Bush sends troops to Liberia

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
First, every state on the planet is capable of communicating interests, diplomacy, etc. to any other state. There is no need for the UN to act as a diplomatic "hub."

Second, the UN is not what holds today's peace together, it's the actions of the individual states that interact with one another.

A fair point, sirrah.

But won't that leave many nations open to big nation bullying?

And what happens if diplomacy breaks down between two mega-nations?

Do we just sit back and let global armageddon happen?

Since you live in a mega-nation and stand a good chance of being atomized in a nuke slug-out, doesn't this enter your considerations?

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by CurtSibling

But won't that leave many nations open to big nation bullying?

I see it differently. It's not really a big-little question, it's a democracy-dictator one. When was the last time two democratic states were engaged in a war?

And what happens if diplomacy breaks down between two mega-nations?

Highly unlikely, but how would the UN have influenced this though in the first place?

Do we just sit back and let global armageddon happen?

Like above, how does the UN prevent this?

Since you live in a mega-nation and stand a good chance of being atomized in a nuke slug-out, doesn't this enter your considerations?

I'm a lot more confident in my own nation than I am in that of others. I've never seen a war the UN has prevented, and at the current rate, never will.

 

[Lostman]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
First, Kofi Annan is probably the LAST person who should have a say on "peacekeeping." He is fundamentally opposed to the U.S., but will frequently make demands of the U.S. to do things that he sees as fit.

The only workable solution (that would act in the best interests of the United States) would be permanent disbandment of the UN and expulsion of all UN "diplomats" from the United States.

How is Kofi Annan still in the UN? Didn't they do anything when he got busted taking bribes for the Oil for Food program?

 

[amadeus]

Kofi Annan is still the Secretary General of the United Nations.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Lostman
How is Kofi Annan still in the UN? Didn't they do anything when he got busted taking bribes for the Oil for Food program?

Don't you know that the UN secretary general is allowed to take bribes and lie? He even got a nobel peace prize for that!

 

[cgannon64]

About time.

One picture on a recent Times was what looked like a crazed man running down the street with a rocket launcher.

That place needs help.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by G-Man


Don't you know that the UN secretary general is allowed to take bribes and lie? He even got a nobel peace prize for that!

Still better than hijacking cruise ships and airplanes and getting Nobel prizes for that.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Still better than hijacking cruise ships and airplanes and getting Nobel prizes for that.

Protecting kidnappers isn't much better...

 

[Richard III]

1. There is no such thing as UN troops, there are only troops provided for UN purposes by the UN's member states. If Kofi asked for peacekeepers, his next task would be to shop around to different countries to beg for them to offer troops up.

2. Without the UN, we'd be left with, uh, all the organizations that are increasingly doing the UN's work; the EU, the OSCE, the OAS, the AU, the AL, NATO, ECOMOG, a few million NGOs, etc.. Increasingly, the UN is just a "brand" applied on top of the work of half-a-dozen other more flexible groups that can actually achieve things. The danger, of course, is that the UN's security system has a veto, though, so things can get bogged down in the UN, preventing other organizations from picking up the slack while they wait for the "big" org to make up its mind. In other words, the UN is both useless and dangerous, and should be destroyed.

R.III

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I see it differently. It's not really a big-little question, it's a democracy-dictator one. When was the last time two democratic states were engaged in a war?

But the big democracies decide who is a dictator, hence the going to war...

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Highly unlikely, but how would the UN have influenced this though in the first place?

In this climate, actually likely.
And how would your 'non-UN' US-led geopolitics handle it?

Or would they fight it out, get fried and die?

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Like above, how does the UN prevent this?

Again, who does your alternative handle it?

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I'm a lot more confident in my own nation than I am in that of others. I've never seen a war the UN has prevented, and at the current rate, never will.

I am wary of the mega-nations calling the shots without control.
You cannot always rely on the US power being justly used...

What, for instance, if your nation carries out policies you don't agree with,
(opposed to the current ones that you do agree with)
Would you still cry out for a Democrat administration to take the lead, without them heeding anyone else?

A world of self-serving bully nations will lead to global war, without a doubt.

Perhaps this is what the ultra-conservatives want.

But radioactive rubble is not the basis of the New World Order...

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Call me what you want, but I believe the U.S. should have a CHOICE in which international organizations it participates in. Let the people vote on whether they want to participate in the UN, given their history of anti-U.S. actions.

Well, as Richard III already pointed out, America will only send troops to Liberia if it wants to - the UN asks, the US can choose to accede to their request or it can choose not to. Furthermore, the US can certainly decide not to participate in the UN if it chooses to - it's just that for the moment, American governments have decided that it's not worth it yet to leave. They show their displeasure in other ways, like not paying the membership dues they're supposed to. Finally, the only UN resolutions that matter are the ones from the Security Council, and the US has a veto there.

The UN is nowhere near perfect, but that is as much a function of the member states' willingness to cooperate as of its failings as an institution per se.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I'm glad that Bush, for once, is doing the right thing.

Let's hope that Taylor is soon out of the picture for Africa forever. And in the meanwhile, let's not forget who helped him keep his job for so long. It's a pretty long story... but perhaps some links may help.

from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/11/national/main562915.shtml

Pat Robertson Slams Bush On Liberia

NORFOLK, Virginia, July 11, 2003


(CBS) Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson accused President Bush of
“undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels” by
asking Liberian President Charles Taylor, recently indicted for war crimes, to
step down.

“How dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected
president of another country, 'You've got to step down,'" Robertson said
Monday on “The 700 Club,” broadcast from his Christian Broadcasting
Network.

Yet more proof that irony is lost on the undead.

Admittedly from a biased site with a lot of propoganda, atheism.about.com, but there are some facts gleaming among the rhetoric, including Robertson's own statements:

So why is Pat Robertson such a big fan of Liberia's President Charles Taylor? What you won't hear much about on Robertson's shows is the fact that he
has a huge financial interest in Liberia. Under Taylor's regime in 1999, Robertson negotiated an $8 million investment in a gold mining venture. A new
government may or may not honor Robertson's claims - if they don't, he'll be out an awful lot of cash.

Robertson's motives probably aren't entirely financial: he also seems to have a strong religious motivation, or at least he claims to. Charles Taylor professes to be a Christian and
claims to want to lead Liberia as a Christian Nation. This, naturally enough, sits very well with Pat Robertson. He may not be able to force Christianity onto American citizens, but
helping an African leader do it to his own citizens may be easier.

In addition, Robertson has repeatedly framed the civil unrest in Liberia as that between Christians like Taylor on the one side and Muslim rebels on the other. Thus, any efforts to
get Taylor to step down are portrayed as a means of "handing over" Liberia to Islam. This is what Robertson accuses the State Department of doing and why he believes that they
are to blame for much of the violence.

More on Al Quaeda, to whom Taylor gave shelter - without feeling any repercussions for the action that Bush said would put a state on his "to invade" list:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/faith49.htm

And finally, the atheists [biased as they are] are not alone. Christians too are seeing the light:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/127/48.0.html

The Washington Post, merely quoting Robertson's own words:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A34975-2003Jul9&notFound=true

Make of this what you like.

I'm just glad Taylor is going down at last.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

I see it differently. It's not really a big-little question, it's a democracy-dictator one. When was the last time two democratic states were engaged in a war?

I actully read a study once that said two democracies have never been at war with each other.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Don't start picking on Kofi Anan. It's good that we have a peacekeeper at the head of the UN. Who would you rather have instead, Buffalo Bill?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Don't start picking on Kofi Anan. It's good that we have a peacekeeper at the head of the UN. Who would you rather have instead, Buffalo Bill?

How about someone neutral?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The thing is that if Kofi Anan is replaced under American pressure then that will further the American-imperialism conspiracy theories. The last thing we need is a new OPEC embargo.

 

[G-Man]

How about if he was to be replaced by the UN once it was found out that he wasn't honest?

 

[CurtSibling]

The UN needs a shake up.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by archer_007
I actully read a study once that said two democracies have never been at war with each other.

Its quite true.

One of the reasons we need to impose democracy whenever possible

Peace through war

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
The thing is that if Kofi Anan is replaced under American pressure then that will further the American-imperialism conspiracy theories. The last thing we need is a new OPEC embargo.

Why ? Boutros Boutros-Ghali was replaced under American pressure too, even though he wanted another term as SG. Kofi Annan was chosen in part because he was much more acceptable to America (at the time, obviously ).