Pages: 1 2 3 … 7

 

2006-07-30 02:54:50
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6836
Personally, I think America.  And before we begin, I'd like to request that the following people don't participate:

unnamednewbie13
GunSlinger OIF II
yerdred
kr@cker
Capt. Foley
Lib-Sl@yer
Horseman 77
Alexanderthegrape
=OBS= EstebanRey
<[onex]>Headstone
fadedsteve
JG1567JG
Spark - until he learns that the France, Russia, China and UK bear no responsibility.
Kmarion
Cougar

I'm hoping that this will be a fair, balanced discussion.

EDIT:  Before you respond, read this page in full, and/or my first post on page 5.

EDIT 2:  For those still having trouble, I don't blame America for UN failures.  Nor did I want to have a discussion on it with the listed people not participating.  That would be stupid.  That is, in fact, my point.  That to ask for certain people not to participate in a discussion is stupid in the extreme.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-08-02 00:38:33)

2006-07-30 02:57:01
Chou
Member
+737|7066
Where are you from and what's the philosophy behind your conclusion?
2006-07-30 02:58:22
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6836
My philosophy is I've just knocked out everyone who could disagree, and can change that list at any time.
2006-07-30 02:58:45
TeamZephyr
Maintaining My Rage Since 1975
+124|6804|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia
In my opinion it would be US. They seem to veto any progessive resolution that may just benefit the rest of the world. Take the recent one in Lebanon how they vetoed UN involvement thinking that Israel should just continue bombing the crap out of civilians.

The reason the UN fails is because certain countries don't like it doing what its supposed to do, maintain peace and such. Security Council members should have all veto powers taken away and just be there to discuss resolutions and recognize them.
2006-07-30 02:59:10
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6976
You request a fair and balanced discussion by requesting that most of the people that don't agree with you not participate? As much as I tend to agree with you about the objectivity of some of those people (not all), I respect their opinions as individuals, even if they don't respect mine in kind. Any discussion should be open to all individuals, that's one of the reasons we haven't restricted posting in this section.
2006-07-30 03:00:10
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6950|Canberra, AUS
Hmmm... I think we ge the point. On a public forum, requesting that people don't join in is stupid in the lowest form (it's like saying DON'T STAND IN THE ARTILLERY ZONE to a noob).

First. I assume we are talking about the security council, yes?

In that case, then I blame the permanent members (France, Russia, the US, the UK, China - the winners of WWII). THEY control the UNSC. THEY are the 'rulers', the 'presidents' of the whole joint.

However, I don't paticularly like the general 'UN failures' thing - can you name some?. Each situation is different - though lack of international co-op can be attributed in part to most, possibly. My feeling is that people just don't like the UN for the simple reason because they didn't like the Iraq war.

And on a different note - I blame the middle east debacle on the Turks, in paticular, Attaturk. The fall of the Ottoman Empire has plunged the whole area in to a tailspin of destabilisation.

Last edited by Spark (2006-07-30 03:02:11)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-07-30 03:01:29
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6836
UN's mandate was to promote peace and security, later broadened to include internal things like child welfare and civil wars.  They have not fulfilled that mandate.
2006-07-30 03:04:03
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6766|Menlo Park, CA
ALL THE COUNTRIES!!! You cannot pinpoint all the UN failures on the United States, that is bullshit. . .

Is Darfur the US's fault for UN inaction in that genocide, or the entire worlds for not coming to their aid??

To those who just single out the US as the main culprit of UN inaction, your wrong PERIOD

The UN is a collective body of nations therefore ALL nations, regarless of veto power, play a role in successes and failures, to single out one country is generalizing!
2006-07-30 03:04:16
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6950|Canberra, AUS

Skruples wrote:

You request a fair and balanced discussion by requesting that most of the people that don't agree with you not participate? As much as I tend to agree with you about the objectivity of some of those people (not all), I respect their opinions as individuals, even if they don't respect mine in kind. Any discussion should be open to all individuals, that's one of the reasons we haven't restricted posting in this section.
I think he meant it as more of a statement or joke...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-07-30 03:07:15
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6950|Canberra, AUS

fadedsteve wrote:

ALL THE COUNTRIES!!! You cannot pinpoint all the UN failures on the United States, that is bullshit. . .

Is Darfur the US's fault for UN inaction in that genocide, or the entire worlds for not coming to their aid??

To those who just single out the US as the main culprit of UN inaction, your wrong PERIOD

The UN is a collective body of nations therefore ALL nations, regarless of veto power, play a role in successes and failures, to single out one country is generalizing!
Regardless of veto? That's stupid. Veto is the problem with the damn thing. VETO is what makes it undemocratic.

And the Darfur bit is just plain wrong:

Wikipedia wrote:

But, intervention by the UN is unlikely as the governments of key members of the Security Council state they are pragmatically and ideologically constrained in their ability to respond to the conflict. The Russian government, with its weakened economy, struggles to meet its internal security dilemmas regarding its persistent border conflicts. United States force deployments in Iraq and elsewhere make intervention a difficult proposition. The United States also faces difficulty stemming from its commitment to the peace process ending the Second Sudanese Civil War, which it fears may be derailed. Finally, setting up No-Fly Zones are logistically difficult considering the remoteness of Darfur, the lack of infrastructure in potential airbase neighbors, and the issue of airspace rights for flyovers to Darfur from other neighbors.

Moreover, in both of these nations, along with Britain and France, a strong lobby exists opposed to intervention in countries whose internal strife is not clearly related to the nation's own interest (America and France having suffered demoralizing losses in Vietnam, as well as in Somalia and Algeria, respectively). The lack of capable foreign peacekeepers during the Rwanda and Liberia crises is a more recent example.
Not much good having a multinational force when your most powerful members aren't that interested.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-07-30 03:07:46
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6976

Spark wrote:

Skruples wrote:

You request a fair and balanced discussion by requesting that most of the people that don't agree with you not participate? As much as I tend to agree with you about the objectivity of some of those people (not all), I respect their opinions as individuals, even if they don't respect mine in kind. Any discussion should be open to all individuals, that's one of the reasons we haven't restricted posting in this section.
I think he meant it as more of a statement or joke...
If I had to guess from the PM i just got, I'd say you're right.
2006-07-30 03:17:21
JG1567JG
Member
+110|6863|United States of America
How can you blame the U.S. for the failures.  I haven't heard anything on the U.S. being involved in the scandals going on there.  Every time we tried to get more sanctions on Iraq or have the UN put more pressure on Saddam all the UN did was count their money they were getting for the Oil for Food scandal.  If you want to blame some country then blame France, Russia,  and China for going against the U.S. just because that is the only place they can throw their weight around.

Don't quote this as fact but I heard that we the U.S. pay 1/3 of the UN's budget with rent free property in NY City (some of the highest priced property in the world).  Did you know that these UN diplomats don't even pay their parking tickets, that they get almost daily, claiming diplomatic immunity.  BS.  I think allot of Americans would be happy if we just got out of the UN and kicked them out of our country.

I can edit this anytime and until Bubbalo becomes a mod I join any discussion I want.

Last edited by JG1567JG (2006-07-30 03:24:42)

2006-07-30 03:18:06
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6766|Menlo Park, CA
Keep in mind, the US is NOT the worlds police force! 

Everyone is guilty about Darfur, but you cannot lay that entire problem on the US's doorstep.  .  .are you kidding me!

If the rest of the world would grow some balls, and help enfore UN mandates, it would be a more effective body! But the only countries that have any balls to stand up to UN resolutions are the US, Britain etc. 

If the entire EU stood up, sent a ton of euro troops to Darfur, maybe that genocide wouldnt have taken place!! Or arab nations that are closer, send their troops to help?? Why does it always have to be the US's obligation to provide security! All the Europeans do is TALK!! They talk about this, delay that, etc.  MAKE A DECISION AND STICK WITH IT, and once thats done ENFORCE IT!!!

The UN ultimatly is an empty suit, and each day that goes by, it shows us that is a discussion body, not a body of action.
2006-07-30 03:24:49
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6950|Canberra, AUS
Because I see that there's a lot that the US, UK, or any individual country has done for the current crisis.

I would like to change my view.

The supposed 'failures' of the UN do not lie with one country, or another, or any group of countries. It lies in the inherent structure and formation. The damn thing needs to be dissolved and based around EVERYONE, not just those who won a war sixty years ago. (I mean the security council)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-07-30 03:25:42
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6836
I'm gonna go ahead and award a few prizes:

1)  Skruples, for making my point AND for being a good sport and not locking the thread for idiocy

2)  Spark, for being the first to spot the point

3)  fadedsteve, for completely missing the point, and leaping to the US' defence yet again (even if I agree with him to a degree)
2006-07-30 03:28:21
JG1567JG
Member
+110|6863|United States of America
Hypothetically, say China invades Taiwan then moves onto Australia. The U.S. shows up to put up some resistance. I believe Bubbalo would consider the U.S. the enemy and not China.  He just hates the U.S.
2006-07-30 03:29:51
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6766|Menlo Park, CA
My point is simple, you cannot blame the whole of the UN's failures on the US, I mean thats rediculous!

And I dont disagree with the fact that the UN was formed RIGHT AFTER WWII, which means certain countries have more clout than others in certain situations.  The UN needs sweeping changes, that I could go on about for hours, but we dont have hours, and I dont have the time.  Bottom line is YES the UN needs help, they need more of its members to be PROACTIVE as opposed to the usual UNACTIVE.
2006-07-30 03:30:24
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6836
1)  It's a pretty long hop from Taiwan to Australia.

2)  No, I wouldn't.  First, because Australia's situation doesn't change the values of us and/or our allies.  Second, because if we really needed it we could probably get help from Europe.
2006-07-30 03:33:44
BVC
Member
+325|6970
Every country that is a part of the UN shares some responsibility for its failures.  Though the US is commonly made out ot be the bad guy, they are not to blame; no single country is.  If you support the system you hold partial responsibility for its failures.

And requesting people don't participate, if you want a fair and balanced discussion, you can't just say "don't participate" to a bunch of people you disagree with.  How the hell is that mean't to promote a fair discussion?  Why don't you retitle the thread "come here and agree with me"?  That request, my friend, would of earned you a -1.
2006-07-30 04:04:18
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6876|132 and Bush

Pubic wrote:

And requesting people don't participate, if you want a fair and balanced discussion, you can't just say "don't participate" to a bunch of people you disagree with.  How the hell is that mean't to promote a fair discussion?  Why don't you retitle the thread "come here and agree with me"?  That request, my friend, would of earned you a -1.
You have to admit it is pretty funny though...lol

The blame falls on many hands. I still have not heard good reasoning for the blame "mostly" on the US. Yet another case of attack the big guy. How about this.. which country has been the most beneficial to the success of the UN, back it up also.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-07-30 04:05:38
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6876|132 and Bush

Bubbalo wrote:

My philosophy is I've just knocked out everyone who could disagree, and can change that list at any time.
Where is the "discussion or debate" in that?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-07-30 04:09:31
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6836

Kmarion wrote:

Where is the "discussion or debate" in that?
You're quite welcome to debate or discuss, so long as you don't disagree with me.
2006-07-30 04:10:52
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6950|Canberra, AUS
Goodness grief. Maybe we need to have a new bbcode tag - [sarcasm][/sarcasm] or [joke][/joke]

At least you could be patient enough to read the above posts, which point out Bubbalo's point at least four times.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-07-30 04:13:47
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6836
They could, but that would spoil all my fun.
2006-07-30 04:19:11
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6876|132 and Bush

Bubbalo wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Where is the "discussion or debate" in that?
You're quite welcome to debate or discuss, so long as you don't disagree with me.
"Tone" does get lost at times in forums. 
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard