Syria, Pyongyang: WTH is going on now?

[SlowGoose]

Oh yeah, serious, very serious.

[TheSollyLama]

zing you wish.....

we support the UN. It's national policy, and we give alot of money. Therefore yes, we do indeed invoke it's sanctions. Sanctions, by the way, that were brought into existence to appease the UN when we could have taken out saddam and avoided this mess we're in now.

We either need to get the UN strait or shit can it. I personally don't see any use for it whatsoever. It is a massive failure like the League of Nations before it. If it were MY policy to change, I would create a new organization if you just had to have one. But I think a better system of diplomacy is possible than anything the UN has to offer.

Since we do try to make the UN relevant- then we should of course enforce it's proclimations. The UN is like the little brother on the playground, it talks a big game then runs to hide behind it's big brother (the US). It simply is hollow without the US to back it.

If we are to pretend to have this global gov't (the NWO that liberals were all bitching about when Bush Sr. uttered it, is now the darling of that same left) then it must be useful and not corrupt. Since the UN is neither, I'd just bin it. If we really want to keep it around, then it needs an overhaul.

But truly- it's a pipe dream. It's like the Star Trek Federation. It's a nice utopian fantasy but it's not remotely realistic. There is no global gov't and no gov't is putting the world ahead of it's own interests. So at best, the UN is a total sham.

You're confusing my personal beliefs on the UN with actual policy. Since our policy is to pay the UN to do nothing but piss us off, then we need to act in accordance with that decision and get some value out of the UN in exchange.

If the UN wants to be the unified global gov't, then it needs to back it's high and mighty proclimations. It loves to issue sanctions then just walk away and do nothing. Iraq proved the utter uselessness of the UN. The only enforcement of the sanctions are coming from the US.

And no wonder the UN wanted to keep Iraq under sanctions they ignored forever- they were skimming money out of the suffering of the people there. Why remove a vicious leader with his death squads when you can bilk the situation for some food for oil money? And who opposed the invasion? The countries implicated in that scandal.....gee, aren't they just the philanthropists???

We either need to lead the UN, or get rid of it. It's serving no real purpose now other than to cash in on human misery around the world. It's like the opposite of the Red Cross.

You know that mercenary groups in Sierra Leone almost had the fighting quelled and the genocide stopped? But then the UN got butthurt because they totally failed to DO ANYTHING and proclaimed the mercenaries international criminals. And so with their removal Sierra Leone collapsed again into anarchy while the UN did nothing. Aren't they useful?

It's my view it needs removed from existence. I doubt that'll happen though so we need to deal with this POS organization. Can it be salvaged? I don't think so, but If they really want to pretend to matter, I guess we could throw them a bone.

but they're nothing we don't allow them to be, so it's still just all bark and no bite.

[jerome_oneil]

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

we support the UN. It's national policy, and we give alot of money. Therefore yes, we do indeed invoke it's sanctions. Sanctions, by the way, that were brought into existence to appease the UN when we could have taken out saddam and avoided this mess we're in now.

HAHAHAH!!!!!!

Dude, do you honestly think things would have been any different then than now? Jebus Christ on a crutch, Dick Cheney (SecDef Cheney that is) pretty much spelled out why they left him there. It was a perfect picture of the cluster fark we have going on right now.

[SlowGoose]

Snerk.... it just stands on its own.

[jim schmidt]

I've never known wordiness to be able to push the cat back in the bag.