Rank: ? (4329)
Member #: 5260

There has been a lot of debate (not here) on reforming the UN, but it is the US that wants to change UN.

Are they doing this to make it work better, or is the US only want to dictate on what the UN do?

I am suspicious of the US's push for changes.

But there is one thing that definitely need change, and that is the right to veto from the 5 permanent countries in the Security Council. It is unfair that these countries could veto anything and everything.

Whereas the 4 vetoing countries have exercise in restraint on using their vetoing powers, preferring to get consensus through voting, the American have abused it a lot in Bush's 1st term in office.

Rank: ? (779)
Member #: 14565

Well, the U.N. obviously is corrupt and needs to be reformed or gotten rid of all together. I don't think it is up to the other nations of the world to decided if America defends itself or not.

Rank: ? (4329)
Member #: 5260

Defend itself?

Excuse me. The US has not been invaded. 911 was not an invasion.

If there is to be any reform, then the US and the other 4 countries must give up their rights to veto. Whenever there is a vote where the US is alone, they use its power to veto. There was more vetos from the US in Bush's 1st term in office than in the last 20 years prior to Bush's presidency. That's what I call abuse of its power. It should be consensus from the council through voting of putting forward issue.

Your president want democracy for the whole world, but he doesn't practise what he preaches in the UN. Since the US is the only superpower, they should show more discretion and responsibility when they exercise such power.

Removing the veto from all 5 countries should be part of the reform.

By all mean expand the permanent members in the Security Council, but remove any unfair privilege position from all countries.

Rank: ? (4574)
Member #: 51

 storyteller writes...

I accept it as an invasion, storyteller. Especially given the attacks on such key symbols of American power and government. If the White House or Capitol had been destroyed, as probably planned, it would have been an attack on the symbolic heart of the nation.

OK, it wasn't a classic military attack as at Pearl Harbour but it was a direct attack all the same.

And it was definitely a symbolic invasion. Things will never be the same again.

Rank: ? (779)
Member #: 14565

You put it very well Arizona. The USA was attacked. More than 3000 of its citizens killed, and the USA's military HQ damaged. << Attack

Rank: ? (4329)
Member #: 5260

Attack, yes.

But invasion, no.

Invasion also implied conquest or occupation and plunder of land. 911 wasn't an invasion.

Perhaps a better word for what happened in 911 is incursion, but even that's probably not the right word.

Rank: ? (4574)
Member #: 51

 storyteller writes...

I still think "invasion" has the better sense. The US is attacked whenever her citizens or embassies are attacked overseas. The sep11 attack was on US territory, right in the centre of it, not on the outskirts or outlying territories. In that sense it was a more severe or truer "invasion" than was Pearl Harbour which was militarily important but on the fringes of the US homeland as such.

I checked the meaning of "invasion" at answers.com and there is one that would not apply, viz: "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer." However, the second meaning does apply: "A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease."

Until sep11, the US was essentially "virginal" or unspoiled by foreign attack on its very homeland. The US had engaged in battles overseas and, in that sense, it has been attacked a good deal. But sep11 was definitely an invasion.

The metaphor of a disease is probably a better one to use. Terrorism inflicts a kind of damage that does stick around even when the mess is cleared up. The fear, the insecurity, the betrayal of common sense trust (planes are meant for getting from A to B, not for flying into buildings), all of this leaves a trail behind.

That's what I meant when I said that things would never be the same again. Hopefully the US will have built up suitable antibodies against this kind of disease but those antibodies are themselves the result and the historical imprint of invasion.

Like it or not, a version of Islam (some would say the very most authentic heart of Islam) has intruded into the civilised Western world and changed it for good. Bin Laden can be found, tried and executed. Iran could (maybe) be attacked and subdued. This would not kill off this Islamic threat, not at all. Others would rise up and continue the holy war.

I see no end in sight myself. There are too many bad apples in the barrel and I fear the barrel is made to create bad apples even from originally healthy ones that land therein.

That's a dismal view of Islam, I know, but I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Rank: ? (4329)
Member #: 5260

But the problem with invasion, "to conquer", not only to fight an army, but to acquire territories. And the aim of the terrorists, in the case of the 911 attack, wasn't to acquire any US soil.

Look at the bombing of Madrid's trains; the terrorists struck and Spanairds died, but it was never call an invasion.

An invasion usually referred to an army, and there were no army in either Spain or in New York.

Anyway, I hoped that we can get back on topic about the reform of the UN.

Rank: ? (779)
Member #: 14565

I don't know really how you classify terrorism.

Their (terrorists) goal is this:

1. Kill some
2. Injure many
3. Scare the hell out of EVERYONE

They want to strike fear in the world's minds and USA's minds. The fact that they used USA's airplanes to destroy USA buildings, I would call it an invasion/attack because it is in the heart of America.

Rank: ? (4574)
Member #: 51

 storyteller writes...

That's a good point, storyteller. However, there was an extra dimension to the sep11 attacks. It was not only people being killed, injured and terrorised as Ryan summarises it. It was the nation's symbols of power and government that were directly attacked. New York is the cultural and economic capital and the twin towers were symbols of the nation's soaring ambitions. Washington is the seat of government.

Spain, as a nation, was not so directly targeted. The Madrid bombing was a close parallel, I will acknowledge that, but if it was an Islamic invasion then it wasn't the first. It smacks of a clearly petty revenge attack while the precisely coordinated and well planned sep11 attack had a dimension on the national level. The word "attack" just doesn't do it justice. I admit the word "invasion" is problematic but it's the best I can find.

The words we use do colour the "truth" as we see it and power in the UN is about each nation imposing its own "truth" or spin on the world. So, a debate or discussion on the words we use is not so off-track here.

Perhaps we could start a new topic on this issue if people are interested.

Rank: ? (779)
Member #: 14565

Back on topic: The U.N. is obviously corrupt and needs a new leader ASAP. I think the U.N. needs transformed, but in the mean time, maybe a trustworthy head U.N. dude would be a good start.

Rank: ? (4329)
Member #: 5260

Another reform is that all countries, great or small, must abide by with International Law, in regarding to making war on another country, update the law in the prosecution of war criminals for war crimes.

In another word, the US should also be made accountable if war crimes are committed by American soliders.

No double standard. If smaller countries must abide by the International Law, then so must large countries, like the US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, Japan, India and Pakistan. Therefore no special privileges for any superpower or countries with nuclear weapons.

Rank: ? (595)
Member #: 4753

Yup...

Only if the US of A stops imposing their double standards (on International Law and the UN, the pre-emptive strike on Iraq) on others ('no, you can't, but we can'), not a single other country will respect them...

Rank: ? (4329)
Member #: 5260

And don't forget no immunity for war crimes for Americans and other countries with nuclear weapons. That's a must be in the list of reforms. Any American leader or soldier involved in what the International Law considered to be war crime, will be prosecuted.

Without this, the whole thing of the US wanting reform in the UN is a farce and double standard.

No veto. Each country have only one vote, decided by majority. Many times when the UN voted to condemn Israel for their actions, and it came to vote, only the US supported Israel, and the whole vote were discounted because the US use their veto. That's hardly democracy, which the US are said to have adovocate for.

Rank: ? (595)
Member #: 4753

Something very important is happening right now with the UN.

Link to below quote

 UN site writes...


The UN is preparing for the voting on the countries that might join the Permanent Members of the Security Council.

Candidates are: Japan, Germany, India and Brazil

Link to below quote

 AP writes...


The voting will be in the General Assembly, where all members (currently 191 countries) have an equal vote.

A two-thirds majority is needed to make the reform official.

The USofA is very silent...

Maybe because they realise they are just 'one of many', cannot veto and have to take it, or leave it?

It's actually fair, isn't it?

It is exactly situations like this that make the USofA do everything it can to make itself an 'exception to the rule' in the UN, by demanding (and getting) all those special priviliges (priviliges that don't help in this case however)

But, if the number of Permanent Members is expanded, this also means one or more extra vetos that could block the USofA's interests...

It's actually fair, isn't it?

Rank: ? (4329)
Member #: 5260

I actually prefer the one vote for one country and decides by majority, with no absolutely no veto from US or from the other 4 members.

The vetoing countries has made the UN unworkable in the 1st place. Sure, make the security council larger, if they wish, but getting rid of the veto should be the first priority in the reform. There should be no special priviliges for any superpower or former superpowers.

Rank: ? (779)
Member #: 14565

How does the US pose a double standard in the U.N? Dubya wanted to goto Iraq to save the innocent, protect the innocent, and blow the sh*t out of the bad guys.

Rank: ? (4329)
Member #: 5260

There is double standard, because Bush insisted that Americans are immune to war crimes. Double standard is where the US insisted that all the other countries must abide by the International Law, but the US can ignore it when it suit them. The almighty US of A wanted to keep all their special privileges, because they are the only superpower, while all other countries only get one vote in the UN.

Double standard can be removed if the 5 vetoing countries have this rights removed, so that all countries get only one vote, decided upon by majority, not veto by a single minority.

If Bush really wants real reform, then he must be prepared to sacrifice the US's special privileges in the UN.

Rank: ? (779)
Member #: 14565

 storyteller writes...

When did he say that?

 storyteller writes...

*cough* special priviledges? Like what?

Rank: ? (4329)
Member #: 5260

 Ryanusac2003 writes...


Veto for one thing.

You realise that since Bush came into power, he had push and push his policies upon the UN. And when he doesn't get his way in the vote count, the US would veto any resolution. Each time they had a vote in regarding to Israel, the US (in Bush's 1st term) was always alone with Israel, and veto any motion.

Pushing their agenda, such as this reform for another. The only reason why the UN doesn't work is because the US make it unworkable. The US is pushing for reforms only because they are tired of not getting their way.

 Ryanusac2003 writes...


Have you been sleeping, ryan?

The US refused to let International Law to prosecute American soldiers for war crime in the International Court for war crime. That amount to immunity.

Have you forgotten that Americans have threaten to withdraw its UN peacekeepers out of Bosnia and Kosovo if the American military wasn't exempt from the International Court?