Signals.Cpl

Prove it, there are plenty of examples where the superpowers came close to a war, please choose 2 that were because of the UN. They didn't prevent any of them, the UN never deployed peacekeepers as a preventative measure and have them succeed, most of the missions end up like Rwanda, send in the PK's, force is required and the UN cannot do force so the peacekeepers are either withdrawn or the force is bottled up where they cannot do much. I love how you use broad examples like that but the 80+million people who died over the last 60+ years many of whom died in "small" wars would disagree. And then lets them die in easily preventable wars... Helping people while letting them kill each other does nothing but keep the poor down. You use vague terms to prove a naive point, that the UN has done many good things that I cannot prove but it has not done any "bad" things... The UN is broken, trying to fix the UN from the inside will not work, and to add to that, right now most African nations have little to no trust in the UN and know the UN weakness which is fear of sustaining casualties. Most of the regions in need of peacekeepers know that if you kill preferably 10-20 Western Peacekeepers their government will promptly withdraw them essentially eliminating the most capable of the PK's. casualties !=dead... casualties includes Dead, Wounded and mission. From your source: The Treaty of Versailles is much more to blame then a failed League of nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll So should we wait for World War 3 to scratch off the UN and get some competent organization to work? No necessarily but at the same time, we would have regional organizations that actually do something to stop/prevent/end wars. Yeah I agree with that, I know that the UN will not be reorganized until such a time as it becomes a major necessity through a major war or a natural disaster, but the UN has never had, does not have and never will have any bearing on wether or not there is World War III. A Global War is likely with or without the UN. Judging from history I don't see how that is likely, its not like Africans are shaking in their boots out of fear of the UN. So you want to enact change by trying to get the 5 veto powers to agree to give up their special powers, force the US to give their special powers while being singlehandedly the biggest contributor to the UN all the while having many UN members hiding behind the UN, blaming the UN and tripping the UN at every opportunity. Add to that the fact that all those bureaucrats are entrenched in their organizations and will resist and sabotage change at EVERY opportunity to protect their little fiefdoms.

So would you solution be to have no security in place because if they want to make an attack on the olympics then they will do so wether we protect or not?

Really? You haven't proven through any of your arguments that the UN is keeping deaths in check. The only reason that there have been lower casualties in the last 60+ years is because the wars that were fought were between 3rd rate powers or were by superpowers fighting 3rd rate powers rather than super powers and allies fighting superpower and allies. My solution is more realistic and viable because it would put pressure on nations to create a better organization or face responsibility for their action/inactions whereas now most nations hide behind the UN, take credit when the UN gets lucky and blame the UN when it fails all the while blaming the US. Your "plan" doesn't deal with anything realistic because you want to fix the UN while you have people like waldo claiming that the UN works perfectly, people who work for the UN resisting any kind of change to the status quo and the nations themselves who once again take credit for any success while sticking all the blame on the UN. If the organization ceases to exist than reality will set in and there will either be a better organization or regional organizations will take over. Love your math though, so you count WW1 casualties towards creation of the League and then count them again towards the creation of the UN? Also, love how you add wounded to the casualties of World War 1 as total deaths in WW1 amount to just over 16,000,000 while taking the exact middle in World War 2 deaths we get 70.5million dead so we are already above the combined World War 1&2 deaths so its time to change. Something better or nothing at all, either way it would be an improvement or at the worst case scenario it will be the status quo. And it took only 6,500,000 for the Congress of Vienna, should we wait for Yeah, you provided a list of missions and I pointed out how they were not successful or if successful not due to the UN, in this case prevention of war means when war is imminent and the UN send in Peacekeepers and war was averted. Failing to act IS doing harm, its primary mission is to keep the peace... failing that mission means it is doing harm, and has done harm to at least 80,000,000 people. I don't need credible opinions because this is my opinion of how the UN should be restructured as I don't base my thinking on some "solution" that will not improve the organization just put blinders on the critics for another few decades and another few genocides. I would like to see the General's opinion but either way it proves nothing about its possibility of success. You have failed to prove why we should keep the UN around, why we should continually fund an organization that has failed in its mission but "has done no harm"...

So during World War 2 the Allies were the far right while the two leftwing ideologies(Communism and Nazism) fought it out?

Yet, no matter what you say, you had no solid undisputed facts that you were right and they were wrong Again my issue is not with the proof but his answer to a simple question. I was wondering how he knew what they were saying, to me it is simple if you ask me to support a point I will do my best to find proof for my position rather than demand you call me a liar because you disagree with my position. Yeah, but the initial point I was trying to make had nothing to do with the consequences but the fact that some news articles were much easier to prove/disprove than others were/are. Iraq was one, you couldn't prove that there were no WMD's and that anyone was lying because you had no solid facts and no way to obtain said facts, while at the same time the MSM outlets that supported the claims of WMD's could not as well present solid undisputed facts. What was the undisputed evidence before the invasion? Again, in this situation reasons for and consequences as a result of are of no importance because I am trying to point out that neither side could prove that the other was lying unlike lying about a simple translation which could be proven/disproven almost instantaneously by millions of people. What if the al-Assad regime collapses and evidence is found of Iraqi WMD's being transported in to Syria just before or during the invasion? Who will be the liar then? Well I agree 100% its not like al-Assad is killing his own people right? Just like the global ramifications from the Iraq war? I doubt that the US is willing to go to war with either Syria or Iran, seeing as they will be blamed for something either way, I can see them benefiting more from inaction. And you think thats limited only to the US? Governments have lied for thousands of years in order to achieve one goal or another, it is neither an American Invention nor an invention of the Media.

My bad, I too was a year off...

September 11,2000: Rosh HaShanah I guess they care that there was a holiday on September 11, they just dont care that the holiday happened to be the year before.

Right now? The United States, no nation can honestly face them with an expectation of coming out a victor in a conventional war.

I'm sorry, should we wait for 100,000,000 people or the proportional number compared to our population, which would mean what, 250,000,000? 300,000,000? The reason that World War 3 was averted and there are fewer casualties has nothing to do with the UN, it has everything to do with the US and the USSR having nothing to gain from a war and everything to lose therefore no war... And when you add up some of the casualties not all of them since 1945 we get a number of over 80,000,000 I understand if that not enough deaths to convince you but they are more than enough to convince me. I challenge you to present 10 wars and/or genocide that the UN Stopped not waited till they ended by themselves.

If you look closely, the UN was in existance before Hiroshima and Nagasaki so the only two nuclear attacks happened when the UN was in existance and none before it.

And so is your consistent and unfounded attack on the left with accusations of being the racist side.

1981? Kinda of an arbitrary starting point but I think people in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, FYR, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Congo, Falkland Islands, Chechnya, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Burundi, Peru, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, Armenia, Azerbaijan... and many more might disagree, I guess the point is clear.

How is it working in India and Pakistan? How did it work during the cold war? How is the UN restricting Israel from possessing Nukes? How is the UN restricting Iran from possessing nukes? Is sure as hell stopped North Korea from trying...right?

Please explain exactly what that is meant to prove...

Knowing something is going to happen and having the ability to stop it from happening are two different things.

Again we are talking about average joe, people like you and I who might have our beliefs we have no way of actually proving anything until after the fact. You believed that WMD were non existent while millions believed otherwise and the definitive evidence was not available to us. The reasons are not too important when it comes to this argument, its more that if the MSM told you there were WMD's you might not believe them but you have no hard definitive proof of their existence or lack of existence. But at the time you couldn't prove it one way or another.

Do you have proof to support that statement? Stating that one guy represents an entire political entity comprising of millions people is ludicrous unless you can somehow prove those claims.

No one ever said we have to make it easier for them.

So you think that the left is the only political entity that has questions?

Im talking about a simple side of the road picture avoiding any landmark, in the example you gave about the BBC using pictures from Iraq in stories about Syria, if they avoid anything identifiable they are just showing dead Arabs, now this might sound horrible but how many in Canada or the US can tell the difference between a dead Iraqi and a dead Syrian? There are certain things that are not easily proven or even caught while others are exceptionally easy to note and prove. I don't want to make this in to another thread about wether or not there were WMD's and all but the reality I would say is that it was a toss up wether there were or were no WMD's based on the information that was had at the time (Excluding the information that senior government officials had). The reality is that WMD's could have existed since before GW1 and therefore could have been in existence. What my point is that with the resources available at the time there could not be a definitive factual position within the general public because the MSM was giving us "facts" and we had nothing in the way of verifying them.

The UN has nothing to do with a country using or not using a WMD, look at Iran, if they develop a nuclear weapon they will decide to use it or not to use it based on what the expected reply would be from say the US, China, Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan etc...

Yeah and look where that got us...to world peace right?

Again read previous posts and you will get your answer.

If you turned your selective reading mode off you would see I have answered those questions already.