Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Vpro7 · Feb 26, 2004, 03:56 AM

Maybe the UK needs to have a Patriot Act too, it might have made this all the more legal under the ever tiring excuse for big brother tactics such as terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3488548.stm

voodoo · Feb 26, 2004, 06:00 AM

Tony the Bastard.

Vpro7 · Feb 26, 2004, 06:12 AM

I'm sure he'll find some way to wriggle himself out of this one, maybe say it's not against international law, or British law. I wonder how much credibilty, honesty, and fairness can we reserve on someone like him, and his methods. In my eyes, he loses it all, adn especialyl when it comes to his rhetoric on so-called rogue nations.

gadster · Feb 26, 2004, 06:21 AM

Fur is going to fly over this one.

This is the Labor party we're talking here!

Imagine how this would have panned out had the Tory's been in power.

theolein · Feb 26, 2004, 07:05 AM

Yup, I also think that Tony boy's going to have a bit of a difficult time explaining this one away.

eklipse · Feb 26, 2004, 07:20 AM

The champions of truth, liberty, integrity, moral rectitude, good conscience and honor.

Let us all bathe in their glory.

swrate · Feb 26, 2004, 07:39 AM

Another hard one to swallow. What a disappointment for Kofi Annan.

voodoo · Feb 26, 2004, 08:02 AM

Tony is history.

Lerkfish · Feb 26, 2004, 08:10 AM

As I've said before, it's a shame we had better and more accurate intelligence on the UN delegates before the invasion than we did on Iraq.

voodoo · Feb 26, 2004, 08:19 AM

I think this is a great disrespect to the UN general secretary.

lil'babykitten · Feb 26, 2004, 08:22 AM

And Blair has the nerve to call her (Short) "deeply irresponsible". ****wit.

theolein · Feb 26, 2004, 09:24 AM

Hutton Report: A whitewash
Intelligence on Iraq: Lies
Katheringe Gun: The martyr who cam in from the cold�
Spying on Kofi Annan: Tony's water-in-the-loo.

He is going to suffer on this one, make no mistake. There is no escapeing the blame on this one at all and calling Short irresponsible, when she had the integrity to resign is only going to hurt him more. And I'm laughing. The lying bastard deserves it.

Vpro7 · Feb 26, 2004, 01:32 PM

The UN has jsut said that if true, the UN has been undermined, adn the action was illegal, and wants action to stop it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3490924.stm

eklipse · Feb 26, 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Vpro7:
The UN has jsut said that if true, the UN has been undermined, adn the action was illegal, and wants action to stop it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3490924.stm

The UN does a good enough job of undermining itself most of the time - it doesn't need an external entity to do it.

voodoo · Feb 26, 2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
The UN does a good enough job of undermining itself most of the time - it doesn't need an external entity to do it.

Meaning?

eklipse · Feb 26, 2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
Meaning?

Meaning that when it comes to making critical, world influencing decisions, the UN (namely the security council) is effectively redundant.

voodoo · Feb 26, 2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
Meaning that when it comes to making critical, world influencing decisions, the UN (namely the security council) is effectively redundant.

It is the sum of its members. The UN cannot be better or worse than that. Saying the UN does something to itself doesn't work because the UN is a meeting ground for its members. Not an executive power of any sort.

lil'babykitten · Feb 26, 2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
It is the sum of its members. The UN cannot be better or worse than that. Saying the UN does something to itself doesn't work because the UN is a meeting ground for its members. Not an executive power of any sort.

huh? any institution is made up of a number of members. The difference between the UN and say, Congress, is that one has the power to do something whilst the other (and in this case the UN) does not.

eklipse · Feb 26, 2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
It is the sum of its members. The UN cannot be better or worse than that. Saying the UN does something to itself doesn't work because the UN is a meeting ground for its members. Not an executive power of any sort.

It's not so much the actions of one or all of it's members that serves to undermine the UN's credibility/authority - it is the structure and decision making process that is at fault.

The notion of a 'UN' is a good one - the current implementation is sadly lacking and disappointing.

voodoo · Feb 26, 2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
It's not so much the actions of one or all of it's members that serves to undermine the UN's credibility/authority - it is the structure and decision making process that is at fault.

The notion of a 'UN' is a good one - the current implementation is sadly lacking and disappointing.

You are talking about the Security Council?

eklipse · Feb 26, 2004, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
You are talking about the Security Council?

Yes.

I believe the UN's biggest problem lies within the Security Council - the General Assembly is a much more useful forum for international debate, even if it is 'powerless' in most respects.

voodoo · Feb 27, 2004, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
Yes.

I believe the UN's biggest problem lies within the Security Council - the General Assembly is a much more useful forum for international debate, even if it is 'powerless' in most respects.

The SC is the UN effectively. The GA is simply a forum. I think the concept is ok, but it is unfair that only the SC members can put forth a motion. Sure they can veto any motion that comes before them but it is plain arrogant that only the SC can put one forth!

Change that and I'd be pretty pleased with the UN in its current state. It would also be nice if ALL the UN members that have not payed their FEES would do so like YESTERDAY.

Logic · Feb 27, 2004, 06:49 PM

: grabs some pop-corn and sits back waiting for the apologetics to enter :

angaq0k · Feb 27, 2004, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Maybe the UK needs to have a Patriot Act too, it might have made this all the more legal under the ever tiring excuse for big brother tactics such as terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3488548.stm

Oh.

Is that the ONLY time?

And about the UN being ineffective:

http://www.legallibraries.com/Unvanq...812992040.html

And its democratic process to decide:

http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/votes.htm

Mister Elf · Mar 1, 2004, 03:37 PM

The fact is that if a nation that is not part of the UN (or even part of it) does something deemed "naughty" by the Security Council, etc, there's nothing the UN can do about it. The UN has no power without the enforcement of its member, and if some of the members don't to get involved or are allied with the rulebreaker, then you have the usual- a powerless UN. GET RID OF IT.