Another Example of Why The UN's Time Is Past

[Just a guy]

Let me guess...you are European.

Well, yeas I am. But still, I have a great affection for US, and I admire alot of things about this great nation. But sometimes (like with this question) you seem to have lost all hope with the rest of the world.

 

[Said1]

I see the logic here, but I still feel bad about it. Your future spells everyone for themselves. I don't like that idea at all.

No it doesn't. There are plenty of international organizations that function quite well, without corruption and endless meetings and inaction. An organization can only be as effective as it's governing body allows it's to be. If the most decisive part of an organization is the one that is unable to do anything, wtf is the point.

What would you suggest, aside from a less-corrupt UN like thingy?

 

[CSM]

Well, yeas I am. But still, I have a great affection for US, and I admire alot of things about this great nation. But sometimes (like with this question) you seem to have lost all hope with the rest of the world.

Yep, I figured that is where you were heading.

 

[Just a guy]

No it doesn't. There are plenty of international organizations that function quite well, without corruption and endless meetings and inaction. An organization can only be as effective as it's governing body allows it's to be. If the most decisive part of an organization is the one that is unable to do anything, wtf is the point.

What would you suggest, aside from a less-corrupt UN like thingy?

Here is one example I would like the world to be able to cope with:
A suffering civilian population is starving and killed because of a civil war.


Is that to much to ask?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Here is one example I would like the world to be able to cope with:
A suffering civilian population is starving and killed because of a civil war.


Is that to much to ask?

Why do you libs prefer UN inaction to US action? WHy are we always the bad guy for protecting the world against totalitarian ideologies? Give me an honest answer and I'll accept your words of friendship.

 

[CSM]

Here is one example I would like the world to be able to cope with:
A suffering civilian population is starving and killed because of a civil war.


Is that to much to ask?

So why isn't Europe doing something? Why are they waiting for the UN to do something? or the US? or anyone but Europe?

 

[Said1]

Here is one example I would like the world to be able to cope with:
A suffering civilian population is starving and killed because of a civil war.


Is that to much to ask?

The world should form an organization to stop this? What are they supposed to stop exactly, who decides what side has the noble cause?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah.


Now say that over and over and over, you'll believe it in no time.

Sarcasm is only funny once. Of course we all know nationalism is normal and natural and does not preclude positive advancement for the world in any way. Nationalism means countries pursuing their interests separately(The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalism), which as we've established in this thread, does not preclude positive cooperation.

 

[Said1]

Sarcasm is only funny once. Of course we all know nationalism is normal and natural and does not preclude positive advancement for the world in any way. Nationalism means countries pursuing their interests separately(The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalism), which as we've established in this thread, does not preclude positive cooperation.

Talk to the hand. :blah2: <------- Not sarcasm.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Talk to the hand. :blah2: <------- Not sarcasm.

Good point!

 

[Said1]

Good point!

Thanks!

 

[Just a guy]

Why do you libs prefer UN inaction to US action? WHy are we always the bad guy for protecting the world against totalitarian ideologies? Give me an honest answer and I'll accept your words of friendship.

I see NO problem with an US actions!
I prefer them over UN inactions.
But isn't it kind of costly? Shoudn't we sort of split the cost?

And when it comes to peacekeeping activities US troops might be unwanted by both sides in certain places? It could be more effective of sending some other nationality to such a place?

 

[CSM]

I see NO problem with an US actions!
I prefer them over UN inactions.
But isn't it kind of costly? Shoudn't we sort of split the cost?

And when it comes to peacekeeping activities US troops might be unwanted by both sides in certain places? It could be more effective of sending some other nationality to such a place?

Sounds great, so where is the EU military force in Dafur? Where is the UN force in Pakistan (after OBL)? Why isn't the UN chasing down the pirated in the China sea? Why isn't the EU busy helping out them poor folks in Somalia?

We know the answer, dont we!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I see NO problem with an US actions!
I prefer them over UN inactions.
But isn't it kind of costly? Shoudn't we sort of split the cost?

And when it comes to peacekeeping activities US troops might be unwanted by both sides in certain places? It could be more effective of sending some other nationality to such a place?

Well step up to the plate then Just_Europe. SPlit the costs? How about starting by not launching an international campaign explicitly against the US in our attempt to build a coalition prior to the iraqi invasion? What was that little stunt about? The Oil for Food corruption coverup?

 

[Just a guy]

The world should form an organization to stop this? What are they supposed to stop exactly, who decides what side has the noble cause?

Isn't there a standard plan for this?
Civilians must not be killed. Create a safe zone - defend it.

You imply that there is a good and a bad side, I merely reflect on the fact that people are dying i don't care what the cause is or who is doing it, just get the killing to stop!

What country in this world accept that civilians are killed with purpose? Where can that be justified?
Do you find it hard to decide on the matter? Do you need a more noble casue than that?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Isn't there a standard plan for this?
Civilians must not be killed. Create a safe zone - defend it.

You imply that there is a good and a bad side, I merely reflect on the fact that people are dying i don't care what the cause is or who is doing it, just get the killing to stop!

What country in this world accept that civilians are killed with purpose? Where can that be justified?
Do you find it hard to decide on the matter? Do you need a more noble casue than that?

A standard plan for moral judgement? What are you talking about? A standard plan for rendering a zone violence free? Yes. Subjecting it to a higher form of overarching tyranny.

 

[Just a guy]

Sounds great, so where is the EU military force in Dafur? Where is the UN force in Pakistan (after OBL)? Why isn't the UN chasing down the pirated in the China sea? Why isn't the EU busy helping out them poor folks in Somalia?

We know the answer, dont we!

So where did I give you the impression of that I think EU has taken it's responsability? Or that UN is functioning? I don't. But I still think there can be a working organisation safeguarding human values. Everywhere.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But I still think there can be a working organisation safeguarding human values. Everywhere.

Right now it's the U.S. military moreso than any other organization on earth. Do you think it's the UN charter? LOL.

 

[Just a guy]

A standard plan for moral judgement? What are you talking about? A standard plan for rendering a zone violence free? Yes. Subjecting it to a higher form of overarching tyranny.

I didn't mean a standard for moral jugement, I think you know that. The plan is practical, - not political. And I think that the overarching tyranny you talk about might be justified. Like in Iraq.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I didn't mean a standard for moral jugement, I think you know that. The plan is practical, - not political. And I think that the overarching tyranny you talk about might be justified. Like in Iraq.

What plan?