|
Post by bonehead on Oct 13, 2006 11:26:29 GMT
He ought to be moules mariniere?
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Oct 15, 2006 11:29:57 GMT
Possibly! I wonder what he'd be like cooked up with shallots and white wine...
|
|
|
Post by malxscfc on Oct 20, 2006 15:15:38 GMT
...fava beans and a nice Chianti perhaps? The UN is the correct body to sort out the North Koreans, and need to put pressure on China to do more. It is CHINA alone that is keeping the economy of NK going. Without China's enormous (but mostly unrecognised) aid to their nutty neighbours, ridiculous numbers of Korean peasants would starve. Can't really see why George W. BUllSHit has to poke his nose in anyway. There's no oil in North Korea, as I'm aware...
|
|
|
Post by coops on Oct 21, 2006 21:14:24 GMT
The UN is the correct body to sort out the North Koreans, I would like to see your evidence that the UN have ever "sorted" anything out....ever. No dictator worth his salt takes the UN seriously.
|
|
|
Post by amberaleman on Oct 21, 2006 23:24:31 GMT
The UN is the correct body to sort out the North Koreans, I would like to see your evidence that the UN have ever "sorted" anything out....ever. No dictator worth his salt takes the UN seriously. Well Coops, it rather depends on what you mean by the UN sorting anything out. The UN is made up of its member nations and relies on them to supply troops should it call for intervention. But the Gulf War of 1991 is (baldly speaking) an example of a UN success - multinational forces went into Kuwait in support of a UN resolution demanding Iraq's withdrawal from that country. Result: Iraq's forces were expelled from Kuwait. This is in marked contrast to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 which was in defiance of the UN and is now looking like the US's biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam. The UN has perhaps the hardest job of any organisation anywhere, i.e. trying to achieve world peace. Surely it's better to try to do that by consensual pressure than to leave states to sort disputes out themselves by going to war with each other.
|
|
|
Post by coops on Oct 22, 2006 8:52:33 GMT
But the Gulf War of 1991 is (baldly speaking) an example of a UN success - multinational forces went into Kuwait in support of a UN resolution demanding Iraq's withdrawal from that country. Result: Iraq's forces were expelled from Kuwait. This is in marked contrast to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 which was in defiance of the UN and is now looking like the US's biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam. The Gulf War of 1991 was purely a measure of the willingness of the US to send vast amounts of troops to kick Saddam's ass, without the Yanks the UN resolutions meant nothing. I fought in the first Gilf War and I did not do so under UN command. Even the co-operation of the Arab states was more down to fear of being the next target for the Iraqi's rather than any diplomatic efforts. Besides, for every Kuwait (if you want to give them the credit) I give you The Congo, Rwanda, Kosovo, Srebrenica, East Timor........ There is no point sending multinational forces into a country on the brink (or in the middle of) civil war if they are not willing to fight, the World's dictators know that the UN as a fighting force are a joke. Where the UN do come into their own is on the humanitarian side, they do fantastic work in some of the horriblest hell-holes on Earth, if they could stick to that then everyone would be happy.
|
|
|
Post by DJhinckley on Oct 23, 2006 17:08:19 GMT
The UN has perhaps the hardest job of any organisation anywhere, i.e. trying to achieve world peace. Surely it's better to try to do that by consensual pressure than to leave states to sort disputes out themselves by going to war with each other. really? so how much consensual pressure stopped the slaughter of millions of people in Rwanda, including the UN's own Belgian troops. Any kind of threat, be it one of sanctions or violence, is worthless unless there is actually something to enforce it. Unfortunately that means countries with the hardware and the physical ability to be forceful usually need to be involved for any action to work. You might not like the Americans being involved, but nothing is going to happen without them.
|
|
|
Post by amberaleman on Oct 24, 2006 22:52:28 GMT
Well, DJ, your point about the Americans being involved is actually consistent with my example of the 1991 Gulf War.
As for Rwanda - and Srebenica and Kosovo - these were internal conflicts within states. The UN's record in these places is indeed a sorry one. But civil wars - often an excuse for genocide - are even harder to resolve than conflicts between nations, not least because the warring parties often have no recognised constitutional body (like a government) with which the UN can engage.
Which kinda brings us back to North Korea, which does have a government, albeit one we're not very keen on.
|
|
|
Post by amberaleman on Nov 2, 2006 21:57:07 GMT
I know I've been defending the UN... but the following piece from the latest Private Eye induced a brief chuckle.
UN sanctions latest
Delegates at the UN have denied suggestions that the sanctions agreed against North Korea for carrying out a nuclear test have been watered down.
"These are still stringent measures. As from Monday their diplomats will only have four reserved spaces in the carpark and not five" said a UN (cont. p'94)
|
|
|
Post by medibot on Nov 2, 2006 22:35:31 GMT
lol! Must've missed that, mind you i was reading it on a train when i was really listening to everybody elses conversations
|
|