Lol

[Johnney]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...6/wl_mideast_afp/un_iraq_council_031216185735

Iraq speaks up

 

[jimnyc]

His words will be downplayed as "part of an illegitimate governement", when in all actuality his words speak volumes. I guess it didn't take them too long to learn the truth about the UN.

 

[5stringJeff]

Some very condeming words in this article, addressed to the UN:

"The UN as an organisation failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny of 35 years," he [Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's foreign minister] said.
More Zebari: "Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people. Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the UN is chartered to uphold."

And what did Annan say? Not much more than, 'Let's all just get along now.'

 

[jon_forward]

big red truck!!!!

 

[Moi]

Oh, he [Annan] said much more than that (and I'm paraphrasing now):

- 22 UN people dead is so many and so wrong as to pull their entire representation out of the country (Iraq)

- there are significant risks to his personnel in the country (Iraq)

- he has to weigh the risks to the task required of him.

So, as the secretary of the UN he has to decide what risk is too great for his people, he has to assess with the information at hand said risks and he has to make some pretty hard decisions.

Sounds to me like he is facing the same thing that Pres. Bush faced when deciding what to do about Iraq. Only Annan, unlike our President, knows that no matter what he decides other people and other countries are going to bear all the burden.

Please don't get me started on how unfit Annan is to make decisions that affect the world. It's funny, but those that support the guy are so upset that President Bush doesn't have the background needed to lead our country despite being a Yale graduate, a member of the National Guard, owning and running several business and being governor of a large state. Yet those same people accept Annan's competence. What the heck makes him appropriate to tell us what to do??? As far as I'm concerned he is a nothing man from a nothing country as the head of a nothing organization that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the money and might of the US. I have no repsect for the UN nor him.

 

[spillmind]

oh moi. too much. i guess the UN is only respectable when their causes chime in with US interest? the US whoring of the UN is totally obvious to anyone with an objective perspective. if the UN is so meaningless and to blame for so much, why does it still exist?

you even went there with bush's resume'! have you ever seen bush's report card? how about the success of his businesses? this guy doesn't know shit from idealism, and he worries more about what's for dinner and memorizing speeches than he ever has been about making (his own) decisions. please tell me you weren't being serious.

 

[eric]

Two things :

First off:

What the heck makes him appropriate to tell us what to do??? As far as I'm concerned he is a nothing man from a nothing country as the head of a nothing organization that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the money and might of the US. I have no repsect for the UN nor him.

Second:

Ok spill my friend, tell me exactly w/proof, how GWB failed in business.

Oh by the way you do realize he is the president of the USA, and there are many people wealthier than he is, how did he beat them all ?

 

[jon_forward]

12 years of UN resolutions against saddams Iraq and what did they yield? nada! saddam and co thumbing their nose at the UN and the rest of the world. well, guess what, he was warned, by his inaction he got his ass kicked. The UN at one time was a powerful collection of countrys to reakon with. now the UN is little more than a highschool debate and its time has pasted. Annan knows this but doesnt know what to do . In other words, he does NOT have the balls to take a stand on anything. you are a funny lil man spillman...you make me laugh

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by spillmind
oh moi. too much. i guess the UN is only respectable when their causes chime in with US interest? the US whoring of the UN is totally obvious to anyone with an objective perspective. if the UN is so meaningless and to blame for so much, why does it still exist?

you even went there with bush's resume'! have you ever seen bush's report card? how about the success of his businesses? this guy doesn't know shit from idealism, and he worries more about what's for dinner and memorizing speeches than he ever has been about making (his own) decisions. please tell me you weren't being serious.

The US whoring of the UN? Forgive me, but in whoring both parties are guilty unless you didn't realize that. I'd be more ashamed if I were the UN at that comment. And, secondly, if the UN didn't use the US so much I bet they'd have NO power at all. Truth is that all their power derives from the US's ability to back it up. Who gives more money and aid and military assistance to those people put on the UN's sh__ list?????

But, no, I wasn't kidding. I don't believe that the UN has the authority over me. I recognize one law. The law of the country to whom I have pledged my allegience- The United States of America.

 

[Johnney]

But, no, I wasn't kidding. I don't believe that the UN has the authority over me. I recognize one law. The law of the country to whom I have pledged my allegience- The United States of America.

It seems to me that the UN is getting more and more less important. UN = LON? now i know it was way before my time, but what happened to that organization?

 

[NightTrain]

Good point, Johnney.

I forget exactly how the LON became extinct, but I do remember that it was between WWI and WWII, the main aim of it was to prevent any more wars like WWI . Seems to me it went away a couple years before WWII.

It didn't have any teeth as an international body, and the UN (formed after WWII to replace it) was equipped with teeth.

There was quite a bit of political posturing and bickering within the LON, similar to what happened recently in the UNSC in the months leading up to Iraqi Freedom.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by NightTrain
Good point, Johnney.

I forget exactly how the LON became extinct, but I do remember that it was between WWI and WWII, the main aim of it was to prevent any more wars like WWI . Seems to me it went away a couple years before WWII.

It didn't have any teeth as an international body, and the UN (formed after WWII to replace it) was equipped with teeth.

There was quite a bit of political posturing and bickering within the LON, similar to what happened recently in the UNSC in the months leading up to Iraqi Freedom.

If memory serves, the reason that the LON did not make it is that, as Nightrain says, there was posturing. The LON charter was weak and was never agreed to by the USA. Therefore, they had no enforcement powers. When Germany and Italy started annexing their neighbors, countries began withdrawing from the group leading to its extinction.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Moi
If memory serves, the reason that the LON did not make it is that, as Nightrain says, there was posturing. The LON charter was weak and was never agreed to by the USA. Therefore, they had no enforcement powers. When Germany and Italy started annexing their neighbors, countries began withdrawing from the group leading to its extinction.

I wonder, then, if the US decided to withdraw from the present UN, would it fall apart?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

There are other countries in the world that make up the UN and i believe they think it is a noble org so i don't think it will "fall apart".

 

[Moi]

I actually think without us- our $ and our military- it would certainly become ineffective.

 

[NightTrain]

I wonder, then, if the US decided to withdraw from the present UN, would it fall apart?

Yep. I certainly think it would. At the very least it would become ineffective.

 

[Johnney]

kinda sounds like it already is. hell even iraq told them to stop bitchin.... now whats that saying...lol

 

[MASTER G]

I don't think the UN would fall apart if America left because they have so little to do with it now and there are many issues involving other countries that America doesn't have to get involved with at all, + even if it did fall apart for whatever reason, a new international body would be created as has happened in the past, I personally approve of the UN over most of it's actions, apart from things like the failure to react to the iraq situation.

 

[Annie]

Like most 'constitutionally created' entities, the UN has aged beyond the parameters. The beauty of the US Constitution is its brevity, something too many followers have not been able to mirror.

(For one of the worst constitutional lessons, check out the EU proposal):

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...ed+European+Union+Constitution&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

it's like 250 pages long, trying to provide 'for every contingency', which like the 'no huge deficits' will promptly be ignored.

Look what happened with all the 'French Republics' following the American Revolution, not a pretty site.

The previous discussion on the League of Nations, provides a great example of the precursor to the UN. It's problem was 'no teeth' to enforce the agreed upon resolutions. The US was really the one who dropped the ball back in the 1930's, when they could have stepped up to enforce, but the country had already turned totally isolationist, it would not matter who was in charge of an administration. Churchill was the lone voice in the wilderness, but would not be heard.

Whatever his other shortcomings, Bush decided that if the UN wouldn't act, the US would. Of course, he DID have 9/11 attack on US to argue in favor of this. In reality, one could say he acted very similarly to FDR, it DID take Pearl Harbor to get US into WWII in a truly committed way.

 

[nbdysfu]

originally posted by Kathianne
Look what happened with all the 'French Republics' following the American Revolution, not a pretty site.
____________________ ____________________
I would recommend the history "Citizens" by Simon Schama for a good connected 600 page turner that includes all the necessary facts and more. Covers rule of Louis XIV through the fall of Napoleon.

Master G, I agree that the UN is an ideal, but Kathianne has a point that the UN is bogged down in beauracracy. Just think of how long it took to try the Nazis after WWII versus how long it's taking to try the miniscule Milosevic. This is generally indicitave about how capable the UN is of making timely assertive rulings.

Also the US has not pulled out of the UN by any means. It is one of a few nations that has a permanent vote in the un council. The US also provides a major portion of the budget for the UN.