au1929 wrote:Craven
What are the UN's accomplishments? Africa is aflame, the middle east is burning and people are at war in one way or another and throughout the world. And the UN passes resolutions. Can they do more than issue condemnations? Yes, they can form or at least attempt to form coalitions of member nations to force a settlement. To date the only one that ever did that was the US and NATO. The UN IMO is a moribund organization. Should it be disbanded? No. It needs to grow some balls.
UN accomplishments? I'll name just one because this is an request that will come apart when you dispute it:
1) removal of Saddam from Kuwait.
Who put that coalition together. The UN or the US? Were it up to the UN Saddam would still be sitting in Kuwait. It was as much a UN action as Korea was.
Au,
You make it very plain. When the UN does good it is not important (US gets credit) and when they disagree they are irrelevant.
The UN is only irrelevant to those who think it is.
Your comment about the UN and Kuwait is intentionaly false.
Craven
I somehow remember Bush the elder putting that coalition together.
No, you credit him. The disconnect is that when member nations act within the UN against our liking you acll them irrelevant.
When the member nations (remember that the US is one?) act within the UN toward a just cause you applaud.. the US.
No, Bush did not put together the coalition. The world did, Bush deserves plenty of credit but your assrtio ignores many things.
A) many nations would not have participated without UN sanction, unlike the US many nations like to go to war with collective justification.
B) The US made a profit off of the war based on contributions by many nations.
C) While the US did the bulk of teh work in the war it was a UN sanctioned war.
The UN did exactly what it was supposed to.
It sounds like you don;t like to recognize that the UN is a place where nations meet. It's like calling a court irrelevant because it's the cops who catch the criminals.
No duh, the cops are part of the justice system.
The US is part of the UN. You can't be so selective in your blame and credit game.
Mr. De Kere said: While the US did most of the work in the war, it was a UN sanctioned war.
great!
The fighter fights while the sluggard says: GO- SAM- BEAT HIM UP.
What nonsense.
We helped to save the British and the French in World War I.
We did save the British and the French in World War II
We almost singlehandedly rebuilt Europe after World War II
We stood almost alone against Khruschev and the Soviets.
Sure- and we are "the evil nation" and Kofi Annan and the subnormal savages from the third world are the moral ones.
If the Third World is so advanced, why, why, for example, is Africa in far far worst shape militarily, economically and socially fifty years after they were liberated from "colonialism".
One of the problems with the UN is that it includes leaders from nations that are still immersed in Savagery.
Just how many people have died in internecine wars in Africa since 1950?????
Italgato,
Your analogy is absurd.
When the courts declare anything it is the police who back them up.
This does not make the court a "sluggard". It means each has a function.
The UN is not a military in case you haven't noticed. It's rulings that have required military enforcement come in the form of a coalition that works under the UN's sanction.
To deride the UN on this is absurd. It's like deriding the supreme court for not arresting criminals.
Iran deadline a Bush dilemma too
What to do if Tehran fails to come clean on its nuclear programs
by Oct. 31?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/981691.asp?0dm=C19NN
What if anything should the US do? What are we in a position to do both militarily and financially?
Let's see what the UN does...
Sofia
The UN will agonize over it and pass a resolution.They are great at resolutions.
