BF2S Forums UN Darfur proposal moves closer to vote

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Now why are they still fucking voting? If they are gonna do something they need to act a whole lot faster. God damn U.N. is completly worthless. iswear this is Rwawnda all over again.

Discuss

Could it be that instead of barging into conflicts and possibly making more damage than good, the U.N. rather overweighs every possible solution to see what would be the best possible way to tackle a situation? Yes, it takes longer than just e.g. bombing the shit out of stuff, but I'm sure that the outcome will be better with some planning.

Peace and sustainable growth instead of forced peace and a messed up society.

IMHO

David.P wrote:

Like i said gimme a couple hundred ak47's, rpg's, and a hell lot of bullets. I'll have this problem solved faster then the UN can finish their morning coffee.

Wow.  You clearly have no understanding of these sorts of situations.

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

So your saying by sitting on our asses and letting these people die instead of instantniously imposing imbargos so they cant wage mass genocide is better? Can you really tell that to the masses dead? Can you really justify us not imposing sanctions or imbargos to prevent those deaths?

I doubt that sanctions / embargos would do anything for the benefit of the area. Deploying a peacekeeping force might, but for how long?

I guess I need to have faith in that the U.N. works; kind of an assurance that there is still good in the world. I agree that the U.N. takes too long to react, remember Rwanda? Too little, too late.

In other words, what I'm trying to say that I do agree with you, but that it's necessary to act in a way that doesn't make the situation worse or stagnate the future development of the area.

The UN needs to grow some balls, that's for sure. E.g. beginning with rewriting the veto-rules.

David.P wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

David.P wrote:

Like i said gimme a couple hundred ak47's, rpg's, and a hell lot of bullets. I'll have this problem solved faster then the UN can finish their morning coffee.

Wow.  You clearly have no understanding of these sorts of situations.

Seriously are all libs like this? I mean come on! I was making a joke why cant you understand that? None of you can read between lines huh?

If that was your idea of a joke I really don't think you understand the concept.

Bubbalo wrote:

David.P wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Wow.  You clearly have no understanding of these sorts of situations.

Seriously are all libs like this? I mean come on! I was making a joke why cant you understand that? None of you can read between lines huh?

If that was your idea of a joke I really don't think you understand the concept.

No wonder You know what just forget it seriously you take everything at face value without thinking what it means.

Well they are doing something. Even though sanctions on thier economy would have choked them into submission much better than U.N. peacekeppers.

Turquoise wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Associated Press wrote:

UNITED NATIONS - Britain and France have stripped more harsh language from a U.N. Security Council draft resolution that would authorize a 26,000-strong peacekeeping force for Darfur in an attempt to win passage for the proposal this week.


The draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press on Monday, is the third revision of the proposal by the co-sponsors this month.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, said Security Council members were working to finalize the document so it could be brought to a vote in the next couple of days.

Full story here

Now why are they still fucking voting? If they are gonna do something they need to act a whole lot faster. God damn U.N. is completly worthless. iswear this is Rwawnda all over again.

Discuss

If we kick Russia and China off of the Security Council, then a lot of problems will be solved.

Problem is they are permenate members....

Turquoise wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If we kick Russia and China off of the Security Council, then a lot of problems will be solved.

Problem is they are permenate members....

Not if we grew some balls and kicked them out.  We provide the most troops and a large portion of the funding for the U.N.  That should count for something.

I'd bet that if we threatened to leave the UN unless Russia and China were removed from the Council, we'd get our way within a few weeks.

Think about it though that would be breaking the U.N. laws from when it was drafted. We wouldnt even be able to call it the U.N. anymore because we would have destroied one of its founding points.

Turquoise wrote:

True...  but isn't it time we replaced the U.N. (in its current form) with something else?

I would agree with that. The way the U.N. works now is pure shit. They get nothing done with a good time frame. They are a stumbeling bohemeth that can barley support its thier own weight.

Turquoise wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

True...  but isn't it time we replaced the U.N. (in its current form) with something else?

I would agree with that. The way the U.N. works now is pure shit. They get nothing done with a good time frame. They are a stumbeling bohemeth that can barley support its thier own weight.

If anything, I think the U.N. proves that giving all nations a significant voice is a serious mistake when you actually want to get something done.

I think we should have a farther-reaching version of NATO that decides what to do in a given situation.

The members would include:

U.S.
India
Indonesia
U.K.
Germany
Japan
France
South Korea
Australia
Canada
Brazil
Mexico
Italy
Spain
Turkey

China and Russia would be absent due to security concerns.

Personally i think a diffrent commity for each region would be best. Like latin america deals with latin american issues, but the twist would be that if need be they can ask the other commities to intervine, but only if both counsles give a majority vote (exceptions will be made in emergancy sistuations)

Turquoise wrote:

That could work too...