What has the UN got to do with it?

[bdrmachine]

Originally Posted by dynosor If the UN was any good at peace keeping, there would be no need for peace making. How many civil wars and genocides have occured in the last 3 decades with the UN standing by?

Not to mention the ones Bush started!

[NoTech]

If the UN is involved forget a solution other than the regular rhetoric how bad the imperialistic USA is, and how we are not willing to pay for the total salvation of the otherwise incredibly stupid world! Take the USA out of the equation and the world would not end. The terrible inhuman autrocities commited by the rest of the world upon its brothers will continue as long as there is a nickle to be made and political correctness is the standard of the day. Russia, China, and the other wannabes or has been world players have done little to abate global warming, that is if it is really man made. Al Gore, another wannabe has found his place with the Michael Moores of our time, African strife will continue, the market will rise and fall as will oil prices, machines which we can control or attempt to here on this site will continue to be built and the excitement of the first program executed will not diminish. To those who actually care, THANKS. To those who only give lip service, may your limit switches fail and you reap the whirlwind of the bit!

[rancherbill]

Originally Posted by dynosor If the UN was any good at peace keeping, there would be no need for peace making. How many civil wars and genocides have occured in the last 3 decades with the UN standing by?

Peace Keeping and Peace Making are different concepts all together.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htu.../20030925.aspx
To quote from the above link
The Basics: Peacekeeping vs. Peacemaking

"The press repeatedly uses the terms peacemaking and peacekeeping interchangeably, not even acknowledging the sharp difference between the two. Peacekeeping refers to the deployment of an international force that acts as a buffer between opposing factions, and is usually meant to prevent war rather than stop it. Peacekeeping forces are usually invited by at least one combatant. Peacemaking, on the other hand, employs a heavily armed force that aims to stop a conflict. This philosophy arose out of frustration with lightly equipped peacekeeping forces that were often unable to maintain stability."

The UN charter Chapter 2 does not permit intervention in internal affairs of a country (civil war) After there is cease fire then the UN will intervene between the "new" states.

Chapter 7 covers problems between states. The war is usually going before a force can be deployed. There is great discussion about a rapid deployment force, but, there is no political will by countries to do so. For example, does the US want to devote a bunch of soldiers to UN command to quickly deploy a significant force to Africa to get between two warring parties. I know as a Canadian I would not support sending any troops to a location where there was not a desire by both parties to maintain or establish peace. You have to be invited by both parties to keep the peace or you will end up as a third combatant.

Here is the Canadian perspective on the Peace Keeping and Making and on the UN.
http://www.slideshare.net/krgilchris...-world-stage/2
Look at slide 18 in the presentation.

The UN does not do well with Peace Making. It is like a married couple fighting, the cops (peace makers) can break it up, but, as soon as they leave the fight is on again. If the couple has a desire to stop fighting, then counselors (peace keepers) can work on all the issues. They can separate the parties, disarm, handle disputes, establish boundaries, borders, rebuild physical and civil infrastructure, and the list goes on. They establish an environment where peace can continue and grow.

There is no political will by the member states to get into the role of peace maker. There are heavy casualties when you step into the middle of an armed conflict.

If there is a desire to preserve or establish peace by the combatants, UN members step up and get the job done.

I had to respond to clarify the differences between the two terms.

We have gotten way off the GW topic in discussing these issues. The original link was just babble, trying to tie GW and all the other problems of the world to a great conspiracy. I think you have watched to many Austin Powers movies - there is no real Dr. Evil.

There is no conspiracy. GW is an issue by itself.

[dertsap]

the UN if looked at with a positve attitude is a good step toward something that may resemble world peace , something which is realistally unachievable .
if more countries were a part of the UN then many disputes may (or may not ) be settled thru mediation ,rather than heat of the moment war , the UN is being built on respect ,iraq could never have been a member because they are not a respectable country toward others or their own , it's a piss pot sized country , a nuke would have erased it from the map , why wasn't it done ? probably because there are many hardworking respectable people trying to raise their children on the hopes that maybe someday they will have the same benefits as our children will have .
what i find troubling is that i see far to often quotes such as "we are the greatest country in the world " , " we're the only ones footin the bill for crap happening in other countries " as well as disrespectful remarks about the rest of the world
many of us are footing the bill , 33% of my wage goes toward taxes ,right of the top of my cheque , not to meantion the taxes on top of taxes for everything else i may buy , it pisses me off to no end when we have the goverment thinking of new ways to gouge my pocket ,while all the while they are spending incredible amounts of my money to rebuild a country someone else destroyed .we're all paying !
i look at the UN as a base for the world leaders to stand on in mutual respect of each others countries and customs ,cause without it (respect ) we will all be at war with one another at some point or other

and sure the UN is or will be big brother but the thing is , it isn't one entity watching us it's everyone watching everyone
does it make anymore of a difference than the way we live now with lil brother watching us

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by bdrmachine Not to mention the ones Bush started!

Which is why I said: "The last time we heard that immediate action was required to avert impending doom, that action lead the US into an extremely costly search for non-existent WMDs. Any politician that insists on extreme measures without sufficient justification should not be trusted to lead this country."

From GW: Questions for presidential candidates http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36037

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by dertsap ...it pisses me off to no end when we have the goverment thinking of new ways to gouge my pocket ... i look at the UN as a base for the world leaders ...

That's what the GW scare is all about; liberating more money from your pocket. And the UN is trying to set itself up as the tax collector.

My miss-trust of the UN's involvement with GW is obvious, but my lack of confidence in the UN's stated intentions is also partly based on personal experience:

Days after the tsunami of 26 December 2004 I donated $1000 to UNICEF at their website created specifically for helping victims of this disaster. As soon as they charged my credit card the confirmation message read: "Thank you for your contribution to the UN general fund."

This pissed me off no end, as I did not intend this money to be spent any way the UN saw fit. I wrote to the UN to let them know of my displeasure and they promptly placed me on a mailing list with frequent letters asking for donations to stop the calmity de jour.

[jhowelb]

From it's inception the only task the UN has been able to accomplish is to transfer great amounts of money into the pockets of thiefs and tyrants. Blue helmeted thugs routinely rape young girls in Africa while executives rape the American taxpayer.

The only possible use for it in the future is more of the same while they dream of global domination of the masses.

The folks who complain that the US isn't paying enough ( over 25% as I recall) are the ones who won't commit troops to Darfur or other places that some good could actually be done. Past time for UN to follow the League of Nations down the pot!