The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > UN as a force for world peace? > Comments

UN as a force for world peace? : Comments

By Rob Shilkin, published 12/1/2006

Robert Shilkin argues if Iran’s nuclear program is not halted, peace in the Middle East will be further away than ever.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All
Scout, apologies for not answering you on the other thread, I missed it for awhile.

Your post, “After all, surely the western nations would prefer to hold the upper hand in trade.” Is true and it would be the same for non western countries. Cols suggestion would have merit if it were possible, but the present examples of free trade has led to enslavement of populations to provide the west with its luxuries.

Trade is in the hands of the elite and has always been that way. It has been used to firstly open doors, then supplant the owners of trade items. This has always led to dissatisfaction in resource rich countries, as the returns leave their country for else where and they are left to clean up the mess.

If we all had the guts in this country we would take control of our own destiny and leave the rest of the world to destroy itself. We are losing our lifestyle to religion, our resources and assets to multinationals based overseas and our leaders are loving it. Doesn't that say how stupid and easily led we are.

Has anyone ever thought of the possibility that the oil we are draining out of the ground, could be part of the earths hydraulic systems, that keep the plates moving freely. In earth time, our removal of oil has been but a second, so the effects have not raised their head. But if there is any truth that oil forms an essential part of the earths system, we are in for some very big tectonic movements. Just like when a bearing starts to seize, it makes small noises, then big squeals, followed by sudden collapse. Not a pleasant thought.
Posted by The alchemist, Sunday, 15 January 2006 10:20:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It occurs to me that God and the UN are very similar - sitting up there doing nothing.
Posted by ekastahr2, Monday, 16 January 2006 1:59:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part One

Rob, hope info’ and some suggestions below might help,

Looks like Iran has become the latest US target, though it was Iran which was nominated a rogue state along with Syria and North Korea by the same United States well before the attack on Iraq. The far smaller Iraqi population split up into three unfriendly subcultures, Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, certainly made Iraq the best bet for a US attack.

Though Saddam’s ruling Sunnis were knocked out within weeks, most of the military rather than being captured did go underground and for nearly three years have given US forces a hell of a time possibly not as terrorists because it was their country, but acting like other Islamic terrorists as suicide bombers. Having arranged the beginnings of a sort of ersatz democracy, the Americans have even got to the stage of offering former Sunni officers command roles in a new Iraqi army helped with US training by Brits and Aussies.

Some observers are saying that a strike against Iran by America might very well have to be nuclear. There is also the problem of Putin’s Russia already aiding Iran with nuclear facilities, said to be only domestic, but accused by the US of being potentially militaristic. China is said to be also sympathetic to Iran, not only supplying rocket parts, but also prefers Iranian oil because of its superior quality. There is also a rumour that India would also back Russia and China.

Observers are even suggesting that with Russia, China and India’s possible stance, the US may need to tactically change its aggressive attitude towards Iran. And, in fact, according to the report, there could be the possibility of the US doing a deal with Iran.

Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 2:07:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At this stage it has become intensely interesting to political philosophers, formerly shut out, particularly in major US universities like Harvard, these intellectuals now able to bring out the old schism about diplomatically sharing the blame to preserve peace, which might indeed go a long way to solving the whole global terrorist problem. Not that conditions would ever be all sweet and light, but just having rumours about a more friendly Iran helping America get out of its Iraqi quicksand. might be sound commonsense so much needed in today’s nuclear-related world.

There is also the danger of an edgy Israel taking out Iranian nuclear installations before they become active, knowing that a later bombing could cause another Chernobyl polluting half the Middle East, including Israel itself. In fact, there has been recent reports that the US has already allowed Israel to set up a military base in northern Iraq, right close to the Iranian
border.

Indeed to help stop all this half-wittedness, it night be as well to let Iran join the nuclear club, using standard Realpolitik as a modern Bismark would suggest. Find peace using the balance of power principle. as was practised by statesmen during the Concert of Europe. A phrase coined for all the European diplomacy that went on after the Napoleonic Wars.

Certainly we can learn from the past, Rob, which means that one nation running the world has never ended successfully, and never will. We all have to solve it together by sharing the blame, as Socrates would say.

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 2:34:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just love these articles where somebody (usually a nobody) sounds off about what a sovereign foreign nation should be "allowed" to do.

What right, exactly, do we (I use the word loosely, to conjure the image of a bunch of suburban Australians going about their blameless daily lives) have to pass judgement on another country in this manner? We would certainly feel indignant if the Teheran Telegraph decided that Australia should give up the right to decide a particular issue for itself.

Would we, for example, sit around meekly if the Teheran Herald Sun, or the UN, or "world opinion" decreed that we should cease mining uranium? I think it more likely that we would choose to decide such matters for ourselves.

The judgements that "we" make in these situations say a lot about us. We decide that country A is bad, and needs to be brought into line, or this country B is good, and needs to be supported in bringing country A into line. We then sit about whingeing when country A thinks of us as international terrorists, and decides to do something about it. What we never seem to question is our infallibility in coming to these decisions.

And whatever the UN has become, it has become through our love of setting up parliaments to do our thinking for us.

The UN was established, as Col points out, as a follow-up to the League of Nations. The original concept was little more sophisticated than believing that it was better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in. The idea that it may wield some direct influence on the issue is pure wishful thinking, thanks to our willingness over the years to pretend that it can.

For forty-plus years following the end of WWII it was largely the perception of MAD that prevented further use of nuclear weapons. Why should we think that the same capability in the hands of Iran is more dangerous than it was in those of Khrushchev and Kennedy?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 8:58:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy