United Nations Is Evil... More Proof.

[Adam]

Amen to that Don. Why people here in the US feel the UN is needed is beyond me. I for one do not want other nations telling us, or any other countries for that matter how they should do things. Collectively working with other nations yes, but not dictating policies.

Yah I agree there... im not so much down with the U.N. either... they would watch a nation burn in terrorism before they did anything.

[_bc]

I didn't argue that the UN was impotent. I argued that the UN is an organization of sovereign states, and has no power to impose its will on the members or to commandeer their soldiers around. That does not mean it's useless, just like a neighborhood watch group is not automatically useless if nobody is forced to join. Why does inserting peacekeepers (volunteered by sovereign states) between Lebanon and Israel (with the invitation of both countries) violate the sovereignty of any state?

Before 1945 there was the League of Nations. Also coming in handy in coordinating world affairs was colonialism, and the fact that 25% of Earth's landmass was under the British crown. Anyway, 18th or 19th century international relations - and certainly early 20th century international relations - are hardly a model for modernity. Claiming so is to ignore the history of the world - especially the history of the modern world.

In addition to ignoring all the non-security related functions of the UN, you are basically giving no regard to all the good it does. One example: What would you have done with East Timor without the UN? Who or what would have been able to provide legitimacy for intervention there without the UN, or would you rather have left the Timorese to perish?

Edited July 25, 2003 by _bc

[Don John of Austria]

bc your joking right---- So Iraq's sovreignty wasn't violated --for the last ten years, come on. The U.N. most certianly does have security related powers--- THATS WHAT THE SECURITY COUNCIL is for.

Second very few countries have ever asked for peacekeepers until they were pressured by other countries with threats of UN sanctions or UN militaryaction unilateral action.

I am afraid you are going to have to explain to me why 19th century world relations are not a model for modernity( economies were globalized( the britsh colonial system and commonwealth for instance) lacck of any giant wars () lots of little ones but nothing really big. And a few big powers telling every one else what to do. sounds a lot like modernity to me( technically everything from around 1650 is modrnity but I used your terms so people wouldn't get confused.)

Most of the non -security functions of the UN are either unimportant or EVIL such as the above group or UNICEF. furthermore any of the big five ( U.S. Russia, Britian, france, and China) can Veto any act the UN passes and therfore even if every member state wanted something if one of the big five don't like it they can violate everyones sovereignty and simply veto it.

As for the East Timorese - well if Portugal had done right by them it would have defended them, as it as responsable for their predicament, but since you asked I really think Rome should have called a Crusade and a Catholic army should have driven the Muslims it to the sea. The call of Rome is more Legetimate than anything the UN might say or not say.

[Red Knight]

bc your joking right---- So Iraq's sovreignty wasn't violated --for the last ten years, come on.  The U.N. most certianly does have security related powers--- THATS WHAT THE SECURITY COUNCIL is for.

Second very few countries have ever asked for peacekeepers until they were pressured by other countries with threats of UN sanctions or UN militaryaction  unilateral action.

I am afraid you are going to have to explain to me why 19th century world relations are not a model for modernity( economies were globalized( the britsh colonial system and commonwealth for instance) lacck of any giant wars () lots of little ones but nothing really big. And a few big powers telling every one else what to do. sounds a lot like modernity to me( technically everything from around 1650 is modrnity but I used your terms so people wouldn't get confused.)

Most of the non -security functions of the UN are either unimportant or EVIL such as the above group or UNICEF. furthermore any of the big five ( U.S. Russia, Britian, france, and China) can Veto any act the UN passes and therfore even if every member state wanted something if one of the big five don't like it they can violate everyones sovereignty and simply veto it.

As for the East Timorese -  well if Portugal had done right by them it would have defended them, as it as responsable for their predicament, but since you asked I really think Rome should have called a Crusade and a Catholic army should have driven the Muslims it to the sea. The call of Rome is more Legetimate than anything the UN might say or not say.

Once again Don, you put into words that which I was thinking, but was unable to put down on electrons.

Red

[_bc]

bc your joking right---- So Iraq's sovreignty wasn't violated --for the last ten years, come on.  The U.N. most certianly does have security related powers--- THATS WHAT THE SECURITY COUNCIL is for.

The S.C. is made up of 15 sovereign states, five of which are permanent members and have vetos. Obviously, the sovereignty of Iraq has been violated constantly for at least the past 12 years, but not by the UN. It's not the UN that has been bombing Iraq every week for 12 years, rather the United States and the United Kingdom. As you may know, American soldiers have never been under the command of foreigners, because that would be a violation of the constitution, so the UN has never had command over the forces in Iraq. The Security Council provided legitimacy by authorizing the first Gulf War, but it didn't conduct the war - actually, it just declared that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was in violation of international law, and that consequently member states could legally 'use every means necessary' to drive them out. The war was conducted by a coalition led by the US, as you should know. The inspections were part of a cease fire agreement which was ratified by the SC, not a unilateral decree by the 'UN'. So the violations of Iraq's sovereignty are not by the UN, but by the member states that invaded the country. This is all in keeping with the fact that the UN has no power of its own, as you can easily see from the fact that Israel has been able to blatantly violate virtually every Security Council resolution on its situation since 1949.

Second very few countries have ever asked for peacekeepers until they were pressured by other countries with threats of UN sanctions or UN militaryaction  unilateral action.

The UN can only authorize or recommend sanctions, but no country is required to actually impose them. That is exactly the difference between a voluntary forum and one that violates the sovereignty of states. The UN is a voluntary forum of sovereign states. This is a matter of fact, which I can hardly explain much better than I already have: if you still hold contrary beliefs they are false, and you might visit un.org to read up for yourself.

Most of the non -security functions of the UN are either unimportant or EVIL such as the above group or UNICEF. furthermore any of the big five ( U.S. Russia, Britian, france, and China) can Veto any act the UN passes and therfore even if every member state wanted something if one of the big five don't like it they can violate everyones sovereignty and simply veto it.

Again, you are fundamentally in the wrong, as regards the facts. The five permanent members have vetos in the Security Council, not in the UN as a whole and certainly not in the non-security related functions. They can veto anything the UN wants to do in their country, because of their sovereignty, and they can refuse to pay their membership fees if they don't like what the UN does - like the US has done time and time again. But no member has a right to veto any non-security function in another country. That's simply not true.

Also, you're using the concept of sovereignty in a muddled way: sovereignty is for a country to be free from foreign interference in its own matters. The UN doesn't 'pass acts' in any traditional sense of these words. It is not a legislature. If the US Congress passes acts, and you violate them, the US Government will send it's agents calling on your door and either force you to comply or put you in jail. The UN has no such agents. The UN member states can come together to make agreements, which any member state can then refuse to sign or ratify (as the US does time and time again). If the member state does not ratify the agreements, and so put them into domestic law through its domestic legislature, then these agreements don't have force of law in that country. That's part of what sovereignty means.

The matters and institutions of the UN are not the sovereign purview of any state, so for one or more states not to be able to impose their will on the organizations of the UN - say, if they are unable to get UNESCO to fund a program in their country or to stop doing something in another country - is not a violation of their sovereignty. Quite obviously, in fact.

As for the East Timorese -  well if Portugal had done right by them it would have defended them, as it as responsable for their predicament, but since you asked I really think Rome should have called a Crusade and a Catholic army should have driven the Muslims it to the sea. The call of Rome is more Legetimate than anything the UN might say or not say.

Enjoy fantasy, do we? Oh, how readily muslim Indonesia would have consented to the intervention of your fictitious Catholic army. Here's news for you: in the real world, people with secular power (unfortunately) don't seem to care much what the Catholic Church says. Who paid attention when the Holy Father denounced the invasion of Iraq? Certainly not Bush - not even Blair, who is married to a Catholic. At least they tried to make it look as if the Security Council was providing legitimacy for that war, but it was obvious how they could care less what the Church had to say.

So good luck trying to get the Catholic Church to replace the UN. In this world, the UN would be replaced by anarchy and apathy, not the Catholic Church - however much I would prefer your fantasy scenario.

[Don John of Austria]

You asked what I would have done with the East Timorize not what you thought was likely, I really don't give a rats arse what Islamic countries think as I said, Portugal should have steped up and gone to war for its former people, that being said the Church should have called a Crusade the fact that our pope( holy as he might be) is to much of a wuss to do so has nothing to do with wether or not it should be done.

You see _bc this is our fundimentale problem you value peace, mans peace, --lack of war---- I don't care one ioda about peace, not mans peace anyway, Christ didn't come to bring peace as man knows it, but HIS Peace and that is all that I care about. If Catholics are being persecuted then we should crush those that are doing it, if that means distruction of a globilized economy Oh well, if that means countries are shattered, oh well, if that means solidify the muslim world into a Super power arrayed agianst the West, oh well, I place no value on stability, only on Christ and his Church, and his Church should defend its people. You asked what I would do I told you, if you want me to tell you what I think would have happened if the UN didn't exist but not what I think should have happened I will tell you, If you would like me to tell you what I think would have happened if the UN had done nothing I will tell yo that as well but I answered your question if you don't like the answer that is tough.

[_bc]

You asked what  I would have done with the East Timorize not what you thought was likely, I really don't give a rats arse what Islamic countries think as I said,  Portugal should have steped up and gone to war for its former people, that being said the Church should have called a Crusade the fact that our pope( holy as he might be) is to much of a wuss to do so has nothing to do with wether or not it should be done.

I'm sorry, I understood you to mean that you wanted the UN dismantled in this world, not some alternative world existing only in your head. That's why I was asking how you wanted to replace the functions of the UN in this, existing world, and hoped for an answer having something to do with reality. I apologize for misunderstanding your reply.

And you're right about one thing: other things being equal, I prefer lack of war.

The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all WAR, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of WAR.[Cf. GS 81 # 4.]

(My italics.)

[Don John of Austria]

-bc first lets make somthing clear I don't acknowledge that the UN serves any useful function, the General Council is powerless and irrelevant, the Security council is Tyrranical and totally weighted to the preserval of the Statis Quo---I believe the Status Quo smells of elderberries therefore I see no Function that the UN fills which is meaningful enough to merit replacement certianly not require it. The World got along just fine without it for oh 6000 years of Civilization, and frankly was just as peaceful as it has been in the Last 60 years, so I see no need to replace it, I see many, many reasons to destroy it, starting with the fact that it funds sterilization and abortion, as well as legitimizes 5 countries running the world and crushing aqnyone who opposes them.

And you're right about one thing: other things being equal, I prefer lack of war.

Your problem here is other things are NEVER equal.

[Winchester]

I'm sorry, I understood you to mean that you wanted the UN dismantled in this world, not some alternative world existing only in your head. That's why I was asking how you wanted to replace the functions of the UN in this, existing world, and hoped for an answer having something to do with reality. I apologize for misunderstanding your reply.

That's hilarious. I had to laugh.

I'm way closer to Don on this one.

bc,

War is quite often the only way, and I wonder what good things about the UN outweigh the bad.

[Don John of Austria]

Bc are you there _bc?

[Mary's Knight, La]

Don,

Personally I think the UN has the capability of setting/enforcing moral standards (Human rights, etc...), Security functions aside, The problem with the UN isn't it's existence, rather it's a lack of morality in it. The UN cannot enforce correct views of right and wrong when it does not have them in the first place. As for the pope being too much a wuss i'm more inclined to believe that war usually causes more problems than it solves... regardless of whether or not it's the only way. As for good outweighing bad in the status quo, I don't think so.

Let us instead though pray that those in power make the right decisions, don't forget in the bible it says follow civil authority except when it goes against the mandates of God because they were placed in their position by God. So let us pray that the people He has given us will do their job correctly.

[Don John of Austria]

Mary's knight--- Well With out getting into the issue of following civil authorities in general--THe UN does not qualify, furthermore many of the UN's policies violate the Mandates of God. Finally and most importantly the UN violates the Soveriegn Power of Nations, in its nature, it does this so it in and of itself violates the Very mandate of which you are speaking..

I don't understand this ---"As for good outweighing bad in the status quo, I don't think so."

Are you agreeing with me?