|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 5, 2004 19:22:26 GMT -5
what about US officials implicated in scandals.
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 5, 2004 20:08:59 GMT -5
don't the events at Abu Ghraib tarnish the reputation of the US?
don't you think an international forum with full participation of all countries is a good idea?
don't you think that the existence of the UN helped prevent the cold war from becoming hot?
That is the UN's primary purpose, to prevent wars by exercising diplomacy to its fullest extent. It was invented after WWII so something as horrible as that would never happen again. Do you want World War III to happen? What if North Korea attacks the US, and the US drops a nuke on them even though Japan says not to, and it will help, and the fallout kills thousands of Japanese people, do you think Japan will just say "please, stop it!". No. The next time a nuke is dropped it will be WWIII. The place where those diplomatic decisions are made is in the UN. So everyone knows what is going on and if serious decisions need to be made, everyone has their say. What if China invades Taiwan while the US soldiers are in Iraq? With the UN, other countries can pressure China not to do this, and the US can pressure them into doing it. Without the UN, other countries might not even know or even care if China invades Taiwan. Then what if China drops one of it's nukes and the fallout kills thousands in Pakistan? And then India takes this opportunity to launch some of its nukes? Pakistan would go crazy and... WWIII. Diplomacy is hugely complicated, if you go it alone without friends you can easily end up with your hands tied behind your back. You can also play enemies off each other, and use countries that are most horrible in a positive way to prevent war. For example, say Iran started to go crazy, then you could say "Iran stop going crazy or we'll lift the sanctions on Iraq." Diplomacy is very complicated.
There is some truth in the saying "keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" when it comes to diplomacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 5, 2004 20:21:23 GMT -5
Please don't talk down to me. I know the history and purpose of the UN.
I can play that game, too.
Why did we need to form the UN?
Why didn't we just keep the League of Nations?
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 5, 2004 20:36:59 GMT -5
I don't know, that's a good question. I think getting rid of the UN (or any diplomatic forum of full participation) would be a very bad move for the country and the world. The UN is what there is now. The Canadian PM wants a G20 kind of thing where there are 20 countries participating ("western" countries). While that is fine in and of itself, the world needs an international forum with full participation for diplomacy. When you say the UN is corrupt, UN sucks etc, it seems to me that you don't want anything like it at all? To me, that's ridiculous and dangerous, and that's why I personally defend the UN against what I see as people wanting to get rid of that sort of thing altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 5, 2004 20:50:50 GMT -5
I do. I think you should find out.
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 6, 2004 14:13:22 GMT -5
I don't care about that. If you want me to bother finding out at least give me a link or something. In the meantime, could you respond to this question:
Do you think any international forum with full participation of all countries is a good way to prevent war and help diplomacy?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 6, 2004 14:27:39 GMT -5
I doubt it. That is something we have never had.
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 6, 2004 14:42:27 GMT -5
That's not my point, I'm asking your opinion on international forums with full participation of all countries, and whether in theory they are a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 6, 2004 15:47:14 GMT -5
You're asking for my opinion on something that has never been achieved. Would it be a good thing in theory? Something that doesn't work in practice is not a good theory.
The League of Nations didn't prevent WW2.
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 6, 2004 18:08:27 GMT -5
Seeing as you misinterpreted what I said, I'll try again with a different question:
Do you think there should be an international forum with full participation of all countries?
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 6, 2004 18:25:41 GMT -5
Or what alternative(s) to the UN do you suggest?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 6, 2004 20:05:32 GMT -5
How about if nations look out for their own best interests, as they always have and always will. Alliances change over time, and new international alliance organizations are formed. The sun is going down on the UN.
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 7, 2004 1:11:38 GMT -5
Maybe, but shouldn't there be something ready to replace it? Or at least fix it somehow?
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 8, 2004 8:02:17 GMT -5
The league of nations didn't prevent world war two because too many people throughout the world had anti-internationalist ideas like you.
The reason the League of Nations didn't work was because too few countries joined. America was never a member, Brazil, Japan, Italy, Germany and the USSR all left the Soviet Union before 1940, using the same arguments you have been using, Mo, against the existance of an international body. The result? World War Two.
The United Nations is much stronger and much more influential than the League of Nations ever was, and the United Nations could prevent world war three! For a start every nation is a member of the United Nations, this was not the case of the League of Nations. But also the League of Nations never had its own army, and had to depend on boycotting.
Its attitudes like this:
that caused WW2, not the inherrant failings of international bodies.
This is Bush, Blair and Aznar's fault for ignoring it going into Iraq without permission from the UN.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Jun 22, 2004 20:13:27 GMT -5
rush22 It is not the only evidence. Stories abound that never hit the press concerning UN actions in Bosnia before NATO stepped in. UN Forces in Korea have a miserable reputation, the Korean criminal element loves them. The stories of Koffe Annan, and his oil money from Saddam buttress, along with the current investigation in to "power abuse" within the UN the notion, and basis for considering the UN Corrupt. Totally. Having had the opportunity to work with them on several ocassions all I can say is "Deliver me." There are, and have been, stories of UN Investigators being bribed to look the other way during weapons inspections especially in Iraq. Does the adage, where there is smoke there is fire, apply? If we disagree, that means the above? How nice. It persuaded me. ..........not. Yes it is. Been there done that. I have seen it close up, and personal, as in, I was part of many humantarian missions. And...who did that??? last one I know of to try that was in Uganda. Name of Idi Amin. Your middle name hyperbole?  Lastly. Why is it screaming Liberals like yourself never focus on the question, you always run off some where else to answer. Kinda like 'Oh Yeah." Well "Oh Yeah".  |
|
