The US wanted to stop the spread of Communism and failed.
The Canadians wanted to be Peace Keepers and failed.
Should Iran be invited to join a UN-led co-alition to Afghanistan?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
The US wanted to stop the spread of Communism and failed.
The Canadians wanted to be Peace Keepers and failed.
Either way, it proves one cannot keep a peace that doesn't want to be kept - even if one is prepared to feed the effort and bear the expense.
Well considering that I was once under contact to train Iranian engineers for the government of Iran( along with their secret police minders).
And considering that I have worked closely with both Iranian nationals and Syrian nationals.
And considering that I have been invited to work in Iran, Syria and the Sudan (turned down all three).
And considering that I have spent time in the middle east.
I think that I have a reasonable "feel" for the political leanings of those countries.
And their citizens.
After a while people bugging you to do illegal cash shipments and help out with dodgy visa applications gets old.
So MHz I personally don't think I require advice or pointers from you.
My guess is that you have no idea what life in the Sudan or Syria is like.
I could be wrong.
Maybe you are Syrian, or Iranian.
The people of those countries on an individual basis are great people and good friends to have.
There present governments are not our friends.
They are in fact, our enemies.
Or so they say.
I tend to take that at face value.
So MHz you pick your friends, and I will pick mine.
Just try to make sure that YOUR friends don't hack off your head on the internet.
Trex
I don't believe you would have had to travel all that way to find those sorts of vices. You are right, I know less about them than I do about North America. If it is coming from our direction you better make sure every i is dotted because we have some of the crookest and most vile people this world will ever know, past, present and future. If you have a document that says different it is fake.
A shiver just went up my spine, tell me somebody hacked your account and is posting untrue things. LOL, hope we run into that sort of thing more often than we have in the past.
PS Once we agree on who should die we'll really be on the road to piece. Piece of this piece of that.
That's a good point. In the PRC, some friends would sometimes point to George Bush as an example of why they thought democracy woul dbe premature for China. They argued that the general population isn't sufficienty educated to vote responsibly, and that though he didn't always agree with the Chinese regime, he still prefered it to the thought of the general population voting. And he was quite educated himself and not a member of the Party himself. His perception of democracy was in fact quite negative. He'd often point to US wars and argued that it was because the leadership had to be chosen by the general population, which he likened to mob rule.
So yes, democracy is in fact a very culturally laden concept.
As for the UN, yes, it needs an overhoul. But the idea of simply disbanding it? Without any kind of international organization, how do we formulate international laws and standards that we can hold people to? Without it, we'd be left with international chaos.
Granted, we have that already to some degree because the US simply doesn't have teeth. It needs reform, and needs to be militarized to be able to enfore international standards. That's one reason the LN failed in the 30's; it was simply toothless.
But it's true that we need both real and perceived equality too. When 5 nations are given veto powers, how can its equality be taken seriously? Or when one nation is entitled to nuclear weapons while another isn't, that just makes a mockery of the UN too.
After all, a good leader is also a good follower. He leads by example, not by his bark alone.
Granted, we have that already to some degree because the US simply doesn't have teeth. It needs reform, and needs to be militarized to be able to enfore international standards. That's one reason the LN failed in the 30's; it was simply toothless.
But it's true that we need both real and perceived equality too. When 5 nations are given veto powers, how can its equality be taken seriously? Or when one nation is entitled to nuclear weapons while another isn't, that just makes a mockery of the UN too.
After all, a good leader is also a good follower. He leads by example, not by his bark alone.
Its known as sovereignty. Each nation is sovereign. Its why the UN has no teeth, it has no authority.
Agreements are worked out by the consensus of nations and their willingness and ability to enforce their standards. Which is really how things operate now.
the UN should be kept as a debating society.......for interest sake and to present a platform for those who wish to be heard.
It should also continue its good work on a number of points....feeding the hungry, promoting education, health care....etc.
It should lose any pretense to military or legal authority.
The UN has fulfilled its mandate a protector of the weak exactly twice in 60 years......Korea in 1950, and Kuwait in 1990.
Both times it was acting as a proxy for the United States.
Damned useless is what it is, in any real moral sense.
The Real News Network - Why are we in Afghanistan?
March 9, 2009 16 min. clip---
Why are we in Afghanistan?
The Real News Cafe: Recorded live at the Gladstone in Toronto, a Real News panel takes on the Afghan war
March 9, 2009 16 min. clip---
Why are we in Afghanistan?
The Real News Cafe: Recorded live at the Gladstone in Toronto, a Real News panel takes on the Afghan war
Well, in that entire ramble of the empty-headed, I did hear ONE good idea......buy the poppy crop. Makes sense to me.
What I don't like about the UN is that I had no choice in who is there supposedly representing my democractic interests. Who is there at the UN for Canada anyway? Who put him or her there? Do I want that person there?