Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The UN doesn't have a standing army. What, exactly, would you like it to do?
There is any number of actions the UN could do, starting from voting a universal condemnation, imposing sanctions of one sort or another, up to appropriating a peace keeping force.
If the UN cannot do anything about humanitarian catastrophes like this, then why, exactly, does it exist?
Look back to history. It was actually chartered by the United States after WWII as a way to help the US rally nations together in times of crisis.
But "the UN" is not a single organization. Over time, it has become vast and bloated, and its actions range from very noble and effective (eradication of smallpox under the World Health Organization, for example) to quite useless.
But it was never designed to be an organization with an independent military capability.
Like the saying goes, "if you don't expect too much from me, you might not be let down."
Look back to history. It was actually chartered by the United States after WWII as a way to help the US rally nations together in times of crisis.
But "the UN" is not a single organization. Over time, it has become vast and bloated, and its actions range from very noble and effective (eradication of smallpox under the World Health Organization, for example) to quite useless.
But it was never designed to be an organization with an independent military capability.
Like the saying goes, "if you don't expect too much from me, you might not be let down."
Yep; I know all of this. My post was more or less sarcasm.
But if this is not a crisis to "rally the nations of the world," frankly I do not know what one is.
The point is, the UN is a useless entity. And the idea of an "international community," in my own view, is a false one.
But if this is not a crisis to "rally the nations of the world," frankly I do not know what one is.
There are plenty of bleak spots around the world. The government of Uzbekistan, for example, massacred several thousand protesters in the town of Andijan in 2005, and remains an incredibly repressive regime, but the media tends to ignore that.
Outrage tends to be selective. Uzbekistan is actually an interesting case. Russia had no interest in criticizing them, since Uzbekistan is a former part of the USSR, and still has close ties to Moscow. The US sharply curtailed its own criticism due to the need to use Uzbekistan as a staging ground and air corridor for the war in Afghanistan.
There are plenty of bleak spots around the world. The government of Uzbekistan, for example, massacred several thousand protesters in the town of Andijan in 2005, and remains an incredibly repressive regime, but the media tends to ignore that.
Outrage tends to be selective. Uzbekistan is actually an interesting case. Russia had no interest in criticizing them, since Uzbekistan is a former part of the USSR, and still has close ties to Moscow. The US sharply curtailed its own criticism due to the need to use Uzbekistan as a staging ground and air corridor for the war in Afghanistan.
But that's just the nature of global politics.
Yes.
None of which militates for the existence (and posturing and wasted money on the UN).
We need to let the european fix the mess if they want to. Like we shuld ahve i Bosnia. This is their spear of influence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.