UN proved useless again

[vampireuk]

What on earth is the point of the UN with the genocide going on in Sudan? The US and UK are ready to send in troops to stop it from happening and the UN are pussying around, as always.

[Drumphil]

care to provide a link or some sort of information.

[vampireuk]

I'm sure you can find a couple of stories yourself, it's in the news don't you know.

The US already had one of its plans shot down by France in the security council over Sudan, no doubt the UN will sit around and let the genocide happen while the US and UK go in to help the people, and then they will be criticised :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3875277.stm

[Ninja Prime]

I found this part interesting:

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

:rolleyes:

We all know who France is looking out for, and its not the 10,000s of dead in Sudan.

[Drumphil]

that article talks about sanctions, not the US or the UK wanting to send troops now.

[vampireuk]

Go do your own research then it's quite easy to find articles saying how the UK has 5000 troops ready for sending to Sudan.

[SuLinUX]

Just like they did with Sadam while he was braking UN resolutions, the UN wait until it's to late :rolleyes:

[Rob_0126]

Makes me wonder if AL Queda has a few representatives of their own, in the UN. (mag)

[DaveW]

We all know who France is looking out for, and its not the 10,000s of dead in Sudan.

I think the body count is 2 million actually. 2 million dead... and the UN response? trade sanctions.... :confused:

[DivotMaker]

UN = Un Necessary

[Rakeesh]

Makes me wonder if AL Queda has a few representatives of their own, in the UN. (mag)

France represents them :D Well, at least their actions agree with the interests of al-qaeda.

[Drumphil]

Go do your own research then it's quite easy to find articles saying how the UK has 5000 troops ready for sending to Sudan.

yeah, but do they want to send them now, and are being stopped by the UN?? Australia has troops ready to be sent too, but we are not saying we want to send them right now and we're not being allowed. Someone show me a quote from the US or UK administration saying they want their troops there right now, but the UN won't let them.

I think the body count is 2 million actually. 2 million dead... and the UN response? trade sanctions....

I thought that was the US administrations idea. Aren't they the ones pushing for sanctions.

I say we either send troops or forget about it.. All sanctions do is make one of the worlds poorest countries even poorer.

[vampireuk]

Who says the UN are stopping them? Nice way of avoiding the issue, the UN is pussying around over this while we have our troops ready, the issue is the UN failing to stop genocide in Africa AGAIN

But of course lets ignore that fact because drumphill can point out something else :wonder:

[Drumphil]

Who says the UN are stopping them? Nice way of avoiding the issue, the UN is pussying around over this while we have our troops ready, the issue is the UN failing to stop genocide in Africa AGAIN

hmmm
The US and UK are ready to send in troops to stop it from happening and the UN are pussying around, as always.

are the US and UK pushing for troops to be sent now? If not, whos fault is that, theirs or the UNs. The people responsible for the actions of the UN are the leaders of the member countries.. So, who is trying to send troops, and who is trying to stop them.

Now, I believe that the UN has big problems, but the way you put it you were comparing the "uesless UN" with two of its members, so I ask, what are those two members pushing for them.. Sanctions?? yeah, that'll fix it.

[vampireuk]

hmmm


Nice rebuttal, kind of makes my case doesn't it.

are the US and UK pushing for troops to be sent now? If not, whos fault is that, theirs or the UNs

The UK and US want UN approval, however if the UN continues to stall I sincerely hope we disregard those windbags and go in ourselves. Of course that would be bad right?

[Drumphil]

Nice rebuttal, kind of makes my case doesn't it.

only if you only read one line of my response.

The UK and US want UN approval, however if the UN continues to stall

OK, thats the info I wanted. The US and UK are wanting to send their troops now, but they can't get the numbers.. Well, if thats so, that sucks. You still haven't provided any information to back up your position here tho.

I sincerely hope we disregard those windbags and go in ourselves. Of course that would be bad right?

Unfortunately the situation isn't simple.. It depends on lots of things. The fact that the US tried to get UN support for its war on Iraq based on WMD resolutions, and then didn't find WMDs after going ahead anyway makes the situation so much worse.

Ovbiously it would be much better if agreement could be reached in the UN, but if the situation is bad enough everyone has to act on their consciences. I know I would.

You seem to be suggesting that I have said its absolutley bad to to anything outside the UN.. sorry, wrong. Do you actually read my arguments, or do you just break everything down to PRO or ANTI whichever group you are discussing. I chose what I said about the UN, it wasn't an accident, and I meant what I said, not more, not less.

just noticed this too

I'm sure you can find a couple of stories yourself, it's in the news don't you know.

Lol, I read the news allready. Its just that you seemed to be trying to make a point, and it helps if you can point to some info about what you are talking about.

ok, I just read the news today.. here are some quotes..
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has not ruled out military intervention in Darfur.

The United States has also circulated a draft UN resolution threatening sanctions against Khartoum if it does not prosecute the leaders of the militia.

does that sound like nations wanting to send troops right now but not being able to get support?

You have made your claims, now how about the providing info to back them up.

Basically, I think the UN has big problems, and is useless on many important issues. You seem to be claiming that the US and UK are the shining knights, ready to gallop to the rescue if only the UN would open the gate for them. Unfortunately, that just isn't true.. It doesn't make the UN any better for their inaction on this issue, but it does mean that what you are saying isn't right.

If you want to bash the UN, sure, I can think of plenty of bad things about it too, but to make out that the US and UK are ready to save the day again if only they could get the UN out of the road is quite a stretch.

[vampireuk]

It seems you are taking the point away from the UN ignoring genocide and focusing on how I present my argument, tackle the issue and stop posting in semantics.

Also we have the numbers, it would just be nice to get backing for one.

[Drumphil]

It seems you are taking the point away from the UN ignoring genocide and focusing on how I present my argument, tackle the issue and stop posting in semantics.

thats because you didn't just present information or make a point. You loaded your own baggage along with the rest of the post.. You take a shot at the UN, making out that the US and UK are wanting to send troops and being stopped, provide no info to back this up, and then complain that I don't want to just discuss the UN response to the genocide.

If you want an objective discussion on this issue, fine, but if you are going to use it as a vehicle to advance your other causes, I won't just let it pass.

[vampireuk]

I think you proved how "objective" you can be in a discussion, I plainly point out that the UN is failing to stop genocide in Africa and you dance around the issue and point to how i present this, and you are STILL doing this.

making out that the US and UK are wanting to send troops and being stopped

You interpreted my post as this, I said no such thing, stop putting words in my mouth, attacking how I made this thread and take a look at the bigger picture. Oh no you won't let something pass :lol:

[DiscipleDOC]

I think the situation in Sudan is well-documented. There are places in Sudan that still condone slavery, and mutilation, and all kinds of criminal activity on a government level.

[Drumphil]

the UN is pussying around over this while we have our troops ready, the issue is the UN failing to stop genocide in Africa AGAIN

"we" aren't asking the UN to let us send troops.. we are asking them to impose sanctions.

[vampireuk]

Ignoring the point I made again eh?

[Rob_0126]

(popcorn)

[DiscipleDOC]

(popcorn) (popcorn)
Rob DiscipleDOC

:D

[kahloq]

Unfortunately the situation isn't simple.. It depends on lots of things. The fact that the US tried to get UN support for its war on Iraq based on WMD resolutions, and then didn't find WMDs after going ahead anyway makes the situation so much worse.


Thats is your interpretation. Bush and Blair did not say nor try to get UN backing because of the threat of WMD's soley and was only one of many points used. The majority of the arguement from Bush/Blair to the UN was due to Saddam's refusal to ahear to the many UN resolutions over the past decade. You might want to read the actual UN resolution 1441 and the subsequent UN resolutions more thoroughly. Yes, WMD's were a part of the arguements, but NOT the main focus. Almost without exception, the world's governments ALSO believed the same thing, that Saddam had WMD's. You cannot pin that on Bush/Blair.