Thread: Gaza's mayhem is the bitter fruit of terror as statecraft.

Originally Posted by roobarb

We know the UN's track record on human rights. It has been quick to point out Israel's violations but my my my is this the same body that failed to disarm Hezbollah? Is this the same body that remained silent in Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, and on and on. Is this the same body whose majority of members of its Human Rights body are miserable dictatorships who randomly violate and torture their citizens?

Hey this asking questions is fun.

so we expect the UN to be progressive?
I say: to hell with it all. let's just fight and kill more people.

Originally Posted by roobarb

We know the UN's track record on human rights. It has been quick to point out Israel's violations but my my my is this the same body that failed to disarm Hezbollah?

When did it have the opportunity to disarm Hezbollah? If Isreal violates human rights, should the UN be slow to point that out? Who would benefit from that?

Originally Posted by roobarb

Is this the same body that remained silent in Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, and on and on.

"The UN mission (UNAMIR), created in October 1993 to keep the peace and assist the governmental transition in Rwanda, sought to intervene between the killers and civilians. It also tried to mediate between the RPF and the Rwandan army after the RPF struck from Rwanda to protect Tutsi and rescue their battalion encamped in Kigali as part of the Accord. On April 21, 1994, the United Nations Security Council, at the behest of the United States—which had no troops in Rwanda—Belgium, and others, voted to withdraw all but a remnant of UNAMIR."
The U.S. and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994: Evidence of Inaction

There are some peacekeeping forces being readied for Darfur now, if they haven't deployed already...
Would you prefer to see the US go it alone in there?

Originally Posted by roobarb

Is this the same body whose majority of members of its Human Rights body are miserable dictatorships who randomly violate and torture their citizens?.

The majority? You want to check that?

Originally Posted by roobarb

Hey this asking questions is fun.

I hope one day you get better at it...

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

So it should not intervene if that Government is hurling Katyusha rockets into someone else's territory with the intent to commit random killings?

Has Isreal requested? Has the US sponsored a motion to the UN Security Council?

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

So it should NOT intervene in Darfur

Umm der urr umm... IT IS

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

or Somalia?

What? against US sponsored invasion by Ethiopia- you want the UN to go to war against the US proxy? For starters the US wouldn't let it happen?

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

So it should NOT intervene on behalf of the Afghanistan people or the Iraqi people?

The US has a veto. The UN could not have defended these countries.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

If it should not intervene in any of these situations, why does the UN even exist?

To prevent war

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Why then did it intervene when it created the State of Israel? After creating the State of Israel, why did it watch when Arab legions attempted to annihilate them?

You tell me, the US and UK have always been Security council members - how did they vote?

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Have you even read the UN charter? To suggest that one must first commit war crimes for UN intervention is a laugheable, if not absurd, comment.

You have failed to answer my question (surprise surprise):
Why would it intervene?

"When did it have the opportunity to disarm Hezbollah? "

Of course the question infers Israel prevented the disarmament and it had nothing to do with the UN being completely ineffectual or France and China openly backing Hezbollah. It is all Israel's fault.

"The UN mission (UNAMIR), created in October 1993 to keep the peace and assist the governmental transition in Rwanda, sought to intervene between the killers and civilians."

You are absolutely and utterly wrong. It did nothing and it never attempted to intervene and ordered Gen. Romeo Dellaires of the Canadian Armed Forces to do nothing while people were slaughtered. You are absolutely wrong that it mediated or tried to do anything. In fact it went out of its way to avoid doing anything.

"There are some peacekeeping forces being readied for Darfur now, if they haven't deployed already..."

Again you are completely wrong. There are none being readied.

"The majority? You want to check that?"

Perhaps you should find out who sits on the UN Human Rights council before you ask the question.


Making up things that have not happened is kind of silly. Stop.

Originally Posted by sectionOne

so we expect the UN to be progressive?
I say: to hell with it all. let's just fight and kill more people.

The point is the UN can not be relied on and people will have to find other ways to achieve peace.

Originally Posted by roobarb

The point is the UN can not be relied on and people will have to find other ways to achieve peace.

no, actually the UN works.
and if everyone keeps knocking it and not buying into the idea that we need to achieve world peace then it will not work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roobarb
The point is the UN can not be relied on and people will have to find other ways to achieve peace.

Originally Posted by sectionOne

no, actually the UN works.
and if everyone keeps knocking it and not buying into the idea that we need to achieve world peace then it will not work.

I'm sorry, but this is a stretch for me. Can you show me, with some credibility, how the UN has worked?

I am sure we can debate this, but the evidence of complete fecklessness and incompetence and corruption will overwhelm any evidence to the contrary, wouldn't you agree? Or should we play this one out as well?