US to leave the UN?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not even close to the flip side. There are specific instances of terrorist attacks being planned and thwarted. Where has the UN had a presence where it can be claimed that they prevented impending genocide/mass slaughter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bosnia. Yes I'm aware of Srebrenica. However, the Serbs could have easily won that war outright and depopulated Sarajevo without the presence of UN peacekeepers and UN sanctions. UN peacekeepers remain on the job to this day. I was tempted to throw the latest Lebanon war in, but there was little chance of Israel engaging in genocide there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it in Bosnia that the the U.S. and NATO acted without the U.N., or did that occur in the other place over there---or was it in both places? Sorry but I get the two mixed up a bit; thanks for any elaboration.

[iron81]

NATO launched bombing campaigns in both campaigns without UN approval. In Kosovo at least, a UN resolution authorizing bombing was rejected by China. However, while the Peacekeepers and sanctions didn't stop the wars, they did mitigate its effects.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
NATO launched bombing campaigns in both campaigns without UN approval. In Kosovo at least, a UN resolution authorizing bombing was rejected by China. However, while the Peacekeepers and sanctions didn't stop the wars, they did mitigate its effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...so it sounds like the U.N. was not instrumental in stopping the bloodshed when it counted most initially and NATO had to act without U.N. approval, but, once NATO did the heaviest lifting, the U.N. joined in with peacekeeping personnel which helped matters somewhat moving forward.

OK, so there was some value in the U.N. in that scenario (unless perhaps NATO would have done the peacekeeping bit without the U.N. anyway had it come to that, which I guess we'll never know).

Thanks for filling in some gaps in my leaky memory;-)

My biggest problem with such things is that all of the really big mass deaths (like millions murdered in the USSR and China, Pol Pot, etc.) the U.N. did nothing. What could be expected from an organization chiefly comprised of tyrannical regimes, anyway? When the foxes watch the henhouses, "negotiations" and "security" have very limited meaning and application (as should be expected). The concept of all nations working together to create a peaceful world sounds nice in theory, but when interests collide, interests usually determine the final course of action.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason given for the US withdrawing from the UN is that the UN is seen as a hinderance to US foreign policy objectives.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. My beef is they are corrupt and they have a heavy anti-USA agenda. The last I heard is the USA pays 25% of the budget of the UN. Dump these losers and spend the money elsewhere...

[ QUOTE ]
The Bush Administration and neo-conservatives want a free hand to control and invade countries they deem a threat to America and the UN is one of the major reasons why we can't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow....several errors here. Next you will be talking about black helicopters, the Illuminati, and the Tri-Lateral Commission.
1st, Bush and "neo conservatives" (aka American Jews who vote republican) can NOT invade anyone without approval of the US congress. Congress must answer to the people that elected them. Before the invasion of Iraq, the MAJORITY of the American people favored invading Iraq.
2nd. The UN is corrupt and largely inpotent. They have ZERO power to prevent the USA from invading anyone. They can pass resolutions which are about as meaningful as soiled toilet paper... Now politically, several US politicians (mostly democrats) have agendas to pressured presidents to go through the UN. Bush chose to try the UN route first before invading Iraq but he did not have to. People like myself thought he was dumb to even involve these losers. Bush finally figured this out and we toppled Saddam without the UN's approval.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the UN is perceived as anti-Israel.


[/ QUOTE ]
Perceived? I think perception has already become reality.

[ QUOTE ]
Another reason is that the UN is perceived as incompetent (failure to stop Iran's nuclear program) and corrupt (oil for food scandal).

[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo!

[ QUOTE ]
The UN has an important stabilizing influence on the world and its charitable tasks like UNICEF and the WHO are important for improving the lives of billions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]
The UN can't stabilize crap. UN peacekeepers ran away in Rwanda when thousands got killed. In the Sudan genocide still continues.

As for UNICEF and WHO, we would be better off funding private charities. When you go through the UN, they UN 'leaders' steal millions through corruption and what they fail to steal goes to the people targeted for help. UNICEF and WHO and wasted BILLIONS of dollars and their results are lackluster considering the budgets they had.


Bottom Line:
We don't need the UN. The UN is filled with murderous thugs who have an anti-US agenda. Not suprisingly, these same thugs choose to pursue an anti-USA agenda through the UN. With regard to Iraq, the UN passed several resolutions against Iraq and the could not(would not) enforce any of these resolutions. Also, too many world leaders have a fantasy of having a 1-world government and they see the UN as a catlyst to make this happen. I think the majority of the American Democrat party support this fantasy.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush chose to try the UN route first before invading Iraq but he did not have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heil mr. President.

[ QUOTE ]
The UN is filled with murderous thugs who have an anti-US agenda. With regard to Iraq, the UN passed several resolutions against Iraq and the could not(would not) enforce any of these resolutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the reason for attacking another sovereign country? was it found? So, was the attack justified? From your words it seems this war was one of the best things the US ever made...

the next thing will be blaming UN for about 400.000 deaths (and how many more?), destabilizing the whole region for a longer period, arising extremism in whole region (and destabilizing nowadays US friendly regimes), rising of iran and several problems in africa today.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
the next thing will be blaming UN for about 400.000 deaths (and how many more?),

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact the most current and credible estimates (The Lancet) are suggesting that there has been 650,000 deaths in excess of those that would have happened under Saddam, due to the US intervention.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
What was the reason for attacking another sovereign country? was it found? So, was the attack justified? From your words it seems this war was one of the best things the US ever made...

[/ QUOTE ]
The reasons why we needed to invade Iraq were:
1. The 1992 foiled assassination attempt on Bush41 in Kuwait in 1992.
2. Failure to abide by the terms of the armistice from the first Gulf War.
3. Any other reasons are tertiary to me.
*We found about 500 rounds of chemical weapons there might be more but if we don't find anymore then it won't matter to me.

[ QUOTE ]
So, was the attack justified?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, when you try to kill an ex US-president then there needs to be consequences. If you sign an armistice then violate it, then there needs to be consequences.

[ QUOTE ]
From your words it seems this war was one of the best things the US ever made...

[/ QUOTE ]
The invasion was the correct play. The execution of the war has BEEN LOUSY. Some blame Rumsfeld but I think Bush43 is to blame... The running of post-war IRAQ was terrible. If it were me I would have:
a. Establish public works projects to improve unemployment.
b. Either establish a Kurdish dictactorship over Iraq or partition Iraq into 3 different countries giving the Kurds a generous partition of the country.
c. Fired Gen Garner after 1-day. That man was terrible. He was a total incompentant in the running of post-war Iraq.
d. Arrest Sadr and his followers army the day they enter Iraq carryinng AK47 and RPGs and detain them for the duration of the occupation. What did Garner do? He disarmed them and let them go. Within the first week Sadr and his followers began assassinating pro-Western Imans. Later we indicted Sadr for murder but we couldn't find him. Then Bush made the decision to drop the indictment hoping the new govt would tame Sadr. Bad decision....
e. Establish martial law and shoot looters on sight. As the Arabs say, better 100 years of tyranny than one day of anarchy.
f. Bomb Syria and Iran when it became clear they were providing arms, agents, and money to kill US soldiers...

[ QUOTE ]
Heil mr. President.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow! Using the Nazi comparison 'argument'. I'm so impreseed....NOT!
I think Bush43 is an idiot on many issues but I think Bush43 is a GENIUS compared to the people that call him a Nazi... I wish we could ship eveyone who calls Bush a Nazi to Syria for 10 years so they could learn the meaning of that word.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
f. Bomb Syria and Iran when it became clear they were providing arms, agents, and money to kill US soldiers...

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of that post disturbed me, but my jaw dropped when I saw this one. You really think it's time to try to spark a full on Middle East war right now?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the next thing will be blaming UN for about 400.000 deaths (and how many more?),

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact the most current and credible estimates (The Lancet) are suggesting that there has been 650,000 deaths in excess of those that would have happened under Saddam, due to the US intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that 650,000 is credible you either didnt read their data gathering techniques or have no clue how demographic statistics are properly done.

[Dan.]

Man, why isn't the president seeking Felix_Nietsche to run the war? He clearly has every answer.