Finally

[Larkinn]

name one un peace keeping success......genocide in bosnia....genocide in rawanda....genocide in east timor.....genocide in the sudan.....

You need to learn your history. There was never any genocide in East Timor, and the UN mission came AFTER Indonesia left. Its not perfect there, but its a LOT better than it was before hand.

As for successes: Kashmir/Cyprus/East Timor/El Salvador.

By the way...what exactly did you expect the UN to do in Rwanda, Bosnia, and the Sudan?

 

[manu1959]

You need to learn your history. There was never any genocide in East Timor, and the UN mission came AFTER Indonesia left. Its not perfect there, but its a LOT better than it was before hand.

As for successes: Kashmir/Cyprus/East Timor/El Salvador.

By the way...what exactly did you expect the UN to do in Rwanda, Bosnia, and the Sudan?

really one race did not try to exterminate another in east timor.....

those are successes?!

i have no expectations of the UN.....other than standing by while millions die.....it is what they are good at....btw how come they did not send trrops to stop saddam from killing the kurds or invading kuwait....

 

[Larkinn]

really one race did not try to exterminate another in east timor.....

Thats correct. Atrocities, yes. Genocide, no. By the way, none of that happened when UN peacekeepers were there. As I said, learn your history.

those are successes?!

Compare East Timor pre-1999 to post-1999.

i have no expectations of the UN.....other than standing by while millions die.....it is what they are good at....btw how come they did not send trrops to stop saddam from killing the kurds or invading kuwait....

The UN has no troops. You can thank people like you who cry and bitch and whine whenever the UN is given any tiny fraction of increased power.

And way to avoid the question. You keep condemning them for failing to act. Tell me, Manu, what should they have done?

As for Kuwait...you are aware that was a UN action, yes?

 

[Foxfyre]

Considering the UN has NO binding power if the US, France, Britain don't agree to any action, care to explain to me how its governed by "rogue despots"? Or do you consider them rogue despots?

As for the rest of you: The UN has 18 peacekeeping missions around the globe. Can you name even a quarter of them without google? If not, how can you consider yourself informed enough to have an opinion on them?

And if they are such failures, why are they stretched so thin? If they are such failures, why are there more requests for help than they can manage? If they are such failures, how did they get into Burma before the US did?

Oh noes, they aren't a completely pro-American group. Well lets just take our marbles and go home. Get over yourselves.

By 'governed' I don't mean literally as that seems to be a pretty loosely defined term where the UN is concerned. The UN apparently has no binding authority WITH the U.S., France, and Britain plus you left out China and Russia who also must agree to anything substantive. At any rate the UN seemed helpless to deal with Saddam Hussein or the Serbs or Haiti or Somalia or any number of nations or who defied UN jurisdiction and resolutions. Even when they finally agreed to send Peacekeepers to Lebanon it was essentially to observe--they would have no real authority to keep the peace. So 'peace keepers' is a relative term. I hear more of misconduct among UN employees than I hear of success stories that the UN accomplishes.

And it seems to be those small despotic and/or rogue nations who are member states who are calling the shots re who are the good guys and who are the bad guys these days and if they don't like a decision of the security council, they simply don't do it. Perhaps I am too harsh in my criticism but if we are going to be a member and a substantial supporter of an organization that mostly neither appreciates us nor supports us, I think we have a right to expect more.

I strenuously object to any of our military being ordered to be under UN authority--if they volunteer okay--and I would be in fear of my very life if I thought I had to depend on the UN to protect me from anything.

Okay, stepping off soapbox now.

 

[Larkinn]

By 'governed' I don't mean literally as that seems to be a pretty loosely defined term where the UN is concerned.

Thats because the UN has no power.

The UN apparently has no binding authority WITH the U.S., France, and Britain plus you left out China and Russia who also must agree to anything substantive.

No binding power with the US, France, and Britain? What?

And China and Russia are thuggish nations. I didn't object to you calling them deposts.

At any rate the UN seemed helpless to deal with Saddam Hussein or the Serbs or Haiti or Somalia or any number of nations or who defied UN jurisdiction and resolutions.

Oh, well getting rid of the UN and having no organization to deal with such problems is an amazing solution.

Even when they finally agreed to send Peacekeepers to Lebanon it was essentially to observe--they would have no real authority to keep the peace. So 'peace keepers' is a relative term. I hear more of misconduct among UN employees than I hear of success stories that the UN accomplishes.

So you think the UN should be able to give MORE authority? Should have LESS requirements that 5 countries with essentially opposite interests all must agree on an action before it can be taken? I agree.

And it seems to be those small despotic and/or rogue nations who are member states who are calling the shots re who are the good guys and who are the bad guys these days and if they don't like a decision of the security council, they simply don't do it.

And ignoring those decisions has consequences. The consequences rarely result in the removal of the ruler from power (although they sometimes do), but many states who may have bad ideas, but don't want to be rogue, may play along.

Perhaps I am too harsh in my criticism but if we are going to be a member and a substantial supporter of an organization that mostly neither appreciates us nor supports us, I think we have a right to expect more.

Doesn't support us? Really? You listen to speeches by Ahmadinejad on the UN GA floor and think that represents what the body thinks? The UN supports the US, and heavily. Its a very western organization.

And what exactly would you like to happen? The UN to be the US's puppet? How about thinking a bit more global than that? Expect that they save more lives? Go for it. But the ONLY way that is going to happen is to give them MORE, not LESS power.

I strenuously object to any of our military being ordered to be under UN authority--if they volunteer okay--and I would be in fear of my very life if I thought I had to depend on the UN to protect me from anything.

Okay, stepping off soapbox now.

Of course...but somehow the UN should just save Somalia, Bosnia, et al. with its own huge military of exactly 0 people.

 

[manu1959]

Thats correct. Atrocities, yes. Genocide, no. By the way, none of that happened when UN peacekeepers were there. As I said, learn your history.
Compare East Timor pre-1999 to post-1999.
The UN has no troops. You can thank people like you who cry and bitch and whine whenever the UN is given any tiny fraction of increased power.
And way to avoid the question. You keep condemning them for failing to act. Tell me, Manu, what should they have done?
As for Kuwait...you are aware that was a UN action, yes?

you were the one advocating the un and their brilliance......i gave four examples of un failures.....

as for east timor.....is you claim one race did not try to exterimate anoter race.....is your claim the un reversed that trend...

as for kuwait....is your claim the un liberated kuwait from iraq.....

how are things going in the congo and zimbabwe

 

[Larkinn]

you were the one advocating the un and their brilliance......i gave four examples of un failures.....

I am an advocate for the UN. When did I say they were brilliant? And yes they have failed, and often. But generally those failures are a result of the geopolitical situation and the problem that the UN doesn't have enough power.

as for east timor.....is you claim one race did not try to exterimate anoter race.....is your claim the un reversed that trend...

Learn the difference between genocide and atrocities.

as for kuwait....is your claim the un liberated kuwait from iraq.....

No, I said it was a UN action, which it was. The UN has no troops of their own, they can't liberate anyone.

how are things going in the congo and zimbabwe

So what do you expect the UN to do in those places? Or are you just going to whine and bitch and moan, without saying what you think they should be doing?

 

[editec]

Considering the UN has NO binding power if the US, France, Britain don't agree to any action, care to explain to me how its governed by "rogue despots"? Or do you consider them rogue despots?

As for the rest of you: The UN has 18 peacekeeping missions around the globe. Can you name even a quarter of them without google? If not, how can you consider yourself informed enough to have an opinion on them?

And if they are such failures, why are they stretched so thin? If they are such failures, why are there more requests for help than they can manage? If they are such failures, how did they get into Burma before the US did?

Oh noes, they aren't a completely pro-American group. Well lets just take our marbles and go home. Get over yourselves.

Right on.

The level of ignornance about the US role and power in the UN exhibited here would be remarkable except we KNOW where these foolish people are getting their misinformation.