2
   

UN Ripe for Reform, American style

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 07:59 am
rayban1 wrote:
Did any of you "knee jerk" reactionaries bother to read the article? If you had you'd know that the most inept , ineffective Secretary General of all time is very vulnerable, because of all the corruption he has allowed on his watch.

Take off your blinders and admit that the UN needs reform and Bolton, with Bush's backing, may, I repeat, may be able to ram through something significant. The focus would be to initiate changes that would transform the UN into a meaningful and relevant organization with transparent accounting of funds and staffed by individuals who can be held accountable for their actions.


Thanks for proving my point, rayban.

Yeah, I read the article. Not much content there, but you can outline the whatever details you think are meaningful.

The article talks about the "tranzis" and how bad they are. It talks about how the US won't allow any other nation to gain more influence. And, of course, about corruption. (Not the main point of the article, I'd say. Would be difficult, since it has become common knowledge that the US admin knew about corruption but didn't bother to do anything about it. Probably because of the big deals of the US enterprises involved.)

If the US wouldn't want to have any new veto powers granted, for example, why reform the UN at all? Every meaningful reform to the UN can only translate into one thing: a loss of power for the post-WWII allies.

Moreover, the debate over U.N. reform is not about whether sovereign nation states or transnational UN bodies should be the main players in international relations. Why not? Simply because the UN is a transnational organization.

If you don't approve of that and think that sovereign nation states should be the global players, forming new "coalitions of the willing" whenever a crisis would arise, then again there's no need for a reform.

So what's the new thing in the article? Just one thing: the talk about the UN as a meaningful and relevant organization.

Uh? How come?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 08:04 am
Setanta wrote:
I find it so hilarious to be described as reactionary, that i can barely type . . . that's a lifetime first ! ! !


A reactionary is someone who.....well.....reacts......most of the time in a violent or blind rage, kind of way. Seems to fit rather well in your case.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 08:12 am
rayban1 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
I find it so hilarious to be described as reactionary, that i can barely type . . . that's a lifetime first ! ! !


A reactionary is someone who.....well.....reacts......most of the time in a violent or blind rage, kind of way. Seems to fit rather well in your case.


Like the States did, after the G4 an AU proposals for a UN reform, you mean?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 08:15 am
Whose in a blind rage? Instead of making inane labels to posters why not answer the arguments made?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 08:23 am
old europe wrote:
rayban1 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
I find it so hilarious to be described as reactionary, that i can barely type . . . that's a lifetime first ! ! !


A reactionary is someone who.....well.....reacts......most of the time in a violent or blind rage, kind of way. Seems to fit rather well in your case.


Like the States did, after the G4 an AU proposals for a UN reform, you mean?


Please....Please....The African Union has .......53 members or countries....and these 53 countries represent most of the thugs who are trying to wreck the UN or turn it into their own plaything. Why should we allow the same thugs who have wrecked their own countries and imprisoned their own people, to wreck the UN?

Please tell what would be accomplished by increasing the size of the already paralyzed Security council. What the hell are you smoking?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 08:26 am
revel wrote:
Whose in a blind rage? Instead of making inane labels to posters why not answer the arguments made?



Laughing Show me a cogent logical argument and I'll be glad to try and respond to it.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 08:30 am
re: reform American style:

Like we've reformed Iraq? I believe they start paving the streets with gold next month don't they?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 08:30 am
rayban1 wrote:
Please....Please....The African Union has .......53 members or countries....and these 53 countries represent most of the thugs who are trying to wreck the UN or turn it into their own plaything. Why should we allow the same thugs who have wrecked their own countries and imprisoned their own people, to wreck the UN?


I've got no clue how you got that out of my post. Seriously.

And I can see no good point in ignoring the AU neither. Or ignoring the whole African continent, when it comes to that.

Speaking of ignoring: you didn't bother to talk about why it would suddenly be in the interest of the States to reform the UN, did you?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 08:35 am
I think the effort for a PNAC/NWO is buggered and Bully Boy Bolton ain't going to change it Very Happy
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 08:47 am
Quote:
Speaking of ignoring: you didn't bother to talk about why it would suddenly be in the interest of the States to reform the UN, did you?


No.....no one asked me.......but I'll tell you anyway.

Ever since it became apparent that thugs could use the "Sovereign Status" to become immune from prosecution even after they have "stolen" a country from it's citizens.

This kind of protection was overlooked when the UN Charter was written but it is perfect for those who can, with the help of a few other thugs with guns, take over a country and laugh at the world with Kofi Anan's blessing. These are the very people who allow him to keep his job.
0 Replies
 
Scorpia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 09:25 am
"but it is perfect for those who can, with the help of a few other thugs with guns, take over a country and laugh at the world "

With that comment, I look back to BVT's previous post.
0 Replies
 
Scorpia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 09:28 am
It didn't take the UN to allow the insurgents to take over Iraq. Actually, they tried to prevent it. But we were much smarter than that. And with a "knee-jerk" response to bad intelligence created complete chaos. Where should we go next?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 09:42 am
rayban1 wrote:
Quote:
Speaking of ignoring: you didn't bother to talk about why it would suddenly be in the interest of the States to reform the UN, did you?


No.....no one asked me.......but I'll tell you anyway.

Ever since it became apparent that thugs could use the "Sovereign Status" to become immune from prosecution even after they have "stolen" a country from it's citizens.

This kind of protection was overlooked when the UN Charter was written but it is perfect for those who can, with the help of a few other thugs with guns, take over a country and laugh at the world with Kofi Anan's blessing. These are the very people who allow him to keep his job.


Nope, wasn't. That's what UN resolutions are good for. That's why UN troops (from El Salvador, Pakistan or Honduras) are stationed in African countries. Yet I still have to see the United States trying to reach a resolution in order to get rid of these "thugs with guns", or US troops sent on a UN peacekeeping mission to Africa.

Are you telling me that what the US admin is trying to do with a reform is to make this easier???
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 09:47 am
Isn't the idea of the UN to be a world organization OE? I fail to see how US troops would have anything to do with UN peacekeeping missions in Africa.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 10:27 am
McGentrix wrote:
Isn't the idea of the UN to be a world organization OE? I fail to see how US troops would have anything to do with UN peacekeeping missions in Africa.


Huh?? I've got no clue what you are trying to say!

Do you imply that it isn't the UN's duty to send troops on peacekeeping missions?

What do you mean by "world organization"?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:24 am
The United Nations has no troops. They rely upon contingents provided by member nations, and usually attempt an appeal to regional cooperative organizations, such as the Organization of African Unity, to take up peace-keeping duties where needed. Former colonial powers also often respond, most notably, England and France. The Canadians and the Dutch, are, hands-down, the most dedicated military organizations in the peace-keeping field--both of their armies train specifically for the tasks.

Given the mind-blowing incompetence of Rummy and his idiot crew, i for one would think any nation, in Africa or elsewhere, would rather not see American peace-keepers arrive.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:28 am
old europe wrote:
[Huh?? I've got no clue what you are trying to say!


That makes two of you Razz Laughing
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:28 am
Yup,
The UN peace keepers are so good at their jobs that several thousand Moslem men and boys were murdered in Bosnia,and UN peacekeepers allowed it to happen.
And it happened in a town that was under UN control.

Un peacekeepers in Africa are being arrested and charged with raping women,intimidating women and kids,selling women into prostitution,and other crimes.
That sure sounds like a well trained,respectable organization to me.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:29 am
mysteryman wrote:
Yup,
The UN peace keepers are so good at their jobs that several thousand Moslem men and boys were murdered in Bosnia,and UN peacekeepers allowed it to happen.
And it happened in a town that was under UN control.

Un peacekeepers in Africa are being arrested and charged with raping women,intimidating women and kids,selling women into prostitution,and other crimes.
That sure sounds like a well trained,respectable organization to me.



Sounds like Iraq to me mr. pot......
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:29 am
Ah yes, MM, very much unlike the peaceful stability we have provided in Iraq, n'est-ce pas?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/11/2021 at 07:43:14