Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: But no one blames the USA... | |
Author: Steph (U.S.) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 20:03:51 12/03/04 Fri In reply to: Kevin (U.S.) 's message, "U.N. really in control?" on 18:22:45 12/03/04 Fri No one blames us for bilding a wall to keep Mexicans from entering the U.S. and most of the South West used to be part of mexico. cheers Steph [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: The UN | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:27:42 12/03/04 Fri The problem with the UN is that it is a fundamentally flawed concept. “United Nations” is the biggest Oxymoron I can think of, and while it is a very laudable creation, it suffers from the same intrinsic problems of many other admirable concepts devised by humanity over the ages. It looks good on paper, but does not work in practice. The UN lacks credibility for a number of reasons. Let’s forget the UN’s daily work with regard to the distribution of food parcels to the world’s incompetent governments, and the self-righteousness of their figurehead Kofi Annan, of which many people from tin-pot countries (and Charles Kennedy) pay po-paced deference, and look at the only bit of the organisation that matters - the Security Council. In order for the UN to be a credible organisation, it has to be able to back up its stance with action, and this can only come from the members of the SC and their allies. Whether we like it or not, the guarantor of UN rhetoric is the United States. Add to this, the wildcard of the other bastions of enlightenment: China and Russia, with their competing agendas, and you really have a better chance of pushing molasses up a sandy hill, than reaching agreement on any issue. The UN action in Korea was only possible as the Russians were in a huff at the time, and their empty-seat policy prevented their usual contribution of “niet!” With the risk of stating the blatantly obvious; for the UN to work, the nations that dictate its policy must be united in opinion. Recent examples have shown that the UN has been unable to agree on the Kosovo conflict, where NATO took responsibility, or recently in Iraq, where the “Coalition of the Willing” stepped in because of French and Russian vested interests. With US indifference to issues in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, and [substitute African Country here], where are the United Nations? We can see that if the US or NATO are indifferent, the UN General Assembly may as well rave there as in bed! With Israel, any UN resolution that condemns them will see a British abstention and a US veto. In this chamber, the international consensus does not prevail, so the question should not be “what are the UN doing about it?” Forget the monkey; it’s the organ grinder that matters. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |