Originally posted by edsinger
Thats a farce, the UN was not doing sqat.
- It was the UN that had inspectors on the ground cataloging Saddam's arsenal and saying loud and clear that they were not finding anything where
the US said there were 'secret caches'.
Therefore they had to go.
The US and UK were the ones enforcing the resolutions
- This is just typical playing both ends against the middle ed.
The UN doesn't have it's own forces, only what it's membership contributes.
In this case it was mainly down to the USA and UK to enforce the no fly zones etc.
and the Iraqi's were still ignoring some of what they had agreed to in the first place.
- .......which would hardly be the first instance of that happening yet 'we' don't tramp all around the globe invading and turning every
non-compliant country into the kind of mess we now have Iraq in, right?
The UN sucks and is a limp *&^&*.
- Well that's a pretty ignorant statement.
The UN does a hell of a lot for a hell of a lot of people all across the world.
The only reason why the UN appear weak at times is when member states prefer to pursue their own narrow and selfish interests, thereby blocking any
chance of some real agreed progress and change.
Take, for example, the USA's repeated vetoing of anything to do with Israel or herself.
.....and to be fair it isn't just the USA that does this either.
But that's what you get sometimes with a cooperative collective.
It isn't perfect.
But for all that the world is a better place for having a forum for genuine direct contact, real dialogue and agreed collective action than the only
The only reason that it ever had a sucess of any major war was when the Soviets did not vote on the Korean war...pretty much everything else
has been a failure.
- Like I said you really don't know much about what it does, do you?
Anyhoo; anyone actually serious about knowing the hundreds of national and global programs and activities the UN engages in can find out about it at
this link - The UN
[edit on 11-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]