Bill's Solution (TM) for the Iran issue

[Botellines 0]

Quote

I am talking about Iran. You of course are trying to bad mouth the US again.....Of course, what is news there?

You even agrred with me that the U.S lies and has a history of supporting terrorism. So how is stating the absolut truth bad mouthing?

Quote

And the US does not trust muslim countries since they seem to like killing us.

Ya know with SH saying all the time that the US was the great Satan, and that he wanted us destroyed...You know the fastest way to become my enemy?

Say I am yours and want to hurt me. Even if I didn't care or even know about you before that...You now are what you wanted...My enemy.

All I am saying is that due to the Irak blunder, diplomacy is going to be much harder in Iran.
See, at the moment they don´t have much to negotiate with. Put over the table a couple of nukes and the threat to use them or handling them over to AlQaueda if the U.S invade Iran, and then that would be a deterrent for a invasion. You know, people is wondering who is going to be next, Iran or North Korea.
To be honest, i don´t feel comfortable at all with Iran having nukes, but have to understand their needs before attempting to negotiate.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Perhaps the solution is to create a law enforcement component?"
Could be, but surely 'local rules' apply. Lets assume the bribery etc was being done out of the UN headquarters, wouldn't American laws apply?
If a UN staffer committed murder in the UN headquarters, surely the US justice system would have jurisdiction.

MrM2? any clues on this one?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

One of the differences is there are laws in place in the US and the UK to punish this type of corruption. It doesn't prevent it from occuring, but it provides some sembalance of a deterrent. The UN has no such provision and therefore lends itself to corruption without consequence. Perhaps the solution is to create a law enforcement component?

Following that logic, gun laws, although not totally effective, are better than nothing?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

So how is stating the absolut truth bad mouthing?

It just fits into your constant bitching about everything US.

Quote

All I am saying is that due to the Irak blunder, diplomacy is going to be much harder in Iran.

They are going to try and build nukes no matter what.

Quote

Put over the table a couple of nukes and the threat to use them or handling them over to AlQaueda if the U.S invade Iran, and then that would be a deterrent for a invasion.

And for that reason they are going to be an issue.
And they should not be allowed to get nukes.

Cause if they get them, they WILL hand them out to AQ.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

'local rules' apply

In general yes. Diplomats generally have immunity though - I have absolutely no idea where UN representatives sit within the definition of a diplomat though.

The UN can be made to be accountable - Representatives and employees should be accountable to the council - the council should be accountable to its members - it's members should be accountable to their domestic parliaments/representational body - those bodies are accountable to their constituants.

It's a long chain... but it's there. The UN has no teath because member nations refuse to act on it's resolutions. If the UN came out with a resolution against Iran and Iran broke it the UN would be at liberty to ask for enforcement. If it fails to ask for it then that is a failure of the permanent members of the security council - ie of the US, the UK, France etc. If they don't vote something through you can blame the US, UK France etc as much as you can blame the UN.

"UN troops" haven't been in combat since Korea - there only reason they haven't been in combat since is because individual member countries refuse to commit. That's hardly the UN's fault - it's the fault of the member states - ie US, UK etc.

As I indicated above if the individual states refuse to act and you want them to then they are accountable to the residents of that country. ie YOU.

If people want someone to blame for UN inacction they would do well to look a good deal closer to home. All it takes is holding your representative bodies to account. If you want the UN to do something say so - not to the UN, but to your domestic bodies. They ARE UN afterall.

Corruption's a different matter. If there's corruption it needs to be stopped whereever it is. As I said, I don't know the legal status of UN representatives - if there isn't a body that can investigate the internal workings then that is an error in the creation of the UN... but as I keep saying the UN IS it's members - don't blame the UN for it's failings - blame your domestic leaders who fail to exercise their power within the security council to change matters.

[Ron 7]

Quote

All the horrible things that Bush has done and will do don't matter anymore because he has a mandate. I should just shut up now and take the ass reeming he's giving the world in peace.

Thats all just your OPINION.

Seems the majority of Americans think he is doing OK, or at least was better then your boy, the UN's bitch.

Quote

The UN is not corrupt. There are corrupt members

And that means the same thing.

Quote

It's better than nothing and should be fixed. Not thrown out and done away with.

Again your OPINION.

You like the idea of the US becoming a socalist state. I don't.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"That's hardly the UN's fault - it's the fault of the member states - ie US, UK etc."
I was sort of driving at that in my chats with Ron. You have a better way with words than I.

"blame your domestic leaders who fail to exercise their power within the security council to change matters"

So its all Bush's fault then.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Ron 7]

Quote

The UN has no teath because member nations refuse to act on it's resolutions.

Or in the case of Iraq they say that they will do something and never do it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,171]

Quote

I don't think the UN can funtion with Nations Iraq or syria etc.... being members. IMO there are too many members in the UN. Soon, every nation in the world will be in the UN, which means it will serve no PURPOSE!!!!!

Maybe the United States should get rid of Massachusetts while they're at it?

Part of the purpose of the United Nations is to give all those countries (even the asshole ones) a forum to make their case. A society, with benefits, that they can be ostracized from for the bad stuff they do.

If you want a giant police force, well, then you just have to be the biggest, baddest country in the world, and hope you remain that way because some of the rest of the world will be trying to play king of the mountain with you.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[IanHarrop 37]

So I am wondering.... can we use the term "hijacked" when looking at where this thread has gone?

Getting back to the original proposition, I personally like the idea if only based on my personal greed.

CANDU technology was developed and sold by Canadians. As such the $10 Billion would get paid to us northeners to build the CANDU reactor in Iran.

Upside - We get the money!
Downside - CANDU reactors have been used by previous customers, such India, to help them build the bomb!

OOPS - we were trying avoid Iran building a bomb.

Oh well, I still like the money! Send all you can north!

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

So how is stating the absolut truth bad mouthing?

It just fits into your constant bitching about everything US.

Quote

All I am saying is that due to the Irak blunder, diplomacy is going to be much harder in Iran.

They are going to try and build nukes no matter what.

Quote

Put over the table a couple of nukes and the threat to use them or handling them over to AlQaueda if the U.S invade Iran, and then that would be a deterrent for a invasion.

And for that reason they are going to be an issue.
And they should not be allowed to get nukes.

Cause if they get them, they WILL hand them out to AQ.

How come the same argument doesn't apply to guns? According to the NRA, gun ownership reduces crime. Why won't nuke ownership reduce wars of aggression? MAD worked, didn't it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

How come the same argument doesn't apply to guns? According to the NRA, gun ownership reduces crime. Why won't nuke ownership reduce wars of aggression? MAD worked, didn't it?

Good question.

Best answer I can give is this.

Iran having the bomb WILL prevent any country from becoming agressive with them. They know that if THEY use a nuke, they will be wiped off the map. However a lunitic does not care, and terror groups don't care.

We have a hard time keeping track of all the nukes and nuclear materials from the USSR. You like to say the US has lost track of weapons grade nuke materials.

Iran will not use a nuke, but a lone wolf, or a terrorist group will try to get them. The less of these things around the better.

MAD worked because EVERYONE was going to die....If one guy does not care if he dies he will use one.

Thats the problem.

Also trying to compare a pistol with a nuke is insane.

We have had several whackjobs use a pistol. They kill a few people. A nuke in a major city will kill hundreds of thousands.

The scope makes the nukes dangerous.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think the UN can funtion with Nations Iraq or syria etc.... being members. IMO there are too many members in the UN. Soon, every nation in the world will be in the UN, which means it will serve no PURPOSE!!!!!

Maybe the United States should get rid of Massachusetts while they're at it?

Part of the purpose of the United Nations is to give all those countries (even the asshole ones) a forum to make their case. A society, with benefits, that they can be ostracized from for the bad stuff they do.

If you want a giant police force, well, then you just have to be the biggest, baddest country in the world, and hope you remain that way because some of the rest of the world will be trying to play king of the mountain with you.

Wendy W.

Well, you can;t get rid of MA, because I am from there and my family will be pissed.....

But the UNITED Nations should be united on something do you think?

I am not talking about ONE big county/super power, but I do think they would be better served to be mainly made up of Superpowers and countries which have shown for some length of time (Make up a number...10yrs...20 yrs) That they have interest in keeping the world as peaceful as possible and expanding global markets.

I can't figure out why some of these countries were invited in....
Iran
Iraq
Lebonan
Sudan

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Ron 7]

Quote

I can't figure out why some of these countries were invited in....
Iran
Iraq
Lebonan
Sudan

Cause if you didn't invite them people would think you were out to get them and trying to push your agenda.

However some of the coutries they have on the Civil rights commision....China????? PaLeeeeaase

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,171]

Quote

But the UNITED Nations should be united on something do you think?

I am not talking about ONE big county/super power, but I do think they would be better served to be mainly made up of Superpowers and countries which have shown for some length of time (Make up a number...10yrs...20 yrs) That they have interest in keeping the world as peaceful as possible and expanding global markets.

It's an expansion of the "each man is created equal" principle that drives the United States, I believe. The United Nations as an entity isn't supposed to drive; it's not something to pledge fealty to. It's a forum for the collective body of countries, bad and good -- just as bigots and assholes can vote and run for office in the US.

Once you limit the membership to a self-selected group that think they're the movers and shakers, it becomes a kingdom/nobility approach, rather than a democratic approach.

But the real key is that it really isn't an entity with power. When the UN censures a country, it's saying in effect that the countries voted to censure -- a statement of the force of disagreement with a course of action.

It gives countries a forum. Hopefully, if countries can recognize the advantage of working with the system, it will be stronger, because it is an association, not a director.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All the horrible things that Bush has done and will do don't matter anymore because he has a mandate. I should just shut up now and take the ass reeming he's giving the world in peace.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thats all just your OPINION.

Sure is.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The UN is not corrupt. There are corrupt members

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And that means the same thing.

Please find a government body or any national or international organization that does not contain ANY corrupt members. Are you telling me there isn't a isngle instance of corruption in the US government?

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's better than nothing and should be fixed. Not thrown out and done away with.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again your OPINION.

Again, yes it is. That's kind of why I participate in threads here, to express my opinion and hear others. Not just try to prove I'm right like so many others on here.

That being said, is it not your opinion as well? Or should the US gov't which undoubtedly contains some corrupt members being done away with as well?

[Ron 7]

Quote

That being said, is it not your opinion as well? Or should the US gov't which undoubtedly contains some corrupt members being done away with as well?

I don't support the corruption. I HAVE to work within the system here in the US, or revolt.

I DON'T have to support the UN.

Until the UN does more than just offer the promise of good things, while delivering nothing. They will not get my support.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

while delivering nothing.

It's not supposed to deliver anything - that's down to the members of the UN. If UN resolutions have not been carried out that is the fault of it's member nations - that includes the UK and the US.

Remember the UN has no army - it UN troops are sent somewhere it is because the member nations send them. If they don't go - it's because member nations wont send their troops.

You can't keep blaming the UN for the innaction of individual countries.

Yes there are instances where the UN should act, and yes it could well be a lot more of a force than it is... but it still relys on each individual member nation to do what they say they will do in the council.

[Ron 7]

Quote

It's not supposed to deliver anything - that's down to the members of the UN. If UN resolutions have not been carried out that is the fault of it's member nations - that includes the UK and the US.

If it does not work, why support it?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

It does pretty much what it was designed to do. It was supposed to be a place where nations come together and discuss issues before acting in unison.

It does that... at least by way of creating resolutions. If the member nations don't act on them that's not the UN's fault.

The other BIG problem which I cannot defend is that the UN is a little too timid. Darfor (sp?) as an example - they issued resolution. Nothing happend. They issue another. Nothing happened. And another - now we have a resolution that something will happen before the end of the year... wonder what will happen?

What they should be doing is issuing a resoltion which says if you don't stop UN troops will go in. When nothing happens and no troops turn up then it will be the fault of the US, UK, France Russia, China etc etc.

Problem is of course the UN is simply a group of politicians from each member country... of course they're never going to vote in a resolution which causes their boss (president of home country) to sack them for making the member nation look stupid. Plus I'd put money on them being under orders to veto such moves given current troop commitments elsewhere and other policital/domestic agenda.

[Ron 7]

Quote

It does pretty much what it was designed to do. It was supposed to be a place where nations come together and discuss issues before acting in unison

If they never do what they say they will do...Then it does not work.

Quote

It does that... at least by way of creating resolutions. If the member nations don't act on them that's not the UN's fault.

This and this

Quote

The other BIG problem which I cannot defend is that the UN is a little too timid. Darfor (sp?) as an example - they issued resolution. Nothing happend. They issue another. Nothing happened. And another - now we have a resolution that something will happen before the end of the year... wonder what will happen?

Are the smae issue...

Sure, they can pass resolutions all day long. But then they don't back them.

That makes them useless.

What good is an organization that tells you what to do or else, and the "else" is nothing?

"Do what I say or I'll do nothing about it"

Quote

What they should be doing is issuing a resoltion which says if you don't stop UN troops will go in. When nothing happens and no troops turn up then it will be the fault of the US, UK, France Russia, China etc etc.

Except that they say they will do something, than instead of doinga nything they pass another resolution.

And then they say the US is invading against the world law when they voted for it.

They said "Do this or we will invade by Xdate"

X date passed time after time.

When someone finnaly did something, the UN said it was illegal.

What good is an organization that can only pass resolutions, but never does anything to the people that violate them?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334