StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I am sure you all remember those fundie idiots and right-wing populists who constantly berate the government for staying in the UN, it having one-world-government ideas. Well, it turns out those asswipes got it backwards. The UN unfortunately is nearing death. If an immediate resolution is not approved for US entering Iraq, US will do so with numerous allies and effectively screw the Security Council and the influence it once had. Furthermore, technically speaking the Security Council is the only council that has the "power" of force; i.e. the ability to invade a country if it is being really naughty. Hopefully this Coalition dies quickly and we all get back to normal, hated-UN relations; going back to "Great Power" style negotiations present in the Cold War and late nineteenth century would set back solving major non-military world issues for quite a while.

The UN has survived much worse than this. It failed to live up to its duty, and it deserves the black eye it's getting.

Just like the previous organisation the UN will disapear.

The problem with the UN is that, when it comes to the US, or US-backed nations, it cannot enforce it's edicts. It has no military of it's own, and the US military is so powerful none of the UN member nations would be willing to risk it's wrath, and economically sanctioning it would ruin the world.

It's in deep shit right now. The US is turning it's back on it with good reason. It'll have to really work to stay alive after this mess.

There is something i heard a few years ago the UN almost fell apart,and Ted Turner gave them one billion dollars.
Is it true or was it a rumor.

HemlockGrey wrote:The problem with the UN is that, when it comes to the US, or US-backed nations, it cannot enforce it's edicts. It has no military of it's own, and the US military is so powerful none of the UN member nations would be willing to risk it's wrath, and economically sanctioning it would ruin the world.

The UN cannot do anything against the US, because the US has a veto. A veto which has been used more than any other countries vetoes combined.

It's becoming a bloated carcas. It relied on NATO for brute strength and NATO is breaking apart.

Maybe you folks can add to this but the best discription of what the UN should be turned into is 'The Salvation Army" of the world. They are not a enforcement group. To many countries with too many self-interests..

Montcalm wrote:There is something i heard a few years ago the UN almost fell apart,and Ted Turner gave them one billion dollars.
Is it true or was it a rumor.

It might be possible, the UN gets money from it's member nations, based on amount of participation, size of the nations economy, etc... which naturally means the US has to pay the most. Problem is, the US has skimpt on more payments than any other UN country, leading to the decrpit state of the UN monetary wise.

Dead in all but name, just as it already is.

Captain Lennox wrote:It's becoming a bloated carcas. It relied on NATO for brute strength and NATO is breaking apart.

It NEVER relied on NATO.

It relied on it's member nations to provide peacekeepers, if it needed force, and on the goodwill of nations.

Let me get this straight. The US tries to push a certain resoloution throught he security council and yet lacks the numbers to do so. That makes the UN a failure? But when the US uses it's veto 76 times (35 of which were to stop any kind of UN critisism of Israel) source the UN is working fine?

This is the most hypocritical bullshit that I have EVER heard!

Crown, You are comparing the failure of the Un to enforce 1441 to every other veto the US has made.. That is Generalising bullshit..

Actually, the Soviet Union has used veto power more then the US

But it's gonna be awhile for the UN to get back on its feet

The United Nations has lost no actual legitimacy. Not that upon refusal to enact the “serious consequences” of Resolution 1441 it actually retained that mantle in the eyes of no less than three vital members anyway (Spain, the UK, and the US).

Iraq is an aberration for all intents and purposes. Despite the fact that it will open a can of worms, military preemption is in this case unique. It represents by no means a desire to follow the same kind of agenda elsewhere. Syria, Iran, and Pakistan will slowly sway under other forms of persuasion or prevention, be they economic, diplomatic, political, or in the later’s case, tentative cooperation. Containment of the sort advocated over Iraq will be transplanted as best as possible to North Korea, where the administration under George Bush isn’t quite as eager or able to meet Kim Jong-Il with a military solution. After Iraq, the concept of direct, martial disarmament will fade. This temporary enactment of gunboat diplomacy – however necessary in the moment, according to some – will have been a formal “last hurrah” as it were. More mundane – and universally accepted – engagement will be chosen and agreed upon in the near future.

Rifts over the Ba’ath’s demise will heal quickly. Not only is Bush rumored to be preparing a plan by which to gain Russian complicity – by allowing them to keep most older concessions made before the current crisis began -, but his action will have swayed the Chinese – thankfully in their minds – from having to make any sort of potentially risky declaration for or against the war. France, Germany, and others will – though stripped of most concessions – enjoy a chance to bid on reconstruction contacts and participate in police-keeping duties nonetheless, ensuring that (if they so chose, which is unlikely anyway) Chirac and Schroeder can later claim they are attempted to retroactively “legitimize” an unfortunate chapter in American unilateralism. One man has failed in his gambit and another succeeded. For the Germans, this was an important exercise in the public relations side of statecraft. For the French, a failed – but well-played – attempt at diversion. If he’s smart – though I hope not -, Jacques will play the same round the next time something like this comes up. It’s really the only way – in concert with continued expansion of EU suzerainty and influence, of course – that France can hope to build its bloc of opposition to American hyperpower.

Crown wrote:Let me get this straight. The US tries to push a certain resoloution throught he security council and yet lacks the numbers to do so. That makes the UN a failure? But when the US uses it's veto 76 times (35 of which were to stop any kind of UN critisism of Israel) source the UN is working fine?

This is the most hypocritical bullshit that I have EVER heard!

Actually I think the UN has been ineffective from the start. It's in opposition to the very idea of the nation state and it was a turd from the start. It never did prevent war between/by major powers when they wanted war. The problem isn't the veto now but the fact it won't even enforce it's own decisions. That's what going to kill it.

Montcalm wrote:Just like the previous organisation the UN will disapear.

I'd rather it just get updated (couldn't think of the right word).

Montcalm wrote:There is something i heard a few years ago the UN almost fell apart,and Ted Turner gave them one billion dollars.
Is it true or was it a rumor.

That's was partly true. At one point the UN was running a debt is something like five billion dollars and was going to have to cut just about every program it had. Turner did give them a billion, but it went towards funding programs not paying down the debt. Not long after another guy gave the UN another billion followed by several member nations making good on debts they owed to the UN.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Montcalm wrote:There is something i heard a few years ago the UN almost fell apart,and Ted Turner gave them one billion dollars.
Is it true or was it a rumor.

That's was partly true. At one point the UN was running a debt is something like five billion dollars and was going to have to cut just about every program it had. Turner did give them a billion, but it went towards funding programs not paying down the debt. Not long after another guy gave the UN another billion followed by several member nations making good on debts they owed to the UN.

We should pay off our debt and tell then tell them to look for new digs elsewhere.

Stormbringer wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Montcalm wrote:There is something i heard a few years ago the UN almost fell apart,and Ted Turner gave them one billion dollars.
Is it true or was it a rumor.

That's was partly true. At one point the UN was running a debt is something like five billion dollars and was going to have to cut just about every program it had. Turner did give them a billion, but it went towards funding programs not paying down the debt. Not long after another guy gave the UN another billion followed by several member nations making good on debts they owed to the UN.

We should pay off our debt and tell then tell them to look for new digs elsewhere.

Technically, we're not even in debt to the U.N. All payments to the U.N. are completely voluntary on our part. We have recieved nothing in return for incurring this "debt" and the U.N. hasnt the power to force us to pay up. Personally, I think we should just give them t he big boot. Even if they attempt to sanction us, most countries in the world would just ignore it (espically Isreal, Japan, and China) which would only further the demonstration of the utter impotence and uselessness of the U.N.

I say we just kick them out now, they're nothing but an insult to freedom and justice.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I say we just kick them out now, they're nothing but an insult to freedom and justice.

I would say IF we leave the UN, let them keep their building; even allow them to not pay taxes, as an international gift. However, make it VERY clear that they are not diplomats in our eyes, but foreign nationals who are subject to US law. That way, we still hold a moral ground, but aren't completely burning our bridges behind us in case the UN ever gets its head out of its ass.

Guardsman Bass wrote:I am sure you all remember those fundie idiots and right-wing populists who constantly berate the government for staying in the UN, it having one-world-government ideas. Well, it turns out those asswipes got it backwards. The UN unfortunately is nearing death. If an immediate resolution is not approved for US entering Iraq, US will do so with numerous allies and effectively screw the Security Council and the influence it once had. Furthermore, technically speaking the Security Council is the only council that has the "power" of force; i.e. the ability to invade a country if it is being really naughty. Hopefully this Coalition dies quickly and we all get back to normal, hated-UN relations; going back to "Great Power" style negotiations present in the Cold War and late nineteenth century would set back solving major non-military world issues for quite a while.

The UN has been about as effective as . . . well hell, it's never really been effective. Nobody has any real binding authority at the UN and it's power structure is far too decentralized to have the slightest chance of working.

Unfortunately, the only UN that would really work is one that would piss off every little pissant isolationist leaning so far to starboard that they routinely risk capsizing. For the UN to be effective, it needs to be more efficiently centralized and better run. (None of this rotating chairmanship shit or unilateral veto power.) And it also has to have the teeth to enforce it's resolutions. As it is, the UN has a hard enough time intimidating some dirt-poor ass-backward country like Rwanda, much less the United States, which, like most every other UN member, accepts the resolutions that benefit it directly and ignore the ones that don't.

I may be coming off as a leftist loudmouth here, but if one is going to have an organization like the UN, one can't take half-measures, otherwise it will eventually go the way of the equally ineffective League of Nations that existed before WW2.

I don't remember Iraq asking the UN for approval to invade Iran or Kuwaitt.

Unfortunately, the only UN that would really work is one that would piss off every little pissant isolationist leaning so far to starboard that they routinely risk capsizing.

Try dealing with their arguements instead of just labeling them as extremists with bad ideas which are bad because they're "extreme".

For the UN to be effective, it needs to be more efficiently centralized and better run. (None of this rotating chairmanship shit or unilateral veto power.) And it also has to have the teeth to enforce it's resolutions.

Yes, obviously the US and the other major powers o f the World shouldn't have an explict veto.... even though they have an implicit veto on any vote simply due to their overwhelming economic and military power. Pretending that the veto is something that can be eliminated is nothing more then self-delusion, the countries have veto power whether the U.N. recognizes it or not.

And it also has to have the teeth to enforce it's resolutions.

Its teeth are completely dependent on the permenant members of the security counsul, to eliminate those teeth all those countries need to do is withdrawl their finical support and then the U.N. will be a toothless dog.

As it is, the UN has a hard enough time intimidating some dirt-poor ass-backward country like Rwanda, much less the United States, which, like most every other UN member, accepts the resolutions that benefit it directly and ignore the ones that don't

Yes, obviously the U.S. should send its citizen's hard earned tax dollars to an organization which wants the power to intimate those same citizens to accept resolutions which are detrimental to them.

I may be coming off as a leftist loudmouth here, but if one is going to have an organization like the UN, one can't take half-measures, otherwise it will eventually go the way of the equally ineffective League of Nations that existed before WW2.

Yes, obviously we should just surrunder the freedom and soverignity of the country to an organization which gives equal legitimacy and authority to both countries run by blood thirsty tyrants and liberal democracies which work for the benefit of their citizens. Personally, I think that the best thing the UN COULD do is go the way of the League of Nations.

And, yes you are coming off as a "leftist loudmouth", one that shows very little thought about the nature or consequences of his/her propositions.