Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: What Is The Point Of The Unite Nation?

  1. #1
    ok, I am not anti-America here, but I like to ask a few question:

    What gives US the right to invade or liberate a country at its will? What makes America a legilimate "world order keeper" and enforce its value (democrasy) on other countries?
    And since the US "doesn't need permission" from anyone to attack Iraq, then obviously Iraq "doesn't need permissions" from anyone either to produce weapons of mass destruction, make sense?

    My final question is, do you think UN still have its signaficance after the war? (except on environment and world heritage etc.)

    Ok, just to strectch some further details here:

    According to UN, a country does not have the right to attack another country except:
    1) the the attack is to counter an invasion or attack
    2) approved by the UN security counsil

    Obviously US is no longer bound by these rules, other countries will just follow suit, therefore the security counsil of UN can probably be abandoned to save some fundings.
    Talk about placing some punishments or sanctions on US, that's obviously not gonna happend because any draft or bill put forth to sanction the US is gonna be VETO by the US and therefore will never become a valid resolution. So the sanction department of UN, or whatever department they called it, can also be abolished.
    UN is a very captial intensive organization. All 200 member countries around the world are paying billions of dollars to keep this organization going except the for US (US has not pay its UN dues for quite some years). Therefore, all citizens in the world including you and me (except US citizens) are paying the UN through taxation.

    Such expensive, feeble, and deeply flawed organization, after losing its significance, is better to be abolished than keeping its empty body and eating up our tax dollars, speaking from an non-US citizen point of view.

  2. ** REGISTER to REMOVE This Ad On The Site!! **
    Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
  3. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    ok, I am not anti-America here, but I like to ask a few question:
    No pro-war will ever give you a valid answer. Just because they can't justify the war on a legal point of view.

    They'll just say "You're wrong". Or "Saddam is a terrorist, a dictator, a very bad man". Or "you didn't experience 9.11".

    Then if you insist, they'll insult you. Criticism is assimilated to anti-americanism.

    That's my experience here.

    But, even if God is on their side (as they say), Truth and Law is on ours...

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    And since the US "doesn't need permission" from anyone to attack Iraq, then obviously Iraq "doesn't need permissions" from anyone either to produce weapons of mass destruction, make sense?
    i get that. never thought bout that before actually. but it is kind of a different story cuz saddam is dangerous.

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    HELL-you will be too_$oon enough
    Posts
    1,725
    actually the dickheads in the white house think they are acting in self defense so it's justifieds.
    and I would also like to make the point that I do support the military action but we should have waited longer ALL diplomatic paths had NOT been traveled yet.I think the result in the end would have been the same saddam would NOT have disarmed but at least we would have un support

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    HELL-you will be too_$oon enough
    Posts
    1,725
    Originally posted by ketoprak@30 March 2003 - 10:09

    But, even if God is on their side (as they say), Truth and Law is on ours...
    perhaps law.but what thruth are you talking about?
    you think saddam had fully and unconditionally disarmed?

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    I heard an interesting point in a talk show: Quite a few countries were asked to disarm when they fell off the former USSR. In contrast to Saddam they had been given definite deadlines - like 12 months, 14 months and so forth. Somehow, Saddam was not confronted with that (apart from that ludicrous 48 hour deadline from Bush), and that gave him all the time in the world to wait things out.

    I think if we judge the UN for their inconsequence, this must be the major point for criticism - all these foggy "avenues of diplomacy" which weren't explored leave equal opportunity for evasion and no tangible results. This would have been a language he understands - if you do not comply until such and such time, you have to suffer the consequences. I think this would have been a solution even the US could have lived with.

    The UN needs to be restructured in order to reflect the current situation in the world. Democracy had to be refined over the centuries to work. Since a lot of people like to quote Hitler as a good example of what could have been avoided through American intervention then, lets just remember: He was the product of a democratic system imposed on the Germans after WW1, when they certainly weren't ready for it. That didn't prove democracy wrong. Equally, if we see that the UN isn't working they way it is supposed to, we have to evolve it, not withdraw from it.

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    kAb's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    2,656
    guess who started the U.N. (thats right! the goold ol' U.S.A. )

    And for the record, I'm almost 100% positive that this is the first time the U.S. has asked permission from the U.N. to do something.

    and what would the U.N. be without the U.S.? I'll tell you, nothing.

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    Originally posted by puremindmatters@30 March 2003 - 07:22
    The UN needs to be restructured in order to reflect the current situation in the world. Democracy had to be refined over the centuries to work. Since a lot of people like to quote Hitler as a good example of what could have been avoided through American intervention then, lets just remember: He was the product of a democratic system imposed on the Germans after WW1, when they certainly weren't ready for it. That didn't prove democracy wrong. Equally, if we see that the UN isn't working they way it is supposed to, we have to evolve it, not withdraw from it.
    Amen to that!

    When the situation changes, the laws have to change to compensate.

    Terrorism changed the rules of engagement here.
    For those of you who have your heads stuck up your legal asses, you can yell and scream about injustice to the terrorist who walks into a store you happened to be visiting and blows himself up in front of you.
    Explain to him that his right to do this is protected by UN sanction.

    Explain it to the child and her mother who were standing just a little too close to him as the blood and guts splattered across their cloths and his rib cage splintered and pierced through them in an instant.

    Explain to a 12 year old girl in her father's arms with her leg blown off, that we can stop this but we have to wait for the UN to approve a resolution.

    Explain to her a month later, as she's sitting next to her dead father's body,
    dead because he was staked out in a road as an example to others in the town and his tongue was ripped out, that we are really trying to get this to pass through the UN but the current rules just don't cover this situation and Chirac has said he will veto any proposal regardless.

    You can use the excuse after several months, that the reason we are not going to act today, is because we didn't act all those other times innocent people died needlessly and brutally. Because if we did act, someone would accuse us of having sinister reasons.

    Explain to her that its because those reasons are wrong, that we are not going to do the right thing, whether or not the sinister reasons were real or imagined.

    Apathy is a terrible road to follow.
    It is self perpetuating.
    It becomes easier to look the other way, if you've been doing it for awhile.
    Or if everyone else is doing it too.

    Then someone flies a plane into a building or walks into a store and blows up, and suddenly you realize just how cold you have become to the truth.

    Its time to stop hiding behind past inadiquacies and start fixing the problems that exist today.

    Or you can defend your apathy.

    Not you Puremind.
    This is for those who think we can withdraw and that'll fix everything.

    Peace

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    Kab

    exactly, you made my point, in UN, the system is so flawed because all members don't exercise the same rights and therefore UN failed to represent these members. It's so undemocratic because the fate of the world is on the hands of the 5 security councils members(mainly the US). Too much power were given to them and the rest of the world couldn't do much about it.

    And some of you mentioned that US is fighting a preventive war because they think Saddam is a threat to US. Well that makes the attack of pearl harbor justified. The japanese were just taking preventive measure to protect themselves when attacking pearl harbor. I happend to believe Saddam was also trying to protect iraq's interest to attack kuwait 10 years ago.

    The question is, is "preventive war" justifiable?
    Can any countries in the world attack on eachother because they believe they are being threaten?

  11. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    Originally posted by zhelynd@30 March 2003 - 11:51
    The question is, is "preventive war" justifiable?
    Can any countries in the world attack on eachother because they believe they are being threaten?
    Are you speaking morally, legally, historically, or ethically?

    Morally?
    That issue is sorta vague. Morality is, after all, subjective.
    Do you believe it is morally correct for the Fedayeen to torture people?
    They believe it is.

    Legally?
    Every country has it's own laws.
    One major precept of Mohamadan law is an eye for an eye.
    Iraq invaded Kuwait.
    That means Iraq must then be invaded.

    Historically?
    Well, if you check your history, most wars start because one country is either impoverished and needs supplies or because one country sees the potential of another invading them and wants to out-flank them.
    The crusades were an example of preventive war.
    Its even possible that terrorism is a crude attempt at preventive war.
    The concern of some that their way of life is in jeopardy.

    Ethically?
    Thats the hard one.
    But in truth, is war ever ethical?
    Or just?
    We could all bury our heads in the sand I suppose.
    Then there would be no-one to fight the wars.
    But I don't like the taste of sand and I'm alergic to crab pinchers.

    I suppose it comes down to a question of what you feel is right for you.

    But if you use our current actions to justify Iraq's actions against Kuwait, isn't that kinda backward?

    The future does not justify the past.

    The past though, often justifies the future.

    Or provides clues to prevent a potential future from occuring.

    The end result may prove to justify or deride the means that were used to achieve that end, but a future action does not justify past actions.

    I know thats confusing.

    I can think of no simpler terms though.

    Peace

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •