UN or the USA Is do Nothing a better way?

The UN sat back and tried to appease Hitler, let Idi Amin get away with atroccities, let the genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia happen, let Tibet be conquered, sucked up to Ghaddafi & Saddam and all the rest of the despots.

What did any country ever do to free any people and stop genocide? Only one country - the USA.

WE stopped the genocide in Bosnia, tried in the Sudan and lost American lives, we stopped Ghadaffi's terroism, tried in the Lebanon and lost American lives.

The downfall of Saddam who gassed his own people, created an environmental disaster draining the marshes so he could kill more of his people, would have had WMD within 2 years of the dropping of sanctions.

Was planning to drop poison gas on Riyadh and Jeddah to kill the Saudi Royal family (how many would have died)
Was planning to sort out Iran and then Israel.
Was setting up a dictatorship dynasty.

The USA has done good and bad but at least we do some good - more thant any other country in terms of donations and assistance, gave more lives to stop injustice and repression than any other country

What other country has done as much good as the USA?

gw

Re: UN or the USA ? informed comments please

The UN is only as powerful as its security council. If only one of the 5 permanent members vetoes any proposed action, then everything comes to a halt.
Exactly this happened when a UN resolution for Rwanda was put forward, when the USA and France put in their veto to disarm the hootu tribes.

Quote: "The Security Council failed to act during the Rwandan genocide in 1994 due to the hidden vetoes of France and the US. Paris and Washington not only blocked UN action, but also used their hidden veto to weaken the definition of the crisis under international law. An independent UN report admitted that the failure of the Security Council to act led directly to the genocide. (8) The Security Council could not even pass a resolution containing the word “genocide,” which would have required intervention by parties to the 1951 Genocide Convention. Only after the worst months of the killing did the Security Council endorse Opération Turquoise, a deployment of French troops as a “humanitarian” mission under the UN flag. Yet, 800,000 people died because permanent members considered an earlier UN intervention contrary to their interests. A Human Rights Watch report scathingly said: "The Americans were interested in saving money, the Belgians were interested in saving face, and the French were interested in saving their ally, the genocidal government."
([broken link removed]

As for "sucked up to Saddam", who spent the 80s sucking up to Saddam and supplying chemical and biological weapons?

Re: UN or the USA ? informed comments please

The UN sat back and tried to appease Hitler

Click to expand...

The UN wasn't established until after the Second World War.

have a read through these quotes



See if there is a difference between the UN and the US

...

Didint see the US intervening in Rwanda either. Stood by and watched genocide in East Timor.

Dropped napalm on civilians in Vietnam and is still the only country to use atomic weapons on another country. Encouraged terrorism in several countries and attempted an invasion of Cuba in 1961.

The UN didnt exist prior to WW2. The US sat back and watched Hitler march thourgh Europe withough getting involved.

Re: have a read through these quotes

The UN sat back and tried to appease Hitler
League of Nations then if we have to be picky

Point is , some do good, some do bad and some do nothing.
The USA tries and gets it right and wrong, hopefully the good outweighs the bad.

The rest do nothing, why did the countries who were the ex colonial terroists/masters in Africa (France, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, UK......) stand back and do nothing in Rwanda. They knew genocide was going on.

Same in Bosnia which is on their doorstep.

Question is Is Do Nothing a better way?

gw

Re: ...

Stood by and watched genocide in East Timor.

Actually, they were quite complicit in the genocide in East Timor, as were the British.
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]


The UN sat back and tried to appease Hitler
League of Nations then if we have to be picky

The League of Nations is not the UN. It was somewhat considered a pre-cursor to the UN but they were still different organisations.

Re: ...

And they're doing it in Darfur...right now.
Right Piggy?

Re: ...

And they're doing it in Darfur...right now.
Right Piggy?

Oh...surprise surprise...you have a question just for lil old me!!

They're doing what in Darfur right now Asimov? Who are you referring to?

Re: Piggy & Asimov

Oh no...here we go again!

Round 1

Re: Piggy & Asimov

Hi Dan,

Perhaps if people could keep their posts civil we wouldn't have these boxing matches. I suppose it really depends what you're looking for - a discussion or a slagging match. Personally I like discussing the facts and people's opinions. Time will tell if everyone can remain civil.

For instance - there were five posters who made contributions to this post before I did. I made one contribution which covered the League of Nations and East Timor - yet Asimov has chosen me (in particular) to discuss Darfur.

Re: Piggy & Asimov

Of course you are above reproach Piggy.

Here are some clippings from just two of your recent contributions. I suggest you heed your own cries for civility and stop blaming others for the degeneration of discussions you get involved in.

You really are a scream Asimov I must say. I reckon if I actually agreed with everything you said that spiteful tone would still be there and you'd find some way of thinking you were having a go at me.

Click to expand...

I couldn't give a rats ass if you want to bring the Arab media into disrepute Asimov. Go for it.

Click to expand...

If I had a teenager I'd imagine this is what trying to converse with him would be like.

Click to expand...

Make your real feelings on Muslims known to the board Asimov. I have a pretty good idea what they are.

When you've done that please whinge in someone elses ear.

Click to expand...

Re: Piggy & Asimov

Of course you are above reproach Piggy.

No I'm not.


Like I said Chapman, if Asimov keeps his posts which are directed only to me civil then I'll do the same. That's difficult when he constantly gauds me no matter what I say.


If you really want I'll deal directly with the quotes below - but please pm me as I don't wish to bore everyone else to tears by going over old ground.
Needless to say I think it's quite obvious that Asimov is less interested in discussing my opinion and far more interested in having a go at me no matter what.

go on piggy admot you'r wrong

and misguided and have an over simplified biased and unrealistic view of the world.

this is not an attack. I'm sure that you are a very nice person but WRONG most of the time

from a lover of freedom and democracy and a belief that God is on our side, bless you all (even piggy) gw

Re: go on piggy admot you'r wrong

Enough already - Stick to the topic, cut out the personal insults & jibes or the thread will be closed.

ok ok

ok ok - meant to be humourous not character assasination

I have now fallen on my own sword - Ouch!

Re: ok ok

Asimov - Which part of 'cut out the personal insults & jibes' did you not understand? Your response added nothing substantive to the debate and was simply designed to provoke argument. If you want to have an argument with Piggy, do it by PM or email & spare the rest of us. Thread closed.