Europe: Complacency biggest threat to world peace?

eg United Nations

Published on November 11, 2003 By Light_TAS In Politics

The biggest threat to world peace is not Israel, not the Middle East, not even terrorists. The biggest problem is European complaceny. (I dont mean to offend any of you Euros, many are my friends, just my views). The United Nations has turned into the biggest pile of bs that we have seen since the League of Nations. Noone is willing to do anything, for it may offend someone. Noone is willing to take a risk, and attempt to right a wrong. Europe was firmly against American involvement in Iraq, and for just causes. No other nation helped the US besides Britain, and even then, Tony Blair pissed most of his countrymen off. But now that the war has ended, we have countries like France claiming to have aided in the war, and demanding rights to the oil that we hope will come from 'liberated' Iraq. The only reason that France was against the war is because they recieved oil from Iraq. It seems to be absurd that a country completely against, and failing to aid in the war should recieve any of its spoils!

I dont mean to attack France, but I have had enough of the critisicism America has been recieving. I am not a hardline patriot, Im 16 for gods sake and in most cases, will not be affected, but I feel, that if the United States changed foreign policy, and once again became isolationist, the pretty little world that we now live in would go to hell! Ask yourselves which country supports props up the UN with its money, which country gives billions in economic aid? What do we get back? How often have we helped out in third world countries during disasters, and received no help at all during ours? it is ridiculous. Countries want us to leave, I say fine, thats your opinion and your country. But ,many of these protestors do not look for the positives that America brings to their country. Take the iraqis for example. Riots are occuring, soldiers are complaining that they need to recieve backpay even?! Did the Taliban pay those who fought against them after the war was won? No, it is ridiculous. People expect change to occur immediatly, thats not how it works. We liberated Iraq, and now they complain. I say, find saddam. put his oppressive regime back into power, and then ask the iraqis which was better?

I realize I havent actyually talked much about european complancency, o well.

Comments

zergimmi

on Nov 11, 2003

Some right some wrong, Britain was not the only member of the Coalition of the willing Number one nor was it first to climb on board. However France as usual played the role of spoiler and fence sitter, not surprising as even when DeGaulle was in exile during WWII he did the same to his allies, little dick syndrome I believe it was (by this I mean always wanting to be one of if not the most important), and no this does not apply to the French people in general, however it does seem to apply to their pollies. The US gives Billions in aid to the world and UN, however it does not do this alone nor does it prop the UN. Having said this I do agree the UN is about as useful as hip pockets in a singlet ( for those asking what this is, it is an undergarment with no sleeves worn under the shirt instead of a T-Shirt. Much the same as the League of Nations. Too many bureaucrats.

Solitair

on Nov 12, 2003

You need to seperate the UN from the UN general assembly and security council. For some reason most people have no understanding of what the UN actually does. Go have a look at the UN website at www.un.org. It has many bodies which do tremendous amount of good.

There is however a problem with the ability of the UN to handle political disagreements. Lets look at 2 examples.

Example 1: - 1st Gulf War - US wanted UN to syupport war. UN agreed and approved military action.
The US told the UN that Iraq had attacked Kuwait and was a threat to security ion the region. It convinced the majority of countries to support a UN resolution against Iraq approving the use of force. Result. International coalition and Iraq was defeated. Saddam however was not replaced as the US agreed to peace and did not demand his removal in US brokered terms.

Example 2: - 2nd Gulf War - US wanted UN support for war. UN failed to provide it.
The US told the UN that Iraq had WMD and must be attacked. Various members of the UN disagreed and in the end America failed to make a strong enough case. Results. America went it alone and to date no WDM have been found. In this case the UN was correct. The US got it wrong. They should have made a case based on different reasons, WMD just didn't exist. Individual members of the UN however were totally free to support or condemn the US as they saw fit.

The UN works. It does what it was set out to do. Any failures have been due to the US not managing to convince member countries that they are right. That's democracy! Those same countries gave almost unanamous condemnation of the September 11th attacks and also approved the 1st Gulf War. You can't blame the UN for America getting it wrong. Maybe the US should be asking how it screwed up so badly and not looking for someone else to blame.

Paul.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!