On April 06 2009 08:56 TanGeng wrote: Stated Purpose of UN for those who need to find out: + Show Spoiler +
Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and 4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. 2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. 5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. 6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. 7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
Article 1 sounds great, but the UN is just a soapbox (propaganda machine) for certain countries, and the one time it had profound effect, the US led coalition escalated the Korean War! North Korea started the war.
Article 2 is just laughable.
The aims of the UN are noble, the countries that participate in it are not. Though in its defense it was a great amount more successful than the first attempt at collective security; the league.
Ok, so for argument sake its a regional issue, NK doesn't listen to anyone in that region except for China--I guess??(is there someone else capable?). So the responsibility ultimately falls to China to stop them or enforce some type of measure or do anything(slap on the hands included) but China couldn't care less unless it affects them in some way and whats the only way it will effect China?
... ... ...
Did you guess Western Influence/Support? Oh shit.
You are just one hell of a de-centralization person... no UN. Blasphemer! UN is the embodiment of an idea that has been around for a very long time in Europe. Small nations banded together against larger nations. Nations are reluctant to carry out the organizations' will so you can imagine why the UN itself is not very 'meaningful' as you put it. Humans, as it were, seem to be incapable of seeing the future and past so you blame a good idea carried out poorly. Why don't you sign (enlist) yourself up and give them a hand? According to you they could sure use it.
Ineffectiveness of UN aside. Beijing is now the problem and not Pyonggang? North Korea is a small country and usually suffers from famine (fault of its own leadership) so it'd be easy to pressure North Korea, but now you're saying that North Korea is doing this because Beijing told them to do it??? Evidence please.
Besides the most effective way to pressure China is not through a body in which China holds veto rights. It's through trade, and Japan and Korea are in excellent position to do it. Japan is #3 in Chinese exports and China also trades extensively with South Korea. In fact, North Korea's disruption of trade with its military exercises will eventually force China's hand. That day will happen earlier if the US decides to back away from the negotiation table. (US is in no position to threaten China on trade, and EU is in a fairly poor position as well - both economies are too reliant on cheap imports.)
I don't see good idea carried out poorly. I see an ill-conceived plan that reeks of imperial hubris that should not be carried out at all.
UN is also an ill-conceived organization that shouldn't exist. Most UN resolutions are not even slaps on the wrist.
"small nations band together against larger nations" - what?? Tell me why 5 large powerful nations have veto rights. I must have miss understood the UN charter. WTF! such nonsense.
No, I actually didn't say N. Korea is doing this because Beijing told them to do it.
Trade is the thing I was actually getting at. Extensive trading isn't ~8%. ~8% of exports for the year 2007. ~4% for S. Korea. (I'm assuming you're using Wiki for your sources.) Do you know what happens with a number that small in exports? They go to another country. When a trade agreement is broken, its not like the good production is halted and there is no one else to deliver to internationally. Who wouldn't want relations with China, if not just for their goods? That's reality.
Besides Japan isn't likely to stop trading with China over N. Korean diplomatic relations. Don't you recall this happening in 2006? It wasn't the Japanese who put the pressure on... How likely are you to stop a bully from acting out if you tell his neighbor that hes responsible and you 'threaten' the neighbor who dominates you in every way possible and could do without your lawn mower for a few months? Who is so against your way of life because of past events the dust in the air would gladly invade your home to get revenge/vengeance. No that is not likely at all you can agree. Japanese goods are very prized but you will do well to realize that nations intentions even in this century are not motivated by trade when you're a superpower. China is a P5 in the UN, veto rights as you mentioned it, I would have to say this relationship with the west is important to China but that's a educated guess. You have to remember there are advisors to national leaders who are more gifted than you or I are and these scenarios do come up... if you still draw a blank why I bother posting; I hope to engulf you in reality.
In 1945'ish or 1954'ish we didn't have any trade relations with China and our economy boomed. It is a possibility the US could make a threat to cancel trade relations but I can't see that happening like you suggest. We've even sanctioned them after this in the 1980's with the human rights violations. More evidenced is witnessed because of the trade deficit in the US and the fact that trade relations are not so strong currently indicating the reliance is not with the US but with China.
N. Korea has forced China's hand in the past and like I said China will not make a move unless it has a [personal interest] to do so. You cannot count on this type of leadership is the reality.
You need to re-affirm your position, the de-centralist persona is leaking out like harmful radiation. The UN was created in an attempt to avoid World War 3 and subsequently armed conflicts around the globe. Are you going to sit there and pretend you're not batshit insane while stubbornly opposing humanities attempt to correct its mistakes, like this is the embodiment of evil ideas come to fruition?
That is the good idea behind the UN. Everything you've argued against is the argument for; a good idea but carried out poorly...
When/if the UN disbands there will be a 3rd attempt at this idea and my money is on '3rd times a charm'.
there is no guarantee that the problem is going to solve itself. China wants north korea to be exist, china's not going to do anything. and now with the nuke north korea is pretty much untouchable. and their way of surviving by threatening with nukes and getting aid from other countries will have to end at one point another and we just have to hope that nukes don't come to play at some point.
I'm not sure if China is too happy about North Korea now. Yeah, back in the 50s and 60s, China wanted NK as a buffer, but now, I don't think any country wants a country like NK with nukes.
The thing about the UN is that it's a bit like the electrical engineer who gets no credit when things go right, but gets the blame when things go wrong. if it prevents conflict, nobody notices. If it fails to fix a conflict after it's started, everyone starts complaining. It's hard to figure out just what kind of impact it has had on world peace. For instance, its health programmes keep citizens healthier and more content than they would have been, and that is definitely good for stability.
As for North Korea, it's quite obvious that this is yet another instance of trying to get free aid. I think the rest of the world has more pressing problems on their hands, and is happy to buy North Korea off instead of calling their bluff and ending up with more uncertainty.
And with regards to America being involved, I am one hell of a glad that they are. South Korea has emotional ties to the North and it's not fair to ask them to solve a problem that might require some tough decisions. Japan doesn't even have a real army. And I would certainly not want the fate of Asia to rest in the hands of China.
It's rather hypocritical for the U.S. to have thousands of nuclear weapons and to have had them for over 60 years and yet still be against other countries gaining access to weapons. Let's not forget that the United States is the only country to ever use a nuclear bomb in a war.
Basically two guys go on a tour of North Korea. They use a hidden camera to record their journey. It is surreal.
Unfortunately, because the North Koreans take you to selected events and places, you're left wondering what life is like for the other 99% of the population that you don't get to see. Like, what do all these people do on an average day?
On April 06 2009 14:48 ghostWriter wrote: It's rather hypocritical for the U.S. to have thousands of nuclear weapons and to have had them for over 60 years and yet still be against other countries gaining access to weapons. Let's not forget that the United States is the only country to ever use a nuclear bomb in a war.
Only country to have had both the means and the war that merits using it. Rigged comparison. And the US has the maturity to be trusted with nukes, N Korea doesn't. It's not hypocritical for an adult to drive and be against a retarded child being behind the wheel of a car.
On April 06 2009 09:51 Xenixx wrote: You need to re-affirm your position, the de-centralist persona is leaking out like harmful radiation. The UN was created in an attempt to avoid World War 3 and subsequently armed conflicts around the globe. Are you going to sit there and pretend you're not batshit insane while stubbornly opposing humanities attempt to correct its mistakes, like this is the embodiment of evil ideas come to fruition?
That is the good idea behind the UN. Everything you've argued against is the argument for; a good idea but carried out poorly...
When/if the UN disbands there will be a 3rd attempt at this idea and my money is on '3rd times a charm'.
The core purpose of UN is perpetual peace and resolving conflict largely by means of peaceful means by all of the countries in the world. A nice lofty goal followed by stupid, stupid ideas.
There are some structural issues with the UN. Membership, veto rights, and a slew of other provisions protect the large permanent members of the UN security council and render it powerless one key issues and disinterested on other issues. This is not the core problem with UN.
Instead the real problem with the UN is its unrealistic, utopia, and imperialistic idea of how to solve conflicts: peaceful means (economic sanctions and bribes) and globalization (centralization).
Peaceful means has come to mean no arms, unless the arms are the UN peacekeeping force or the army of one of the member nations (usually US). UN has never valued the virtue of self-defense in the people it claims to want to help. It will not give money to the persecuted assaulted nation for hiring mercenaries that will protect it or for arming training an army that will protect it. Should armed forces be dispatched, the armed forces are not accountable to the persecuted population.
The UN peacekeeping forces might be a token of action and huddle in the safety of its own bunkers, or the US military will go about furthering other US interests in the area, or the foreign military will perversely visit in its own persecution on the local population in the form of theft, rape, and murder - in the name of the UN and immune from accountability.
Self-determination (de-centralization - whatever you want to call it) is a far more effective approach to resolving conflict than a centralized approach. In the centralized approach, the influential powers of the globe are more likely to fan the flames of conflict and sacrifice individual countries as little pawns in their game of power and influence. Peace-lovers who buy into the centralized approach will further this immoral and destructive outcome, and for this reason I am glad that the UN is largely a powerless entity. Its destruction otherwise might be unfathomable. Self-determination on the other hand puts the power in the people most interested in seeing a permanent resolution to the problem. If I wear self-determination on my sleeve, I wear it proudly because its counterpart, centralized power, has and will always inflict disaster on the weaker nations of the world.
The best part of the UN is that it is a forum for peace. It's a place where private individuals will have an audience for talking about the atrocities committed by various nations of the world. Yet, they waste their breath on the ears on national representatives whose sponsors are not champions of peace but more often than not cynical and war-hungry individuals. They might be telling their story to the exact nations that want to see said atrocities continue to happen. That ultimately the real tragedy of the UN: So many good intentions of so many good men wasted.
On April 06 2009 10:15 ItchReliever wrote: there is no guarantee that the problem is going to solve itself. China wants north korea to be exist, china's not going to do anything. and now with the nuke north korea is pretty much untouchable. and their way of surviving by threatening with nukes and getting aid from other countries will have to end at one point another and we just have to hope that nukes don't come to play at some point.
China doesn't want to see North Korea to collapse because it will mean a million or so refugees along its border. That's the event they don't want to see happen. But the North Korean regime is going to collapse eventually. I hope the Chinese are just buying time so they can be prepared, and if they aren't then someone should go there and convince them to prepare.
China also doesn't want to see a US force on its border. So strangely, the US troops in South Korea give China reason to prop up the Pyongyang government. As for the effect of the nuke, it means North Korea will not be invaded. It will fall apart from internal strife.
On April 06 2009 14:48 ghostWriter wrote: It's rather hypocritical for the U.S. to have thousands of nuclear weapons and to have had them for over 60 years and yet still be against other countries gaining access to weapons. Let's not forget that the United States is the only country to ever use a nuclear bomb in a war.
Only country to have had both the means and the war that merits using it. Rigged comparison. And the US has the maturity to be trusted with nukes, N Korea doesn't. It's not hypocritical for an adult to drive and be against a retarded child being behind the wheel of a car.
Come on..
The U.S dropped those 2 nukes for purely research and revenge. There was no need to drop one let alone two nukes of differing designs on a populated a region.
A simple request for a delegation to see a nuclear detonation would have ended the war.
On April 06 2009 14:48 ghostWriter wrote: It's rather hypocritical for the U.S. to have thousands of nuclear weapons and to have had them for over 60 years and yet still be against other countries gaining access to weapons. Let's not forget that the United States is the only country to ever use a nuclear bomb in a war.
Only country to have had both the means and the war that merits using it. Rigged comparison. And the US has the maturity to be trusted with nukes, N Korea doesn't. It's not hypocritical for an adult to drive and be against a retarded child being behind the wheel of a car.
Come on..
The U.S dropped those 2 nukes for purely research and revenge. There was no need to drop one let alone two nukes of differing designs on a populated a region.
A simple request for a delegation to see a nuclear detonation would have ended the war.
Yeah, because the Japanese definitely would have accepted that delegation!
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.1984web.com/img/funny/posters/countries/north_korea.jpg)
