Whats the point in the UN? - If the USA is just going to ign

[Invader Zim]

Leaving aside the morals of the war in Iraq, if the UN desides not to support the war and tells the USA not to commit, Bush will ignore it, as he has publicaly stated. This leads to the question about the point in having the UN. What ever happens the USA is going to war, te UN is largely against this. But it makes no differeance Bush has made up his mind, so the UN is now useless.

So why are our nations puting billions of £/$ into a pointless organisation which WILL fail to stop the the war even though the majority of the UN is anti war.

This also leads to the question about the government of great britain.

We live in a democracy where the government is supposed to carry out the wishes of the people of the nation. The majority of the British people are anti war (rightly or wrongly) but still blair wants to go to war. This means that he is failing in his obligations to the people of GB. This therefore means that he is a dicator, who is going against the democratic rights of his people, which also means that the British parlimentary system should be abolished because it is basicaly pointless. As the Parliment no longer is the voice of the people, but mearly a tool of Blair, to rise to power. Now that he is in power who is to say that we will be able to remove him from power.



(Edited by AK47 at 11:06 am on Mar. 12, 2003)

[CruelVerdad]

The UN is just shit!
And yes, bush said that he will attack anyway! so what about the countries that are against war in Iraq??
Just I-G-N-O-R-E-D!

[Old Friend]

Just I-G-N-O-R-E-D!

Tough luck!

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Old Friend on 9:00 pm on Mar. 12, 2003

Just I-G-N-O-R-E-D!

Tough luck!

The UN is a peace keeping body, it requires all countries to abide by its decisions to operate, particularly in cases of war. Going to war without its approval undermines its authority and so undermines peace keeping.

[canikickit]

The UN is about more than just the war. Do not forget about the likes of WHO, UNICEF, and all the other acrynoms.

Of course, the UN has always being irrelevant, it usually just does what the US (i.e. the dollar) says.

[peaccenicked]

The UN is a product of imperialist war. It is an attempt by imperialism to regulate its disputes. Socialists want to end the disputes of Imperialism. Hence our attitude towards the UN is two-fold. Firstly, our long term goal
is to establish a world government that will plan for human need in universal conditions of peace,we have no need for war between nations. It may be that a reformed UN might be a useful institution for transitional disputes and to resolve the national question forevermore, if that indeed is possible. It is not impossible.
Secondly, socialists must support the UN insofar that it aims to resolve Imperialist disputes peacefully. Afterall it is the workers who are sacrificed in war. We should also support the strengthening of the UN ability to stop war.
This should be a transitional demand of the working class.
To all seeking peace should focus on Resolution 377, otherwise we allow US imperialism to make the world the servants of boyemperor Bush.
It is also important that we strengthen the resolve of the working class to fight for socialism and peace but we are starting from a position of subjective weakness,
we cannot reach our goals without taking account the balance of class forces.

Our slogan,if it were not so cumbersome, should be. With or Without the weak UN
This unjust war has to end.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:02 pm on Mar. 12, 2003)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:09 pm on Mar. 12, 2003)

[smith196]

The UK parliment supported Blair and they represent their constituents so the Uk isn't a dictartorship.

[peaccenicked]

The majority of germans voted for hitler.

[Tkinter1]

"otherwise we allow US imperialism to make the world the servants of boyemperor Bush."

Come on...

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Sad truth is it was set up by America, for America and to aid America in her conquest of imperialism. It therefore has no power over America.

[peaccenicked]

http://www.un.org/Overview/milesto4.htm

TKinter. I live in Scotland. There is a US nuclear base down the 14 miles down the road from me. Every time Bush says to Blair "jump" thats all he does. In this recent war games it is quite obvious that is the relationship he wants with every country.

[Palmares]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 8:24 am on Mar. 13, 2003
Sad truth is it was set up by America, for America and to aid America in her conquest of imperialism. It therefore has no power over America.


The best description I heard in a long time. What power does the UN have without the US?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from smith196 on 10:12 pm on Mar. 12, 2003
The UK parliment supported Blair and they represent their constituents so the Uk isn't a dictartorship.


Yes but the ministers ignore the wishes of the voting public, they do not follow the wish's of those they promised to speak-for. They support blair even though the mass's show there blatant opposition. This gives Blair, complete power, over the people not the other way round. In every other country that would be considered a dicatorship.

[sc4r]

Quote: from AK47 on 9:36 am on Mar. 13, 2003

Quote: from smith196 on 10:12 pm on Mar. 12, 2003
The UK parliment supported Blair and they represent their constituents so the Uk isn't a dictartorship.


I think it was rousseaux commenting on Elective Democracy who said 'The british think they are free, but they are free only one day every 5 years'.

If anything I think he did not go far enough. One day in every 5 years we are free to choose the name of the gaoler.
(Edited by sc4r at 12:26 pm on Mar. 13, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 12:27 pm on Mar. 13, 2003)

[kylie]

rjh

[smith196]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 10:18 pm on Mar. 12, 2003
The majority of germans voted for hitler.


How is that relevent to this discussion?

[peaccenicked]

There is a logical tool called 'inference' which you totally lack.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 2:17 pm on Mar. 13, 2003
There is a logical tool called 'inference' which you totally lack.

No he right Germany was in a totaly different economic political climate, they were under the economic crisis of hyper inflation, there was mass poverty, and the Nazis had systamatically murdered and beaten large amounts of opposition polotitions into silance.

You have "inference" you just fail to use it correctly.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from feoric on 1:13 pm on Mar. 13, 2003
the UN has always just been a den of thieves, the only thing thats changed is that for once its getting involved in somewhere where its members have a conflict of interests.


Yes but the ministers ignore the wishes of the voting public, they do not follow the wish's of those they promised to speak-for.
the majority of those who vote are the middle class. now out of them, most are for a war on iraq as long as it goes through the UN.
why would the government do something to please people, if they're not even going to vote? this goes for everything else too of course. the governments main goal is too stay in power, and to do this is must please the voting public.
just like the majority of the middle class back america. blairs not bush's poodle, he's the middle and ruling class's poodle.


What part of britain are you from "Roystan Vaisy", because if you believe that then you are very out of touch with the people of this country. When speaking to the majority of people i know most of them are dead set against the war in Iraq, resolution or not.

[The Sniper]

Umm Parliament didnt vote with Blair for war, they voted that they whould consider war if there was UN support and a second resolution, thats right consider. Still over a quater of the MPs voted against war whatever happened which is a massive amount considering most laws are passed with a massive majority. If Blair goes to war with UN support he will go without support of Paliament and the only way out for him would be for the war to end within a week with no almost no citizen deaths and no British troops coming home in body bags. Blair is making a huge gamble as if this doesnt happen British politics will have to be seriously questioned.

[Invader Zim]

No labour back benchers did not vote for war, but there was still a majority vote for war in the commons. Its because of the conservitives. So if Blair does go he will have the support of the parliment, just not his party.

Maybe you should try watching the news, before you say things like that.

[RedComrade]

I always loved the paradox in the Iraq affair. Bush has made it clear that we will violate the most important law of the U.N on miltary action (and at the same time undermine its legitimacy) to punish a sovereign nation for violating U.N law how ironic. Bush risks a very real possibility of dissolving international law and plunging the world into a state of global anarchy. Just imagine all the wars that could break out once states learn preemptive wars that arent approved by the security council are still legit. Therell be a whole lot of dead in a whole lot of places...

[kylie]

iho

[Umoja]

The UN couldn't have been created just by the United States will alone, because they never would have included Russia in it (and would have attempted to kick Russia and China off the security council, if we had a chance).

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from feoric on 8:49 am on Mar. 14, 2003

Yes but the ministers ignore the wishes of the voting public, they do not follow the wish's of those they promised to speak-for
uh, what happened a couple of weeks ago? there was an attempt by MPs to change the governments position that it will go to war even without another resolution. do you really think they would have done that if the majority of people were ok with not bothering with the UN?

because if you believe that then you are very out of touch with the people of this country. When speaking to the majority of people i know most of them are dead set against the war in Iraq, resolution or not.
if that was the case then the cabinet would not be pushing so hard for another resolution.
a times of london poll on tuesday found that 52% would support a war with a second resolution. a further 19% supported war with or without another resolution.






Are you blind or cant you read, but because im so charitable i will say it again.

but there was still a majority vote for war in the commons

[kylie]

go

[Old Friend]

The UN is a peace keeping body, it requires all countries to abide by its decisions to operate, particularly in cases of war. Going to war without its approval undermines its authority and so undermines peace keeping.

That's is funny coming from a guy who calls himself Mao, and defends N. Korea's actions. Is it really a peace-keeping body?

Look at some of these failures:

Dutch Government resigns as a result of U.N. "peace-keeping". (http://www.truthnews.net/comment/2002_05_un_peacekeeping.html)

U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/20/165110.shtml)

The U.N. is even a joke in Sierra Leone. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/933288.stm)

Where was the U.N. during the massacre in Rwanda in 1994? (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9806/04/rwanda.congo.probe/)

Where were they when Mugabe expunged all white farmers from Zimbabwe, and caused a famine that threatens to kill 8 million? Now they are talking with Mugabe about how to avert the disaster. What a joke! (http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2002/AF021258.html)

They impede or war in Iraq, claiming diplomacy and inspections are the only answer. At the same time, they refuse to discuss the North Korea's brazen moves. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534058398.html)

U.N. ignores more human rights abuses. This time in Iran. (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/iranno042202.htm)

U.N. takes over in East Timor, and then drops the ball leading to further violence and anarchy. (http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/september2001/east_timor)

Remember those Buddist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed? Well, you guessed it. The U.N. failed to save them. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1201763.stm)

The U.N. fails to protect those displaced by a civil war in Angola. (http://www.afrol.com/News2002/ang007_un_hrw_idps.htm)

That's right. The U.N. failed in Kashmir, too. (http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2003/kashmir20030105a.html)

The U.N. failed in Somalia.

The U.N. failed in Bosnia.

The U.N. failed in Israel.

The U.N. failed in Columbia.

The U. N. failed in Iraq.

Bottom line, the U.N. is a failure, and it is time to dissolve that money sucking waste of time and energy. Anyone who would defend such a utter failure is just as inept as that political body. It takes a certain kind. Somebody must either have a perverse view of human kindness, or a sick sense of humor, if they still place any credibility in the U.N..

(Edited by Old Friend at 3:32 pm on Mar. 14, 2003)

[kylie]

oo

[Old Friend]

Well, if all the blaim is going to fall on the United States, what the hell to we need the U.N. for?

[damn the capitalism]

i think that we must look to the real fact that america is the strongest power in the world ,this country doesn't know the real meaning of democracy ,or in other meaning bush doesn't know its real meaning ,he is a fuckin' dictator. they pretend to be democratic ,maybe they are democratic in the party or in the congress ,but as a country they are as any dictatorarship.so look how many people don't agrree with war (60%) and in despite of this bush want it.so i think it's ttotally wrong when we talk about america as a democratic country.
there's no power that can stop the war even franc or russia or china that got the right of VETO ,in the same time the arabic nations can't live without america they fear it's danger and can't say nothing.japan (the americanized country) can do nothing coz its distiny depend on america and their economy and their life depends on america. other country as italy and spain they agree for the money !and finally we see that the un do nothing (as usually) and as it's habit.so we must be sure that we'll not open our eyes to see the miracle:THE UN STOP THE WAR! i say this coz the un failed in sudan ,in somalia , in palestine, in the korea bombs problem,i'm talking about the last decade only, so what about the 60's or 70's !i consider the un as an open door for america (bush) that allows to them(him) to do what he want and ignore any country 's point of view and its objection.so we must face the truth: our voices are ignored as long as american civilien's voices are ignored, and there's a war ,and any kind of disagreement from any country it's just a delay!

[damn the capitalism]

i think that we must look to the real fact that america is the strongest power in the world ,this country doesn't know the real meaning of democracy ,or in other meaning bush doesn't know its real meaning ,he is a fuckin' dictator. they pretend to be democratic ,maybe they are democratic in the party or in the congress ,but as a country they are as any dictatorarship.so look how many people don't agrree with war (60%) and in despite of this bush want it.so i think it's ttotally wrong when we talk about america as a democratic country.
there's no power that can stop the war even franc or russia or china that got the right of VETO ,in the same time the arabic nations can't live without america they fear it's danger and can't say nothing.japan (the americanized country) can do nothing coz its distiny depend on america and their economy and their life depends on america. other country as italy and spain they agree for the money !and finally we see that the un do nothing (as usually) and as it's habit.so we must be sure that we'll not open our eyes to see the miracle:THE UN STOP THE WAR! i say this coz the un failed in sudan ,in somalia , in palestine, in the korea bombs problem,i'm talking about the last decade only, so what about the 60's or 70's !i consider the un as an open door for america (bush) that allows to them(him) to do what he want and ignore any country 's point of view and its objection.so we must face the truth: our voices are ignored as long as american civilien's voices are ignored, and there's a war ,and any kind of disagreement from any country it's just a delay!