I'm not trying to bait you into a flame- just asking a question.

John Kerry keeps talking about him being able to harness the U.N. and effectively use them to win the war on Terror and create a global community.

That's nice, but can someone explain this:

The U.N. just passed a resolution dealing with the Sudan, "asking" the Sudanese to end the violence. The U.N. will check back in 2 months to see what has happened.

An average of 500 people are dying a week in the Sudan, yet the U.N. has shown repeatedly that they are unwilling to engage in this situation and won't do a thing about it. This is the same U.N. that John Kerry thinks he can use to beat terrorism.

My question is- If the U.N. (France, Germany, Spain) won't commit to Sudan and end the brutal killing of innocent people, then how exactly is John Kerry going to get them to fight against terrorism, against much tougher foes, with much dangerous risks?????

Not suprisingly, Kerry won't explain HOW he's going to win over the U.N., but perhaps some of you can.

Also, would you (Kerry supporters) support the U.S. going in alone with a handful of allies if the Sudanese problem continues to escalate (as it will)?

I really don't see the problems in Sudan as a threat to the United States.

My opinion would be to let the U.N. handle it.

How much can Haliburton make off of it? That will let you know if this crowd will go for it. What kind of BUSINESS is available in Sudan.



Well the first thing Kerry could do is repair some damage done by the "Old Europe" fiasco. We haven't heard from ole Rummy lately have we??? HMMMM wonder why?

Dogger Wrote:How much can Haliburton make off of it? That will let you know if this crowd will go for it. What kind of BUSINESS is available in Sudan.



Well the first thing Kerry could do is repair some damage done by the "Old Europe" fiasco. We haven't heard from ole Rummy lately have we??? HMMMM wonder why?

European nations have thumbed their noses ever since we left WW2.

But John Kerry is going to magically get them to hop on?

Ok.... :rolleyes:

Is this the best the liberals can do?

Provide an answer of "Kerry will repair the European ties"????

I still haven't received an answer to why we should wait for the U.N. to defend our nation, when they have proved time after time that they are useless and merely a paper organization.

The Knight Time Wrote:Is this the best the liberals can do?

Provide an answer of "Kerry will repair the European ties"????

I still haven't received an answer to why we should wait for the U.N. to defend our nation, when they have proved time after time that they are useless and merely a paper organization.

Maybe he can get access through his first cousin, Brice Lalonde, you know, the mayor of Saint-Briac, France. Lalonde is the French-born cousin of John Forbes Kerry of Massachusetts. Their mothers were sisters.

A poll in Le Figaro showed 78% of French adults would vote for Kerry if they could, compared with 9% for Bush.

You gotta respect that kind of love, man.

The Knight Time Wrote:I still haven't received an answer to why we should wait for the U.N. to defend our nation, when they have proved time after time that they are useless and merely a paper organization.

The thing is, America's invasion of Iraq was not a defense of our nation.

It was a war of choice.

If the invasion of Iraq truly represented America defending itself, no one would be talking about the United Nations. No mainstream politican has suggested America needed permission from the United Nations to invade Afghanistan. The fact was, we were attacked by people residing in Afghanistan and the government in power there had no intention of handing them over. So we responded with all the fury we could muster and toppled that government in a matter of weeks.

In contrast, Iraq didn't attack us. Iraq didn't threaten to attack us. We knew of no secret Iraqi plot to attack us or to attack us through intermediaries. Self-defense just never entered the picture.

And, in light of those facts, the norms of international law, basic Christian principle and common-sense diplomacy required us to seek an international mandate to go to war.

That was the point of going to the UN.

When the UN didn't give us the answer we liked, we just went ahead and attacked anyway -- and are proceeding to piss away hundreds of American lives and $200 billion dollars in a country that never attacked us or planned to.

We've also pissed away all the goodwill we ever got after the Sept. 11 massacre, and then some. And we still haven't caught Osama bin Laden, the twisted bastard actually responsible for the worst massacre on American soil in generations.

And Bush doesn't seem to give a damn:

"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." (President Bush, discussing Osama bin Laden, 3/13/02)

If those words aren't a reason to throw this pathetic, draft-ducking, weak-kneed excuse for a president out of office, I don't know what is.

John Kerry will restore dignity to the White House.

Trooper Wrote:I really don't see the problems in Sudan as a threat to the United States.

My opinion would be to let the U.N. handle it.

But the UN doesn't do anything but sit and watch. How can the UN be trusted to do anything? This looks like the sort of thing the UN is made for, but nothing is happenning. I beileve the UN can serve a purpose in this world but until it starts to take a more active stance then it will still be nothing.

Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq

Friday, November 8, 2002 Posted: 2:17 PM EST (1917 GMT)

U.N. Security Council votes Friday to approve the Iraq resolution


Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
Which NEVER happened
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States(or ones with BALLS) to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; I guess we got tired of the UN being a paper tiger and did something about it. Hell, we have been propping up that pos organization since its inception.

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Rick:

That's not a authorization of war.

If you want to see an authorization of war, look at Security Counsil Resolution 678, approved Nov. 29, 1990.

Then compare it with the one you just posted.

Good luck.

Fanatical Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:I really don't see the problems in Sudan as a threat to the United States.

My opinion would be to let the U.N. handle it.

But the UN doesn't do anything but sit and watch. How can the UN be trusted to do anything? This looks like the sort of thing the UN is made for, but nothing is happenning. I beileve the UN can serve a purpose in this world but until it starts to take a more active stance then it will still be nothing.

Why does anyone have to do anything?

Sudan is a sovereign nation, let them handle their own problems, that should be their call.

If Sudan needs help, let Sudan ask the U.N. for help.

Edited to add:

From the U.N. site.........

The UN does not have the capacity to impose peace by force. It is not a world government. It has no standing army, no military assets. It is not an international police force. The effectiveness of the UN depends on the political will of its Member States, which decide if, when and how the UN takes action to end conflicts.

The Security Council has special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The Council can exert diplomatic and political pressure on the parties to a conflict or provide a means for settling the dispute, including fact-finding or mediation missions. The General Assembly can bring the power of world opinion to bear on warring parties. Diplomatic efforts and initiatives by the Secretary-General can lead to negotiations and an end to fighting. Once a truce is in place, the Security Council can deploy a peacekeeping operation to help the parties carry out their agreements.

Schadenfreude

So, 4 different reports say that Iraq had WMD, Saddam Hussein is possibly the most ruthless dicator in the world, and just 3 years ago our country had been hit by suicide terrorists- and it's a known fact that Hussein funds families of suicide terrorists.

There was a clear threat. Your fraud of a candidate voted to go to war also. The last time I checked it wsasn't France, Germany, or Japan that were bombed on September 11, 2001. Was it?

The United States does not need a written mandate to defend itself from an organization that has proved OVER AND OVER again that it can not carry out it's BASIC function in the world- to protect innocent people and ensure peace in the world.

You still have yet to answer my question- Do you support the U.S. going into Sudan alone with a few allies and ridding the ethnic cleansing taking place? Thousands of people die in the Sudan every week, and the U.N. has chosen TO IGNORE IT.

The difference between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry will neglect our armed forces and hurt them more than any President has before.

If it doesn't disturb you that Kerry voted FOR war but AGAINST funding our troops, then perhaps nothing will. He also voted AGAINST funding for every weapons system that is playing a VITAL role right now.

Of course, Schadenfreude, we could always just wait around for the U.N. again, as terrorists plot even deeper, and allow another 9/11 to happen, onlly this time with more casualties.

Trooper Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:I really don't see the problems in Sudan as a threat to the United States.

My opinion would be to let the U.N. handle it.

But the UN doesn't do anything but sit and watch. How can the UN be trusted to do anything? This looks like the sort of thing the UN is made for, but nothing is happenning. I beileve the UN can serve a purpose in this world but until it starts to take a more active stance then it will still be nothing.

Why does anyone have to do anything?

Sudan is a sovereign nation, let them handle their own problems, that should be their call.

If Sudan needs help, let Sudan ask the U.N. for help.

300,000 people have died (or more) in the Sudan.

Why don't you ask the people who are being murdered in the streets if they need help.

Spare me your BS cover up of how the U.N. is doing the right thing.

They are sitting on their hands (AGAIN) and doing nothing about it. How many Rwandas and Sudanese crises will it take for the U.N. to make itself USEFUL?

The Knight Time Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:I really don't see the problems in Sudan as a threat to the United States.

My opinion would be to let the U.N. handle it.

But the UN doesn't do anything but sit and watch. How can the UN be trusted to do anything? This looks like the sort of thing the UN is made for, but nothing is happenning. I beileve the UN can serve a purpose in this world but until it starts to take a more active stance then it will still be nothing.

Why does anyone have to do anything?

Sudan is a sovereign nation, let them handle their own problems, that should be their call.

If Sudan needs help, let Sudan ask the U.N. for help.

300,000 people have died (or more) in the Sudan.

Why don't you ask the people who are being murdered in the streets if they need help.

Spare me your BS cover up of how the U.N. is doing the right thing.

They are sitting on their hands (AGAIN) and doing nothing about it. How many Rwandas and Sudanese crises will it take for the U.N. to make itself USEFUL?

I guess I was editing my post while you were replying......

But basically the U.N. has no power to do anything on it's own, as you can see if you refer back to my post. It can make recommendations and it can help enforce truces or peace plans but as far as going into a country like Sudan to stop the conflict would, as I understand their directives, be beyond their intended mission.

Their hands are tied until some of the countries in the U.N. Security Council bring it up for a vote to initate some action.

Trooper Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:I really don't see the problems in Sudan as a threat to the United States.

My opinion would be to let the U.N. handle it.

But the UN doesn't do anything but sit and watch. How can the UN be trusted to do anything? This looks like the sort of thing the UN is made for, but nothing is happenning. I beileve the UN can serve a purpose in this world but until it starts to take a more active stance then it will still be nothing.

Why does anyone have to do anything?

Sudan is a sovereign nation, let them handle their own problems, that should be their call.

If Sudan needs help, let Sudan ask the U.N. for help.

300,000 people have died (or more) in the Sudan.

Why don't you ask the people who are being murdered in the streets if they need help.

Spare me your BS cover up of how the U.N. is doing the right thing.

They are sitting on their hands (AGAIN) and doing nothing about it. How many Rwandas and Sudanese crises will it take for the U.N. to make itself USEFUL?

I guess I was editing my post while you were replying......

But basically the U.N. has no power to do anything on it's own, as you can see if you refer back to my post. It can make recommendations and it can help enforce truces or peace plans but as far as going into a country like Sudan to stop the conflict would, as I understand their directives, be beyond their intended mission.

Their hands are tied until some of the countries in the U.N. Security Council bring it up for a vote to initate some action.

WTF? The countries IN THE U.N. ARE THE U.N.

Yes, France, Germany, Japan, and countless other European nations make up the U.N. who are sitting on their hands.

And, you fail to mention that the U.N. has YET to "recommend" that something actually be done about the Sudanese crisis. The last resolution "asked" the Sudanese to end the violence.

If you'd like to defend this paper champion organization who COULD very well be in the Sudan helping those poor people, then that's fine. Just realize that as you sit on your computer typing, people are dying every minute due to the ethnic cleansing taking place.

The leadership at the U.N. is amongst the worst I've ever seen. This organization was formed to do ONE job- and they aren't even trying to do their job.

And this is the organization that is supposed to keep our country safe? :rolleyes:

The Knight Time Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:I really don't see the problems in Sudan as a threat to the United States.

My opinion would be to let the U.N. handle it.

But the UN doesn't do anything but sit and watch. How can the UN be trusted to do anything? This looks like the sort of thing the UN is made for, but nothing is happenning. I beileve the UN can serve a purpose in this world but until it starts to take a more active stance then it will still be nothing.

Why does anyone have to do anything?

Sudan is a sovereign nation, let them handle their own problems, that should be their call.

If Sudan needs help, let Sudan ask the U.N. for help.

300,000 people have died (or more) in the Sudan.

Why don't you ask the people who are being murdered in the streets if they need help.

Spare me your BS cover up of how the U.N. is doing the right thing.

They are sitting on their hands (AGAIN) and doing nothing about it. How many Rwandas and Sudanese crises will it take for the U.N. to make itself USEFUL?

I guess I was editing my post while you were replying......

But basically the U.N. has no power to do anything on it's own, as you can see if you refer back to my post. It can make recommendations and it can help enforce truces or peace plans but as far as going into a country like Sudan to stop the conflict would, as I understand their directives, be beyond their intended mission.

Their hands are tied until some of the countries in the U.N. Security Council bring it up for a vote to initate some action.

WTF? The countries IN THE U.N. ARE THE U.N.

Yes, France, Germany, Japan, and countless other European nations make up the U.N. who are sitting on their hands.

And, you fail to mention that the U.N. has YET to "recommend" that something actually be done about the Sudanese crisis. The last resolution "asked" the Sudanese to end the violence.

If you'd like to defend this paper champion organization who COULD very well be in the Sudan helping those poor people, then that's fine. Just realize that as you sit on your computer typing, people are dying every minute due to the ethnic cleansing taking place.

The leadership at the U.N. is amongst the worst I've ever seen. This organization was formed to do ONE job- and they aren't even trying to do their job.

And this is the organization that is supposed to keep our country safe? :rolleyes:

The United States is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. They have just as much power to reccommend that something be done about the situation in Sudan as any othe country that sits on the council.

What is the one job you think the U.N. was conceived for?

The U.N. does not protect the United States, or any other country for that matter, that is not it's job.

Please read this.......



The UN does not have the capacity to impose peace by force.

It is not a world government.

It has no standing army, no military assets.

It is not an international police force.

The effectiveness of the UN depends on the political will of its Member States, which decide if, when and how the UN takes action to end conflicts.


I'm not defending the U.N., I don't want to see a genocide in Sudan but the U.N.'s hands are tied until they are directed to take action by many different countries including the U.S.

Trooper Wrote:The United States is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. They have just as much power to reccommend that something be done about the situation in Sudan as any othe country that sits on the council.

Actually, The United States, China, Russia, England, and France have veto power on the Security Council, giving them a bit more power then other members.

Trooper Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:I really don't see the problems in Sudan as a threat to the United States.

My opinion would be to let the U.N. handle it.

But the UN doesn't do anything but sit and watch. How can the UN be trusted to do anything? This looks like the sort of thing the UN is made for, but nothing is happenning. I beileve the UN can serve a purpose in this world but until it starts to take a more active stance then it will still be nothing.

Why does anyone have to do anything?

Sudan is a sovereign nation, let them handle their own problems, that should be their call.

If Sudan needs help, let Sudan ask the U.N. for help.

300,000 people have died (or more) in the Sudan.

Why don't you ask the people who are being murdered in the streets if they need help.

Spare me your BS cover up of how the U.N. is doing the right thing.

They are sitting on their hands (AGAIN) and doing nothing about it. How many Rwandas and Sudanese crises will it take for the U.N. to make itself USEFUL?

I guess I was editing my post while you were replying......

But basically the U.N. has no power to do anything on it's own, as you can see if you refer back to my post. It can make recommendations and it can help enforce truces or peace plans but as far as going into a country like Sudan to stop the conflict would, as I understand their directives, be beyond their intended mission.

Their hands are tied until some of the countries in the U.N. Security Council bring it up for a vote to initate some action.

WTF? The countries IN THE U.N. ARE THE U.N.

Yes, France, Germany, Japan, and countless other European nations make up the U.N. who are sitting on their hands.

And, you fail to mention that the U.N. has YET to "recommend" that something actually be done about the Sudanese crisis. The last resolution "asked" the Sudanese to end the violence.

If you'd like to defend this paper champion organization who COULD very well be in the Sudan helping those poor people, then that's fine. Just realize that as you sit on your computer typing, people are dying every minute due to the ethnic cleansing taking place.

The leadership at the U.N. is amongst the worst I've ever seen. This organization was formed to do ONE job- and they aren't even trying to do their job.

And this is the organization that is supposed to keep our country safe? :rolleyes:

The United States is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. They have just as much power to reccommend that something be done about the situation in Sudan as any othe country that sits on the council.

What is the one job you think the U.N. was conceived for?

The U.N. does not protect the United States, or any other country for that matter, that is not it's job.

Please read this.......



The UN does not have the capacity to impose peace by force.

It is not a world government.

It has no standing army, no military assets.

It is not an international police force.

The effectiveness of the UN depends on the political will of its Member States, which decide if, when and how the UN takes action to end conflicts.


I'm not defending the U.N., I don't want to see a genocide in Sudan but the U.N.'s hands are tied until they are directed to take action by many different countries including the U.S.

The U.S. has already recommended action.

However, our hands are somewhat tied due to the liberal outcry about "going in alone".

So, what is it liberals? Do we always ask the U.N. for permission, or do we take care of matters ourselves, matters that are important to us?

Yeah sure let's send another 50,000 troops and 80 billion dollars to Sudan, my great-great grandchildren can help pay for it.

While we're at it let's rebuild their country for them.

Maybe we can get involved in a guerilla war while we're trying to give them democracy.

If we are going to continue circumventing the U.N. prcedures let's at least withdraw our membership and throw them out of the country.......they cost us a lot of money.