Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (103109)	6/27/2003 2:49:56 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We need something like what the UN is supposed to be, as a parliament between nations ... just as the species developed tribal councils to decide affairs between members in place of having the chief decide all, just as we developed national parliaments to decide things ourselves in place of all power being in the hands of the king or tsar or kaiser, so now we try to develop a parliament where we can decide affairs without all being forced to kneel to the most militarily powerful national ruler du jour The UN exists because it is the closest we have to a parliament of nations, so far .... it's not very useful as is, a point i made first in our exchange by the way, because i could see where you were headed .... sure the UN is flawed, well the thing to do then is to improve it, or turf it out and develop a working institution that does the job .... the alternative is today, that all of us on this planet fall into line and obey direct orders of Washington, and that is not going to happen, it's not displaying a grasp of human nature to expect that to happen So you see it is pretty simple Hawk, 'At it's foundation' ... couple little minor gaps in your numbered points i notice here, like for instance what WMDs, but these have been discussed ad nauseam already, and the parliament of nations is far more important than Iraq ever was .... your neocons will be judged in the end not on which individuals they shot or rolled tanks over, but rather their effect on international cooperation toward such a working parliament, and so far they're not doing well, are they

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (103109)	6/27/2003 7:16:23 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<All I have to do is ask you why the UN even exists, if all it can do is issue binding resolutions that it never bothers to enforce.>>>> There are some good points and bad points, as to what the UN is today 1. It reminds countries that they are part of a bigger world and affected by what other leaders think 2. It highlights what are considered to be the worlds problem areas and what solutions the major powers have in mind. Headlines say "The UN says ......." , which gets more attention than "Kerry says" 3. NYC is a wonderful display and sales point for Western culture and power. Catered meals, big buildings, traffic, airplanes landing and taking off every few minutes. people talkng on cell phones, using flat panel displays. There may be more airplanes parked at La Guardia or Kennedy than some have in their entire Air Force. 4. It helps our airline business by filling first class seats (haha) In pondering whether the UN should actually do anything other than talk, I am undecided about that. 1. If the UN should start to enforce their resolutions as powerful as Res 1441 , some countries with a guilty conscience will resign or fail to join, lest they be "found out" and those countries are the most important to communicate with and try to direct or point in better direction whether they want to go that way or not. The big powers dont have to worry about that, no resolution is going to pass that bans vineyards in France or tobacco farms in the US, but they might pass one that bans marijuana farms in Columbia or poppy fields in Afghanistan 2. Enforcement beyond talk does not fit with the concept of the UN as a peace-making organization. They would not want to get known as a war machine At present their action is limited to eliminating , as members of peace-keeping forces, some bad guys within a countries borders. 3. When serious action is dictated , such as preventing terrorists from turning Chicago into ground zero or using WMD's in our subways, the UN seems pretty useless. Many Arab leaders would laugh about that, if it happened, and the French may not even know where Chicago is located. 4. Until the UN originates some enforcement capability, countries will have to defend themselves and take unilateral action when needed. This was not a unilateral war, but a restart of a UN approved war demanded by Saddams failure to disarm Its interesting to read here what Thread members think the UN should do about enforcement - might come up with some good ideas. Regards Sig .

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (103109)	6/27/2003 9:42:43 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

One very good example of the good the UN can do has been the ongoing coordination of WHO public health officials going after SARS. I have to say that on balance, the French and the Russians appear to have had good points about Iraq not being an imminent threat, at least so far. I realize that many of the American public are somehow convinced that Saddam was behind 9/11 and Al Qaeda, but you and I both know that the evidence isn't very strong. On the whole I am glad that we deposed Saddam but still, the French and the Russians were not completely wrong.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (103109)	6/27/2003 9:46:10 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

One of these days - probably not any time soon - we'll know definitively whether forcible inspections would have been acceptable to Saddam. Good thing we didn't try them, talk about egg on our faces. So far, enforcing UN resolutions doesn't appear to have been a good reason to go to war. Maybe when the WMD turn up . . . Liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny was a good thing, though. And ending the stalemate was, too. Thus, on balance, I am glad we did it. But not real thrilled with the intelligence. Makes me wonder whether people who wanted Saddam deposed faked it.