NationStates Jolt Archive

So early last year there was a peace agreement between Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. Late last year a UN report claimed that a convoy of Rwandan military vehicles crossed the DRC border, an act of war. On the strength of the UN report hostilities between the two nations are once again running hot. Now it seems the reports of military vehicles crossing the border were completely unsubstantiated. Here's a link

http://i-newswire.com/pr13205.html

Bad
UN
Makes
Problems

Bad
UN
Makes
Problems

The UN is a very big organization and no doubt it will make many more mistakes. I think in general we expect too much of this organizaton that is very young and few governments are without fault. We need the UN or something like it. Surely, it will grow and develop and mature. New laws will enacted and greater responsibility will be given to the UN by its members. The corruption will slowly be changed until the UN becomes a pure form of government that regulates the relationships between nations.

"Oops!"

Isn't that what the US has taught us to say when reports of things prove to be unsubstantiated?

"Oops!"

Isn't that what the US has taught us to say when reports of things prove to be unsubstantiated?

You know it! :D

"Oops!"

Isn't that what the US has taught us to say when reports of things prove to be unsubstantiated?
*insert evil emperor sounding voice*

You have learned your lesson well, my young apprentice.
*cut evil emperor sounding voice.*

Although I dislike the UN, I have no idea how valid the source of this information is. Does anyone know if that is a credible news service or not?

*insert evil emperor sounding voice*

You have learned your lesson well, my young apprentice.
*cut evil emperor sounding voice.*

*falling down (on) shaft* Nooooo!

Although I dislike the UN, I have no idea how valid the source of this information is. Does anyone know if that is a credible news service or not?

Why? You'd probably dismiss it all the same.

*falling down (on) shaft* Nooooo!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! You killed Fass, you bastard!

*arms twig*

Prepare to be annoyed...

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! You killed Fass, you bastard!

*arms twig*

Prepare to be annoyed...

Wait three days. I shall rise again! And eat all your brains.

Mmm. Brains. BRAAAAIINS!

Why? You'd probably dismiss it all the same.

No, I realy want to know. I haven't heard this (yet) on any major news network that's why I'm curious.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! You killed Fass, you bastard!

*arms twig*

Prepare to be annoyed...
*busts out badass finger lightening*



*cackles*

Wait three days. I shall rise again! And eat all your brains.

Mmm. Brains. BRAAAAIINS!
I've got several sets in several different locations.

I've got several sets in several different locations.

Aww, and I only have two. One cranial, the other pelvic.

Typical.
Most NSers seem to consider the UN incapable of doing wrong, or think its perfectly excusable.
Le sigh :rolleyes:

*busts out badass finger lightening*



*cackles*

Well, I see that I've been beaten...

...Hah! *owns your fingers*

Well, I see that I've been beaten...

...Hah! *owns your fingers*

Quick, stab him with your pelvic brain!

Well, I see that I've been beaten...

...Hah! *owns your fingers*
*runs over to cloning vats, sticks hands in, comes out with a new set of fingers.*

*owns new set of fingers*

Ha! En Gaurde!!!

*pokes Andaluciae repeatedly with a very small twig*

*owns new set of fingers*

Ha! En Gaurde!!!

*pokes Andaluciae repeatedly with a very small twig*
*gets a half dozen clones, all with fingers, starts zapping the twig, the twig bursts into flames*

*jesussaves and herpower show up*

*jesussaves and herpower show up*

No, won't someone please think of the children?!

You destroyed my twig, but you forgot about... THIS!

*pulls a spider out of his pocket*

Go, timmy, kill the evildoers! ...Timmy? ...

...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Typical.
Most NSers seem to consider the UN incapable of doing wrong, or think its perfectly excusable.
Le sigh :rolleyes:

For the U.N to be capable of doing wrong it would have to be capable of doing anything Right. as it is, the U.N. has repeatedly demonstrated no capability of doing either with any sort of effectiveness. Thus, it is incapable of doing wrong because, like the blind and deaf quadruplegic, it is only capable of making noise.

"Oops!"

Isn't that what the US has taught us to say when reports of things prove to be unsubstantiated?

There is no question that the UN has done a terrible job at keeping the peace amoung nations. In all fairness though, don't you think world peace is a rather large job for one very new organization to tackle? Especially since many countries would rather it stay impotent and ineffectual, refusing to give the authority and power that it needs to accomplish the job. A job that it is probably not ready for. Certainly, to complain too loudly at this stage in its development is rather like laughing a small child that is learning to walk or speak. There are other area were the UN has done good work, albeit unnoticed by many.

There is no question that the UN has done a terrible job at keeping the peace amoung nations. In all fairness though, don't you think world peace is a rather large job for one very new organization to tackle? Especially since many countries would rather it stay impotent and ineffectual, refusing to give the authority and power that it needs to accomplish the job. A job that it is probably not ready for. Certainly, to complain too loudly at this stage in its development is rather like laughing a small child that is learning to walk or speak. There are other area were the UN has done good work, albeit unnoticed by many.

Hush! You're not supposed to reveal that the UN is only as effective as the member nations make it, member nations who under one breath undermine it, so that they may criticise it in the next...

Hush! You're not supposed to reveal that the UN is only as effective as the member nations make it, member nations who under one breath undermine it, so that they may criticise it in the next...

Gawd almighty! I hope the black helicopters don't come for me. Just my luck now that baseball has started again.

As a high school policy debator, I am pretty familiar with the UN - it's Peace Keeping Operations, PKO's, were this school year's topic. After arguing both sides, and looking at the evidence, I no longer think the UN is a good body or an effective one. It is undermined by corruption and the absolute power of the Security Council, which uses the UN for its own gains. Quite frankly, as a liberal who once supported the UN, I have to say the evidence is against it.

However, for now it is needed, in the regions where it is currently stationed. From what I have learned about alternate bodies that could do things, I would say that the best course of action would be to keep the UN doing what it is until the GPOI, the Global Peace Operations Initiative, is capable to taking over, especially with NATO backing. At that point, the UN should withdraw from peacekeeping and peace enforcing, although UNICEF and other similar UN programs (which I am not very familiar with, since the focus was on PKO's) should be evaluated on a case by case basis and be supported based on their merit.

The UN is a very big organization and no doubt it will make many more mistakes. I think in general we expect too much of this organizaton that is very young and few governments are without fault. We need the UN or something like it. Surely, it will grow and develop and mature. New laws will enacted and greater responsibility will be given to the UN by its members. The corruption will slowly be changed until the UN becomes a pure form of government that regulates the relationships between nations.
The thing I hate about UN, is it's too controlled by the Fundamentalist Middle Eastern states, who got control of it through the oil. I also hate the corruption, the unreasonable decisions, the fact that they take sides in almost every battle. Sure some battles HAVE right and wrong, but most DON'T.

The thing I hate about UN, is it's too controlled by the Fundamentalist Middle Eastern states, who got control of it through the oil. I also hate the corruption, the unreasonable decisions, the fact that they take sides in almost every battle. Sure some battles HAVE right and wrong, but most DON'T.

no, that's OPEC, not the U.N. that in charge of the oil. I guess you haven't noticed that it's the Security Council that's in charge of the U.N. Perhaps, we should reform as Kofi Annan has purposed.

no, that's OPEC, not the U.N. that in charge of the oil. I guess you haven't noticed that it's the Security Council that's in charge of the U.N. Perhaps, we should reform as Kofi Annan has purposed.
I know. I am saying that Middle Eastern nations control the UN because they control oil, and UN doesnt want to lose oil, as it still needs fuel for its tanks, material for the uniforms, and all the other oil things. Thus it is bribed by the oil, which causes it to turn more and more against Israel.

I know. I am saying that Middle Eastern nations control the UN because they control oil, and UN doesnt want to lose oil, as it still needs fuel for its tanks, material for the uniforms, and all the other oil things. Thus it is bribed by the oil, which causes it to turn more and more against Israel.

No, the Middle East controls the western world, due to our continued demand of oil. They however, don't control the G.A. which are the guys voted resolutions against Israel i'm told constantly(at least to Chomsky, which means it's a half truth). However, the security council is really in charge, and there are five nations that are really in charge of that, the U.S., the Brits, France, China and Russia. Those nations are the real powers in the U.N.

As a high school policy debator, I am pretty familiar with the UN - it's Peace Keeping Operations, PKO's, were this school year's topic. After arguing both sides, and looking at the evidence, I no longer think the UN is a good body or an effective one. It is undermined by corruption and the absolute power of the Security Council, which uses the UN for its own gains. Quite frankly, as a liberal who once supported the UN, I have to say the evidence is against it.

However, for now it is needed, in the regions where it is currently stationed. From what I have learned about alternate bodies that could do things, I would say that the best course of action would be to keep the UN doing what it is until the GPOI, the Global Peace Operations Initiative, is capable to taking over, especially with NATO backing. At that point, the UN should withdraw from peacekeeping and peace enforcing, although UNICEF and other similar UN programs (which I am not very familiar with, since the focus was on PKO's) should be evaluated on a case by case basis and be supported based on their merit.

I agree it would be foolhardy to simply have the UN pullout of ongoing peace keepng operations. The UN unquestionably needs reform and the Security Council is a very good place to start. Why should a very few nations be allowed with a single vote to veto any resolution. At some point every nation must agree to give up what is considered their absolute right to wage war. In place of that right would be collective security. The security that no nation would be allowed to make war against another except in matters of self-defense. If every nation pledged to attack the aggresor nation and then followed through on that pledge war would soon be thing of the past.

I should add that, as a debator, I hve a desperate urge to pull out my Hastert and Deweese arguments. The Hastert is a convoluted one that has one me many rounds - we have evidence that says: Supporting the UN drains Bush's political Capital (ok, this makes some sense), that political capital is key to passing social security reform (still plausible), the money from SS reform is needed to fund a Mars program (odd, but policy debate tends to be worse), and that going to Mars is needed for humanity to survive when the next asteroid like the one that took out the dinosuars comes and hits earth :) Crazy, no?

At least that came from multiple authors whose reasoning wasn't supposed to be put together like that. Now listen to Deweese. Instead of explaining what he said, I'll just post the tags and cites.

1/ The U.N. empowers international dictators and terrorist groups and crushes U.S. leadership
Deweese – President of the American Policy Center – 3-28-2003 (Tom, “The Time is Now…The United Nations – Irrelevant and Dangerous,” www.americanpolicy.org/un/time.htm, Downloaded on 9-25-2004, JMP)


2/ The UN is a threat to our national sovereignty. Its treaties are antithetical to the very premise our nation was founded on. George Washington and other founding fathers would agree: the only way to reassert our national sovereignty is to get out of the UN.
Deweese ’05 (Tom, January 15, http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20050102/deweese.shtml, MSD)


3/ The UN is the source of international unrest and no reform can ever fix it. The UN encourages social dictators that wish to enslave all citizens of the world and bring us into an age of misery. It is a criminal enterprise in which no moral nation should ever participate. The time has come for the US to stop supporting this corrupt agency.
DeWeese ’03 (Tom, May 19, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2745, MSD)


4/ The UN is a foolish, evil agency bent on destroying US power and creating a new dark age of serfdom and ignorance. It is high time to declare independence from the UN.
DeWeese ’03 (Tom, July 3, http://www.americandaily.com/article/2010, MSD)


The crazy bit is, unlike most evidence, which has overhyped taglines, he DOES say all of these things.

Deweese quote:
"The world is in chaos and, quite frankly, it’s the United Nations’ fault. It gives validity to zealots and petty bigots. It helps to keep tyrannical dictators in power. It provides money and aid to international terrorists. And it sets itself up as the international economic and environmental standard to which all nations are to mirror. The truth is, the United Nations is the root of international trouble, not the answer."

So who does he blame for all of chaos in the world before the UN came into being? Has he forgetten that the UN rose up out of the ashes of WWII, a more effective organization than the one that came to fruitation after the end of WWI.

Neither George Washington nor any of the Founding Fathers would ever have put their names to the United Nations Charter or agreed to any of these intrusive, interlocking treaties and agreements, for the simple reason that they diminish American control, American responsibility, and American sovereignty. The only way for the United States of America to reassert and reestablish its sovereignty is to get out of the United Nations.

Isn't he great? XD


Today, we are threatened by a tyranny that hates all that our Founding Fathers achieved. The United Nations and its supporters seek to take the wealth created by the system of free markets the Founding Fathers knew would be the engine of the world’s economy. The UN is driving to lock up the private property the Founding Fathers knew was the key to every American’s liberty. Just as with King George, the UN seeks to do away with an American justice system that is the fairest in the world. Already with its own court system, the UN now seeks its own army and its own tax system. It will lead to a global IRS and a global police force. It will be a global government elected by no one on earth. Power-mad special interest groups called “non-government organizations” will control the UN. A new Dark Age of ignorance and serfdom is waiting if the US does not take action to withdraw its blessing and its support. When the US does withdraw its support, the UN will be assigned to the trash heap of history just as the League of Nations was. Let’s celebrate American independence by freeing America from the duplicity of the United Nations and the bewildering maze of treaties, protocols and conventions that exercise control over our nation.

Africa fails.

Isn't he great? XD

If the UN would model itself more closely upon American democracy, with some necessary changes it would be a much more effective body. Our democracy was modeled after the Iroquois Nation.

If the UN would model itself more closely upon American democracy, with some necessary changes it would be a much more effective body. Our democracy was modeled after the Iroquois Nation.
Really? I know the Iriquois Nations had a representative system, but I thought it was based on Greece, as well as the British system to a degree (representation replacing direct democracy, otherwise similar to the Greek system).

If the UN would model itself more closely upon American democracy, with some necessary changes it would be a much more effective body. Our democracy was modeled after the Iroquois Nation.
no, it was modeled after the Greco Roman structure, and the Enlightment era's major works, such as Two Treatsie on Government

no, it was modeled after the Greco Roman structure, and the Enlightment era's major works, such as Two Treatsie on Government

there is a very interesting book that offers some strong evidence to the contrary. I will need to look for it and provide you with the source.

Although I dislike the UN, I have no idea how valid the source of this information is. Does anyone know if that is a credible news service or not?
The reason I went looking for the news story on the internet yesterday was because I heard it covered on the BBC on public radio while driving to work.

Really? I know the Iriquois Nations had a representative system, but I thought it was based on Greece, as well as the British system to a degree (representation replacing direct democracy, otherwise similar to the Greek system).

The book is Forgotten Founders: Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois, and the Rationale for the American Revolution. by Bruce E. Johansen

It is very interesting and convincing.

"It would be a very strange thing if Six Nations of Ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union and be able to excute it insuch a manner, as tht it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble, and yet a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a dozen English colonies."
Benjamin Franklin to James Parker, 1751

It will perhaps start a new thread regarding this on Sat night because I can't do much tonight.

The UN can do very little about the general poopiness of the situation in and around the Democratic Republic of Congo. Why? There are billions and billions of non-government militia that are jerks! Billions, I say!

Or just thousands. Thousands upon thousands of former Interahamwe and other local militia groups that are responsible for all sorts of horrible stuff that no one seems interested in doing anything about. Millions of people have been displaced or killed in the DRC as a result of militia activity, but alas, no one hears about it.

I really don't see the United Nations being able to handle that even if it were some ideal, frictionless organization that could work with the precision and efficiency of a Swiss watch. The fact is that unless somehow the UN peacekeepers were given a sweeping mandate to seek and disarm militants (which would never happen), it would be impossible to stop the problems.

And on that note... Rwanda power! I love you my dark-skinned brothers in a tiny, well-paved country of frightening history!