Slobodan Milosovic was tried at the Hague....Saddam hussein was not.
The Un said no to invading Iraq, The United states of America went anyway.
2007-01-26 01:48:18 · 10 answers · asked by Natashya K 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes, more so than ever. The Third World is now emerging. Nations like China and India are becoming ecnomic powers. The E.U. is a growing force. Global politics grow more, not less. The UN is a vital vehicle for peace and order today. It simply has to be used better.
2007-01-26 01:59:48 · answer #1 · answered by Frank L 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UN needs to be repaired. It IS broken and has been for awhile. As to the Hague IT IS PART OF THE UN. Saddam wasn't tried there because the UN was against the invasion. Had we been under the UN banner that is where he would have been tried. It actually seems to be the one thing the UN has right. Saddam SHOULD have been tried for ALL his crimes. When the criminal record is seen in years it will say convicted of ONE THING. All the other crimes are meaningless. The UN was against the invasion though because it is broke. They knew that Saddam was violating multiple resolutions and violating the cease-fire. It didn't matter. The U.N. had something to get out of Iraq so they didn't care.
2007-01-26 01:59:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UN is a useless organization...they have no army and all they can do is pass resolutions, which if a country chooses does not have to abide by them. If you look at the history of the UN, if it had not been for the US, they would not even exist...Korea was a UN action, but the US did most of the fighting...anytime the UN has need troops for a mission...the US always sends the most...and the thanks we get from them is their continued US bashing...we should throw the UN out of New York and let them find their own place...maybe France...we should not be in the UN...
2007-01-26 01:58:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The UN is viable even in the twentyfirst century. They need to be reorganized though.
The Hague Tribunal... It has been created for the war crimes in ex-Yugoslavia. Therefore, no Saddam there. (Milosevic could/should have been sent to Baghdad though)
I find the Hague Tribunal slightly political though: Seselj is joking with them and he and other criminals haven't been convicted yet.
2007-01-26 02:24:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UN wasn't viable for much of anything in the 20th century but bluster and debate.
If we had enjoyed the UN in world war 2 we would still be passing resolutions about Hitler and Japan. It just doesn't always work to debate a point to death.
Sometimes you have to suck it up and do a job.
Fortunately we are in the 21st century and now maybe the UN can get its act together.
2007-01-26 01:53:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The UN lost its credibility when it refused to enforce its own sanctions. When Saddam challanged the UN, the UN backed down. Now all these scandals from the Koffi Annan era are starting to see daylight, most people are going to see it as the most corrupt orginization in the world.
2007-01-26 02:08:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
UN able
UN capable
UN acceptable
UN Israel
UN America
USELESS
2007-01-26 01:52:54 · answer #7 · answered by 007 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you're going to get all political, you best not type stuff out of context.
I'm not agreeing, or disagreeing. Just saying that, it would prolly be less dangerous to type the ENTIRE truth, if you're gonna type at all.
2007-01-26 21:36:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, the UN is a liberal/socialists wet dream. Global government=global disaster and despotism.
2007-01-26 01:53:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The UN would be better if the US was kicked out.
2007-01-26 01:52:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋