"The UN res". against Iran's atomic "... no v

Submitted by The Admiral on Tue, 2007-01-02 16:53. ::
 

"The U.N. resolution against Iran's atomic work has no validity for Iranians."

Yup.That's what the man said. To me, this brings up serious questions about the United Nations role in world governance and peace-keeping.

The Security Council has ruled on this, and yet Iran's president makes this statement.

Total f*ck'n ignorance ...... I swear. I sometimes wish that the Ignorance Bird Flu would come and wipe ingnorance from the face of the earth.

And it is not limited to the Middle East. The USA, Europe, and Asia would be better off as wellm without ignorant fundmalentists of any type, race, or creed.

The whole (smallish)blurb is here.

Link here

I am sure MSM will have more to report in the coming hours/days.

Happy New Year?!

EDIT: Please use tinyurl or the url code I did here to shrink down long links. Raj

‹ Two wombs? Didn't know it was possible Saddam's gone, but ›
login or register to post comments | 317 reads | Feed for comments on this post
balian2
"The UN res". against Iran's atomic "... no v
Submitted by balian2 on Fri, 2007-01-19 02:17.

i suppose it really highlights the dire need for reform that the UN needs - and the willingness of the international community to accept the need for a competent UN, rather than the underfunded henpecked body that exists now.

Ban Ki-Moon is in for a tough lot, and i only hope that he rises to the task - his recent appointments don't really inspire a whole lotta confidence though.

login or register to post comments
RajGB
Re: "The UN res". against Iran's atomic "...
Submitted by RajGB on Fri, 2007-01-19 02:25.
The Admiral wrote:
The Security Council has ruled on this, and yet Iran's president makes this statement.

Welcome to the United Nations. This is what you get when an organisation doesn't reform for 60+ years......

login or register to post comments
balian2
"The UN res". against Iran's atomic "... no v
Submitted by balian2 on Sun, 2007-01-21 03:11.

John Bolton, walrus-moustached neo-con bastard he may be was advocating for an expansion of NATO into a UN-analogue. It shows the twisted world-view that this cretin has, but it also brings up some of the UN's flaws into comparison.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21058805-7583,00.html (couldn't find the actual article online, but this one at least refers to it)

The idea of an exclusive organization, in which failed states and dictatorships don't get to join, or at least, do not get as strong a voice as democratic nations do has some appeal - but using NATO as the model is flawed. The core value of the UN is that it is an institution created to foster understanding, dialogue and peace. An antiquated cold war military alliance would not serve in any means to replace the UN, it would merely serve to solidify US and western hegemony.

The question you have to ask before you start critisising the UN for all its obvious flaws is what do you want it to be? Its resolutions now are toothless, the security council antiquated, the general assembly flawed in its consensus-based nature, that ultimately produces watered down resolutions. UN reform has been on the agenda since the 90s, in the time of Boutros-Boutros Ghali. To be effective, it needs international support and cooperation - it needs to be independent financialy (ala the Tobin Tax). The lack of support it has recieved is indicitave that the dominant powers of the world do not want the UN. It doesnt work with their aganda. Who'd want peace when you can profit!

The UN is the sum of its parts. If it is toothless, it is because the powers that be have made it that way by refusing to allow the reforms and independence it needs.

login or register to post comments