Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

  1. #21
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-04-15 @ 11:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    808

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    would depend on the circumstances, if they proposed a rapid reaction force was under UN command and would deploy if there is a severe violation of human rights and could do so without a unanimous council vote. But then again that would take balls and the UN do not have those.
    Well now we are just kicking around hypotheticals. None of this has much chance to actually come to fruition.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,253

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by NolaMan View Post
    Well now we are just kicking around hypotheticals. None of this has much chance to actually come to fruition.
    well of course we are kicking around hypotheticals its a debate forum
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    Then why bother with the UN at all then? Why not have the US leave?
    That the UN has been ineffective and often made decisions that run counter to U.S. interests and those of its allies, particularly at the General Assembly is one thing. The reality that the UN is still widely perceived as a critical global institution makes it almost a requirement for the U.S. to continue to participate given its myriad global interests. The U.S. can ill afford not to have a voice at any serious global institution (IMF, WTO, World Bank, UN, etc.).

  4. #24
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-04-15 @ 11:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    808

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    well of course we are kicking around hypotheticals its a debate forum
    Well, then I suppose if there indeed was such a force in place, that was not constrained by the UNSC, or the relevant actors, or geopolitics in general...then they might be able to quickly respond to a Syrian crisis.

  5. #25
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,253

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    That the UN has been ineffective and often made decisions that run counter to U.S. interests and those of its allies, particularly at the General Assembly is one thing. The reality that the UN is still widely perceived as a critical global institution makes it almost a requirement for the U.S. to continue to participate given its myriad global interests. The U.S. can ill afford not to have a voice at any serious global institution (IMF, WTO, World Bank, UN, etc.).
    Problem is I think we need the UN to work and the US has to support it. Look at the league of nations.

    "Any war or threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole League and the League shall take action that may safeguard peace."

    Without the presence of the United States or Russia, it remained a weak organization and emboldened countries like Japan to invade neighbouring countries and of course evntually expand its empire leading to Pearl Harbour. Im not saying that if the US had joined the leauge of nations we could of prevented WW2 but it would of certaintly given the League a better chance.
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  6. #26
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Regarding the UN "troops" debate, the UN's "troops" are only those that member nations contribute. On top of that, these "troops" often don't have the authority to do anything unless they are being attacked, so if they see people getting killed, the most they can do is sit there and watch. Also, UN troops are usually composed of those countries who are nearby and from time to time these "troops" commit war crimes and rarely get punished. (Sex Abuse in Congo by U.N. Troops Continues, Report Says - Los Angeles Times)

    Regarding Syria, while one may assume that it was Assad forces who shot at the UN monitors, one must also keep in mind that there are the rebels, who have no central commanding authority and can do as they please, thus there is a possibility that it was these rebels who shot at the UN monitors.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  7. #27
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    Problem is I think we need the UN to work and the US has to support it. Look at the league of nations.

    "Any war or threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole League and the League shall take action that may safeguard peace."

    Without the presence of the United States or Russia, it remained a weak organization and emboldened countries like Japan to invade neighbouring countries and of course evntually expand its empire leading to Pearl Harbour. Im not saying that if the US had joined the leauge of nations we could of prevented WW2 but it would of certaintly given the League a better chance.
    The reason the UN is so weak is because it has no enforcement power. This is because it has to balance between global government and state sovereignty. Many powers one may think it should have, such as being able to actually enforce its rulings like hunting down and arresting war criminals, the UN doesn't have because most of the countries of the world won't allow it.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  8. #28
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,239

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    That the UN has been ineffective and often made decisions that run counter to U.S. interests and those of its allies, particularly at the General Assembly is one thing. The reality that the UN is still widely perceived as a critical global institution makes it almost a requirement for the U.S. to continue to participate given its myriad global interests. The U.S. can ill afford not to have a voice at any serious global institution (IMF, WTO, World Bank, UN, etc.).
    These institutions were developed as instruments of US control. The IMF and World Bank were set up at the Bretton Woods conference, the leadership of those organisations is "traditionally" IMF: Europe. WB: American. The WTO, via GATT, came into being after the USA vetoed the formation of the International Trade Organisation by the UN. It's currently led by a European. The UN's formation was sponsored, like it's predecessor, the "League of Nations", by the USA. FDR coined the name. The current General Secretary is a South Korean, supported in his candidacy by President Bush.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  9. #29
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,675
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    well there is such a thing as UN troops they are currently serving in many different countries as peacekeepers representing their own countries. The UN has enough "peacekeeps" to send into Syria to get this mess under control.
    UN "peacekeepers" have not been much use lately. Too busy indulging in prostitution, sex slavery and other scandals to line their own pockets. The UN does not have an effective fighting force under its control, and never have. Remember Sbrenicia? UN Dutch "peacekeepers" just watched as 8,000 civilians were marched out of a UN Safe Zone and slaughtered by Serbian troops. They never even fired a shot to stop the slaughter.

    As far as I can remember, the UN has been corrupt to the core, existing only to preen and pretend they have some miniscule figment of relevance lest their fat paychecks be taken away. NATO has a battle-ready fighting force. The UN does not.

    I don't want the US to go into Syria any more than I wanted the US to go into Tunesia, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, or Iraq. Our military has shed quite enough blood in remote parts of the world where in the end, both sides end up trying to kill us. I reluctantly agreed with the US decision to support the UK, France and Spain against Kadafy, and was proud that our European allies walked the walk, and led that campaign. I think in the end, however, we will have several more anti-West Islamist regimes in that area of the world, no matter who wins. The Syrian government is run by a madman; the Syrian rebels are led by Islamist and Al Qaeda.

    The West needs to be careful what it wishes for when we cheer the overthrow of cooperative, though despotic regimes because the unknown can end up being uncooperative, openly hostile regimes in the blink of a cosmic eye.

    As for the UN, it's nothing but a damned money pit of greed and corruption. The US won't pull out only because it provides a "neutral" ground for delicate, and secret, negotiations that would be too high-profile if carried out in the public arena. Also, it's a place where our veto can protect allies and our vote can support sanctions, which occasionally do have the desired effect.

  10. #30
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    No to Libya as UK and French planes were already bombing Libya while Obama decided which course to take but I agree on most of your other point. Sadly the fact of the matter is America has had by far the strongest military and economy since WW2 and have had to lead the way. I think America should use its position to force the UN to make a move, threaten to cut funding or to withdraw completley and lets see how fast they mobilze UN troops.
    We've been doing that for decades. The problem, from my perspective, goes with the old saying about "If you keep doing someone elses job then it soon becomes your job". We've been doing the heavy lifting for decades and it is long past due for both our allies and trade partners to begin sharing the load.

    As for Libya, we can agree to disagree, but I doubt they would have done anything without feedback from the US. Our government may have dithered about taking the lead on a war when we already had two irons in the fire, but there should be no doubt our government was involved.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •