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.

 

Further proof UN Worthless!!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
After passing a nearly unanomous resolution threatening economic and/or political sanctions against Iran if they failed to end their uranium enrichment program by September 1st, several signatories are backpedaling thus rendering the UN even more useless than before (If that is possible). Both Russia and China have decalred that sanctions are a deadend and would not support them. It appears that several Eauropean nations are in concurrence with this sentiment.


"TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Friday that a nuclear standoff with the West could only be settled through negotiation while Russia called imposing punitive sanctions on Tehran for not ending sensitive atomic work a dead end.

European Union foreign ministers, meeting in Finland, want further dialogue with Iran rather than sanctions after Tehran defied Thursday's U.N. deadline to stop work that the West fears could be a prelude to making a nuclear bomb, officials said.

Story: Reut ers

It is high time for the US to withdraw from the UN, banish it from our shores! What a laughing stock!


[edit on 1-9-2006 by Nerdling]

[edit on 2-9-2006 by kinglizard]




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
almost since it's creation the un has been totally useless and nothing more than a talking shop just like it's predecessor the league of nations.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
While I agree that the UN has been useless in many situations, sanctions will NOT end Iran's defiance. You must understand that Iran will not give in to world, no matter how much pressure there is. Politics always weigh heavier than what is right, and that's a problem that is growing constantly. I'm not happy with the way Russia and China is dealing with the situation, they hold very important ties with Iran, but as of now there is nothing we can do, but sit back and see how it unfolds.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The problem here is, that we are seen how the world will divide when it comes to financial matters.

China and Russia along with India will be the losers if sanctions are imposed on Iran.

We live in world that is run by markets, profits and countries that while considered thrid world countries by US standards are becoming as financial gurus as the US and UK will ever be.

Nobody wants to disrupt their businesses because of petty sanctions that one country may want to push over other because of particular administration ridden views.

While US doesn't do business with Iran and have no much to lose with sanctions imposed on them, we have other big nations than do.

This is a good example of how in the world of business no always one side get to do all the decisions.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
It's this kind of short-sightedness that got us into WWII. This is simply a lack of doing what is both right and necessary and instead taking the easy and profitable way out! Guaranteed that this will lead to a disaster down the road. We can either blow out a candle now or face a raging wildfire later.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
You see kozmo, while we are told the evilness of Iran, countries like China and Russia that has been doing business with Iran may know more about Iran that we never will unless is fed by our administration.

China had billions already invested in Iran to drill for their oil.

They have been very secret of how many billions are involve, some speculate that it may by up to 300 billions.

Will China drop out its investment of owning oil drilling rights in Iran? while the US controls most of the rest of the middle east including Iraq?

No a chance, now we do not know how much Russia has invested in Iran but probably could be as much.

Remember when Saddam was making deals before the invasion for oil drilling rights in Iraq?

We that will give you a picture as perhaps why US wants those sanctions so bad, sometimes in our obfuscation to find credibility to what we are geared to believe we forget to look beyond of what is really at stake if China owns oil even if is in Iran.


They can make their own markets.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Hmm the UN doesn't agree with the US's 'gotta bomb someone' stance and all of a sudden it's useless.

I agree, discussion and concensus are such out-moded concepts - why not bomb the UN or better still just invade every country then the mighty US can make all the decisions in the world and protect us all from ourselves.


[edit on 1/9/2006 by Strangerous]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Hmm the UN doesn't agree with the US's 'gotta bomb someone' stance and all of a sudden it's useless.

I agree, discussion and concensus are such out-moded concepts - why not bomb the UN or better still just invade every country then the mighty US can make all the decisions in the world and protect us all from ourselves.


[edit on 1/9/2006 by Strangerous]


I'm sorry, but you're just not making any snese. No one here is saying everything the U.S. says is right. The point here is that every country in this world, including the U.S. never does the right thing because politics and business out weighs what is right.

Please don't try to start something when we were having a good conversation.

I have to say that major reform is needed in the UN. Should the UN be abadoned? No... it can be useful, but we have to find a way to do the right thing.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
The only way to make the UN a power is world events is to remove the veto option for all five nations of the pernament security council members. Many a time one nation has used this power to make worthwhile UN resolutions invalid. By removing this, allowing equal power to all UN members, then perhaps member nations will take heed of what the world decides. Right now many see the UN as an arm of the five nations on the security council who usually don't agree anyway. Unfortunately it wont happen as it needs to occur through a vote and no nation with veto powers is likely to give that power up.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
That's OK I don't mind your patronising tone & condescending attitude.

The OP says the UN is worthless because it won't bow to the US's will, I'm merely pointing out there's an 's' on the end of Nations - ie it's not just about the US, or just backing up the US's view.

Criticism of the UN seems to rise in direct proportion to the UN's disagreement with the US's policy desires

Has it occurred to you that the US could be wrong and China/Russia might be right?

Currently the US/UK view is in a minority in terms of Security Council Permanent members and yet the US is pushing for sanctions as a prelude to military action - does that sound at all familiar?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
That's OK I don't mind your patronising tone & condescending attitude.

The OP says the UN is worthless because it won't bow to the US's will, I'm merely pointing out there's an 's' on the end of Nations - ie it's not just about the US, or just backing up the US's view.

Criticism of the UN seems to rise in direct proportion to the UN's disagreement with the US's policy desires

Has it occurred to you that the US could be wrong and China/Russia might be right?

Currently the US/UK view is in a minority in terms of Security Council Permanent members and yet the US is pushing for sanctions as a prelude to military action - does that sound at all familiar?


It amazes me that when there is genocide, nuclear crises, human rights crises and poverty the UN sits down to talk and talk until is is too late. Is the U.S. always right? No. Is China and Russia always right? No.

As I have said before, I do not think sanctions will work and military action will be death for the Middle East. Iran has us right where they want us and there is not many paths to walk all because of the UN's failure to deal with this problem. We have seen deadline after deadline come and the situation have not gotten better. North Korea's missile test came and went and what has happened? Granted it was a failed test but nothing happened, not even working negotiations.

Reform is the only way to go. Abandonment is an option (though I don't support it).

As of now I don't support either party's options, why, because none of it will work. What will China and Russia do after two weeks of talks and back to square one? Let me guess, sign a 10 billion dollar deal for more oil.

Do you understand my point now?

[edit on 1-9-2006 by MasterRegal]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Where to begin...
The UN isnt useless, you just dont understand what its use is.
Every American, nay, every Human, should fear the UN, yet there seems to be widespread support on this board for them.
The UN is just the name of the bus that we are all riding in, on our way to hell. Its time some of you stopped looking out the window at the world go by and ask some real questions.
Questions like where are we going? How long until we get there? Who is driving this thing? Who payed for the gas and so on.....



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Where to begin...
The UN isnt useless, you just dont understand what its use is.
Every American, nay, every Human, should fear the UN, yet there seems to be widespread support on this board for them.
The UN is just the name of the bus that we are all riding in, on our way to hell. Its time some of you stopped looking out the window at the world go by and ask some real questions.
Questions like where are we going? How long until we get there? Who is driving this thing? Who payed for the gas and so on.....


What in the hell was that about? Care to explain?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Fundamentally disagree - I think the US (with attendant poodle Blair) is the greatest single threat to peace & stability on this planet.

We're already upto our knees in the blood of one illegal war/occupation, the US's tame Nazi rottweiler has just drenched another nation in cluster bombs on the flimsiest of pretexts and now you want to attack another country that just so happens to have oil and trading agreements with your economic rivals.

The concensus of the UN is that the US is wrong in its desperation to launch part 2 of the crusade before your educationally subnormal president has to leave office.

I back the UN

Now, do you understand my point?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Fundamentally disagree - I think the US (with attendant poodle Blair) is the greatest single threat to peace & stability on this planet.

We're already upto our knees in the blood of one illegal war/occupation, the US's tame Nazi rottweiler has just drenched another nation in cluster bombs on the flimsiest of pretexts and now you want to attack another country that just so happens to have oil and trading agreements with your economic rivals.

The concensus of the UN is that the US is wrong in its desperation to launch part 2 of the crusade before your educationally subnormal president has to leave office.

I back the UN

Now, do you understand my point?


I understand your point that you support the UN and you hate the government of the U.S and its policies.

1. Do NOT put words in my mouth. I NEVER said I will like to attack Iran. In fact, I said that was the worst possible option. Read my post completely before you reply.
2. I agree that the Iraq was illegal based on UN Charter and there is no fighting you there, but that is not the argugment of this topic.
3. Do I care if Iran and China have economic ties with Iran, of course not, business is business.
4. Do I agree with what Israel did? NO!

But tell me this now, if the UN functioned the way it should why do the hosts to illegal wars go unpunished? Because it does not function the way it should, it is controlled by money and politics. Understand what I am trying to say here? It is the whole point of the point. The usefulness of the UN. Granted, there are things which it does nicely, but it lacks so much.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
The UN is divided into 6 Principal Organs.

1) Trusteeship Council
2) Security Council
3) General Assembly
4) Economic and Social Council
5) International Court of Justice
6) The Secretariat

Currently there are 192 member states. The Security Council is like the 800 pound gorilla of the UN. It’s mission statement is to protect the peace and security of member states. It is made up of the 5 Permanent Members, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France. Each of those five have a veto over any action to be taken by the UN Security Council.

The General Assembly chooses 10 member states to be non-permanent members of the Security Council for 2 years. The election is staggered, so that 5 member states are elected each year. The current 10 Elected Members are, Argentina, the Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Greece, Japan, Peru, Qatar, Slovakia, and Tanzania. The Security Council first met at Church House, London, on January 17, 1945.

Except as implied by the Organs listed above, almost all the day-to-day business of the UN is carried out by the Secretariat. It is this Organ the United States in particular is urging the UN reform.

www.unsystem.org...



[edit on 9/1/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
I back the UN

Now, do you understand my point?


In a word .....No.

So if the 5 major powers and by a 14 to 1 vote, the Security Council agrees on an action with consequences to follow if said conditions are not met, what message does it give when 2 of the 5 back off of their promise/demand? I contend that Russia and China are underming the UN by their actions.



The Security Council, seriously concerned that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was still unable to provide assurances about Iran’s undeclared nuclear material and activities after more than three years, today demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, and gave it one month to do so or face the possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions to give effect to its decision.

Adopting resolution 1696 (2006), under Chapter VII, by a vote of 14 in favour to 1 against (Qatar), the Council expressed its conviction that such suspension, as well as full, verified Iranian compliance with the IAEA Board of Governor’s requirements, would contribute to a diplomatic, negotiated solution that guaranteed Iran’s nuclear programme was for exclusively peaceful purposes.


UN Res. 1696

Full Text of 1696



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Pavil - that logic only seems to apply when the UN disagrees with the US.

Look up the amount of times the US has used its vote to veto resolutions against Israel - do you think the system is all wrong in that instance? The US never bleats about the UN when it suits them / votes their way.

The whole UN system was designed around concensus, without that no approval is given and any prohibited/unapproved action illegal. That's the system - it's doing what it was designed to do.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterRegal
I understand your point that you support the UN and you hate the government of the U.S and its policies.

1. Do NOT put words in my mouth. I NEVER said I will like to attack Iran. In fact, I said that was the worst possible option. Read my post completely before you reply.
2. I agree that the Iraq was illegal based on UN Charter and there is no fighting you there, but that is not the argugment of this topic.
3. Do I care if Iran and China have economic ties with Iran, of course not, business is business.
4. Do I agree with what Israel did? NO!

But tell me this now, if the UN functioned the way it should why do the hosts to illegal wars go unpunished? Because it does not function the way it should, it is controlled by money and politics. Understand what I am trying to say here? It is the whole point of the point. The usefulness of the UN. Granted, there are things which it does nicely, but it lacks so much.


Hate is a strong word - I see THIS US administration as fundamentally dangerous, yes.

Why do the agressors of illaegal wars go unpunished - simple, self-interest. If Zimbabwe or Sudan had oil the US would have cajoled, threatened, bribed (as it did before GW2for the uneeded / lost resolution) to get the vote to go its way. If the US hadn't given top cover to Israel's destruction of Lebanon then the UN would have called for it to end a lot sooner / applied sanctions against the aggressor.

Why was Milosovich in custody when he died but Sharon is allowed the best of care while he breathes his miserable last? Why was Russia allowed to practice genocide in Chechnya?

It's all self-interest. The UN is used by the big players to justify / further their aims. As the biggest the US uses all its resources and muscle to bend/influence/subvert the actual will of the member states.

Anyone disagreeing with this US view is somehow working against 'international will'.

I'd agree the UN isn't ideal but it's all we've got and the main reasons for its failings are the actions of the countries manipulating it - particularly the USA



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterRegal
While I agree that the UN has been useless in many situations, sanctions will NOT end Iran's defiance. You must understand that Iran will not give in to world, no matter how much pressure there is. Politics always weigh heavier than what is right, and that's a problem that is growing constantly. I'm not happy with the way Russia and China is dealing with the situation, they hold very important ties with Iran, but as of now there is nothing we can do, but sit back and see how it unfolds.


That they won't, but will hurt them economically.. and that very well could force Iran to stop it's project because the peoples of Iran are more westernized then many Arab states and like their western goods.

Is the UN worthless?
YEAH! They really honestly are.

My view of the UN is a place where grown men gather to complain about something to make their un ethical actions ethical by saying things like "Iraq has WMD's!" and thus Bush makes us feel better for consulting the UN even though they did nothing. When we go to war with Iran, Bush can say "Hey, I tried the UN and diplomacy but they failed!" In other words, the UN is not supposed to work, as if it did work then the real objctives cannot be compleeted.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join