well of course the UN can't have sovereignty as the nation states have that. A lot of states blame the UN for not doing things like for stopping the Rwandan genocide, but it's the nation states that need to act through the UN together, it's strange for people to talk of it seperate from nation states responsibility...anyway the UN does a lot of good with UNAIDS, UNICEF and various other organisations, but I can't procrastinate anymore, must stop discussing on here and go do some work which coincidently is on speeches given to the UN by Eastern european leaders
The UN do very little in the way of peace keeping. Gods knows i should know that. When the UN send in their aides they do very little much of the time then the UN send in peace keepers. As a peace keeper you get to watch people murdered and slaughtered and can do nothing, Nothing at all. In Bosnia too many were slaughtered and serving the UN meant all we could do was move them after the slaughtering should they have survived. In some cases we arrived at the aftermath of a blood bath or we arrived loaded them on the ATCs and then recieved orders to unload them. Yet when the US and the UK have acted independantly things get done. You may disagree with me strongly but peace comes from war. Maybe many will die with Kosovo's actions but its better to lose a thosand than a Million. Its wrong its cruel but its the way this globe spins.
After the US and NATO bombed Serbia into allowing Kosovo to not be cleansed either by murder or forcing the Kosovors out of their homes to live or die fleeing to other countries, the UN promised to come up with a deal for Kosovo and Serbia that would let everyone live peacefully. After 10 years of doing nothing (read the UN reports they weren't even in negotiations) Kosovo did what they believed they had to do. The UN is bloody well useless, and the only good thing the UN does is it's semi-independent bodies like UNICEF. Everything else about it is bureaucratic nonsense.
Umm...Iraq You could argue that it's not peace then but an period between wars, for another war based on the grievances of the last one. I don't see the logic that it's impossible for a situation to be resolved peacefully - look at the revolutionary change in 1989 in Poland and Hungray. People stood up against communists, gorvachev said wouldn't intervene, multiparty elections, communists resign leave peacefully - In Romania it was very bloody, but the end result for the countries is the same. The UN has many faults and of course it's a nightmare to get all nations in the world to agree on something, but what would we have in it's place? Nothing? The main problem with resolving conflicts which is one of it's many aims (development, promoting, supervising elections, aid relief, promotion of human rights....etc etc) is the lack of force behind it but then that would call for some sort of world government, the UN needs the support of the forces from nation states and if they are not prepared to give soldiers, like in the case of Rwanda then nothing is done. Of course I believe regionalisation is of course more powerful and better for dealing with problems at present (within the region of course) and providing stability that 's why Kosovo should join the EU, can't see Serbia picking on the EU, like it would Kosovo on its own.
Not to turn this into a debate on Iraq but that's not true. There has been a great deal of progress made in Iraq (Most of it ignored by the media). Thanks to the Coalition, Iraq now has power. They have schools. They don't have a tyranical dictoator killing people for no good reason (Sure now we have insurgents but they're not run by the Iraq Government ). To say that things in Iraq arn't better than they were is a gross misinturpretation of facts. Sure its not perfect. Sure there's a long way to go before we can say "Mission Accomplished (Ignore the Bush Banner though his was premature )" but there is progress and its alot more in four years than what the UN did in ten. Some problems, as much as it sucks to say, just can't be solved peacefully (They tried talking Hitler away, didn't work). It all depends on the people, the social and political environment of the time, and the conditions and interests of other nations who may be concerned. For Kosovo it could get messy really easily. Ethnic and cultural tensions, people burning buildings, and fanatical nationalists. Not a good mix for peacful negotiation.
Things are still far worse there than they were before we went in, and will continue to be for generations.
Did you not read the first third of my post? I'm sorry but if things were worse now than they were before we wouldn't have people walking up to my dad and his soldiers offering them food and gifts, thanking them for liberating them from an oppressive government (One guy actually gave my dad a sword, too bad he had to turn it in since its against regulations to take such gifts from civilians. I would hav eliked to add it to my collection ). Every soldier I've talked to says Iraq is no where near as bad as its portrayed. The living conditions of many of the people have gone up (The areas where its gone down are those that still see fighting with insurgents and things can't get better until the fighting is over in the areas).
Forkroot tell that to the Kurds that were being gassed and tortured by Saddam. http://www.islamicthinkers.com/massacres/thumbnails.php?album=13 (Warning disturbing pictures) http://surfease.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ocncub3JnL3JlcG9ydHMvMTk5MS9JUkFROTEzLmh0bQ%3D%3D Tell that to the Shia's that simply because they weren't Shi'ites were having vital rivers damned and lakes drained so they were forced to either starve to death or flee their homes as they couldn't farm or even find water to drink. The UN says about 100,000 Iraqi's have died due to the US invasion. About that many died every year on average, since 1987. How where the Iraqi people better off?
A death count isn't the only factor in a better or worse discussion. There's economy, social living status, etc. Look here: They're economy is getting better. If that's not a sign that things are getting better I don't know what is. Prior to the invasion about the onyl place in iraq that good a good deal of electricity was Bagdad. Now electrictiy is more even distributed with everyone getting a nearly equal amout. As new plants are built and their economy groes stronger more people will recieve power. There are still problems with food, healthcare, and sanitation but a growing economy and some smart planning can fix it all. You can't expect it all to be perfect just like that. Things take time and in my book any nation that is freed from a dictator and can get a economy to grow again is getting better.
I was being sarcastic. I've actually got to hit the gym, since I'm training to fight people in a cage and my arms are extremely weak, but in the meantime if you like you could do a little research for me, since my memory's a bit hazy. Find out when, precisely, it was that Saddam was gassing said Kurds, and what, precisely our great nation did to stop it. Then, after that, if you feel like it I mean, you could do a little further research and find out how many Kurds he was gassing prior to our invasion. Take care.
1987to 1988 or 1989. After that he starved them, he sent his troops in to kill them and he tried to put as many Shi'ites as possible into lands formerly held by the Kurds to displace them. That is why Northern Iraq has very few villages only very large towns and cities. The countryside was basically swept clean of them after the first Gulf War. After the First Gulf War and the failed rebellion due to lack of US support, the US finally went and made Northern Iraq a no fly zone, which actually was illegal in regards to the UN treaty with Iraq. Previously the US hadn't done much, but it also didn't support Saddam. Russia, Germany and France supplied most of the Iraqi weapons and gas used against the Kurds and Shia's. The US supplied about 0.47% of the weapons and materials used by Saddam and his forces. Some of which was Anthrax. But that was bought by the Iraqi agricultural ministry to assist them with farming (finding ways to remove anthrax from soil and things like that). The rest was some ammunition and small calibre weapons. After the Gulf War when Saddam hit the Shia's very hard, the US was attempting to embargo Iraq. But due to French, UN, and some help from other countries Saddam was able to violate the Oil for Food program at will, and used the money to fund the National Guard. Which tried to break Shia resistance through rape, murder, and by destroying key water resources. Then the US again breaking the UN treaty made a Southern no fly zone, in an attempt to protect the Shia's. Was it enough, no. But it was a hell of a lot better than any other country was wiling to try.
The British and American forces have done a great deal of good in Iraq and now the place is a much better country and lacks the evil dictator Saddam for one. Kosovo however is completely different and needs better help. The UN will just debate the issues and do as they usually do nothing. Kosovo has every right to declare its independance from Serbia. The evil the Serbs did to them was nothing short of evil. The UN stood by and did almost nothing. In Bosnia the Un policies were appalling and to make its peace keeping forces stand back from a distance and watch innocent people murdered was also appalling. If America is prepared to intervene The british will certainly support that act and I for one hope they do intervene.
Of course it's a lot easier and quicker for one or two countries to act on a situation, which of course is a problem with the UN, but then it's not going to rush into anything - like you could say Iraq was rushed. Also like I said before the UN doesn't have an army it relies on support from the nation states. I guess you could compare it in a slightly warped way to dictatorship vs democracy. Dictators are a lot more efficient and quicker at making all decisions - they don't have to reach an agreement with their citizens, whereas the UN is stalled when states don't agree like actors in a democracy. -(i might have been slightly daring here) I don't want to get into the Iraq situation, I really should get back to work. What's interesting though is the way ethnicity is portrayed and used by various actors both internationally and domestically in a conflict. Ethnic/tribal wars are often portrayed as all against all, when really it the leaders of various groups manipulating race for their own political and economic aims. Even the way people talk about these types of conflicts, the Hutus committed genocide against the Tutsis, the germans commited genocide against the jews, serbians against kosovo - which in a way criminalises all people of a particular 'race'. When if you examine most genocides the politics and economics had a lot more to do with it than one group hating another for their 'race' and is in a way no different to many other kind of wars although they usually become more intense because unlike a war say about ideology you can't deny your 'race'- In the Rwandan example there was no language, religious, or cultural differences between them it was basically a political construction. It's also portrayed as all against all in the numbers involved in the genocide which often is used as an excuse to let them fight it out as there is no way to stop such a conflict, which is also not true.
