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: KonKilo who wrote (112954)	8/26/2003 7:42:28 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But it got me thinking; why do they not wish to relinquish the nation building chores to the UN at this point? Because it is of great importance to the US that the nation-building actually works, and they know better than to trust the UN.

To: KonKilo who wrote (112954)	8/26/2003 11:37:03 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

SC, the UN isn't likely to do any good in Iraq. They need to be fixed themselves before they can do stuff well where there is actual conflict with competing parties seeking power. The UN is okay for being tied to poles, having tanks being pushed out of the way by Israeli tanks and otherwise giving in to vicious bastards. The Yanks and Poms are the best bet to supervise recivilisation of Iraq pending renovation of the UN. We should back them. I'm backing the USA with my taxes. Meanwhile, the dopey UN has come up with the idea that anyone who opposes them violently is conducting war crimes. That is ridiculous. Peacekeeping personnel are carrying guns and are intended to put down with violence any opposition. They are legitimate enemy combatants who should expect to be shot at by those who disagree. edition.cnn.com <The resolution stresses that "attacks knowingly and intentionally directed against" humanitarian or peacekeeping personnel "constitute war crimes" -- language that was a key goal of the sponsors of the resolution. The final wording of the resolution was a compromise reached after the United States insisted that any reference to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court be removed. Human rights groups have hailed the ICC as the biggest step for world justice since the Nuremberg military tribunal tried Nazi leaders after World War II. But Washington opposes the ICC, fearing it could spawn frivolous lawsuits against U.S. soldiers or the president of the United States. U.S. President George W. Bush renounced the 1998 Rome Treaty creating the ICC, even though the administration of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, signed the agreement. Mexico's ambassador made a point of saying that the United States had been the lone holdout on the resolution, and said council members had to make a hard choice about the language of the text. "We make this very hard choice that we deplore that we have to make, but the higher aim of really providing conditions of exercise of responsibilities for the Security Council on the protection of humanitarian workers merit the sacrifices and difficult decisions made," said Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser. After the vote, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was grateful for the resolution, "given what happened last week, and the tense situation we find ourselves in." "Governments have to commit themselves to bring to account those who attack these innocent and unarmed civilian humanitarian workers, and I would hope that this message would go out from this council today," Annan said.... > I can understand why people despise the UN as being an ineffectual bunch of bureaucrats. They are typical government busy bodies who want to control We the Sheeple with bits of paper and laws and suffocating red tape which leaves them ruling the roost. They don't need any special laws about attacking UN personnel whether armed or unarmed. If somebody murders me, it's murder. Same with if somebody murders a UN employee, be they are bureaucrat, relief worker, policeman or soldier. There's no need for a special 'war crimes' law. It's no worse to kill a sacred UN worker than it is to kill me or you. They need to get their heads out of the clouds and get with the programme. Annan should be pushing for a change of the UN constitution rather than more silly "laws". The USA and UK and NZ and China and India should be pushing for a revamp too. I'll mention it to Hu Jintao when he pops down to NZ for a nice cup of tea in October. Mqurice