NationStates Jolt Archive

Thu Jul 27, 2:06 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - China blasted the UN Security Council's failure to agree a statement condemning the killing of four UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, amid signs of a backlash on other key negotiations.

An important meeting scheduled for Thursday of six major powers on a resolution against
Iran's nuclear program was postponed indefinitely -- the first apparent victim of the Security Council deadlock over the Israeli attack that led to the deaths.

The United States blocked any attempt to condemn the attack or criticize
Israel, diplomats said.

China's UN envoy, Wang Guangya, made a veiled attack on the United States, saying "the policy of one delegation" had frustrated Security Council efforts on Wednesday to pass a presidential statement.
...
Wang said there was also frustration over the general UN Security Council inaction over Lebanon, more than two weeks after Israel launched hostilities against its neighbor.

"It is really unfortunate because I think there are many people who are calling for a stop to this conflict. Most of the people who are being killed on the ground are civilians..." said Wang.

The United States has blocked collective international efforts to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Sources AFP/OcceanNEWS©2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060727/wl_asia_afp/mideastconflictun_060727172826

my2cents: like I sayd.. Finally someone speak up against this Bull-shit Blocking by Bush and the Neocons..
thumbs up

Finally!

and China has never blocked anything... :rolleyes:

nor has anyone else.... :rolleyes:

and the US never blocked anything before "Bush and the neocons"... :rolleyes:

more BS posting.

and China has never blocked anything... :rolleyes:

nor has anyone else.... :rolleyes:

and the US never blocked anything before "Bush and the neocons"... :rolleyes:

more BS posting.

Quite sorry to say but this was a BS post. The US is the only country (aside from Israel) preventing some form of cease fire while many are calling for one.

This boys and girls is why the UN is absolutely worthless.

I would take it seriously but it's CHINA!

You know the same China that executed hundreds of College students in Tianiman Square? The same China who's buddies with North Korea?

and China has never blocked anything... :rolleyes: How many times total 6?

how many times since 1937 (creation of Israel).. zero?

now lets compare that to US veto numbers.

The same China who's buddies with North Korea?
Are you aware of the list of US gov "buddies" ??

How many times total 6?

how many times since 1937 (creation of Israel).. zero?

now lets compare that to US veto numbers.
How many of those vetos were 'Something that would let Israel be destroyed eventually'
Your opinions are useless because you want Israel to cease to exist.

Are you aware of the list of US gov "buddies" ??
Yeah, but China Condemning the US is the

Pot Calling the Kettle Black!

I would take it seriously but it's CHINA!

You know the same China that executed hundreds of College students in Tianiman Square? The same China who's buddies with North Korea?

The US tortures people, so we are right on par with them.

How many times has China used his veto.. to prevent a cease fire?

1937? Um...go directly to a history book. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

Quite sorry to say but this was a BS post. The US is the only country (aside from Israel) preventing some form of cease fire while many are calling for one.

Oh, and return to the "status quo" with Hezbollah raining rockets into Israel with no repercussions.

Very nice.

There can't be peace with Hezbollah in existence on Israel's border.

Hezbollah, quite unlike the Palestinians, has NO valid claim to ANY land in Israel.

How many of those vetos were 'Something that would let Israel be destroyed eventually'
Your opinions are useless because you want Israel to cease to exist.

Id like a source or a proof that shows opinions are useless if person with said opinions wants Israel to cease to exist assuming said person actually wants Israel to cease to exist.

And didnt the UN create Israel?

1937? Um...go directly to a history book. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
I wanted to tell him when the UN/Israel were created, but I didn't have the heart.

How many of those vetos were 'Something that would let Israel be destroyed eventually' the cease fire would Destroy Israel ?????

thats pathetic. :gundge:

Let's face it, the Security Council has one purpose; to make sure that UN resolutions don't fuck up the plans of the big guys.

I wanted to tell him when the UN/Israel were created, but I didn't have the heart.

I haven't got a heart either, which is why I had no problem with saying that. ;)

the cease fire would Destroy Israel ?????

thats pathetic. :gundge:


Telling Israel they can't counter attack a nation they're at war with. Yeah pretty much.

1937? Um...go directly to a history book. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.I dont know the year.. and I do not care.

still.. no country should have a veto.

Oh, and return to the "status quo" with Hezbollah raining rockets into Israel with no repercussions.

I dont think this was the status quo, but whatever helps you feel better.

Meh!

Chinas bitching about our crap so people stop looking at their crap.....

I dont know the year.. and I do not care.

still.. no country should have a veto.

It's mighty hard to argue about the politics of the mid-east without knowing the history me boy.

the cease fire would Destroy Israel ?????

thats pathetic. :gundge:

Your Arguements are Pathetic your Trolling threads are Pathetic and your beliefs are pathetic. :mp5:

Let's face it, the Security Council has one purpose; to make sure that UN resolutions don't fuck up the plans of the big guys.
Whether that is the US, Russia, China, France, the UK...

Let's put it this way.

Israel is here to stay. Period. No UN resolution is going to make it go away.

Ocean had better get used to the idea.

The Palestinians had better think of something else besides continually harassing Israel with rockets and suicide bombers - and in return getting their entire way of life curb stomped into rubble.

It is very rare indeed for anyone other than the US to threaten to use their veto. Even during the Cold War, Russia didn't make a habit of it. The UK, France and China rarely had the need, or the readiness to accept international condemnation. But the US is pretty much there purely to veto anything which runs counter to what its doing. There is very little visible creative input from the US in the UN as a whole.

Telling Israel they can't counter attack a nation they're at war with. Yeah pretty much.

You mean a counter-counter-attack. Israel invaded first.

It's mighty hard to argue about the politics of the mid-east without knowing the history me boy. no particular Country should have a veto. regardless of the Middle-east "history"

Given the couple decades since Israel invaded, and the fact they pulled out of Lebanon without much of a fuss I think we can safely ignore that as a motivation for why Hezbollah wanted to attack Israel.

The Security Council always has the permanent members blocking stuff on the behalf of their allies. Russia and China do it for Iran and North Korea all the time, why should the US not do it for Israel?

It is very rare indeed for anyone other than the US to threaten to use their veto. Even during the Cold War, Russia didn't make a habit of it. The UK, France and China rarely had the need, or the readiness to accept international condemnation. But the US is pretty much there purely to veto anything which runs counter to what its doing. There is very little visible creative input from the US in the UN as a whole.

Usually, the others don't have to threaten publicly, because the US is fond of trying to find out ahead of time who might veto.

It's called "caucusing in the halls".

No sense in officially proposing something you know first hand (but in a conversation in the hallway) will be vetoed.

Just counting the number of vetoes or publicly threatened vetos doesn't say anything.

Quite a bit of silent threats of veto by Russia over time.

I dont know the year.. and I do not care.

Good to see you're perfectly content in your ignorance.

still.. no country should have a veto.

If they didn't, the world would be run by shitty little Third World governments -- you know, paragons of human rights like Sudan and Venezuela. Oh, that'd be great... :rolleyes:

no particular Country should have a veto. regadless of the Middle-east "history"

If you look at who the permanent members of the council are, and see how many of them were the original nuclear powers, then a veto suddenly makes sense...

Usually, the others don't have to threaten publicly, because the US is fond of trying to find out ahead of time who might veto.

It's called "caucusing in the halls".

No sense in officially proposing something you know first hand (but in a conversation in the hallway) will be vetoed.

Just counting the number of vetoes or publicly threatened vetos doesn't say anything.

Quite a bit of silent threats of veto by Russia over time.


The UN was just a pawn in the cold war. Unfortunately the UN still thinks it's a useful peice on the board. Apparently they don't realize the game has ended.


The problem with the UN, aside from the veto issue (what a dumb thing), is that they're absolutely toothless. They can pass resolution after resolution but in the end they cannot make a sovereign nation do anything.

Russia and China do it for Iran and North Korea all the time, why should the US not do it for Israel?How many times.. have China or Russia used their veto.. to defend Iran?

How many times total 6?

how many times since 1937 (creation of Israel).. zero?

now lets compare that to US veto numbers.
You have made it into my signature.

How many times.. have China or Russia used their veto.. to defend Iran?
They don't have to, they just say before hand
"If you try and do 'Such and such' against Iran we'll Veto it."

Then the US goes 'Nevermind then'

Pathetic

If (the 5 countries) didn't (have veto power), the world would be run by shitty little Third World governments -- :rolleyes:so.. World Democracy is no good then?

How many times.. have China or Russia used their veto.. to defend Iran?
They haven't had to all that often, because the US always backs down when they threaten to use their veto. We figure that it's not worth putting the effort in if it's not going to go through.

so.. Democracy at the UN is no good then?

Correct sir!

It's called Tyranny of the Majority, look it up.

so.. Democracy at the UN is no good then?

No, when it comes down to it, the UN itself is no good. It's just a forum for venting.

so.. Democracy at the UN is no good then?
Democracy is possibly the single worst idea in the history of civilization.

so.. Democracy at the UN is no good then?
Democracy is not what the UN is about. If it were there'd be proportional representation, and China and India would be super-large.

so.. Democracy at the UN is no good then?

The UN is not a democratic world government. Many of it's members come from nations with no democratic representation, so how could it be? At best, it's a world forum for finding solutions to global problems and to prevent much worse confrontations between major powers.

The UN was just a pawn in the cold war. Unfortunately the UN still thinks it's a useful peice on the board. Apparently they don't realize the game has ended.


The problem with the UN, aside from the veto issue (what a dumb thing), is that they're absolutely toothless. They can pass resolution after resolution but in the end they cannot make a sovereign nation do anything.

Indeed. I remember that part in the Charter about not intervening in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation...

The UN is not world government, nor is there a solid enforcement mechanism for international laws, nor is there transparency about how nations deal with one another in an international forum.

Smoke and mirrors, and so many idiots hoping that "international law" will be "enforced" by the "UN".

Correct sir!

It's called Tyranny of the Majority, look it up.
Heck it's a category of Nationstates governments. (The least used one in fact)

Thu Jul 27, 2:06 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - China blasted the UN Security Council's failure to agree a statement condemning the killing of four UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, amid signs of a backlash on other key negotiations.

An important meeting scheduled for Thursday of six major powers on a resolution against
Iran's nuclear program was postponed indefinitely -- the first apparent victim of the Security Council deadlock over the Israeli attack that led to the deaths.

The United States blocked any attempt to condemn the attack or criticize
Israel, diplomats said.

China's UN envoy, Wang Guangya, made a veiled attack on the United States, saying "the policy of one delegation" had frustrated Security Council efforts on Wednesday to pass a presidential statement.
...
Wang said there was also frustration over the general UN Security Council inaction over Lebanon, more than two weeks after Israel launched hostilities against its neighbor.

"It is really unfortunate because I think there are many people who are calling for a stop to this conflict. Most of the people who are being killed on the ground are civilians..." said Wang.

The United States has blocked collective international efforts to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Sources AFP/OcceanNEWS©2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060727/wl_asia_afp/mideastconflictun_060727172826

my2cents: like I sayd.. Finally someone speak up against this Bull-shit Blocking by Bush and the Neocons..
thumbs up
Yeah, and I'll give a crap what China thinks when they stop executing people for their religion and so they'll have organs to sell on the transplant market.

Democracy is possibly the single worst idea in the history of civilization.

No, no. That would be the Macarena.

James Thurber put it more succinctly:

Within the memory of the youngest child there was a family of rabbits who lived near a pack of wolves. The wolves announced that they did not like the way the rabbits were living. (The wolves were crazy about the way they themselves were living, because it was the only way to live.) One night several wolves were killed in an earthquake and this was blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that rabbits pound on the ground with their hind legs and cause earthquakes. On another night one of the wolves was killed by a bolt of lightning and this was also blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that lettuce-eaters cause lightning. The wolves threatened to civilize the rabbits if they didn't behave, and the rabbits decided to run away to a desert island. But the other animals, who lived at a great distance, shamed them saying, "You must stay where you are and be brave. This is no world for escapists. If the wolves attack you, we will come to your aid in all probability." So the rabbits continued to live near the wolves and one day there was a terrible flood which drowned a great many wolves. This was blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that carrot-nibblers with long ears cause floods. The wolves descended on the rabbits, for their own good, and imprisoned them in a dark cave, for their own protection.
When nothing was heard about the rabbits for some weeks, the other animals demanded to know what had happened to them. The wolves replied that the rabbits had been eaten and since they had been eaten the affair was a purely internal matter. But the other animals warned that they might possibly unite against the wolves unless some reason was given for the destruction of the rabbits. So the wolves gave them one. "They were trying to escape," said the wolves, "and, as you know, this is no world for escapists."

Moral: Run, don't walk, to the nearest desert island.

The UN was just a pawn in the cold war. Unfortunately the UN still thinks it's a useful peice on the board. Apparently they don't realize the game has ended.


The problem with the UN, aside from the veto issue (what a dumb thing), is that they're absolutely toothless. They can pass resolution after resolution but in the end they cannot make a sovereign nation do anything.

The UN itself does not have power to directly make countries do things. It's smart to follow the resolutions, however, because if you don't, it is more than likely that the rest of the world will not like your nation too much.

The UN itself does not have power to directly make countries do things. It's smart to follow the resolutions, however, because if you don't, it is more than likely that the rest of the world will not like your nation too much.
For nations like North Korea and Iran that's obviously a major concern.

Yeah, and I'll give a crap what China thinks when they stop executing people for their religion and so they'll have organs to sell on the transplant market.
*nods in agreement*

The UN itself does not have power to directly make countries do things. It's smart to follow the resolutions, however, because if you don't, it is more than likely that the rest of the world will not like your nation too much.

If you owe the rest of the world trillions of dollars, produce huge amounts of food, consumer goods, and other trifles, and have the world's most potent military force, and a lot of nuclear weapons, it won't matter too much.

Sanctions, etc., only hurt economically weak nations, and then only marginally (it certainly didn't hurt Saddam).

If our economy gets hurt, we're taking the rest of the world straight into the greatest Depression in economic history.

If (the 5 countries) didn't (have veto power), the world would be run by shitty little Third World governments -- :rolleyes:

lets get this straight..

You want Democracy in the US.. but at the same time..you want the US to be a dictator of shitty little Third World citizens.

lets get this straight..

You want Democracy in the US.. but at the same time..you want the US to be a dictator of shitty little Third World citizens.


Democracy is a bad idea period. I don't think anyone has said they want the US to be a democracy in this thread. And stop doing that color bullshit. You just now figure that out?

lets get this straight..

You want Democracy in the US.. but at the same time..you want the US to be a dictator of shitty little Third World citizens.

Pathetic XD :sniper:

Democracy is a bad idea period. I don't think anyone has said they want the US to be a democracy in this thread. And stop doing that color bullshit. You just now figure that out?

So I suppose you think that the reason the U.S. was founded is stupid?

So I suppose you think that the reason the U.S. was founded is stupid?
The U.S. is not a Democracy. The founders did not want a Democracy.

People, as a whole, are very stupid. They have no ability to rule themselves.

So I suppose you think that the reason the U.S. was founded is stupid?

I think you could do with reading a history book.

Democracy is a fine idea in principle, but it breaks the moment people realize they can vote themselves a better life at the expense of others. See Big Business Republicans and Welfare Democrats.

Given their blockage of any Darfur or North Korea action, China has about as few moral legs to stand on as we do.

The UN could be a great thing if it weren't for the abuse of the veto power.

There should be a rule where every time a country wants to use it's veto power (if it's a permanent member) it has to donate the equivelant of $1 billion to the food organization.

China and Russia really don't have any position to talk about blocking at the UNSC. They're just as bad as the US when it comes to that, so it's nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. The Security Council nations all look after their own interests, so for China to go after the US for blocking a resolution is laughably hypocritical. After all, the nation that wants to block intervention in Darfur to protect their oil contracts with the Sudanese government hardly has the moral position to do so.

Of course, it's just as ridiculous for the US to lambast China or Russia for their blocking of resolutions; we've blocked many ourselves for a number of morally suspect reasons.

Yeah, and I'll give a crap what China thinks when they stop executing people for their religion and so they'll have organs to sell on the transplant market.

Does this sound very different from:
I'll give a crap what the US thinks when they stop torturing people for no reason and respect human rights and the Geneva convention

Also, I must say that all these people saying "the UN is evil", "UN is stupid", etc seem to sort-of-well... not know what they are talking about. The UN is actually more than just the Security Council talking club, you know?
Some of the organisations do very useful work that actually help people. UNICEF, anyone? UNHCR, anyone? FAO anyone? WHO, anyone?

Saying "da UN is da evil" sounds kinda dumb, IMHO.

As much as I detest the USA giving Israel an on-demand veto in the security council, China is no different in giving North Korea an on-demand veto too.

It's all a hypocritical mess, and international law, security and peoples are suffering because of it.

However, if I were the USA, I'd be thinking tactics. If you let them have their way over Lebanon, then the USA should be able to get its way over Iran.

The U.N. is useless. They failed to deal with the Soviets. They failed to deal with Darfur. They failed to deal with pol pot. They failed to deal with rwanda. They failed to deal with Saddam Hussein. They are failed to stop Iran. The U.N. is a thinly vieled anti-American spy hive. I think we should take back that valuable real estate in Manhattan, it would be put to better use as a high rise. Kofi Anan? Please....can anybody say...oil for food? Oh, and the one saving grace we have over there is the U.S. ambassador, the funny looking guy, John Bolton. he has said...

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along."

The U.N. is useless. They failed to deal with the Soviets.

The USSR didn't need to be dealt with. The primary aim of the United Nations is not to overthrow governments the USA doesn't like. As much as the UN can be a riduculous appendage to American foreign policy, thank god it didn't start World War three.

They failed to deal with Darfur. They failed to deal with pol pot. They failed to deal with rwanda. They failed to deal with Saddam Hussein.

The UN is only as capable of dealing with these situations as its member states, and more importantly Security Council members, allow. Don't blame the UN, blame the 5 governments that run it.

They are failed to stop Iran.

Iran has a right to a civil nuclear programme. And so far, that's all they've done.

The U.N. is a thinly vieled anti-American spy hive.

A thousand apologies from all nations for the terrible crime of disagreeing with the United States of America. What do you want to do? Give Chirac, Blair, Putin and Hu and slap on the wrist?

I think we should take back that valuable real estate in Manhattan, it would be put to better use as a high rise.

Go ahead. Some other city somewhere can benefit from the spin-offs.

Kofi Anan? Please....can anybody say...oil for food?

Annan wasn't involved. He's a far better force for good for the world than our leaders, that's for sure.

Oh, and the one saving grace we have over there is the U.S. ambassador, the funny looking guy, John Bolton. he has said...

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along."

So, by admitting that 1. the UN has failed in certain areas and 2. that the US is running the show, that the USA is thus responsible for the failings of the UN?

Of course the UN security Council is useless.

Its benign idea, however. Still, as long as any country got a veto power (something that makes no logic), it will never be relevant. And since none of those countries will give up their veto power, it will be forever irrelevant, used as a throwing brick from crisis to crisis.

What we need is to throw away the security council in it's current form, make ita democratic plataform.. and perhaps, it can start to do something good.

The USSR didn't need to be dealt with. The primary aim of the United Nations is not to overthrow governments the USA doesn't like. As much as the UN can be a riduculous appendage to American foreign policy, thank god it didn't start World War three.

ah, when soviet nuclear warheads are minutes away from Europe and minutes away from Florida the Soviet Union has nothing to answer for at the U.N. never mind their gross human rights violations which occured under the U.N.'s watch.

The UN is only as capable of dealing with these situations as its member states, and more importantly Security Council members, allow. Don't blame the UN, blame the 5 governments that run it.
exactly, its very framework is an impotent mess. Pointless and hapless at stoping massive human rights violations


Iran has a right to a civil nuclear programme. And so far, that's all they've done.
key word so far. and if it is not staggeringly obvious that that crazy President of theirs will give or sell nuclear material to Hezbollah I don't know how to make it more clear to you


A thousand apologies from all nations for the terrible crime of disagreeing with the United States of America. What do you want to do? Give Chirac, Blair, Putin and Hu and slap on the wrist?
no, I want them to run their own f*ing policy instead of that of the U.S.


Go ahead. Some other city somewhere can benefit from the spin-offs.
and the diplomatic immunity based parking fines that go unpaid to the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars, the spies, and the traffic jams. Ever been in a bus in midtown when that parade comes through? ughhh I have...not a good memory


Annan wasn't involved. He's a far better force for good for the world than our leaders, that's for sure.
he is an assclown. He failed to deal with Rwanda and Iraq and now has been caught presiding over the worst curruption scandal in U.N. history.


So, by admitting that 1. the UN has failed in certain areas and 2. that the US is running the show, that the USA is thus responsible for the failings of the UN?
nope, the U.N. has failed in its most basic roles because and only because other countries have never ever listened to Mr. Bolton's point. If the U.N was under direct American control it would be much more effective, I can tell you that much.

nope, the U.N. has failed in its most basic roles because and only because other countries have never ever listened to Mr. Bolton's point. If the U.N was under direct American control it would be much more effective, I can tell you that much.

lol.

lol.

I bet you were going lol when a million were killed by pol pot, another million in rwanda, and still another in darfur. I hardly think that the U.N. having its thumbs up its ass because it is so anti-american is a laughing matter.

When UN was created, it granted permanent veto power to five nations. For any of them to complain when another uses it is absurd.

I bet you were going lol when a million were killed by pol pot, another million in rwanda, and still another in darfur. I hardly think that the U.N. having its thumbs up its ass because it is so anti-american is a laughing matter.

- Actually, more than a million died in Cambodja.

But no one did anything because it would upset China and the USSR. Did your country (or any other) did anything? No.

- Millions have died in Rwanda and no one cared until it was over. China didn't cared, Russia didn't cared.. and your country didn't cared. Why do you think you are better? Same thing for darfur.

The UN isn't anti-american, nor anti-anyone for that matter, it's just a big pile of inefective concrete.

And I was laughing at your statement of "if the US was in charge, everything would be nice".

Dude, yours is the most powerful country on earth. You can, and have completely ignored the UN before. And with what results? Iraq comes to mind. I've heard that it's safe in Cabul, but not anywere in afghanistan. Oh, and since you are so great, why don't you solve the problem of Darfur? I mean, you have an army, something the UN doesn't.

Come on! Fix things! If you are so great, why don't you fix things, instead of asking for a blocked, powerless entity to do it?

Thu Jul 27, 2:06 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - China blasted the UN Security Council's failure to agree a statement condemning the killing of four UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, amid signs of a backlash on other key negotiations.

An important meeting scheduled for Thursday of six major powers on a resolution against
Iran's nuclear program was postponed indefinitely -- the first apparent victim of the Security Council deadlock over the Israeli attack that led to the deaths.

The United States blocked any attempt to condemn the attack or criticize
Israel, diplomats said.

China's UN envoy, Wang Guangya, made a veiled attack on the United States, saying "the policy of one delegation" had frustrated Security Council efforts on Wednesday to pass a presidential statement.
...
Wang said there was also frustration over the general UN Security Council inaction over Lebanon, more than two weeks after Israel launched hostilities against its neighbor.

"It is really unfortunate because I think there are many people who are calling for a stop to this conflict. Most of the people who are being killed on the ground are civilians..." said Wang.

The United States has blocked collective international efforts to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Sources AFP/OcceanNEWS©2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060727/wl_asia_afp/mideastconflictun_060727172826

my2cents: like I sayd.. Finally someone speak up against this Bull-shit Blocking by Bush and the Neocons..
thumbs up


Right Bush and the Neo cons...the ONLY ones who can do anything ..aside from israel to stop the war hezbollah started...whens china going to introduce a constructive resolution ?


While china didles itself bush and blair are actually trying to put something that will work together...whats China do ? send another bad boy note ?

fuck them they are worthless ...ask them to call NK and tell them to get rid of their missile program and their nukes...otherwise STFU and go back to making microwaves .

- Actually, more than a million died in Cambodja.

But no one did anything because it would upset China and the USSR. Did your country (or any other) did anything? No.
and it was a huge mistake. A liberal congress and a President who was desperate for reelection put personal needs ahead of saving lives.

- Millions have died in Rwanda and no one cared until it was over. China didn't cared, Russia didn't cared.. and your country didn't cared. Why do you think you are better? Same thing for darfur.
again, American liberals in the Clinton administration let us down.
The UN isn't anti-american, nor anti-anyone for that matter, it's just a big pile of inefective concrete.

And I was laughing at your statement of "if the US was in charge, everything would be nice".

Dude, yours is the most powerful country on earth. You can, and have completely ignored the UN before. And with what results? Iraq comes to mind. yes, and we installed a Democracy with low casualties and are now fighting the terrorists that the U.N. never had the balls to, if it was left up to kofi , saddam would still be the murderous tyrant of IraqI've heard that it's safe in Cabul, but not anywere in afghanistan. Oh, and since you are so great, why don't you solve the problem of Darfur? I mean, you have an army, something the UN doesn't.
we are severely tied up at the most but do not be shocked if we do somthing major before 08'
Come on! Fix things! If you are so great, why don't you fix things, instead of asking for a blocked, powerless entity to do it?
The U.N. needs to go. The American military budget needs to be doubled and used to combat evil around the world.

I bet you were going lol when a million were killed by pol pot, another million in rwanda, and still another in darfur. I hardly think that the U.N. having its thumbs up its ass because it is so anti-american is a laughing matter.

Well, considering what the US has done and that pretty much the rest of the world is anti-American, I'm not surprised.

The U.N. needs to go. The American military budget needs to be doubled and used to combat evil around the world.

LMAO!!

The U.N. needs to go. The American military budget needs to be doubled and used to combat evil around the world.

The US is a self serving entity who will put profit before the lives of those you seek it to protect.

The US military should be restricted to only being able to perform actions outside it's own borders under the control of the UN.

I bet you were going lol when a million were killed by pol pot, another million in rwanda, and still another in darfur. I hardly think that the U.N. having its thumbs up its ass because it is so anti-american is a laughing matter.

Didn't the US kill 500,000 or so in Cambodia? Later on, Did they then not support Pol Pot at the UN after the Vietnamese invaded to get rid of him?

Didn't the US kill 500,000 or so in Cambodia? Later on, Did they then not support Pol Pot at the UN after the Vietnamese invaded to get rid of him?

Sushh, you'll destroy his 'the US is the saviour of the world, a bit like superman without the tights' world view.