Has the UN ever solved a real crisis?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

Crosshair RE:Has the UN ever solved a real crisis? 7/19/2004 1:25:21 AM

I am unaware of any meaningfull contributions that the UN has made. Other than a place for the world countries to meet, the UN serves no real pourpose. When you sent soilders to a country for peacekeeping (ultimate oxymoron BTW) you need to go into the hills and kick some @$$. Instead we have white choppers/cars and blue hats. In 50 years one would think that a person could think of grand UN victories, But I can't think of one. Anyone else???

Quote Reply

ilpars Yes. In fact UN forces fought on 2 wars. 7/19/2004 11:14:48 AM

Korea War, Gulf War 1. Both were officially done by UN armed forces. US Army was the greatest contributor but offically under UN command in both wars.

Quote Reply

Kadett RE:Yes. In fact UN forces fought on 2 wars. 7/19/2004 12:43:43 PM

Officially, but in reality those were US fights with a couple of allied divisions.

Quote Reply

ilpars RE:Yes. In fact UN forces fought on 2 wars. - Kadett 7/20/2004 4:46:52 AM

By necessity one must have the major force. Other than this 2 wars, UN forces took duty in every part of the worls as peacekeepimng soldiers. Afganistan, Bosnia, Macedonia, Ethiopia, Pacific, Africa. UN is very useful. USA is the primary benefector from UN. So, why object.

Quote Reply

yobbo RE:Yes. In fact UN forces fought on 2 wars. - Kadett 7/20/2004 6:18:55 AM

Where has the UN solved a real crisis without the US? East Timor springs to mind. -The UN only solves problems once it has been on the news for months. Wonder how long it will take before they do something about Darfur, in Sudan (which happens to be the UN appointed leader for Human Rights).

Quote Reply

bombard RE:Yes. 7/22/2004 8:01:01 PM

And if you dont know your history of the last 50 years, dont ask silly questions. In peacekeeping terms: If the UN gets involved, its to stop escalation or to force a rollback. its not a preemtive strike force. I'm not sure where you're from, but you sound like you know sweet F.A about peacekeeping. "guns and kicking A$$". my hairy A$$! How about eliminating Smallpox? does that count as a unconditional victory? Lebanon, Cambodia, Liberia, Sierra Leone? sound familiar? How about clean water, river blindness, schools, roads? How about ensuring that every external conflict has a forum to be debated? That in itself is a victory! Get a grip and get a passport.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a RE:Yes. 7/23/2004 5:14:28 AM

Sierra Leone and Liberia count as victories (at least so far). Lebanon--if the UN did such a great job, then how come there was 20 years of bloody civil war? The Lebanese sorted that one out for themselves, "kindly" assisted by Syrians occupying half their country. Cambodian elections in the 1990s was a UN affair. Stopping Pol Pot was not--that is one we can thank the Vietnamese for, when they invaded in 1979. And well they should, since they helped get the lunatic into power in the first place. Don't get me wrong, Bombard--the UN has its place and has done some good things. Right now, however, it's turned from being a legitimate forum to air grievances to a never ending litany of how bad the US and Israel is. And the funny part is that most of the representatives probably go home and sleep on evil US soil and watch evil US TV.

Quote Reply

PuckaMan It has. 8/4/2004 9:26:48 AM

Ilpars and bombard have summed it up nicely. Look, you never agree with everyone you meet, especially on important issues, and that translates right up to the geopolitical level. The UN has had a lot of successes despite its diversity and difference, and of course, a lot of failures. But can anyone name a human political international endeavour that has not met with failures both big and small? Problems are at least discussed across a civil setting, and that is a victory in itself. The UN should not be condemned because it does not conform to one particular view. I'm not perfect. You are not perfect. The chick I like at my favorite cafe is (for now), but that's beside the point. Considering what the UN was set up for and attempts to do, it does pretty well for what it is at the moment. Pucka

Quote Reply

Phoenix Rising RE:Yes. 8/14/2004 12:56:29 AM

The problem is that there are active camps of activists in both Europe and American who want to keep changing the definition of what the U.N. is and what its responsibilities are. It was conceived as a universal geopolitical forum for discussing and deliberating world politics, not a nascent global government with intrinsic authority beyond that delegated to it by its members, including to legislate international law of its own accord. It's impossible to prove a negative, but I believe that the U.N. has saved the world from nuclear catastrophe at least once in the past lifetime, and should not be discarded just because terrorism is the threat du jour and the U.N. seems less capable of handling this kind of environment. Saying that superpower rivalries are a thing of the past is at best a half-truth, and the U.N. will definitely have a purpose again once the Islamist plague isn't the only thing on the chattering classes' geopolitical radar.

Quote Reply

The Warrior RE:Has the UN ever solved a real crisis? 8/24/2005 10:17:12 PM

The only thing I can think of right now is the Korean War.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger The Major UN flaw 10/8/2005 3:45:01 AM

The major flaw that will keep the UN from ever living up to it's intended purpose: it is designed to act by concensus, which excludes the decisive actions which are often required.

Quote Reply

HoundOfHello RE:Has the UN ever solved a real crisis? 10/9/2005 9:48:29 PM

What about the Suez Canal crisis in 1957 (I think?). A lot of people say it was the US and USSR's censure of UK and France that stopped the crisis---which is partially true. But Canada's actions in the General Assembly as well as their repeated phone calls to President Eisenhower effectively united the UN against Britain and France. The Anglo-French-Israeli forces were forced to withdraw and were briefly replaced with UN peacekeepers. I think this counts as a brilliant mediation by the UN. -HoH

Quote Reply

flamingknives RE:Yes - sentinel28a 10/19/2005 4:49:56 PM

Was Sierra Leone a UN action? My understanding was that it was British only.

Quote Reply

Liver RE:Yes - flamingknives 11/18/2005 7:59:42 AM

First "west african forces", then UN peacekeepers, then Brits helped out (i'm pretty sure they were counted as un peacekeepers.)

Quote Reply

appleciderus Never solved a crisis, 11/18/2005 8:25:28 PM

but occasionally successful in spite of itself! Swami: There were NO UN ?peacekeepers? in Cambodia. The UN was so ineffectual dealing with Pol Pot that a disgusted North Vietnam intervened. Imagine North Viet Nam interceding in a ?human rights? issue while the UN debated. Millions of innocent dead. Crosshairs: Korea is arguably a UN success, but only because the Soviet Union had walked out of the Security Council over a different issue. They never did that again. BTW, there is today only a ?cease fire? preventing renewed conflict, not a UN negotiated peace. Ilpars: Gulf War I is a prime example of the UN reluctantly dragging its feet. Without US prodding, the UN would still be negotiating Iraq?s withdrawal from Kuwait. However, UN fans can put that one in the ?win? column. Yobbo: East Timor was a UN disaster until Australia stepped in with troops. The UN claims credit, but let us all thank Australia for not waiting as long as North Vietnam waited. Never the less, innocent people died waiting for the UN to save them. Bombard: The UN has not eradicated smallpox. As uncomfortable as this is to say, Louis Pasteur had more to do with eradicating smallpox than Bombard understands. River blindness? Schools? Roads? Wells? Sanitation? Health Care? They are all UN disasters! The money allocated versus the money delivered to programs is felonious. Senator Coleman?s committee reported last month that a $600,000 UN program had a 10 MILLION dollar administrative budget. Where is the ?outrage?? Lebanon, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Liberia? Sound familiar? Of course they do: recent additions to the long list of UN failures, at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. Along with Somalia, Srebinicia, Sudan, slavery, etc..and my favorite: polio. Since the polio vaccine became available in the mid 1950?s the UN has had multiple ?5 year plans? to eradicate polio, the latest goal being 2008(?). The number of worldwide polio victims increased again this year. In fact, US victims are now on the increase because of ?imported? poliovirus. BTW, most of the UN funds for polio eradication come from Rotary International, about 130 million dollars this year alone. (Please see UN administrative costs noted above.) Sentinel: In 1956 the President of Lebanon publicly requested the US, Britain, and France to protect Lebanon from internal political interference by the United Arab Republic. Lebanon then formally complained to the UN Security Council. The UN sent ?observers?. Had the UN been forceful rather than observant, Beirut might still be the ?Pearl of the Orient?. Instead, almost 50 years later, Lebanon is still a disaster as the UN debates the possible involvement of Syria. (Former United Arab Republic) in a political assassination. Pucka: I hope your caf� romance lasts forever, but your rose colored glasses confuse the UN?s original purpose with its present performance. Phoenix: We agree on many things, but not this. The UN was formed by the victors of WWII in order to prevent another conflict, a conflict they believed to be the fault of the weak League of Nations. The Security Council was composed solely of the victors, who by 1945 were calling themselves the ?United Nations? rather than the ?Allies?. It was not set up as a forum for lesser nations to flex their muscles, but for the ?United Nations? (Allies) to be sure that no nation flexed its muscles but they. Yet, as early as the San Francisco conference in 1945, both Truman and Churchill knew it was a sham as Eastern Europe was swallowed up by Stalin. Then Churchill was gone from the scene. Today, the UN is the image of the prewar League of Nations. (Unfair to the League, which had no opportunity for similar corruption.) The only thing that has saved the world from nuclear conflict to date is the West and the Soviets respecting each other?s ability to fulfill their ?mutual destruction? policies. Even in the ?Cuban Missile? crisis the UN played no role. Today, ?mutual destruction? policies have no benefit with theocratic jihadist Iran, and the UN has been unwilling to be more forceful than it was in Lebanon a half century ago. Warrior: Add to Korea the creation of Israel. Ranger: You understand why the UN is a petrie dish of corruption, but only Security Council consensus was conceived as necessary. Hello?: This is a classic example of how the UN sits on its hands, waits for the outcome, and then claims jurisdiction and credit for success. It was not any nations calls to Eisenhower that effected events. It was Eisenhower?s calls to the Brits and French that changed events. Eisenhower was always cool under stress and I remember only twice seeing his anger publicly visible: with Suez, and in Paris after the U2 incident. He was furious that the US had no warning of the Brits, French and Israeli actions. The UN ?monitors? (not ?peacekeepers?) were documented by media to turn a blind eye to abuses by the Egyptians. I read the stories daily. How times have changed. The UN?s only success was claiming credit for events others had affected. (Sound familiar?) Knives: See above comments re: UN claiming credit for deed done by others. In conclusion I can honestly believe that the UN has had only 3 successes in its 60 years of existence: 1. Korea, through a mistake by the Soviets. 2. The creation of Israel, a noble act. 3. Avoiding payment of NYC parking violation fines. If the UN is to survive, and fulfill the expectations of its proponents, it must be cleansed of corruption. If the UN is to be even moderately effective in the areas it now claims to be successful in, it must be unbiased. I don?t believe this is possible. Even so, until the next worldwide conflict exposes the failure of the UN, we must accept its existence, but not its failures and corruption.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us