Close Topic Options

United Nations or USA's Nations?

SOmething I always wonder about the USA and international organisations is who is in control?

Are decisions based on unified agreement of different nations or the muscle of the USA? It seems that UN always wants something different than the USA and then over a period of time the USA 'get its own way'.

A good example of this is the current standoff with Iraq. What is the big rush to start a war? The UN is saying give the inspectors time and the USA is basically saying they have had enough time already.

Here is another example using NATO, look at this statement and tell me if it is not totally biased:

From CNN:

RUMSFELD DISMISSES FRENCH, GERMAN OPPOSITION TO WAR

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed French and German opposition
to war with Iraq, saying that the two countries represent "old Europe" and
that NATO's expansion means "the center of gravity is shifting to the east."
Other countries in Europe are "not with France and Germany on this, they're
with the United States," he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/0&frac...wrap/index.html

Reading this I cannot help but wonder what is 'old Europe'? Is Old Europe anyone that does not agree with the US? It seems so by this statement; "NATO's expansion means "the center of gravity is shifting to the east."
Other countries in Europe are "not with France and Germany on this, they're
with the United States" so are we saying that those who are in favor with the USA are modern Europe? Oh please, this is the kind of talk that shows how typical Uncle Sam thinks.... "You are great if you are for our way of thinking and if you are not for our way, we will make you like it or abandon you, put restrictions on you or simply bomb you."

Nations USAs Nations United

I have always wonder about this. I wanna see what the United Nations will do if the USA doesn't respect the decision of allowing the inspectors to stay longer in Iraq. Because let's face it, if it was another country, the UN will be quickly to condemn them and even punish them but when it's the USA they stay very quiet and don't say nothing about it! I want to give them a chance to see what they will do if Bush decides to attack Iraq next month...

United Nations or USA's Nations? History & Civil Business Politics

What I do not understand about the US is this... they say that they want to attack Iraq because Iraq has not lived up to the UN's sanctions, BUT what about the US living up to the UN's sanctions? It seems like a double standard, because on one hand you say... "We will bomb Iraq no matter what" and on the other hand you say, "You need to follow the sanctions of the UN". So then what are we really saying? The US is UN? Or the US is above the UN?

It will play very bad if the US decides to go to war even though the UN has not given permission.

From USA Today:

In the face of stiff opposition from allies, President Bush said
Thursday that world leaders "must not back down" from Saddam Hussein and
demanded quick action to disarm Iraq. "The game is over," he declared.
"Saddam Hussein will be stopped."

Nations USAs Nations United

I agree! The USA stands for United States of America. Not UNA or United Nations of America! Bush does not control the rest of the world even though he thinks he does. What's wrong with differing opinions? The important thing is that all agree that peaceful resolution is paramount -- and currently that's the majority opinion. The US, Britain, Israel, etc., are actually the rogue states if you look at it that way.
Is Bush going to war with Iraq a personal vendetta? To finish off what Senior couldn't do? Is it to pull the wool over all Americans' eyes on the poor shape of the American economy?
Why the double standards on North Korea? Here is a nation that says they are ready to stand up to the US and they ARE ready to use nukes if attacked. Who is more dangerous? One who says I do not have weapons of mass destruction, or one who openly says I have and am willing to use them?
What about India and Pakistan? They threaten to use them on each other. Is it because all they have there are coconut oil and not oilfileds?
Since when did Europe ever become 'New'? Europe has been around for centuries and will continue to be around long after everyone else.

Nations USAs Nations United

Fireduck, you definetly throw some fire on this thread I do agree 100% with your post. In my point of view this war with Iraq has only two reasons, personal vendetta from Pres. Bush like you mentioned and the desire of the USA to control ALL the middle east oil supply.  They don't know where they're getting into.

United Nations or USA's Nations?

Actually, despite what the Pres. Bush is saying, I still do not know the real urgency to attack Iraq. And I think that's the issue facing most of the rest of the world.  Like John Lennon said in his song, "all we are asking, is give peace a chance"!
Come on, starting a war is easy. Ending it may be a different story. Hatred stays for generations. Peace has to be worked on; it needs hard work. That is why we need the UN inspectors in there together with a united world behind them. Give them a chance to work it out. Pressure Saddam and the Iraqi govt but do it via the United Nations.
The UN was chartered to stop wars, not start one. It is for peace not to sanction war here, there, and everywhere. Just like the US constitution, the UN Charter should be protected from abuse by any parties, including the US.
The UN signifies the collective will of the world. Member states must hear and abide. And when imposing sanctions bring the weight of the world to bear on those flaunting the resolutions irregardless of who they are.
Don't practise double standards. African, Arabic, Asian lives are just as valuable as anyone else's in the eyes of God. There have been reolutions against states considered 'friendly' to the US, and these states have chosen to ignore those resolutions. Where is the forceful enforcement from US or for that matter, Britain? As example, Israel is one such state.
As a local proverb here says, "When the elephants fight, the grass beneath gets trampled". Thousands will, no, make that WILL die. That's for sure. In this so-called Iraqi war (it is actually more like an attack), how many civilians, how many combatants it will be, I bet civilians deaths will outnumber combatants'.

United Nations USA's Nations

You could not say it better. That's so true. I was thinking today since the release of the new video of Osama Bin Laden if the point in here is that the US intelligence believes he's in Iraq and that's why they're rushing so much with this war, because if you think about it, how come suddenly they realized that Sadam has all these weapons? they knew he had it before!, to me there is a link between Bin Laden and Iraq and that's why Bush is rushing into this war.

United Nations USA's Nations Politics Business Civil & History

LDS,

Do you think Saddam and Osama are in cohorts? I don't know.

If not, as is so often reported in the media, and with the existence of any links not verifiable even by the British and US intelligience, why not try asking for Saddam's cooperation to go after Osama? That is if he is in Iraq. Of course via UN, and there are countries that can seek  (or pressure) Saddam into cooperating that way. Hey, Musharraf of Pakistan, viewed by India as a radical Muslim, cooperated fully in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan.

And if Saddam and Osama is in cohorts, Bush just needs to show proof that Osama is in Iraq, and the whole world will stand behind the US on the issue. It again, becomes the global war on terrorism which almost all countries agree should be nipped in the bud.
What do you think?