What Is The Point Of The Unite Nation?

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

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?

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.

guess who started the U.N. (thats right! the goold ol' U.S.A. :P )

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.

Quote:

---

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

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?

Quote:

---

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

As we've seen, the US doesn't need permission to invade Iraq.

No one would be stupid enough to challenge the most(?) powerful nation in the world.

Damn right that's confusing, and if you judge things like this in subjective terms then it just makes it easy for any country to justify whatever they want to do, because no-one can ever tell you what you are doing is wrong.

That is the point of the United Nations. To try and impose some sort of common law over those nations that agree, so things like military action can be justified or condemned. Neither Iraq or the US/UK took much notice of these laws, and thats how we got into this situation.

zhelynd had a good point - if those countries cannot set a good example by abiding by the UN, then why should Iraq? And if they don't care about the rules/laws then the point of the UN is minimal at best.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spudlover@30 March 2003 - 19:50
As we've seen, the US doesn't need permission to invade Iraq.

No one would be stupid enough to challenge the most(?) powerful nation in the world.

---

There are that dare, the US bombs just another countrie without catching the crooks... remember Osama.
As some US guys will tell you the enemies ain't countries no more but just individual terrorists.
They can hit fast and hard and unexpected. Timothy McVeigh, Osama and co did proof that...

So what statement did you make???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@30 March 2003 - 16:50

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

---

I agree with you apathy is terrible.

I wonder then how the American Government can with the one hand claim to be fighting Saddam in order to save the planet, then on the other hand be withdrawing from international environmental agreements and treaties saying they would be too costly and not in their national interest to pursue..

Double standards? Hmmm....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kAb@30 March 2003 - 17:30
guess who started the U.N. (thats right! the goold ol' U.S.A. :P )

---

guess who 'forgets' to pay their membership fee each year?

(thats right! the goold ol' U.S.A. :P )

The USA is as much a part of the UN as Libya!

War is never ethical or moral, it's allways the big guy winning

the only excuse is to help the man in the street

I hope this time it will

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leecheskicked@1 April 2003 - 15:21
The USA is as much a part of the UN as Libya!

---

wanna bet?

I agree, the make up of the Security Council should be changed.

For a start, I can understand why the USA is a permanent member, and China..

You have 2 superpowers, and they are both on different continents.

Europe has 3 permanent members, of which none are now super powers (wake up UK, France and Russia....your not)

Africa and South America have no Permanent Members....why?

And whats this about a veto?

FFS, isnt being a member on a Permanent Basis enough? I dont think any member should have a Veto...it should be be a Democratic Process fully.....ie Majority of the Council.

This isnt getting at France/Russia/China (although thats a majority of Veto's too) as the UK and USA hadnt even got a Majority of the Council for this action, so no Veto's were used....but it did hilight the flaw....


The way of Financing the UN should also be changed....

50% of WORLD GDP is the USA, and they pay less per head of population than Brazil for the expense of keeping the thing going. (Thats when they remember to pay anything.....)

Maybe it should be by % of GDP, instead of the stupid formula they have now, as at the moment some countries spend more of their GDP on UN membership than they do on their Infrastructure.....how are they ever going to be 'Developed Countries' at that rate?



But all of that is irrelevant.....The UN is now defunct as a Security Council.

As the USA also disregard all the other Treaties

eg International Court, Environment etc........The General Assembly may be classed as totally usless too. :(


Oh BTW kAb....yeh, I'll have a bet with you.

Libya has been a member since: Libyan Arab Jamahiriya -- (14 Dec. 1955)

Member States and Dates of Entry






Or is the USA withdrawing?

your right we should bail out on the u.n. we should also close our borders to any citizens of any country that spouts hatred at us we wont give aid to the hungry the tired the poor and all you huddled masses and while were at it we should ship that copper lady back to france :angry:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeksho@6 April 2003 - 22:41
your right we should bail out on the u.n. we should also close our borders to any citizens of any country that spouts hatred at us we wont give aid to the hungry the tired the poor and all you huddled masses and while were at it we should ship that copper lady back to france :angry:

---

Yes, well maybe Liberty will soon be a thing of the past in your country, maybe it should go back to France.

I think the U.N. exists as a vehicle for France to continue it's search for relevance.
France wishes to re-attain and preserve some semblance of international stature and dignity by positioning itself as the "leader" of a bloc of nations capable of competing with the U.S. in the economic and military arenas.
There is little chance of this happening, but France will continue to posture.
I think Chirac is afraid everyone is wondering why France is still a member of the Security Council-I know I am.