the UN more right than the US to take administrative control of Iraq?
The fact that the US has no 'right' at all to take administrative control of Iraq would be one thing. The fact that the US doesn't seem to be doing a very good job would be another.
The fact that the US has no 'right' at all to take administrative control of Iraq would be one thing.
That makes no sense.
Person B steals Person A's bike, so Person C has the right to take Person A's bike and decide what to do with it?
I'm sorry, buddy, but Iraq doesn't even have a representative in the UN right now, there is no "right" for the UN to be there past public perception.
Again, what about the bombings? Do Iraqis like the UN more?
The very unhappy don't seem to be calling for "bring in the UN", they seem to be calling for "leave us alone".
The fact that the US doesn't seem to be doing a very good job would be another.
Yet another piece of wonderful illogic.
Originally posted by groverat
What gives the UN more right than the US to take administrative control of Iraq?
Maybe those bombs going off at Baghdad's UN headquarters are love bombs. "PLZ COEM YUO!1"
Because in today's global situation ( not national ) it's more than just one country controling. As it should be. You're having trouble grasping this concept? Wake up and welcome to the 21rst century. Smell the coffee.
Originally posted by groverat
Do Iraqis like the UN more?
The very unhappy don't seem to be calling for "bring in the UN", they seem to be calling for "leave us alone".
I believe Iraq has asked for more U.N. intervention and less U.S.
Originally posted by groverat
That makes no sense.
Person B steals Person A's bike, so Person C has the right to take Person A's bike and decide what to do with it?
That's the worst analogy I've ever read on here. Congrats.
Originally posted by Groverat I'm sorry, buddy, but Iraq doesn't even have a representative in the UN right now, there is no "right" for the UN to be there past public perception.
Gee, I wonder why they don't have a representative there yet.
Originally posted by Groverat Again, what about the bombings? Do Iraqis like the UN more?
The very unhappy don't seem to be calling for "bring in the UN", they seem to be calling for "leave us alone".
Yet another piece of wonderful illogic
Yeah, cause them killing and wounding US soldiers almost at a rate of one dead and 10 wounded per day and them holding anti-US marches daily means they love us of course.
If the UN is so irrelevant....why are we going there with our tail between our legs asking for their help?
Originally posted by groverat
I'm sorry, buddy, but Iraq doesn't even have a representative in the UN right now, there is no "right" for the UN to be there past public perception.
The US has no right to take administrative control of Iraq because - as a founding member of the UN - the US has signed and ratified conventions and treaties placing such responsibilities squarely in the mandate of the UN.
I've said this before on these boards. The UN may be less effective than it should be, it may be restrained by bureaucracy and the need for consensus between nations that frequently disagree with each other almost on principal, and it may be in need of reform. However, it remains the sole forum for the kinds of decisions and actions that the Bush administration has taken on itself. Decisions and actions that have potential impact on many countries besides the US and Iraq. Decisions and actions that those of us who pay taxes in this country will be paying for for years to come.
Yet another piece of wonderful illogic.
How is it illogical to say that the UN (which, once again, deals with situations like the current one in Iraq by design) should take over...particularly since the restoration of order is not progressing as promised?
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
The US has no right to take administrative control of Iraq because - as a founding member of the UN - the US has signed and ratified conventions and treaties placing such responsibilities squarely in the mandate of the UN.
...
Source?