World protests against Darfur violence

[robertthebard]

In the meantime, the UN is every bit as corrupt as most governments. They, or certain members thereof, are more than willing to set aside sanctions if they can benefit from doing so, regardless of what the world thinks. Why support something that's no better than what you are already supporting at home?

To the people that are involved in the protests, how many of them are actually governing bodies, or just civilians with a beef? I personally believe that Darfur is a tragedy, but I don't represent the US. I can no more force troops there to quell the violence than any other private citizen in any other country. This is a tailor made situation for the UN, and what are they doing?

[dplax]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: International organizations always need time to grow. The UN is already more efficient then the League of Nations ever was. I'm curious, though. What do you think the UN should look like? How much power should it have?

If it continues to exist and function, it should have the power to prevent the mess-ups it has done in the past (Rwanda easily comes to mind).

[Sever]

Originally posted by robertthebard: In the meantime, the UN is every bit as corrupt as most governments. They, or certain members thereof, are more than willing to set aside sanctions if they can benefit from doing so, regardless of what the world thinks. Why support something that's no better than what you are already supporting at home?

In a word, potential. The governments of the world, more or less, have evolved to a stage where they are perfectly suited to dealing with issues concerning their own nations. Fundamentally, they cannot evolve further. (Just for a laugh, imagine finishing the next presidential speach with "God bless the world"..) The UN is not a government of governments (as yet) and as such, corruption amongst the individual people (not member nations) does have a severe impact on its effectiveness. That much is obvious. What is not so obvious is just how far the UN could evolve IF THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD LET IT. As i understand it, the UN does not currently operate on a true democratic system. The big players of the world each hold their veto cards up their sleaves and use them at the first opportunity to protect their own interests at the expense of the lives of citizens that the UN was established to protect. The small players, Sudan in this instance, hide behind the red tape that is the laws established by the big players to enable more convenient use of the power word veto. Somewhere along the line, the laws started being written by those who had reason to negate them creating opportunity for those the UN was established to prosecute to negate them also. And voila, i present to you, Darfur.

I don't know if the UN can be salvaged. But i support it because nothing else exists that is even remotely close to what the UN is, much less what it needs to be. If it can't be salvaged, the current state of the world and the attitudes and ambitions of its nations and religions denies the creation of a successor. We'll have to wait until the next world class disaster before that happens...

The UN needs to be a government of governments. The governments of the world need to act more like a community and accept some sort of even handed, multilateral policing. Abolish the UN now, and all we have left is the system of the international Lynch mob (which, last i checked, wasn't coping too well either).

Originally posted by robertthebard: This is a tailor made situation for the UN, and what are they doing?

Evidently, everything a wild west deputy can do when his guidelines were written by the local businessmen. No single nation is doing more.

[ 05-14-2007, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Sever ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by johnny: The only thing we should consider, is providing them with better weapons, so that the process of total annihilation speeds up a little, and Sudan's neighbours can get some sleep too.

Thar you go sell weapons and ammo to all of them, if they kill each other off we may not have to have that nuke war.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Sever: Yup, life sure will be missable. If you ever get your war, i for one am going to be pissed.

You don't have to worry to much I never have any good luck.

[Sever]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Sever: Yup, life sure will be missable. If you ever get your war, i for one am going to be pissed.

You don't have to worry to much I never have any good luck. [/QUOTE]I wish you the best of luck in every endeavor besides. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Lanesra]

Originally posted by ZFR: quote: Originally posted by Dreamer128: And there isn't a country in the world that would support a world-government style international organization with the power to authorize certain sets of nations to invade others in the name of something as abstract as the greater good.

I completely agree. So why keep it? [/QUOTE]Without the UN there would be nowhere that nation states could be taken to task for their actions.

[Lanesra]

The world will take no action about Darfur - why should they? there is no oil there!

[Black Baron]

I disagree with the "why do we care" strategem. We do care, because unless we take action now, Sudan will become another terrorrism ridden state. Genocide and terror go together.

[Sever]

Originally posted by Black Baron: I disagree with the "why do we care" strategem. We do care, because unless we take action now, Sudan will become another terrorrism ridden state. Genocide and terror go together.

This is merely an observation, but US led deposals of Islamic governments and fanatical anti-Christian/Jew/West terrorism backlashes usually go together also.

At the moment, the muslims in Sudan aren't being tapped by established terrorist cells for their potential martyrs. This is likely to happen if the US sends the cavalry. It is also likely to happen if no one sends the cavalry.