What UN will do? if

REF:
Does anyone have idea of the situation:

US attack in Iraq without approval of UN.
What UN should do? or What UN can do?

I guess there will be a question on the existence of UN.




*** NOTE: I'm not sure if moderators will remove this thread.

Bush made the initial decision to cooperate with the UN. He is doing his best to work through the UN for the sake of global acceptance. It's a shame that he chose this path because more people are going to depise America, having gotten the same misconception of which you apparently have. He could've decided to go it lone and that would've resulted in the US being looked down upon perhaps only half as much as it is now. If he had not tried to work with the UN the war would probably be over today. Most likely the UN would do much less than anything at all.

Except play power politics...

gg

"What UN should do? or What UN can do?"

"I guess there will be a question on the existence of UN."



dateline 1984:
6430 people of halabjeh(%90 children and women) were gased to death today by direct order of sadam hussein for cooperating with iran.


dateline 1986:

upto date 54390 young iranian soldiers and civilians have been
gassed to death with chemical bombs.

What UN could do? or What UN should have done?

Did u ask that question then my friend?



Mr bush is a cowboy no question about that. he wants a war
or atleast it sounds like it.obviously he is doing it to protect
american interests abroad(so he says) but this one is of those
rare occasions that his interests and the interests of average
iraqis are the same. i am not being ignorant to talk for a whole
foreign nation like iraq . but given hussein record and the
desolutness of that nation, do you think mr chirac would
send his army to free iraqis(or he is more worried about
the 9 billion that sadam owes him)

sadistic hussein is a truly special case and UNITED "NATIONS"

as the name proposes should unite ppl of the world in freedom and peace and simply step in and take the lead (from america)
to rid the world,
of all the blood suckers on this planet and not just sadam.and
end tribalism because we are all earthlings, mr zahid.

he should be the first. i have a list of some more.

Thats what UN should do

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SAMSAM
.....
.....
Did u ask that question then my friend?
......
.....
Mr bush is a cowboy no question about that. he wants a war ....
....
....

---

Yes, my friend. I did ask the right question in right time with enough data to answer :) or at least to comment.
We are not going to judge who empowered/inspired .. .. etc. Iraq, what Iraq did to the world, what USA did to the world, what they are doing.
There is an authority to talk, do, work, decide, on it. That is UN. If you don't agree about it, I'm with you.
Actually so many times the concept of 5 veto power wanders me. Having nuclear arsenal to them wanders me as well.
Anyway, the question remains as it's previous shape.

>>I guess there will be a question on the existence of UN.

It looks grim. I hope it can survive. I think that there won't be a new resolution and the 'coalition of the willing' will invade Iraq.

Or the UN will cave in to pressure and will look (like Australia) as just a side-kick to the US hegemony.

Either way I hope that the UN can recover.

SAMSAM>>dateline 1984:

The gasing of Kurds you are talking about was in March 1988.
Now find out where he got the gas from. Aren't they (to some degree) responsible for the atrocity? No one is innocent in this area, Iraq, Iran, France, UK, or the US. They all participated in the poliferation of WMD in the Middle East.

>>as the name proposes should unite ppl of the world in freedom and peace and simply step in and take the lead (from america) to rid the world,
of all the blood suckers on this planet and not just sadam.and end tribalism because we are all earthlings, mr zahid.<<

Great. Lets do it.

One question. Who decides WHO is a blood sucker and who is a good guy who we can sell lots of WMD too?


Is it the US that decides?

Or the UN (which supposedly represents the world) that decides?

That seems to be the issue. Not IF Sadam should be disarmed.

But HOW.
Most people seem to think it should be done to the agenda decided upon by the UN (the world) not just the US.

>>Most people seem to think it should be done to the agenda decided upon by the UN (the world) not just the US.

The UN cannot decide on anything, it takes the US to back the measure and when it doesn't it flops... Maybe u should think that that is why the US is the only "super power" we can and do spend the money and LEAD - it wouldn't bother me or other americans if someone else decided to foot the bill and take charge based on their contributions but they don't - instead they try to hijack while still counting on us to pay for their crap (FRENCH).

Just look at where the UN has acted with force - it has been an unprecedented FAILURE in all cases:
---In the early 90's the UN acted to get involved in BOSNIA - Herzogovenia, as a result 5000 men were "ethnically cleansed" under the noses and with the blessing of the UN forces. Also 370 UN peacekeepers were taken hostage and used as human sheilds - it took US air power, a sustained attack and a US brokered deal in Dayton to end the conflict to bring peace to bosnia.
---In '93-'94 the UN acted in SOMALIA and we all know how that turned out - they gave up.
---The UN acted in HAITI - that place is a SH** HOLE.

The list goes on, it actually took the US to put a stop to this stupidity of the UN by actually forcing out the General Secretary of the UN after the Bosnia conflict and refrain from further support of UN commanded actions like that in somalia.

The US is about common sense, and our common sense tells us that the UN is a monetary black hole, a poor investment, and an INCOMPETENT body.

What a timing? Palestine issue got life again.

Lots of game in international politics<>

US-UK: No need further resolution of UN security council for war against Iraq.
Demonstration around the world: No war in Iraq
US-UK: Lets have a second resolution
FR-RU-CH: Waiting to Veto
US: Be afraid of us
UK: I need a resolution badly.
US-UK: Lets rephrase the text of the resolution
FR-RU-CH: Veto for any resolution allow war
CNN: Lets start our work
US-UK: Lets not submit for vote
FR-RU-CH: No resolution on Iraq (Safe for both)
Continue ...

"The US is about common sense, and our common sense tells us that the UN is a monetary black hole, a poor investment, and an INCOMPETENT body."

Do you honestly believe that the world would be better off without the UN?

Well, UN cannot make too much things agains USA.

>>The US is about common sense, and our common sense tells us that the UN is a monetary black hole, a poor investment, and an INCOMPETENT body.

Let me amend this, this applies to the SECURITY COUNCIL which is a joke - there should be no such thing as a security council and in no way should it be part of the UN. The UN is setup to fail in any venture that requires action be taken - the interests of the nations especially those with vetoes renders INCOMPETENT the security council and thusly the UN.

As long as the UN has a security council the whole UN is suspect and is as weak as the council. The US is wasting it's time and money if the UN doesn't change to eliminate the security council.

howdy,
I honestly believe the world would be a better place without the UN.

M.R.

Very interesting opinion. Specially for me. Actually we were thinking about all those things for last 50 years.

But anyway, are they mature opinion?

>I honestly believe the world would be a better place without the UN.

But don't forget that the UN is much more than just the security council. It is also is about human rights, supporting third world countries, fighting diseases like aids, supporting refugees, the children fund and all those things which don't have (directly) to do with military security. These are the thing about international solidarity, in his current world we can not without that.

I agree. The whole children helping, poverty fighting part is good, but the security council is just a bunch of beaurocrats who pass policies and then do virtually nothing to enforce them.

"Let me amend this, this applies to the SECURITY COUNCIL which is a joke - there should be no such thing as a security council and in no way should it be part of the UN. The UN is setup to fail in any venture that requires action be taken - the interests of the nations especially those with vetoes renders INCOMPETENT the security council and thusly the UN"

Ok, so you don't think there should be a security council, so how do you propose international policy be governed?

Well, we got along fine for a long time w/o the security council so...

"Well, we got along fine for a long time w/o the security council so..."

Do you think there should be international laws, backed by an international body?

>Well, we got along fine for a long time w/o the security council so...

The security council came after the WWII....

Because of the globalisation, a lot of things have become global. For example trading, to organise this, international laws are required. These international laws should be backed by an international body.

howdy,
i agree with you Shiro on the human rights etc... aspect of the UN and they do seem to have some success in these areas, however for the same orginisation to have both global humanitarin and military powers makes little sense, i surly wouldn't go to the police station for a broken arm.
international law as a phylosophy sounds too close to a one world government for me.

M.R.

>>> These international laws should be backed by an international body.

This is, of course, correct, but what happens when those laws are broken?

What "should" happen, and what does happen?

Wait for few more months to have your answer. We will see it live.

Actually I'm eager to see US invasion in Iraq without UN authorization. I'm sorry but that will be really interesting.

Quote:

---

"...the time for diplomacy is over."

---

Few months....won't be that long. Can't wait to see what G.W. says tonight (8pm EST).

gg

>What "should" happen, and what does happen?

That is a very difficult question for which I don't have a good answer. In Europe we have the stability pact which says that if a country's economic prestation is not good enough, because of the value of the euro, then it must pay a fine. But yes, what if a country refuses to pay the fine? EU economic sanctions perhaps? Boycots? I don't know if such economic sanctions are good, they will have a bad influence on that country's economy which will certainly not improve that country's economy.

If a company's economy is bad, you fine them? Seems rather counter-productive to me...

>>Actually I'm eager to see US invasion in Iraq without UN authorization. I'm sorry but that will be really interesting.

Well, there is already presedence for this... in KOSOVO there was no UN authorization, in Afghanistan there was no UN authorization - they didn't object but they didn't condone either.

The other places where there has been UN authorization it's been a UN failure such as in SOMALIA and BOSNIA, HAITI... in bosnia it took NATO power and US agreement in Dayton, Ohio to end the conflict.

The US stopped asking permission or even participating in UN security council sanctioned military action after SOMALIA so the decision to leave the UN out of the loop has been made a long time ago.

Without trying to sound like a typical american, its not in my opinion that the UN can stop us. We will do what has to be done. We will invade iraq, and we will prevail, for the good of ourselves, and the others of the planet on which we exist.

>If a company's economy is bad, you fine them? Seems rather counter-productive to me.

Yes, I also don't agree with it. Recently I read a book from a Dutch politician, he also treated this problem with the euro stability pact and he also wondered how a fine could stimulate an economy.

It has also other strange aspects. France and Italy are two countries which prestations are not according to the stability pact. So to keep the euro stable, for example the Netherlands should point France on that fact and demand that France should cut down on expenses? The Netherlands should demand that unemployment benefits of Italians should be lowered? In my opinion that is not how it should be. It are the governments, which are choosen in a democratic way in a country who are in the position to handle such subjects in a country.

A EU is in basic a good thing, but it should be developed first as a political union and not as a monetary union as it is developing now. The euro is much too early, in my opinion.

euro is the new monistary in europe right? I'm a little fuzzy on the up to date stuff, i dont like too watch the news.

In some countries in Europe the euro is the new valuta.
http://europa.eu.int/euro/html/entry.html

Why did they make that change? Not meaning to stray too far OT, just a little curious.

What the politicians tell us about it:
The euro would make the EU economic and monetary union. It would also result to a more political union and more economic cohesion between the EU countries. This and more consequences of getting the euro would improve the economic development of the EU.

How the people experience it:
A nice thing of it is that you don't have to have lots of different kinds of money when travelling through Europe. But a real bad thing is that live got much more expensive.

So basically they made it so that europe is united as one unit, rather than many different ones? That makes sense on a few levels, how did they determine the units value (assuming that each currency before held a different value then another)?

Yes, a part of Europe is united as one unit. Before the euro, the countries taking part had their own valuta with their own values which differed a lot. But I don't know how they calculated the value of the euro.

I must say I don't think the EU will work. Or at least it might work for some but not others and I think that Britain will be one of those 'others'. The currency has not performed well and I have read that many Germans are wishing they never changed. Some might say it's teething problems but I simply don't see that you can take a whole set of different nationalities, cultures, work ethics, political persuasions etc etc. and mesh them all into one unit.

Seems hard to understand how the Euro could work, given different economies a/o currencies, but I'm not in Europe and every economic textbook I've read starts out w/a phrase like "All things being equal (but they never are)", essentially doing a CYA for why the theories don't work in real life.
[Oversimplification] The problem w/capitalism is that it's a way for a few to get rich. The problem w/communism is that it's a way for everyone else to get poor. [/Oversimplification]

P.S. - no point in you right wing zealots flaming this post (don't expect any left wing zealots to reply, but the same goes for you ;) ) because there won't be a response. Your views are known ad nauseaum.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by salvelinus
Seems hard to understand how the Euro could work, given different economies a/o currencies, ...

---

We had executed a big project in UK for Euro conversion. My company earned millions out of it. (Yeah! I'm still a pauper:D) ... the biggest problem we had was with the 'lira'. They don't have a denomination less than the lira ! So fractions always were a big headache to us. :)

>>> But I don't know how they calculated the value of the euro.

The original value of the Euro was an estimate based on the value of a bucket of other important currencies worldwide. A secondary factor was that it's international value should not be to close to the value of any of the member states legacy currency. If, for example, 1 Euro was roughly equal to 1 French Franc, then the criticism would have been made that we are just switching to the Franc.

Countries wishing to join the Euro had to meet a series of "convergence factors" which were laid out in the Maastricht Treaty, (7/2/1992). These conversion factors put limits on the variation of a large number of economic indicators. These limits started quite wide and over a series of years were narrowed to ensure that all of the participating economies were capable of stability. The values of the legacy currencies to the Euro were fixed on 1/1/1999, (EC/1103/97 Article 1(1)).

The notes and coins entered circulation last January.

I have loads of info on the Euro if anyone has specific questions. I was the officer responsible for my companies Euro strategy.

>..and I have read that many Germans are wishing they never changed.

The main reason of people, not only in Germany, wishing they never changed is that live got a lot more expensive.

>but I simply don't see that you can take a whole set of different
>nationalities, cultures, work ethics, political persuasions etc etc.
>and mesh them all into one unit.

I don't think you need to put it all into one unit in which everybody is equal, but I think it is very well possible to work together to reach some goal, whatever your background is.

>The problem w/capitalism is that it's a way for a few to get rich.
>The problem w/communism is that it's a way for everyone else
>to get poor.

In the Netherlands we currently are switching from a neo-liberal government to a more socialistic government. And I am happy with that. The neo-liberal government was quite capitalistic and thought that thing would be better if you just let the market do the things.

So things like public transport and energy supply were put onto the market. This resulted in high prices and low quality. The companies doing public transport or energy supply put a lot of money in competition and to reduce costs they reduced services. For example, to reduce costs some public transport companies removed some bus lines. On the other hand the customer had to pay more.

Also health care was put onto the market and hospitals had to compete. Therefore the hospitals were almost turned into companies with managers leading it. The managers did a lot of things to reduce costs, for example reducing the number of hospitals in a region to save money or to reduce specific health care to save money.

Because prices are increasing and quality is decreasing people now want to turn it back. And hopefully the socialistic government will do that.

Here we go, I guess all demonstration of anti war protest will be stopped for sometime. Though it's never a balanced war, everyone is more interested to see the upcoming events. Already heard cruise missile in Baghdad.

Please keep future discussion about the war to this thread - other threads about the war will be closed.