Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
Not quite Kev, credit me more than that. They are worthless because they lack the will to backup their main function. If they are supposed to broker peace between all nations, that must be willing to enforce that will. They have shown time and time again entirely too much temerity in restraining rogue states. Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Timor. . .The list goes on.
|
The UN has excelled in other areas, however. UNICEF is regarded as a fairly successful program, as is the W.H.O. The list of
good things they've done ain't too bad, either.
I agree that when it comes to peace keeping and conflict resolution they have dropped the ball. But nobody said international diplomacy WAS easy. The fact of the matter is that the only way the UN can be effective is if they ditch the ugly blue hats and carry a big stick, IOW, form an army. The implications of THAT however are scarier for me then an inept UN (the black choppers! the black choppers!).
Quote:
|
Maybe, like Israel, he was only keeping them to ensure his own security. Israel is the only country who, illegally and openly, manufactures neutron bombs. . .But the vital difference between the two, is that while Israel never signed the international accord saying they would neither create not use such weapons, Iraq has signed saying that it neither manufactures, possesses or intends to use certain weapons. And he has violated that.
|
I think your comment on Israel however proves just how absurd this sudden concern over the sanctity of international laws and agreements from the U.S. really is....