News Stories

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

don't laws of war apply equaly to all armed conflicts, including civil wars ?

No. Under Chapter 7, Article 51 of the UN Charter, 1945 it says

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The word "collective" means one country vs another, not a political party against another within a state. And both countries must be recognised by the General Assembly of UN, otherwise it is only an infringement of human rights.

A Civil War may be a war, but it is not a conflict of military aggression because the country by itself is still recognised as one and whole by the UN.

[Ithekro]

Remember the UN is not a military power and is generally ineffective in these situations, which is partly why is doesn't work.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Remember the UN is an oversized talkshop and is hardly effective in these situations, which is partly why is doesn't work fully other than in Mogadishu.

Fixed.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Remember the UN is the sum of its collective parts, many of which wouldn't know a human rights violation if it electercuted them in the balls and is generally bloody useless in any situation that requires actual work, which is entirely why is doesn't work properly.

fixed it better

[Tsuyoshi]

Now I know why I feel like I'm watching an Italian talk show whenever I hear about the UN

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I am confused. Are you guys referring to combat or support operations?

(Sorry for my late reply, Iposted right before going to bed... )
Actualy I was thinking of both but especialy of combat. As good intended as they could be, no country than would use their military on that conflict ( unlesss for evacuating their ouw citizens )be backed by international war. And it would give argument to Gaddafi about the ''original implication'' of the foreigner on this conflict.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Fixed.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

fixed it better

Boy isn't that the truth...

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Boy isn't that the truth...

Here, rarely enough , we agree.

We need *somewhere* to talk as countries.... but the execution - even when its for humanitarian purposes is often a rats nest of doofosity. Probably says something intrinsic about humanity.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Here, rarely enough , we agree.

We need *somewhere* to talk as countries.... but the execution - even when its for humanitarian purposes is often a rats nest of doofosity. Probably says something intrinsic about humanity.

I say take it apart.
the league of nations was disassembled, in large part because it proved irrelevant, and incapable of achieving its goal.
if the L.O.N was replaced with the U.N, why not replace the U.N with a successor organization.

preferably one that actually sets basic standards for admission.

[Ithekro]

To be fair, the UN was designed when the Allied Powers basically thought it would be just them in control. Thus mostly a European stock mindset for the rules and such. After all the colonies and other holdings broke away...things got a lot different. Especially when a fair share of those colonies have grudges against their former masters. The Cold War politics did not help the matter either.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

I say take it apart.
the league of nations was disassembled, in large part because it proved irrelevant, and incapable of achieving its goal.
if the L.O.N was replaced with the U.N, why not replace the U.N with a successor organization.

preferably one that actually sets basic standards for admission.

Well, at first there was the G6, which has now expanded into a G20 (with a "core" G8). All that remains is to take on more things in the agenda (it has a way of happening anyway) and expand further into a G200 or so, and we can be back to discussing how we need to disband that group and find a successor.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Well, at first there was the G6, which has now expanded into a G20 (with a "core" G8). All that remains is to take on more things in the agenda (it has a way of happening anyway) and expand further into a G200 or so, and we can be back to discussing how we need to disband that group and find a successor.

so your solution is basically "if its broken, why fix it" ?

Originally Posted by Ithekro

To be fair, the UN was designed when the Allied Powers basically thought it would be just them in control. Thus mostly a European stock mindset for the rules and such. After all the colonies and other holdings broke away...things got a lot different. Especially when a fair share of those colonies have grudges against their former masters. The Cold War politics did not help the matter either.

and because "colonies" got their freedom, they should be allowed into the U.N without setting some ground rules ?

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

so your solution is basically "if its broken, why fix it" ?

I think his point was, that such systems (in the sense of a world governing body) become broken, because technically they are intrinsically broken (almost immediately out of date at the time they are created). The question is, if you want to waste resources for fixing something that is intrinsically broken, or rather let it be a place for talk (the term broken is also a matter of definition, as Vexx already mentioned - a place for talk, not a place for action <= if thats your definition of UN, then it is not broken).

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Jinto

I think his point was, that such systems (in the sense of a world governing body) become broken, because technically they are intrinsically broken (almost immediately out of date at the time they are created). The question is, if you want to waste resources for fixing something that is intrinsically broken, or rather let it be a place for talk (the term broken is also a matter of definition, as Vexx already mentioned - a place for talk, not a place for action <= if thats your definition of UN, then it is not broken).

That.

If and when a new UN happens, it's probably going to fall into the same traps as the UN and the LoN before it. It'll end up being pretty much the same. Maybe a bit better, but no revolution... and then, we'll decide it's broken and do it all over again.

[Ithekro]

The ground rules were in place, but they were just not set to deal with different ideologies. Thus aside from the Permanent Seats and their ability to veto things, the world would be overrun by resolutions from these former colonies, since they vastly outnumber the original players of the UN in terms of votes.

Doesn't help that of late the United States, the various EU nations, Russia, and China don't agree on anything.

As for an improved UN....I can say that the only way to improve it is also why it doesn't happen. The improvement would be to make the UN a World Government, and thus strip existing countries of some of their sovereignty, and make them subject to UN laws. Thus the majority could make the laws, and enforce them on others. Who is the majority right now? Yeah. That sounds bad, doesn't it?

[Xellos-_^]

the only way to improve the UN is to give it more power and no country on earth is willing to do that. That is why i propose getting rid of the UN general assembly and replace each country with Facebook accounts. It is cheaper and doesn't [retend to be something it is not.

[SaintessHeart]

I thought the problem has always been very simple all along : since its formation in 1945, everyone is looking to US to solve the problems all by themselves.

Heck, look at Grenada during 1983, and Kosovo during 1999. Everyone is looking to US to do the shitwork. No other nation consistently contributed resources and manpower towards international peacekeeping operations as much as US since the collapse of the USSR, until it bankrupted itself. Then the rest of UN accuse the US of hegemony and hypocrisy. What a funny world we live in.

Though the Russians did plenty of work pushing Muslim extremists back into the deserts : depriving the extremists of political control in Chechnya and Dagestan means depriving them of oil revenues to fund their terror activities. Though I wished they funnel some of the money back into the countries to develop their human infrastructure.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I thought the problem has always been very simple all along : since its formation in 1945, everyone is looking to US to solve the problems all by themselves.

Heck, look at Grenada during 1983, and Kosovo during 1999. Everyone is looking to US to do the shitwork. No other nation consistently contributed resources and manpower towards international peacekeeping operations as much as US since the collapse of the USSR, until they bankrupt themselves.

and yet when the US do decide to do something, the US is then call meddlers and warmonger. I really think the US should pull back and let Europe handle some of these crap.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

and yet when the US do decide to do something, the US is then call meddlers and warmonger. I really think the US should pull back and let Europe handle some of these crap.

The only three countries capable of handling the crap are Germany, Britain and probably the French.

If it is the Germans, they will accuse them of going back to Nazism (or that is what Aunt Marge said in 1990 when Germany reunified). If it is the British they would accuse them of Colonialism. If it is the French they would accuse them of bringing in the risque and excessively sexy French maid culture to destroy women rights and such.

No matter who takes action, people will criticise. But usually most of those who did stand by there, open their big fat mouths and do nothing. Interestingly, US's Eastern Allies, namely South Korea and Japan, willingly write cheques and send 3/3 marines with little or no complaints as compared to their Causcasian counterparts.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The only three countries capable of handling the crap are Germany, Britain and probably the French.

If it is the Germans, they will accuse them of going back to Nazism (or that is what Aunt Marge said in 1990 when Germany reunified). If it is the British they would accuse them of Colonialism. If it is the French they would accuse them of bringing in the risque and excessively sexy French maid culture to destroy women rights and such.

No matter who takes action, people will criticise. But usually most of those who did stand by there, open their big fat mouths and do nothing. Interestingly, US's Eastern Allies, namely South Korea and Japan, willingly write cheques and send 3/3 marines with little or no complaints as compared to their Causcasian counterparts.

but it is Germany and France that does the most criticism.