Turn on thread page Beta

International Relations - Is the UN an outdated institution ? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i would suggest you read Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
    I suggest you be a bit more pink :P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiny)
    I suggest you be a bit more pink :P
    Love teh avatar
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.