OO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1470 times:
Just a direct consequence of a true democracy, Iraq and Iran have the right to give their opinion.
UN is not perfect for a simple reason: Decisions made by a group of different countries will never satisfied ALL the countries involved, quite obvious.
So to those anti-UN, a simple question....if there's no need of the UN, WHO will set the rules on the international scene? Each single country involved like USA or IRAQ? So the obvious conclusion will be that rules will be issued by the most powerful country and smaller ones will have to comply if they don't want to be invaded. Great. Rules are important if there's a power behind, but power without rules is a terrible return in the past. That's why EACH single country has to comply with UN resolutions, US, Israel and Iraq included and only the UN should be able to decide wich country is a rogue state (via inspections if required)
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1448 times:
I have a hard time understanding why people are so eager to extend the benefits of 'democracy' to brutal dictators at the international level. These are the same dictators who aggresively crush any attempts to extend democracy to their own people.
Democracy is not about a voting process. It is about allowing individual human beings deciding how they will be governed. That is not what occured at the UN. The fact that the UN allowed Iraq and Iran to have assumed these roles is indefensible. This is no consequence of true democracy. This is a consequence of the perverted politics of the UN.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 36
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1339 times:
>>>UN is not perfect for a simple reason: Decisions made by a group of different countries will never satisfied ALL the countries involved, quite obvious.<<<
The concern isn't that the U.N. isn't perfect, rather, that it is ineffective. Not in everything it does, but in crucial areas such as enforcing disarmament in member states that have agreed to disarm.
>>>So to those anti-UN, a simple question....if there's no need of the UN, WHO will set the rules on the international scene?<<<
Excellant statement. There is the need for the U.N. But only if it has the will to enforce the rules it sets. Otherwise it is just a hollow mouthpiece, sort of a League of Nations. Should the U.N. become irrelevant, it will be by its own hand.
>>>Rules are important if there's a power behind, but power without rules is a terrible return in the past.<<<
Right, but as said above, you can set the rules and have power to enforce them. But without the will to use the power, the rules and power mean nothing.
Scootertrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 569 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1334 times:
Kudos FDXmech! I was going to express the same thoughts but you stole my thunder. The U.N. is an important body for international diplomatic discourse, but unless it makes the choice to enforce those resolutions which it has already passed, it is in serious danger of becoming irrelavent.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1325 times:
This is a game, nothing more.
The UN was conceived as neutral territory where everyone can have a voice. Clearly the pipsqueak class of nations is using their voices in gangbanging the US, like so many knats orbiting a horse's head. This stuff happens just to piss us off.