International Relations - Is the UN an outdated institution ?

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 16 years ago
#21
(Original post by vienna95)
if you have to go back to the 90s to find a US-led UN motion then i dont need to.
Don't need to, or simply can't?. I just used that one as it was all over the news and papers when I began to study international relations in my formative years.
0
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 16 years ago
#22
vienna... when the Bush Jr. administration sent troops in to invade Iraq, despite setting a date for the UN to sanction the invasion, why didn't the UN stop the US? Simple question. If they were not pandering to American wants, then why did they allow Bush's adminstration to engage in an act of war despite not having UN approval?
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 16 years ago
#23
(Original post by Sire)
Don't need to, or simply can't?. I just used that one as it was all over the news and papers when I began to study international relations in my formative years.
if the 'UN pandered to the US' then it would be reasonable to expect most UN decisions to be in their favour and as unique result of them, especially those concerning US interests and security. current affairs relating to the war on terror, the middle east, peace-keeping and the Israel/Palestine situation, would show that while the US is a major presence in the UN, to suggest it controls such a body is clearly unfounded.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 16 years ago
#24
(Original post by Sire)
vienna... when the Bush Jr. administration sent troops in to invade Iraq, despite setting a date for the UN to sanction the invasion, why didn't the UN stop the US? Simple question. If they were not pandering to American wants, then why did they allow Bush's adminstration to engage in an act of war despite not having UN approval?
it was my understanding that it was inline with the UN charter regarding security and peace, and as a result the UN broadly supported the US proposals for action.
0
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 16 years ago
#25
(Original post by vienna95)
if the 'UN pandered to the US' then it would be reasonable to expect most UN decisions to be in their favour and as unique result of them, especially those concerning US interests and security. current affairs relating to the war on terror, the middle east, peace-keeping and the Israel/Palestine situation, would show that while the US is a major presence in the UN, to suggest it controls such a body is clearly unfounded.
I agree with your view that the US does not 'control' the UN, but I fail to believe that the UN goes about things irrespective of the US point of view. Thus pandering.
0
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 16 years ago
#26
(Original post by vienna95)
it was my understanding that it was inline with the UN charter regarding security and peace, and as a result the UN broadly supported the US proposals for action.
When the UN has a history of trying to prevent the outbreak of war? Hmm. Interesting, naive but interesting all the same.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 16 years ago
#27
[QUOTE=Sire]I agree with your view that the US does not 'control' the UN, but I fail to believe

that the UN goes about things irrespective of the US point of view. Thus pandering.
the US is a world superpower and member of the security council, the UN is right to consider the US. 'to pander' would suggest that the UN seeks to please or appease the US position at cost to principle, or the influence of its remaining members. considering the UN's position on Israel and pre-emptive conflict against terror-supporting states, the two most important issues for the US vis-à-vis the international community, this would be false.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 16 years ago
#28
(Original post by Sire)
When the UN has a history of trying to prevent the outbreak of war? Hmm. Interesting, naive but interesting all the same.
i would suggest you read Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
0
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 16 years ago
#29
(Original post by vienna95)
the US is a world superpower and member of the security council, the UN is right to consider the US. 'to pander' would suggest that the UN seeks to please or appease the US position at cost to principle, or the influence of its remaining members. considering the UN's position on Israel and pre-emptive conflict against terror-supporting states, the two most important issues for the US vis-à-vis the international community, this would be false.
Fair enough.
0
shiny
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report 16 years ago
#30
(Original post by vienna95)
i would suggest you read Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
I suggest you be a bit more pink :P
0
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 16 years ago
#31
(Original post by shiny)
I suggest you be a bit more pink :P
Love teh avatar
0
tkfmbp
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#32
now, whilst i wholly agree that the US does some good work in many many areas, I am concerned that the US and UK were 'allowed' to go to war in Iraw without UN sanction. I also wholly agree with vienna when she says the UN mainly supported the actions of the US and UK in Iraq.

However the facts are these. The UN did not sanction the actions in Iraq, and it concerns me greatly that the US/UK can just ignore the lack of international sanction. It smacks of poor leadership and bad sportsmanship on both sides.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (33)
8.17%
Confident (54)
13.37%
Indifferent (57)
14.11%
Unsure (103)
25.5%
Worried (157)
38.86%

Watched Threads

View All