• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

Higgins86

Higgins86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
18,113
Reaction score
10,118
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
BBC News - Syria UN team 'shot at' near Qubair 'massacre site'


This is starting to remind me of Rwanda, the UN mess around trying to get clear evidence that this is now genocide but are stopped, meanwhile the killing continues and our world leaders sit around pointing the fingers at each other. What did we say after Rwanda " never again"?
 
Last edited:
NolaMan said:
The main problem is that we think the UN is going to accomplish anything.
Click to expand...

well exactly the UN was established to prevent genocide, war, etc.
"The UN Charter obliges all member nations to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights" and to take "joint and separate action" to that end."

Over the last 20 years it has become more and more ineffective to the point its starting to look like the old leauge of nations, at the end of the day if there is nothing in it for us developed nations we seem to be fine with just looking the other way.
 
Last edited:
Higgins86 said:
well exactly the UN was established to prevent genocide, war, etc.
"The UN Charter obliges all member nations to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights" and to take "joint and separate action" to that end."

Over the last 20 years it has become more and more ineffective to the point its starting to look like the old leauge of nations, at the end of the day if there is nothing in it for us developed nations we seem to be fine with just looking the other way.
Click to expand...

I would argue it has never been effective -- except in the cases of disease eradication. In terms of conflict prevention -- they are a total failure in my view.

The Charter also spells out the actions nations are supposed to take in this regard -- which is refer it to the Security Council. In the case of Syria, with Russia backing Syria, there is nothing that can be done through the UN.
 
The UN is completely toothless, a huge hole to pour U.S. money into that has "diverse" (non-existant?) standards for "human rights". Yes, it is plain to see that a country using military force on its civilian disenters is wrong. Did Russia not do this? Did China not do this? Do many nations in Africa still do this? Well of course they did/do yet are not "sanctioned" by the UN at all, some are in positions of extreme UN "power". The UN must first decide why ANY other nation should "do something" in Syria, then appoint some of these "member nations" (in the middle east, hint, hint) to do it. But that is not even possible since the UN can not make any nation do anything. The UN does not even see that the neighboring nations, plainly do not care. Why should the US or any "superpower" care? Indeed we the U.S. "look the other way" as their is NO alternative, if you touch it, then you own it, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan after over a decade of "coalition forces" muddling along in a stalemate. This is a Syrian internal power struggle, trying to become a "civil war", no more and no less. The UN is kidding itself that it can do anything; I say we stop or GREATLY reduce funding these UN pompous morons until they actually do something worthwhile. The current lunacy in Iran/Syria would be a good start for UN finally getting some "balls" and forcing (as if it could) other mideast nations to put up or shut up.
 
Higgins86 said:
Over the last 20 years it has become more and more ineffective to the point its starting to look like the old leauge of nations, at the end of the day if there is nothing in it for us developed nations we seem to be fine with just looking the other way.
Click to expand...

When was the UN ever effective? It has no teeth. Anything done by the UN before was because the USA was footing the bill and leading the way. Once Third World nations began running the show, the US dropped back and we see the present state of affairs.

Korea? USA lead the way.

Bosnia? USA lead the way.

Somalia? USA lead the way. Once the USA backed out, the country descended into chaos.

Rwanda? No USA so nothing was done.

The only different action since WWII was Libya, with France leading the way, but everyone knew the USA was supporting it from the rear. If the US had refused to participate, I seriously doubt the situation would have turned out as it did.
 
Rising Sun said:
When was the UN ever effective? It has no teeth. Anything done by the UN before was because the USA was footing the bill and leading the way. Once Third World nations began running the show, the US dropped back and we see the present state of affairs.

Korea? USA lead the way.

Bosnia? USA lead the way.

Somalia? USA lead the way. Once the USA backed out, the country descended into chaos.

Rwanda? No USA so nothing was done.

The only different action since WWII was Libya, with France leading the way, but everyone knew the USA was supporting it from the rear. If the US had refused to participate, I seriously doubt the situation would have turned out as it did.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Higgins86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "UN troops" -- and if we did that, our bluff would be called and we would look like idiots.
 
NolaMan said:
There is no such thing as "UN troops" -- and if we did that, our bluff would be called and we would look like idiots.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Higgins86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It does not work that way. The UN cannot simply "redeploy" soliders serving on those missions.
 
Higgins86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

BS. Where are these "UN troops" kept? Who pays and commands these "UN troops"? There is no peace in Syria to keep; that is the whole point of this story. You confuse local paramilitary thugs with blue helmets as "UN troops". Troops require funding, decent firepower, strict discipline and a command structure, but somehow, local thugs, with a bit of pocket change, some light arms and some blue helmets convince you that they are "in charge" as "UN troops" and keeping the peace too.
 
Last edited:
NolaMan said:
It does not work that way. The UN cannot simply "redeploy" soliders serving on those missions.
Click to expand...

well actually they had proposed a rapid reaction force but it didnt gain enough support.

" a standing group, administered by the UN and deployed by the Security Council, that receives its troops and support from current Security Council members and is ready for quick deployment in the event of future genocides."

this is the kind of action im talking about and something the UN should consider more.
 
Higgins86 said:
well actually they had proposed a rapid reaction force but it didnt gain enough support.

" a standing group, administered by the UN and deployed by the Security Council, that receives its troops and support from current Security Council members and is ready for quick deployment in the event of future genocides."

this is the kind of action im talking about and something the UN should consider more.
Click to expand...

Again, with Russia backing Syria, even if such a force were in place -- it would not be deployed in this scenario.
 
Higgins86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What "UN troops"? Everybody seems to think that the UN has troops, but I have yet to see any. Local paramilitary thugs with blue helmets are NOT anything but a show, to get FUNDING - the real goal of the UN at all times, in all places. Name ONE place that the UN has ever "kept peace" with these blue helmet morons.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What "UN troops"? Everybody seems to think that the UN has troops, but I have yet to see any. Local paramilitary thugs with blue helmets are NOT anything but a show, to get FUNDING - the real goal of the UN at all times, in all places. Name ONE place that the UN has ever "kept peace" with these blue helmet morons.
Click to expand...

Ive been to quite a few countries and met many different soldiers serving in the UN a peacekeepers who were not local paramilitary thugs. Rwanda for exmaple there was a heavy presence of dutch and Belgian troops serving under UN command but unfourtuntly the whole command was a **** show.
 
Higgins86 said:
BBC News - Syria UN team 'shot at' near Qubair 'massacre site'


This is starting to remind me of Rwanda, the UN mess around trying to get clear evidence that this is now genocide but are stopped, meanwhile the killing continues and our world leaders sit around pointing the fingers at each other. What did we say after Rwanda " never again"?
Click to expand...

Neither the U.S., nor any other country, has a universal responsibility to intervene militarily wherever civil conflicts are taking place. If the U.S. were to depose of the Assad regime, who would be the next leader? What institutional safeguards would assure that a wider sectarian conflict would not occur? What guarantees would there be that the post-Assad leadership would be able and willing to have friendly relations with the U.S. and U.S. regional allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, etc.)? What framework would assure that the U.S. would not need to enter a time-consuming and costly nation-building endeavor?

None of those questions can be addressed with any degree of confidence. The anti-Assad movement has not named a successor leader, much less a successor government-in-waiting. It has not offered any concrete assurances to the U.S. or U.S. allies that it would be a reliable partner. It has offered nothing tangible that it would be able to avoid a larger sectarian conflict. It has provided no indications that Syria would not need a significant nation-building component following Assad's departure.

At the same time, no critical U.S. interests are at stake. The U.S. should avoid military intervention in Syria, both for the above reasons and based on U.S. interests.
 
donsutherland1 said:
At the same time, no critical U.S. interests are at stake. The U.S. should avoid military intervention in Syria, both for the above reasons and based on U.S. interests.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have always advocated that the United States only get involved when we have clear interests at stake. There is not one in Syria, nor was there one in Libya -- as Secretary Gates openly admitted.
 
NolaMan said:
Again, with Russia backing Syria, even if such a force were in place -- it would not be deployed in this scenario.
Click to expand...

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.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Neither the U.S., nor any other country, has a universal responsibility to intervene militarily wherever civil conflicts are taking place. If the U.S. were to depose of the Assad regime, who would be the next leader? What institutional safeguards would assure that a wider sectarian conflict would not occur? What guarantees would there be that the post-Assad leadership would be able and willing to have friendly relations with the U.S. and U.S. regional allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, etc.)? What framework would assure that the U.S. would not need to enter a time-consuming and costly nation-building endeavor?

None of those questions can be addressed with any degree of confidence. The anti-Assad movement has not named a successor leader, much less a successor government-in-waiting. It has not offered any concrete assurances to the U.S. or U.S. allies that it would be a reliable partner. It has offered nothing tangible that it would be able to avoid a larger sectarian conflict. It has provided no indications that Syria would not need a significant nation-building component following Assad's departure.

At the same time, no critical U.S. interests are at stake. The U.S. should avoid military intervention in Syria, both for the above reasons and based on U.S. interests.
Click to expand...

Then why bother with the UN at all then? Why not have the US leave?
 
Higgins86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Russia won't accept such a force. It will assuredly veto any UNSC resolutions on the issue of force. Moreover, even lesser resolutions that leave open the possibility of the use of force will be vetoed, as Russia still believes that the resolutions on Libya were implemented in a fashion that went beyond the limited mandate set forth (regime change instead of protection of civilians). Russia has significant interests in Syria, as well.
 
Higgins86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well now we are just kicking around hypotheticals. None of this has much chance to actually come to fruition.
 
NolaMan said:
Well now we are just kicking around hypotheticals. None of this has much chance to actually come to fruition.
Click to expand...

well of course we are kicking around hypotheticals its a debate forum ;)
 
Higgins86 said:
Then why bother with the UN at all then? Why not have the US leave?
Click to expand...

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.).
 
Higgins86 said:
well of course we are kicking around hypotheticals its a debate forum ;)
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
donsutherland1 said:
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.).
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom