United nations, EU, where are you??

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

steissd wrote:
The only way to make the Muslim authorities to leave the Southern Christians alone is to bomb the hell out of North, to destroy all their military and economic infrastructure by means of aerial attacks, and to continue bombings until they surrender and submit to demands of the peacekeeping forces.

You forget: "...and just forget about civilian casualties". The UN is a peace-keeping force, and when they will follow your tactics, they will lose all their credibility, and they will betray their foundations. Of course, human lives are more worth than all this, but I do not even think such a violent solution is a solution.

I did not mean bombing residential areas of Khartum. I meant destruction of military bases, battleships, air bases, power plants, seaport warehouses, fuel depots, governmental buildings (except state-owned hospitals and schools), railroads, highways and other infractructure facilities. Bombing of the ones pertaining to the civil infractructure may be performed at night to minimize collateral damage.

0 Replies

Civilian casualties can also appear indirect: what will the destruction of the infrastructure - just to give an example - have for an influence on the population? Will this mean violent way of ending the conflict not only bring more instability to the country? That is just what I mean.

0 Replies

Population (mainly local elite that enjoys favors of the modern civilization unlike their impoverished compatriots) will certainly suffer from certain inconveniences (like short supply of electricity and water), this will be the price they will pay for support of the existing regime. Small-scale collateral damage cannot be excluded either. But this will be efficient in stopping the deliberate genocide.
And if destruction of infrastructure will lead to toppling the repressive regime (like it happened in Yugoslavia in 90s), this will be in favor of everybody.

0 Replies

But Yugoslavia isn't Sudan. And how can you say that these people than just "[have to] pay for support of the existing regime"? Isn't that just a little bit short-sighted?

0 Replies

What is the difference between Yugoslavia and Sudan in terms of ethnic purge? Maybe, the only difference is that Serbs killed much less Muslims than White Arab Sudanese killed their Black African Christians?

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

It is not the first scandal of the kind. And not the last. UN is possessed by the Third World, majority of the countries there being ruled by non-democratic and corrupt regimes.

How can the UN be "possessed by the Third World" if the only countries with veto power over its decisions are the US, the UK, France, Russia and China?

0 Replies

Rick-- A recent investigation supplied many insiders accusing the infastructure of the UN to be corrupt--from the top, down. It is reported by employees to shelter a Good Ole Boys Network, which rewards corruption and cover-up--and displaces those who question the structure.

Pro-UNers-- Wouldn't the UN be effective or useful if they put their minds together and actually came up with long-term solutions to problems such as Africa, warlord govts, starvation--rather than just be overpaid newsboys. As it is--the need for the UN seems obselete, unless they can provide a service that isn't duplicated.

0 Replies

steissd

And after all that is done in Sudan, we bomb and kill the Christians in Nigeria, who killed the Muslims.

<Why do we teach 'Anti-violent-conflict-management' in our schools? Better send the kids out killing mainly local elite that enjoys favors of the modern civilization to pay the price for support of the existing regime>

0 Replies

Sofia--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rick-- A recent investigation supplied many insiders accusing the infastructure of the UN to be corrupt--from the top, down. It is reported by employees to shelter a Good Ole Boys Network, which rewards corruption and cover-up--and displaces those who question the structure.

Why does that sound so familar?

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

What is the difference between Yugoslavia and Sudan in terms of ethnic purge?

I also dont really see why Sudan would be all too different from Yugoslavia.

But it needs to be added that it wasnt the "destruction of infrastructure" by the US+allies that "led to toppling the repressive regime" of Milosevic - unfortunately, he survived all that. It was a Serbian popular insurrection that in the end brought him down.

One could argue that the insurrection was indirectly brought about by the war, but since similar insurrections had taken place in 1990 (?) and 1996/7, that link at most is speculative.

0 Replies

Steissd: what I meant was that Yugoslavia was (and is) in that way a developed country and by that it could handle the bombings and destruction of infrastructure (although I do not agree with these bombings either). Sudan is a third-world country, in which these attacks could do far more damage to the population. That is what I meant.

Sofia: I would really be interested in this investigation (not that I don't believe you :wink: ). Concerning "sticking their heads together instead of being overpaid newsboys". Hello! You can better call for a change in government mentalities. The UN can do that (if it's not already doing that), but what would be the real effect? How many countries do not listen to the UN (a membership does not have to mean that they act according to UN rules or internationally accepted rules)? I think the UN can indeed improve; but even more, I think, should countries all over the world care more about the rest of the world and the UN, but that's not how many countries are acting at the moment. And when that happens, what can the UN do?

0 Replies

Au--

I know you point out a lot of govts, including ours, are corrupt. I hope you don't mean they should get a pass. We do investigate corruption, when there is evidence... I just want it thoroughly investigated.

I happened upon several quotes from Chirac, and other world officials (including many Democrats), who pressed for (or alluded to) military action against Saddam, circa Clinton's Presidency. Makes one wonder why they changed their minds when Bush was asking for support for the same thing---during the Oil For Food program. It bears investigation.

It is easy to imagine they were happily stuffing their pockets, and had personal reasons to stall the Iraq war.

0 Replies

I imagine all sorts of crazy stuff too.

P.S. Check for factual basis, it's missing.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Pro-UNers-- Wouldn't the UN be effective or useful if they put their minds together and actually came up with long-term solutions to problems such as Africa, warlord govts, starvation--

Phew. Thats quite the shopping list. You know of any government, no matter how just, wise and powerful, that ever came close to coming up with such?

Asking an organisation with, what Walter said, a budget 1/4 of the size of NYC's, to solve all the Problems of the World - and then call it a powerless scam if it turns out to be unable to do that - sounds like a set-up to me.

Sofia wrote:

rather than just be overpaid newsboys. As it is--the need for the UN seems obselete, unless they can provide a service that isn't duplicated.

"That isn't duplicated"? OK, lets try. Sofia, do you know of anyone else who would be ready, willing and able to

- maintain peacekeeping missions, accepted by both or all previously warring parties, to secure ceasefires in dozens of countries around the world, varying from Cyprus to Eritrea (some of which without any geostrategical or economical value)?

- provide food and shelter to millions of refugees and internally displaced people in tent camps and makeshift settlements around the world?

- provide emergency food support when drought and hunger threatens to kill millions in some of the most remote (and strategically "valueless") countries and regions?

- gain access to nuclear installations in countries as 'closed' as Iran, to monitor the development of nuclear weapons?

0 Replies

Craven

Yes, I know. I'm a dot connecter.

1. Letters revealing overwhelming support for action against Saddam flew all over.

2. Oil For Food is instituted.

3. It is revealed that OFF funds were stolen by members of the UN.

4. It is revealed that Russia, Germany and France were making money dealing under the table with Saddam.

5. Russia, Germany and France spearhead a drive to reject military action against Saddam.

Refusing to entertain selfish reasons for #5 is irresponsible, IMO. "Imagining" that there is a connection is sensible.
-----------
Rick-- It is often said here that UN detractors want to weaken the UN, and then complain when it is weak. If they actually made themselves useful, I would be thrilled. They don't have an army. OK. They do have a gathering of problem solvers, and a format of meetings, and humanitarian goals... Let them solve these age old problems. Let them take some initiative, devise a plan to affect hunger and political morass in the world.

I strongly believe the world would give great credence to decisive, innovative action by the UN. If they just DO something that is needed. If they just supply a product worth paying for...

Anyway, I'll bring the article.

0 Replies

So you are asserting that the letters pre-dated the Oil for Food program? That seems to be a central claim of yours that is in two posts.

Did you do a fact check? And you do know that it was in effect for most of the Clinton years right?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Refusing to entertain selfish reasons for #5 is irresponsible, IMO. "Imagining" that there is a connection is sensible.

This is really silly. And it's this kind of lapse in critical thinking that the other side uses to simply "imagine" the corrupt financial motivation for Bush going to war.

I reject their brainfarts just as I reject this one.

No, it's not "sensible" to simply imagine connections and not put it through the test of critical thinking. It is, however, common and is the basis of many conspiracy theories.

What do you use to separate yours from the ones you do not subscribe to? Because veracity isn't your criteria here.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I strongly believe the world would give great credence to decisive, innovative action by the UN. If they just DO something that is needed. If they just supply a product worth paying for...

Tell the people who, having had to flee home, town or country because of war or famine, are sheltered and fed by the UN -- or the people who live under ceasefires brokered and guarded by UN troops after years of devastating civil war -- that the UN, you know, just doesnt DO anything that is needed ... Doesnt supply any product worth paying for ...

0 Replies

Pound for pound and dollar for dollar the UN does a heck of a lot more than just about any comparable organization.

But nimh, I'm prolly out of here and IMO you are just going to hit your head on a wall.

Some of the UN hatred is not based on reason.

0 Replies

Thats for sure ...

If the US government (or the European Commission for that matter) had secured as many ceasefires, peace agreements and emergency relief efforts as the UN did (and again I'm just sticking to the obvious things, theres also the WHO, UNICEF, etc) - then some American Presidents (or Presidents of the EC) would have gotten some major Noble Prizes ...

And all that for a relative pittance, fraud or not ... just compare the UN budget with that of, say, the FBI or the European agricultural subsidies ...

0 Replies

United nations, EU, where are you??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know