It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by the_oleneo
There have been discussions to expand the UN Security Council to include the losing powers (Japan and Germany) and the non-aligned powers (India, Brazil, Nigeria, Taiwan, few other countries), giving them more says in the dictation of security matters with the permanent five powers.
The days of five powers dictating the Security Council on international interventions alone may be numbering.
Originally posted by stumason
They seem to believe the UN is some ultra-government entity, rather than the collection of Nations it is.
Originally posted by stumason
It cannot do ANYTHING without all the big 5 agreeing, but again they don't understand this, they think it as the NWO.
Originally posted by stumason
they also fail to see all the good it does, only concentrating on the fact ot doesn't always do what America want's it to do, like Iraq for example.
Originally posted by devilwasp
They could but they cant.
Firstly its unacceptable to lay down a law against a people that are not your own.
Second, its ethically wrong to kill because you dont like the government.
So how do you stop the violence to let peacekeepers in?
Go in guns blazeing?
Just mount a military operation everytime a warlord commits genocide?
Know what that is?
A NWO, the UN is not an NWO.
"We strongly endorse community initiatives ... to encourage the disarming of civilians...."
- Our Global Neighborhood,
published in 1995 by the UN-funded
Commission on Global Governance.
'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
-- Mahatma Gandhi
Technically no, the UN is its members and its members are the UN.
[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]
Originally posted by Muaddib
In early 2001, the US was voted off from the UN's Human Rights Commission...this was before the war started....and member nations who are part of the UN's Human Rights Commission includes countries such as Lybia, Sudan and China. A month after 9/11, Syria was accepted also as member in the Human Rights Commission.
Only two countries have not ratified: the United States and Somalia,
Originally posted by subz
Only two countries have not ratified: the United States and Somalia,
Originally posted by subz
What about the US veto for the Bosnian UN peacekeeping mission because the US didnt like the International Criminal Court?
Originally posted by subz
How about the US vetos of resolutions critical of Israels human rights abuses of Palestinians?
Funny how votes such as "Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)" abound in the Security council.
Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Chill out with the "You know nothing comments" dude, let your points speak for themselves.
.......................
Originally posted by subz
Hey Muaddib you seem to forget that every time the UN tries to do something about these human rights abusing governments the US vetos any actions on it. Have you read what the US has vetoed in the UN? And its the UN thats the problem?
Originally posted by subz
How about the International Rights of the Child convention? The United States wont sign it because it wants to retain the right to execute minors
Only two countries have not ratified: the United States and Somalia,
Originally posted by subz
What about the US veto for the Bosnian UN peacekeeping mission because the US didnt like the International Criminal Court?
Originally posted by subz
How about the US vetos of resolutions critical of Israels human rights abuses of Palestinians?
Funny how votes such as "Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)" abound in the Security council.
Originally posted by subz
Muaddib, the UN could of fixed alot of the Worlds problems but when countries such as the United States actively scupper attempts to correct problems how can it? The way the United States is treating the UN is entirely Hegelian in nature.
Originally posted by subz
You wouldnt see the problem with that as your completely enamored with Bush and his neo-imperial agenda.
Some one needs to rip those blinkers off you.
Originally posted by Muaddib
That's not true subz, first, you have to realize that the US does not have just one Unified Judiciary system...and if any US administration would accept any laws imposed by the UN that affects the state laws, it would render useless the Judiciary system of the separate states. Most people in the US would not accept this.
Second, you have got to be kidding to even proclaim that the UN in general try to do something about human rights.... how can they do that when the UN's Human Rights Commission has as members countries such as Sudan, China, Syria, and Lybia, which have worse human right abuses than the US.
Kofi Annan himself has been proclaiming for years that what has been happening in Sudan is not genocide, while the Bush administration has been giving ultimatums to Sudan and has been asking the UN to call what is happening in Sudan by it's name...genocide.
How can you even proclaim that the majority of the UN is looking to better human rights when Kofi Annan has proclaimed that they have members of terrorist organizations such as HAMAS working for the UN....and he keeps proclaiming they are not terrorists.....
Yep, someone in here is blind subz, and it isn't me....
Wrong subz...once again you are letting your hatemongering distort reality. (and here i thought you were a pacifist...) The US as a whole cannot accept laws that will make powerless the states individual judiciary systems.
Only two countries have not ratified: the United States and Somalia,
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Wrong again, China did not sign the treaty either, and the ICC is a joke, just like the UN is a joke.
Originally posted by Moretti
What you are saying in fact is that the american society is too primitive to meet international standards of legality.
Originally posted by Moretti
Originally posted by Muaddib
Second, you have got to be kidding to even proclaim that the UN in general try to do something about human rights.... how can they do that when the UN's Human Rights Commission has as members countries such as Sudan, China, Syria, and Lybia, which have worse human right abuses than the US.
I do not agree. The war in Iraq, as well as the tens of thousand political prisoners in us torture camps worldwide, are much worse human rights infrigements than anything happening in the "axis of evil".
Originally posted by Moretti
Hamas is indeed, in the overwhelming majority of it's activities, not involved in terrorist bombings, as they are primarily a democratically elected party and islamic charity organization in palestine. Also, i'd like you to provide evidence for your claim that Kofi Annan said that Hamas was not involved in resistance activities against the genocidal israeli practices.
Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Would you prefer that the US continue to support the corrupt UN? Or would you prefer that the US use its power to clean up the UN so that it can be used for its intended purpose?
If the US does not stand up against the UN's corruption then who else is going to?
Originally posted by Muaddib
Who was talking about killing anyone?
One of the things the UN member nations could have done is not allow those dictatorships to be member states of the UN
....or when something is done, like the genocide that has been happening in Sudan, these countries should be held accountable by the UN, instead of denying that genocide has been occuring in Sudan since 1983, like Kofi Annan kept claiming.
Once again, there are many ways to deal with nations such as Sudan, NK, etc...But proclaiming that these countries are not doing anything wrong is not one of those ways....
And about the UN not being part of the NWO, i think there are many plans for a NWO, some are better than others, part of the UN plan is to have all citizens disarmed. That in itself is opening a door for a global dictatorship to take place.
Let's see some of the things that the majority of the UN members have voted for, and what kind of plans they have.
"We strongly endorse community initiatives ... to encourage the disarming of civilians...."
- Our Global Neighborhood,
published in 1995 by the UN-funded
Commission on Global Governance.
The disarmament of civilians is the best way to control and oppress nations.
'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
-- Mahatma Gandhi
Excerpted from.
www.quotedb.com...
In early 2001, the US was voted off from the UN's Human Rights Commission...this was before the war started....and member nations who are part of the UN's Human Rights Commission includes countries such as Lybia, Sudan and China. A month after 9/11, Syria was accepted also as member in the Human Rights Commission.
Kofi Annan, speaking for most of the UN member nations has praised assassins, and dictators such as Castro, has even described political groups such as the ANC of south Africa as "a beacon of enlightenment", and has even apologized for what governments such as that of Sudan have been doing to their people.
The Commission consists of 28 individuals, carefully selected because of their prominence, influence, and their ability to effect the implementation of the recommendations. The Commission is not an official body of the United Nations. It was, however, endorsed by the UN Secretary General and funded through two trust funds of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), nine national governments, and several foundations, including the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation
The UN is controlled by most corrupt governments in the world, and only has as a minority some democratic countries, which really don't have a lot of say in the UN decisions.
[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]
Originally posted by namehere
the UN goes against everything america is, dictating laws to other nations, interference in things that arent our business, noone has a right doing this and it only causes conflict, "peacekeeping" is just a good name for "occupation" and its no different than an occupation, the UN was our biggest mistake in creating, it along with our other policies are corrupting our ideals and draining our resources, aid and other such humanitarian activity never needed any UN to exist and everything else the UN does is an invasion of sovergnty that helps nothing except to instill false hope and false expectations, no country tries to take responsibility, they act as if the UN can do it for them and put the saved expenses into conflicts or corruption while their people suffer.
Originally posted by Moretti
Muaddib strikes again....
Originally posted by Moretti
What you are saying in fact is that the american society is too primitive to meet international standards of legality. You may have a point there, although i'm not sure if that's the way you see it or if it's the way you'd like it to be
Originally posted by Moretti
I do not agree. The war in Iraq, as well as the tens of thousand political prisoners in us torture camps worldwide, are much worse human rights infrigements than anything happening in the "axis of evil".
Originally posted by Moretti
Unfactual slander. Moreover, you don't complain about the iraqi, lebanese, or palestinian genocides, so what's the point here ?
UN denies genocide is taking place in Darfur
China and Russia put pressure on key report team to reject US claim as mass killings continue. Fred Bridgland reports
The United Nations will this week trigger a major clash with the United States, the biggest financial contributor to the New York-based international body, by rejecting Washington’s assertion that genocide is happening in the Sudanese region of Darfur.
By conservative official estimates, at least 70,000 black Darfur African tribespeople have been killed and nearly two million have become refugees since Arab militias, backed by the Sudan government in Khartoum, began a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Darfurians two years ago. Other estimates put the number of dead as high as 370,000.
hington declared last year that a state of genocide existed in Darfur, an area the size of France in western Sudan, following a visit to the area by former US Secretary of State Colin Powell. The UN itself has even described the situation as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
However, the UN Special Commission on Sudan, in its report to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, will not declare genocide in Darfur.
Originally posted by Moretti
Hamas is indeed, in the overwhelming majority of it's activities, not involved in terrorist bombings, as they are primarily a democratically elected party and islamic charity organization in palestine. Also, i'd like you to provide evidence for your claim that Kofi Annan said that Hamas was not involved in resistance activities against the genocidal israeli practices.
Description
HAMAS was formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Various HAMAS elements have used both violent and political means, including terrorism, to pursue the goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in Israel. It is loosely structured, with some elements working clandestinely and others operating openly through mosques and social service institutions to recruit members, raise money, organize activities, and distribute propaganda. HAMAS’ strength is concentrated in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Activities
HAMAS terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets. HAMAS maintained the pace of its operational activity in 2004, claiming numerous attacks against Israeli interests.
HAMAS has not yet directly targeted US interests, although the group makes little or no effort to avoid targets frequented by foreigners. HAMAS continues to confine its attacks to Israelis inside Israel and the occupied territories.
May 18, 2003 A suicide bomber riding on a bus in Jerusalem kills 7 and wounds 20. HAMAS claims responsibility.
...............
June 11, 2003 A suicide bomber on board a bus in Jerusalem kills 16 and wounds more than 70. HAMAS claims responsibility.
..............
August 19, 2003 A suicide bomber aboard a bus in Jerusalem kills 20 and injures more than a hundred. HAMAS and Islamic Jihad claim responsibility.
..............
September 9, 2003 Two suicide bombers at different locations, one in Tel Aviv, Israel and the other in Jerusalem, cause the deaths of 13 and injuries more than fifty. HAMAS claims responsibility.
Hansen's admission has raised the possibility that Canada is indirectly supporting Hamas, which Ottawa has put on a list of banned groups, making it a crime to support it.
The dispute began when military pictures emerged that Israel said showed a man putting a rocket into a UN vehicle. The UN says it's just a stretcher.
It illustrates Israel's suspicion that UNRWA is used as a front by militants.
That suspicion was fuelled by a CBC News interview with Hansen, who conceded some UNRWA employees are almost certainly members of Hamas. "I am sure there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll," he said. "And I don't see that as a crime."
Hansen's comments topped Israeli newscasts and were brought to the attention of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
The UN says, quite bluntly, it does not hire terrorists. "What Mr. Hansen was saying was that Hamas also carries out social and humanitarian work and not every Hamas member is a militant or a terrorist," said Fred Eckhart, spokesman for the secretary general.
Originally posted by Moretti
Yep, someone in here is blind subz, and it isn't me....
ROFL
Originally posted by Moretti
You fail to adress subz's point and insult him instead. Do you seriously think that you are advertising your unfactual position ?
Originally posted by Muaddib
Wrong again, China did not sign the treaty either, and the ICC is a joke, just like the UN is a joke.
Originally posted by Moretti
Hahahaha
*skipped the usual israeli slander*
Originally posted by devilwasp
You where...
Originally posted by devilwasp
You mean like america giving assistance to sadam to put him in power....
General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr (Arabic أحمد حسن البكر) (July 1, 1914 - October 4, 1982) was President of Iraq from 1968 to 1979.
A leading member of the Ba'ath Party he orchestrated the 1963 coup that overthrew Iraq's military leader Muhammad Najib ar-Ruba'i. A few months later the Ba'athists were in turn deposed by another coup.
With Egyptian help, in 1967 al-Bakr helped orchestrate an internal coup within the government of President Abdul Rahman Arif. The bloodless coup exiled Arif, and installed al-Bakr as Iraq's fourth president. Al-Bakr became the leading face of the Ba'ath party and Iraqi pan-Arabism and was praised as "leader of the revolution."
His government supported closer ties to the United Arab Republic and under his rule Iraq almost joined the state. Under his rule, the flag of Iraq was modified in preparation for this dream.
Al-Bakr is best known for appointing Saddam Hussein, his Tikriti cousin, as his Vice President. As the president got older, more and more authority was gradually usurped by Hussein, and by the mid-1970s the vice president had established virtual de facto rule over the entire nation, leaning on al-Bakr to resign.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Right so when UN members do complain about it but have slightly other things to worry about like say the worlds super power blasting thier neighbor to kingdom come that means they should ditch that and go in guns blazeing?
Originally posted by devilwasp
So now the entire UN is now saying there is no genocide happening?
Guess what, we sometimes have to buisness with bad people, why?
Because it saves lives.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Uh right, ok so tell me how people are being disarmed?
Originally posted by devilwasp
Umm right so the UN is bad because...
Originally posted by devilwasp
Tell me, does the UN secretary general rule the UN?
No he doesnt is the answer.
Originally posted by devilwasp
The security council is the most powerful orginisation in the UN and bascially controls it.
The 5 permenant countries in the security , the only countries in the UN to have veto powers might I add, are almost all democracies and only one is socialist.
The Council has five "permanent" members.
People's Republic of China
France
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
United States
Also add to the fact...
Ten other members are elected by the General Assembly for 2-year terms starting on January 1, with five replaced each year. The members are chosen by regional groups and confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly. The African, Latin American, and Western European blocs choose two members each, and the Arab, Asian, and Eastern European blocs choose one member each. The final seat alternates between Asian and African selections.
Really ruled by dictatorships isnt it, I mean with rampant warlords like tony blair , chirac and bush the world is doomed!
Originally posted by devilwasp
..........
The US gave israel its nukes....
[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]
For reactor design and construction, Israel sought the assistance of France. Nuclear cooperation between the two nations dates back as far as early 1950's, when construction began on France's 40MWt heavy water reactor and a chemical reprocessing plant at Marcoule. France was a natural partner for Israel and both governments saw an independent nuclear option as a means by which they could maintain a degree of autonomy in the bipolar environment of the cold war.
In the fall of 1956, France agreed to provide Israel with an 18 MWt research reactor. However, the onset of the Suez Crisis a few weeks later changed the situation dramatically. Following Egypt's closure of the Suez Canal in July, France and Britain had agreed with Israel that the latter should provoke a war with Egypt to provide the European nations with the pretext to send in their troops as peacekeepers to occupy and reopen the canal zone. In the wake of the Suez Crisis, the Soviet Union made a thinly veiled threat against the three nations. This episode not only enhanced the Israeli view that an independent nuclear capability was needed to prevent reliance on potentially unreliable allies, but also led to a sense of debt among French leaders that they had failed to fulfill commitments made to a partner. French premier Guy Mollet is even quoted as saying privately that France "owed" the bomb to Israel.
On 3 October 1957, France and Israel signed a revised agreement calling for France to build a 24 MWt reactor (although the cooling systems and waste facilities were designed to handle three times that power) and, in protocols that were not committed to paper, a chemical reprocessing plant. This complex was constructed in secret, and outside the IAEA inspection regime, by French and Israeli technicians at Dimona, in the Negev desert under the leadership of Col. Manes Pratt of the IDF Ordinance Corps.
Both the scale of the project and the secrecy involved made the construction of Dimona a massive undertaking. A new intelligence agency, the Office of Science Liasons,(LEKEM) was created to provide security and intelligence for the project. At the height construction, some 1,500 Israelis some French workers were employed building Dimona. To maintain secrecy, French customs officials were told that the largest of the reactor components, such as the reactor tank, were part of a desalinization plant bound for Latin America. In addition, after buying heavy water from Norway on the condition that it not be transferred to a third country, the French Air Force secretly flew as much as four tons of the substance to Israel.
Trouble arose in May 1960, when France began to pressure Israel to make the project public and to submit to international inspections of the site, threatening to withhold the reactor fuel unless they did. President de Gaulle was concerned that the inevitable scandal following any revelations about French assistance with the project, especially the chemical reprocessing plant, would have negative repercussions for France's international position, already on shaky ground because of its war in Algeria.
At a subsequent meeting with Ben-Gurion, de Gaulle offered to sell Israel fighter aircraft in exchange for stopping work on the reprocessing plant, and came away from the meeting convinced that the matter was closed. It was not. Over the next few months, Israel worked out a compromise. France would supply the uranium and components already placed on order and would not insist on international inspections. In return, Israel would assure France that they had no intention of making atomic weapons, would not reprocess any plutonium, and would reveal the existence of the reactor, which would be completed without French assistance. In reality, not much changed - French contractors finished work on the reactor and reprocessing plant, uranium fuel was delivered and the reactor went critical in 1964.
The United States first became aware of Dimona's existence after U-2 overflights in 1958 captured the facility's construction, but it was not identified as a nuclear site until two years later. The complex was variously explained as a textile plant, an agricultural station, and a metallurgical research facility, until David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1960 that Dimona complex was a nuclear research center built for "peaceful purposes."
There followed two decades in which the United States, through a combination of benign neglect, erroneous analysis, and successful Israeli deception, failed to discern first the details of Israel's nuclear program. As early as 8 December 1960, the CIA issued a report outlining Dimona's implications for nuclear proliferation, and the CIA station in Tel Aviv had determined by the mid-1960s that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was an established and irreversible fact.
United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant.