Okay let me put it this way

When Spain backed out of Iraq after the Madrid train Bombings- to the Terrorists- is it not concievable that they viewed it as backing down? Cause enough damage and they will pull out?

I view the U.N. the same way, but being inactive on these issues, for WHATEVER reason, it gives countries a reason to doubt them. Iraq Part 1 was by and large a U.S. opperation, but I' am not saying we didn't have support- simply we ( and the Brits) were the one with the 'boots' on. When an organization is inactive after resolutions - again for whatever reason, they loose any crediability

An interesting Article

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3453


Some 47 member nations are dictatorships and the UN roster includes six terrorist states.



My opinion- do away with the Security council. The U.N. is, for reasons you stated, worthless. They have no military power- they have no force to backup resolutions, and they have little credibility. Sudan figures they can get by with 10 - odd years of resolutions like Saddam while they murder their own people. I'll admit, it is a huge undertaking to police the world, but that doesnt change the fact that they are largely inactive. I think they should stick to Humaniatrain Efforts ( like they are NOW doing in *SOME* of Sudans refugee camps).


They are best suited as another International Red Cross.

Hell even the pope has more soldiers than the U.N.

The US would never agree to do away with the security council...we do have a permanent seat and veto on it.

As I said before, the UN is largely inactive due to the unwillingness of member nations to get their troops involved. We have to blame ourselves for the slaughter in Sudan as much as we blame the UN.

When criticising the UN, I think it's helpful to keep in mind that the US is by far the largest vetoer of it's resolutions, so it's lack of effectiveness as a global body can, in part, be traced back to the frequent undermining of it's authority at American hands. Until all countries recognise that UN authority supercedes the authority of the nation state, I doubt we'll see much of an improvement.

In answer to the original question: a firm no. What the country needs is African troops to take up peacekeeping duties and help look after all those thousands of refugees who, at present, have to choose between a slow death by starvation inside their camps, or a quick one at the hands of the Janjaweed. US troops are far too distancing for the job, in my opinion, because of their unwillingness to accept casualties on their own side, their "shoot first, ask question later" engagement policy, and their insistance on wearing helmets and reflective goggles all the time. It might seem like an odd point to make but, as the British have found in Basra, wearing the far less aggressive beret and being able to look people in the eye actually makes a big difference when you're trying to win the trust of people who see you as unwelcome. It's for a similar reason that I think the troops should be African; troops native to the continent are far likelier to strike a chord with people than foreign (white) soldiers.

I'm not necessarily criticising American military tactics, I just don't think they're suitable in this instance.

I know- I didnt say the U.S. should do away with it - I said the U.N. should.

Stick to Humanitarian Efforts.

Complete distortion of reality. The overwhelming majority of US vetoes of UN resolutions are on behalf of the continued existence of Israel, not humanitarian, social or resource issues. Time and again the UN seeks ever more insidious ways in which to bind the hand of Israel in its efforts to protect its people from waves of suicide bombers. The US won't allow the UN to emasculate Israel, however hard it tries.

Can't wait till Isreal does us the favor in Iran like they did in Iraq :D

Nukes in the hands of islamic fundamentalists, especially in the M.E., is a timebomb waiting to go off. It seems the rest of the world's major powers (except Russia, who helped build the damn reactors) agree with this and are trying to persuade the mad mullahs to reverse course, which I guess is a good sign so far.

About Darfur and the UN. It seems that this is the absolute perfect opportunity for the UN to prove itself of value here. If they went in, without the US, and re-established law and order and stopped the killing in Darfur, it would seem to me to be an overwhelmingly positive thing for everyone involved, instead of wasting time pouting, throwing tantrums and lamenting their long-gone days of doing business with Saddam Hussein.

It worked so well with N. Korea, what could possibly go wrong?

Psshh we just sold Bunkerbusters to Israelis

Apart from "helping" us take care of Iran- what do you think they would be using these for?

Most of the terrorists in Israel - however hidden- dont require bunker busters to root out.

BS, the UN has to ask everytime they want troops!
That would be one of the much needed reforms, give the UN an owwn army the only understands UN command.

That wasn't even my main point, but ok, I'll explain myself.

It doesn't matter on what issues the veto was used, it's the fact that's it's used so regularly by a country that sees no need to abide by International law that hurts the credibility of the UN. To say that the UN seeks to 'bind the hand of Israel' is to accuse every member state of actively working against Israel in the face of a terrorist onslaught, and we both know that's not true. What's more true is that UN resolutions too often contrast with US foreign policy or propose methods to achieve progress which it doesn't agree with. For example, the unlawful use of force in Nicaragua during the Bush administration of the eighties (and the first 'war on terror') saw worldwide condemnation that was ignored, and a subsequent security council resolution calling on all member states to abide by international law was vetoed by the US.

To me at least, it seems as though it's Washingtons way or no way at all on many issues that affect more states than theirs.

Once you started quoting from dictionaries to make your point, you lost me in a sea of pointless pedanticism.

I can see where you are coming from, but I think you're over simplifying things.

The difference between you and I seems to be that I can admit your argument has some merits and I respect what you say. You on the other hand "skirt the issue" (to quote yourself) and just insult other members of this board.

As I said in another thread, I don't know why it does, but every time irrational Bush-lackeys lash out I still honestly am left surprised.


Mr Mephisto

The US should not go into any place that does not attack it first. Defensive military only. Pre-emptive strike is not justifiable in my opinion. You do not know that someone will attack you, you can only have evidence that points to teh likelyhood. Besides, Kant devised pre-emptive strike and he never left his home town.

While tempting, this hasn't been a seriously viable alternative for us since the 19th century.

With our tropps spread as thinly as they already are, and with the immense expense of wagin war on the other side of the earth, NO, we should not go into Sudan or anywhere else right now. :|