AnimeSuki Forums

Ithekro · 2012-10-03, 22:45

The United Nation's problem in the field is that it was not suppose to be an army. The worlds countries is not ready to turn over the right to defend themselves or had over sovereignty over to a higher political body. The US had fought tooth and nail to prevent the UN from being the final say in what one can and cannot do within US borders.

Post Cold War, the UN Peacekeepers have no teeth. When they want teeth they call in support and favors from counties that have some military strength. Usually not the US unless it is an outright war zone and they need some massive carrier support (more than the French or British could provide by the 1990s).

sa547 · 2012-10-04, 05:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

Philippine official seeks UN support in peaceful settlement of disputes

For all of its idealism, UN is sadly toothless as far as dealing with the worst brutes; said brutes went ahead and killed thousands, if not, millions of innocents in their wake; in most cases they have to call in the US or major Western powers to deal with the mess, even if it could be a costly cleanup.

Also China and Russia have permanent seats in the Security Council, so they could strike down any resolution attempting to condemn their "business partners".

Irenicus · 2012-10-04, 06:31

People have to remember that the United Nations is essentially two things, holding up two often conflicting concepts. One, it is an assembly of nations, and therefore it is only as good as the collective whole of its members, or perhaps I should say the collective whole of the security council members with veto powers. It is not sovereign, possesses no military force of its own, and derives its mandate directly from the assent of member states.

From that perspective, it's working as intended so long as World War Three doesn't explode on us. It also means dirty dealings happen and bad, bad things get ignored as internal matters. This side of the UN holds supreme the idea of sovereignty.

The other side of the United Nations is as the world's most prominent symbol of the young ideology of "human rights." Its various institutions serve humanitarian roles, the world's biggest "NGO's." There are many people at the UN and inside its various institutions, and people across the world, who believe strongly in the ideal embodied in this side of the United Nations. Many of us take human rights for granted now, I myself hold human rights above every other values, but the evolution and expansion of the human rights concept is deeply intertwined with the existence of the UN. And this ideal is perhaps the bloodied twentieth century's greatest gift to our species, alongside sheer scientific progress.

From this perspective, however, while it achieved much in the name of humanity, it doesn't seem to be doing nearly all that it should. The evolution the UN "peacekeeping" role is an awkward compromise between the idealistic mandate and the actual power that lies with member nation-states in the assembly (especially the security council), members who, naturally, put their self-interest first. This is a pretty new thing, evolving through a reinterpretation of the original mandate, and it has to navigate narrow channels between sovereignty and idealism. So dramatic failures occur, the UN often can't take sides, peacekeepers have their hands tied and cannot fight to defend victims of genocides, the sort of failures which cost dearly in human lives and suffering, and which tarnish the UN "brand" for decades.

People who believe in the humanitarian ideal naturally expects much more to be done in the United Nations' name ("What are all the peacekeepers for? Why were they standing aside to watch genocides happen in Bosnia/Rwanda?"), but we do not have a one world government, and when sovereignty comes into conflict with human rights, or even when sovereignty conflicts with each other, or indeed when member states lack the will to act on mandates, the UN is rendered largely powerless.

The solution, I suppose, is to surrender some aspects of sovereignty to the UN organization itself, or implement UNATCO. But that's, ah, ominous, a double-edged sword if there ever was one...

_____________

On the news article itself, IMO the Philippines is only trying to expand the scope of the already-in-use tactic of internationalizing the Asian maritime disputes. The more concerned parties, the harder it is for one party to assert itself through force. It's using the UN brand to further his nation's self-interest, and, fairly enough, a success also means the strengthening of the UN brand and international consensus based on it.

A deadlock failure costs the UN little (no one expects anything to happen anyway with PRC having veto powers), and a catastrophe (PRC rejects the United Nations outright and withdraws) is unlikely.

DonQuigleone · 2012-10-04, 07:33

Personally, I think the UN as it is constituted right now is correct. I don't think it should have more powers, nor should it be a "world government", that's not it's role. As Irenicus said, it's an assembly of sovereign states, a means for them to meet in one place and resolve the issues facing the world.

If the UN has failures, I would not blame the UN itself, but the collective nations that make up it. It was built to defuse tensions and prevent WW3, and in that respect it has done a very good job.

As for Human Rights, it is only a mission of the UN because many members of the UN see it as important. This aspect is secondary to it's central role. If we want to see the UN do more about Human rights, then we have to elect governments who will take Human Rights more seriously. But ultimately, if the greater number of nations do not wish to respect Human Rights, the UN can't really do anything about it.

Also, the cause of peace ultimately will trump the cause of Human Rights. China might have atrocious human rights abuses, but the only way the UN could do anything about it would be to fight WW3. If atrocities were to occur in a smaller state, you would hope that the UN would step in, but often enough the states of the UN are not willing to form a united front. For instance, China is not willing to let a war be fought to halt Burma's human rights abuses, because it views that state as being within it's sphere of influence. By using it's veto to halt action there, it basically says that it's willing to fight WW3 to defend Burma. But at least by having that provision, there's very little opportunity for confusion. You can't get the US declaring war on Burma accidentally thinking that China won't care about it.

That's why it's very serious when states attack other states without a UN mandate. It brings the world much closer to war. When the USA invaded Iraq against the wishes of the security council it was gambling that the other members of that body who opposed it (namely France, Germany and China), would not step in to defend it. It was playing chicken with the other Powers of the world, and so risked WW3. While I doubt China, Germany or France were willing to fight a war over Iraq, it basically lowered the legitimacy of the UN, and meant that the next time China wanted to fight a war, it might choose to simply ignore the UN as a toothless agency, thus risking WW3 through China (or another country) thinking that other countries won't try to stop them if they go to war.

The only way you can have a "safe" war is for all the world powers to consent to it. That's why the UN is so important. It creates a legal framework for this consent to be secured.

ganbaru · 2012-10-04, 14:40

Turkey steps up Syria strikes, says will defend borders
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88J0X720121004

Xellos-_^ · 2012-10-04, 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Personally, I think the UN as it is constituted right now is correct. I don't think it should have more powers, nor should it be a "world government", that's not it's role. As Irenicus said, it's an assembly of sovereign states, a means for them to meet in one place and resolve the issues facing the world.

you can do the same but cheaper by issuing Facebook accounts to each nation.

Quote:

Also, the cause of peace ultimately will trump the cause of Human Rights. China might have atrocious human rights abuses, but the only way the UN could do anything about it would be to fight WW3. If atrocities were to occur in a smaller state, you would hope that the UN would step in, but often enough the states of the UN are not willing to form a united front. For instance, China is not willing to let a war be fought to halt Burma's human rights abuses, because it views that state as being within it's sphere of influence. By using it's veto to halt action there, it basically says that it's willing to fight WW3 to defend Burma. But at least by having that provision, there's very little opportunity for confusion. You can't get the US declaring war on Burma accidentally thinking that China won't care about it.

it wasn't Russia or China that demand the Dutch be issue guns without bullets when European peacekeeper were sent to Bosnia.

Quote:

ignore the UN as a toothless agency,

it is a toothless agency,

the UN's power basically depends on how much the US is willing to back it.

AnimeFan188 · 2012-10-04, 15:18

Report: Iran's fear of Israeli strike in 2008 led to series of air defense mishaps:

"According to the New York Times, a classified Pentagon report reveals that Iran's
military mistakenly fired on civilian planes, as well as its own aircraft, numerous
times in 2007 and 2008."

See:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...shaps-1.468045

AnimeFan188 · 2012-10-04, 15:33

Japan’s New Tech Generation:

"As Japan’s aging tech giants like Sony and Panasonic continue to falter, a new
generation of Japanese technology entrepreneurs is stepping up. While their
numbers are small compared to those in the United States, they are turning to a
bevy of start-up incubators and even to financing from Silicon Valley. And so-called
start-up dating salons, like the bar in central Tokyo, are helping to match would-
be collaborators.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty in Japan right now, and that’s actually made younger
Japanese more willing to take risks and try out new ideas,” said Hiro Maeda, 26."

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/te...html?ref=world

bladeofdarkness · 2012-10-04, 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

Report: Iran's fear of Israeli strike in 2008 led to series of air defense mishaps:

"According to the New York Times, a classified Pentagon report reveals that Iran's
military mistakenly fired on civilian planes, as well as its own aircraft, numerous
times in 2007 and 2008."

See:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...shaps-1.468045

wait...
fired on a civilian aircraft, or actually shot it down ?

Ithekro · 2012-10-04, 15:59

I don't recall any incidents from that year of any planes being shot down.

bladeofdarkness · 2012-10-04, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I don't recall any incidents from that year of any planes being shot down.

the TOR-M1 AA system mentioned is suppose to be fairly good.
and a civilian aircraft is a large slow target with zero electronic warfare capabilities.

hard to believe it would just miss.

ganbaru · 2012-10-04, 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I don't recall any incidents from that year of any planes being shot down.

They could had covered it up.

Xellos-_^ · 2012-10-04, 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganbaru

They could had covered it up.

the article said shooting at not shot down.

i doubt the US would help iran with a cover up.

Ithekro · 2012-10-04, 16:32

If they did, it was not an airliner from a western country. Could be smaller aircraft or cargo planes. Those almost never hit the news.

Sumeragi · 2012-10-04, 16:41

There were firings, and two cases of drones being shot down (due to there being no real communication between the military and the Guards).

bladeofdarkness · 2012-10-04, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

There were firings, and two cases of drones being shot down (due to there being no real communication between the military and the Guards).

yeah, but the article mentioned a civilian aircraft specifically.

RRW · 2012-10-04, 18:41

Quote:

(Reuters) - Bees at a cluster of apiaries in northeastern France have been producing honey in mysterious shades of blue and green, alarming their keepers who now believe residue from containers of M&M's candy processed at a nearby biogas plant is the cause.

Since August, beekeepers around the town of Ribeauville in the region of Alsace have seen bees returning to their hives carrying unidentified colorful substances that have turned their honey unnatural shades.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8930MQ20121004

Ithekro · 2012-10-04, 18:43

Maybe they can market that, if it is non-toxic.

risingstar3110 · 2012-10-04, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Maybe they can market that, if it is non-toxic.

As a new M&M or a new honey brand...?

ganbaru · 2012-10-04, 19:14

Russia dismisses talk of new spy scandal with U.S.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89318C20121004
Those were probably more discret and usefull than the last bunch...

2012-10-03, 22:45	Link #24041
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	The United Nation's problem in the field is that it was not suppose to be an army. The worlds countries is not ready to turn over the right to defend themselves or had over sovereignty over to a higher political body. The US had fought tooth and nail to prevent the UN from being the final say in what one can and cannot do within US borders. Post Cold War, the UN Peacekeepers have no teeth. When they want teeth they call in support and favors from counties that have some military strength. Usually not the US unless it is an outright war zone and they need some massive carrier support (more than the French or British could provide by the 1990s). __________________

2012-10-04, 14:40	Link #24045
ganbaru books-eater youkai Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity	Turkey steps up Syria strikes, says will defend borders http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88J0X720121004 __________________

2012-10-04, 15:59	Link #24050
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	I don't recall any incidents from that year of any planes being shot down. __________________

2012-10-04, 16:32	Link #24054
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	If they did, it was not an airliner from a western country. Could be smaller aircraft or cargo planes. Those almost never hit the news. __________________

2012-10-04, 18:43	Link #24058
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Maybe they can market that, if it is non-toxic. __________________

2012-10-04, 06:31	Link #24043
Irenicus Le fou, c'est moi Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA Age: 34	People have to remember that the United Nations is essentially two things, holding up two often conflicting concepts. One, it is an assembly of nations, and therefore it is only as good as the collective whole of its members, or perhaps I should say the collective whole of the security council members with veto powers. It is not sovereign, possesses no military force of its own, and derives its mandate directly from the assent of member states. From that perspective, it's working as intended so long as World War Three doesn't explode on us. It also means dirty dealings happen and bad, bad things get ignored as internal matters. This side of the UN holds supreme the idea of sovereignty. The other side of the United Nations is as the world's most prominent symbol of the young ideology of "human rights." Its various institutions serve humanitarian roles, the world's biggest "NGO's." There are many people at the UN and inside its various institutions, and people across the world, who believe strongly in the ideal embodied in this side of the United Nations. Many of us take human rights for granted now, I myself hold human rights above every other values, but the evolution and expansion of the human rights concept is deeply intertwined with the existence of the UN. And this ideal is perhaps the bloodied twentieth century's greatest gift to our species, alongside sheer scientific progress. From this perspective, however, while it achieved much in the name of humanity, it doesn't seem to be doing nearly all that it should. The evolution the UN "peacekeeping" role is an awkward compromise between the idealistic mandate and the actual power that lies with member nation-states in the assembly (especially the security council), members who, naturally, put their self-interest first. This is a pretty new thing, evolving through a reinterpretation of the original mandate, and it has to navigate narrow channels between sovereignty and idealism. So dramatic failures occur, the UN often can't take sides, peacekeepers have their hands tied and cannot fight to defend victims of genocides, the sort of failures which cost dearly in human lives and suffering, and which tarnish the UN "brand" for decades. People who believe in the humanitarian ideal naturally expects much more to be done in the United Nations' name ("What are all the peacekeepers for? Why were they standing aside to watch genocides happen in Bosnia/Rwanda?"), but we do not have a one world government, and when sovereignty comes into conflict with human rights, or even when sovereignty conflicts with each other, or indeed when member states lack the will to act on mandates, the UN is rendered largely powerless. The solution, I suppose, is to surrender some aspects of sovereignty to the UN organization itself, or implement UNATCO. But that's, ah, ominous, a double-edged sword if there ever was one... _____________ On the news article itself, IMO the Philippines is only trying to expand the scope of the already-in-use tactic of internationalizing the Asian maritime disputes. The more concerned parties, the harder it is for one party to assert itself through force. It's using the UN brand to further his nation's self-interest, and, fairly enough, a success also means the strengthening of the UN brand and international consensus based on it. A deadlock failure costs the UN little (no one expects anything to happen anyway with PRC having veto powers), and a catastrophe (PRC rejects the United Nations outright and withdraws) is unlikely.

2012-10-04, 07:33	Link #24044
DonQuigleone Knight Errant Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Dublin, Ireland Age: 35	Personally, I think the UN as it is constituted right now is correct. I don't think it should have more powers, nor should it be a "world government", that's not it's role. As Irenicus said, it's an assembly of sovereign states, a means for them to meet in one place and resolve the issues facing the world. If the UN has failures, I would not blame the UN itself, but the collective nations that make up it. It was built to defuse tensions and prevent WW3, and in that respect it has done a very good job. As for Human Rights, it is only a mission of the UN because many members of the UN see it as important. This aspect is secondary to it's central role. If we want to see the UN do more about Human rights, then we have to elect governments who will take Human Rights more seriously. But ultimately, if the greater number of nations do not wish to respect Human Rights, the UN can't really do anything about it. Also, the cause of peace ultimately will trump the cause of Human Rights. China might have atrocious human rights abuses, but the only way the UN could do anything about it would be to fight WW3. If atrocities were to occur in a smaller state, you would hope that the UN would step in, but often enough the states of the UN are not willing to form a united front. For instance, China is not willing to let a war be fought to halt Burma's human rights abuses, because it views that state as being within it's sphere of influence. By using it's veto to halt action there, it basically says that it's willing to fight WW3 to defend Burma. But at least by having that provision, there's very little opportunity for confusion. You can't get the US declaring war on Burma accidentally thinking that China won't care about it. That's why it's very serious when states attack other states without a UN mandate. It brings the world much closer to war. When the USA invaded Iraq against the wishes of the security council it was gambling that the other members of that body who opposed it (namely France, Germany and China), would not step in to defend it. It was playing chicken with the other Powers of the world, and so risked WW3. While I doubt China, Germany or France were willing to fight a war over Iraq, it basically lowered the legitimacy of the UN, and meant that the next time China wanted to fight a war, it might choose to simply ignore the UN as a toothless agency, thus risking WW3 through China (or another country) thinking that other countries won't try to stop them if they go to war. The only way you can have a "safe" war is for all the world powers to consent to it. That's why the UN is so important. It creates a legal framework for this consent to be secured.

2012-10-04, 15:18	Link #24047
AnimeFan188 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008	Report: Iran's fear of Israeli strike in 2008 led to series of air defense mishaps: "According to the New York Times, a classified Pentagon report reveals that Iran's military mistakenly fired on civilian planes, as well as its own aircraft, numerous times in 2007 and 2008." See: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...shaps-1.468045

2012-10-04, 15:33	Link #24048
AnimeFan188 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008	Japan’s New Tech Generation: "As Japan’s aging tech giants like Sony and Panasonic continue to falter, a new generation of Japanese technology entrepreneurs is stepping up. While their numbers are small compared to those in the United States, they are turning to a bevy of start-up incubators and even to financing from Silicon Valley. And so-called start-up dating salons, like the bar in central Tokyo, are helping to match would- be collaborators. “There’s a lot of uncertainty in Japan right now, and that’s actually made younger Japanese more willing to take risks and try out new ideas,” said Hiro Maeda, 26." See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/te...html?ref=world

2012-10-04, 16:41	Link #24055
Sumeragi Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Dai Korai Teikoku	There were firings, and two cases of drones being shot down (due to there being no real communication between the military and the Guards).

2012-10-04, 19:14	Link #24060
ganbaru books-eater youkai Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity	Russia dismisses talk of new spy scandal with U.S. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89318C20121004 Those were probably more discret and usefull than the last bunch... __________________