Will the UN survive?

Der PH · February 8, 2003, 10:09

Since now it's becoming obvious that the mightiest nation of the world cares for the UN only if its own interests are supported and otherwise just ignores any resolutions, I'm beginning to ask myself: Game over? Are the UN dying? Are we going back one century to a world where no international community exists?

I'm asking for your opinion because I'm afraid of such a world.

Willem · February 8, 2003, 10:31

We won't go back to that type of world since in the next US election, a Democrat will be elected, and he/she will be so busy trying to fix all the diplomatic damage that Bush is causing that the UN will get more support from the US than it ever has before.

Besides, the UN is largely the brainchild of the US, and they don't like admitting they made a mistake. So they won't just let it whither away and die off.

Az · February 8, 2003, 11:08

der PH?

ok, Richard, you can come out now.

seriously:
this is nothing new, der PH. The UN has ALWAYS been just another tool for superpowers, since superpowers are the ones who actually decide on it's decisions.

If somehow Russia, China, USA, France and Britain, and 3 more UNSC members would agree that the world would look much better without India, and that India should be destroyed, and issued a resolution on that, would it be justified to attack India?
No. The UN is a beginning of the idea of a single humanity, but there is still no single ideology to unite humanity, and therefor, it's too early to speak of a single UN.

Since Intl. law is not an actual law, Because this law is not upheld, and there is no international parliament to create and ammend those laws, as well as no police to uphold them etc., Because humanity is not developed enough technologically to operate as a more centralized single entity than what we have now: Some cooperation.

DinoDoc · February 8, 2003, 13:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Der PH
Since now it's becoming obvious that the mightiest nation of the world cares for the UN only if its own interests are supported and otherwise just ignores any resolutions,

1) How is that different from anytime in the past?
2) Where was the widespread European outcry saying that the UN had to approve the Balkan adventures?

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 13:16

Shhhh! Dino, you know we're not supposed to talk about that!

That was...."different" of course, as any of our enlightened superiors will quickly inform you (never mind the fact that they *gleefully* jumped in with us, although before we got involved, were paralyzed with inaction, and completely incapable of stopping genocide on their own continent).

-=Vel=-

Sava · February 8, 2003, 13:28

Maybe because there was no genocide in the Balkan conflict...

Willem · February 8, 2003, 13:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Maybe because there was no genocide in the Balkan conflict...

Oh come off it! Do you not watch the news? Time and time again they discover mass graves that show clear evidence of murder. You sound just like these people that claim the holocaust never happened. The proof is all around, you only need to open your eyes! I suppose the Muslims just left Kosovo because they were out for a pleasant stroll in order to catch some fresh air.

PS You're sig says it all, you're living in your own little dream world.

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 13:57

Fresh air. Yep....that was just exactly it, Willem. You didn't know that those mass graves were all built on Hollywood sound stages, didja?

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 8, 2003, 14:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

Fresh air. Yep....that was just exactly it, Willem. You didn't know that those mass graves were all built on Hollywood sound stages, didja?

-=Vel=-

I just can't believe that someone could possibly have the audacity of uttering a statement like that, especially in light of all the evidence to the contrary. Maybe it's because they refuse to belief that there are people out there who are downright nasty and vicious, and wouldn't hesitate to murder someone, or even alot of people, if it advanced their own cause. I think Sept. 11 showed clearly that having respect for the lives of other human beings is not a universal norm.

Dis · February 8, 2003, 14:22

will the U.S. survive?

Willem · February 8, 2003, 14:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
will the U.S. survive?

If it doesn't, then neither will the world as we know it. There would be a global economic collapse, which no country would be able to deal with.

Well, maybe Afghanistan, they can't sink much lower than they are now.

Der PH · February 9, 2003, 07:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
in the next US election, a Democrat will be elected, and he/she will be so busy trying to fix all the diplomatic damage that Bush is causing that the UN will get more support from the US than it ever has before.

Hope you're right!

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
der PH?

ok, Richard, you can come out now

>>Sigh<<
I am not a DL.
Not of Richard (whoever this may be), nor of Provost Harrison (I chose my login before I heard of him).

EDIT: O.K. just found out, Richard is the great PH (I consider myself to be the little PH).

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
will the U.S. survive?

Do you speak of the nation or of the idea that the US once were?
The nation will surely continue its existence, but I fear the home of the brave slowly degenerates to a country where only money rules.

Timexwatch · February 9, 2003, 09:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

I just can't believe that someone could possibly have the audacity of uttering a statement like that, especially in light of all the evidence to the contrary. Maybe it's because they refuse to belief that there are people out there who are downright nasty and vicious, and wouldn't hesitate to murder someone, or even alot of people, if it advanced their own cause. I think Sept. 11 showed clearly that having respect for the lives of other human beings is not a universal norm.

Obviously one thing us Americans killed off was the Canadian ability to detect sarcasm

VJ · February 9, 2003, 09:12

Quote:

I think Sept. 11 showed clearly that having respect for the lives of other human beings is not a universal norm.

Respect of other human beings... Take a look at the threads on the 1st page here...

Az · February 9, 2003, 09:35

Der PH: notice the winking smiley

I've read your posts some time ago. you're not a DL.

right?

Willem · February 9, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Timexwatch

Obviously one thing us Americans killed off was the Canadian ability to detect sarcasm

I don't believe he was being sarcastic frankly. And no, sarcasm is a national trait. We've had to get very good at it in order to insult Americans without getting them pissed off at us. Who knows, maybe our skills are so refined that we don't recognize it when someone is doing it badly.

Willem · February 9, 2003, 11:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuomerehu

Respect of other human beings... Take a look at the threads on the 1st page here...

I said the lives of human beings, opinions are another matter entirely.

chequita guevara · February 9, 2003, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
I just can't believe that someone could possibly have the audacity of uttering a statement like that, especially in light of all the evidence to the contrary.

Since the discussion that was a response to was about US intervention, it's likely he was refering to Kosovo, where no mass graves have yet been found.

Willem · February 9, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Since the discussion that was a response to was about US intervention, it's likely he was refering to Kosovo, where no mass graves have yet been found.

Only because they were hauling the people into Serbia and disposing of them there. And is mass expulsion all that different from genocide? A little bit more humane, but not by much.

NeOmega · February 9, 2003, 17:28

I hope not, the UN sucks, and it has never really stopped a war anyway, which it was supposed to do, in fact it gave the gulf war it's blessing.... not the body of peace I thought it was supposed to be.

OneFootInTheGrave · February 9, 2003, 17:33

UN will survive if Britney Spears gives it mouth to mouth life saving job

Spiffor · February 9, 2003, 17:55

The UN will survive because it will be more and more instrumental in postwar situations. Since the US will start more wars, this will be a very useful skill.
Also, don't forget the UN has many tools useful to appreciate the international situation (if only, it issues international statistics), and plays a definitive role in humanitarian help.
The Security Council will continue as before : it will confirm the decisions of the greatest power, or will be a place where equivalent big powers argue with each other.

Der PH · February 10, 2003, 05:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Der PH: notice the winking smiley

Yep, absolutely no offence taken!

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I've read your posts some time ago. you're not a DL.

Aah! That's the appreciation I need!

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
right?

AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

Der PH · February 10, 2003, 05:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
The UN will survive because it will be more and more instrumental in postwar situations. Since the US will start more wars, this will be a very useful skill.

So, the US start the mess and the UN clean it up?
That's what I call a clear responsibility assignment!

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
The Security Council will continue as before : it will confirm the decisions of the greatest power, or will be a place where equivalent big powers argue with each other.

So the law of the stronger is still applied instead of reason and responsibility.

Brave new world!
What a nice place to live in!

Propaganda · February 10, 2003, 05:22

The UN will only survive if it makes a Secretary General out of Gorbachev. He has some great ideas for the UN!

Der PH · February 10, 2003, 05:36

Gorbachev?

What exactly are his ideas?

BTW, nice avatar!

DinoDoc · February 10, 2003, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Since the discussion that was a response to was about US intervention, it's likely he was refering to Kosovo, where no mass graves have yet been found.

Given the fact that I made no specific mention of Kosovo, I find that somewhat hard to believe.

Now could someone deal with the substance of the point I raised rather than irrelevent details.