[TAKfromVA]

So, how exactly will the UN take Americans guns?

They have their own forces, although it's painfully clear after Katrina that the police are more than happy to take our guns by force.

[hi_]

So, how exactly will the UN take Americans guns?

They have their own forces, although it's painfully clear after Katrina that the police are more than happy to take our guns by force.

"Their own forces" are forces contributed by and under the command of certain members nations (depending on the assignment). They may drive vehicles with the word UN on, but they're national forces.

[TAKfromVA]

So, how exactly will the UN take Americans guns?

They have their own forces, although it's painfully clear after Katrina that the police are more than happy to take our guns by force.

"Their own forces" are forces contributed by and under the command of certain members nations (depending on the assignment). They may drive vehicles with the word UN on, but they're national forces.

That's pointless semantics, hi_. Those forces still will take orders from the UN, just as our police would gladly take those orders to disarm "civilians" (cause hey, they think they aren't civilians for some reason, they think they're better). When only police and military have guns, who would stop them from robbing, raping, murdering, etc?

[jke45654]

Just a quick note for you all that think the UNB doesn't really affect any gun owners

Between 18 - 156 million people were killed last century by genocide depending on which numbers and what definition you use.

In rwanda the UN abandoned innocent civilians to their slaughter.

The UN has NO BUSINESS telling anyone that they can or can't own a gun for their personal protection, wether they are american citizens or otherwise, since they have proven many times that they are more than willing to let you or anyone become nothing more than a statistic of some madmans personal vendetta.

someone tell me what the UN has actually accomplished in the last 60 years of their being in existance.

something that we would all agree with.


anyone


jon

[TAKfromVA]

It's been a while, jke, still active at the high road? I've made a number of posts there, although it's dropped off recently.

[jke45654]

tak

yeah I still lurk around

been awhile because had major comp problems and working 65+ hours a week

finally got new comps for me and kids plus got sat internet

love it

i been mostly lurking at both sites waiting til something gets my goat enough to put in my two cents


guess so far noone can think of a damn thing that the UN has ever done that they have finished or did well

Ive asked a few older dems and repugs and none of them could come up with anything either

keep in touch tak

jon

[jke45654]

since the crickets are chirping pretty loud I gather that even the UN supporters on Liberal Forum are unable to tell me some good things that the UN has actually accomplished.

I was serious in asking the question
was not trying to flamebait or any other BS


Like I said I have been asking dems and repub expecially older ones and not a one has been able to recall anything that the UN has actually done that was actually an unequivicol (sp) good thing nor can they remember anything that the UN has finished

If this is the actual case then why has our gov spent billions upon billions continually year after year supporting the UN?

jon

[Hades]

since the crickets are chirping pretty loud I gather that even the UN supporters on Liberal Forum are unable to tell me some good things that the UN has actually accomplished.

I was serious in asking the question
was not trying to flamebait or any other BS


Like I said I have been asking dems and repub expecially older ones and not a one has been able to recall anything that the UN has actually done that was actually an unequivicol (sp) good thing nor can they remember anything that the UN has finished

If this is the actual case then why has our gov spent billions upon billions continually year after year supporting the UN?

jon

Vaccination campaigns in Africa
Healthcare projects in africa. Child mortality and average life expectancy had significantly improved untill Africa became the AIDS continent in the 90's.
Aids research and care programmes
Emergency relief programmes throughout Africa and Asia
Relief programmes after the Pakistan earthquake (which unlike the Tsunami went largely un noticed by the general public)
The UN refugees programme is involved in keeping a few million war refugees throughout Africa alive and healthy
Oh and if you're looking for ripping bullets and exploding bombs stuff: the peace keeping/enforcing operations in former Yugoslavia.
While we're at it: 90% of the former Yugoslavian war criminals are behind bars right now (Milosevic unfortunately died during his trial).
If you want some older stuff: The Korean war was a UN operation too.
The Human Rights treaties are ratified world wide (though not always respected, even by the members of the security council). So are the international Children's rights treaties.
Kyoto agreements aren't dead yet, they're waiting for ratification by the US so mabe in 3 years time they'll finally be implemented. The EU and Japan have gone ahead without the US by the way, so there's still hope.
The Gatt and it's successor the WTO are spin-offs of UN agreements.
The UN illegal arms trade proposal, should it not be torpedo-ed, could dramatically increase the security of over a billion people throughout Africa and Asia.

The UN could do a thousand things more, if some of it's main participants would stop seeing it as an extension of foreign politics but rather as a world wide forum that stands on it's own and who'se needs not always coincide with national politics.

[political-forum-guy]

since the crickets are chirping pretty loud I gather that even the UN supporters on Liberal Forum are unable to tell me some good things that the UN has actually accomplished.

I was serious in asking the question
was not trying to flamebait or any other BS

Your question presupposes the UN as if it's some independent entity that can determine right and wrong and strike. It isn't. The UN can't order troops into places like Rwanda - only the security council, which is comprised of various (rotating other than the five) nations.

What the UN does more than anything else is provide a world forum, particulalry to the major players, where they can talk and negotiate on an on-going basis.

The Blakans crisis was a perfect example of the uses of the UN. Clinton knew that he couldn't even ask for a Security Council resolution to go after Milosevic - Russia had a mutual defense treaty with the Serbs and would have been bound to veto the measure.

So the negotiations were carried on in an extra-UN manner, with Clinton getting the Russians to agree to the terms in which we could stop the mounting genocide.

The UN played a major role in allowing for those negotiations, simply by having representatives of all the interested parties there in one place.

Like I said I have been asking dems and repub expecially older ones and not a one has been able to recall anything that the UN has actually done that was actually an unequivicol (sp) good thing

That's a pretty high standard in a messy world. Hold any single country to the same standard and you'll see that there are few actions that qualify.

nor can they remember anything that the UN has finished

If this is the actual case then why has our gov spent billions upon billions continually year after year supporting the UN?

jon

Because the UN is the best thing we've got. There is nothing else. I know the right makes it a bogeyman, but that's because the right is pretty much based on hatred - gays, "[pro-choice people]", the UN, etc. (ad naseum).

The UN is a forum and a mechanism; it's still up to the individual countries to act or not to act. I notice how quickly many UN bashers are to claim justification of the Iraq War because of UN resolutions - no hypocrisy there.

When you come up with a better system, then let me know.

And just because the US media doesn't bother to report things doesn't mean they don't happen.

[Chat Politics Forum Room]

since the crickets are chirping pretty loud

Your mommy needs to get her basement fumigated. If you get tired of listening to crickets, stay on some simpatico site where all the members have no lives aside from playing keyboard kommando. I'm sure you'll find a sympathetic ear

Occasionally I like to revive this bit of history - pertaining to the United Nations and the end of World War II - that has fallen between the cracks:

Only this text in English is authoritative

ACT OF MILITARY SURRENDER

We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces and simultaneously to the Soviet High Command all forces on land, sea and in the air who are at this date under German control.

The German High Command will at once issue orders to all German military, naval and air authorties and to all forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European time on 8 May and to remain in the positions occupied at that time. No ship, vessel, or aircraft is to be scuttled, or any damage done to their hull, machinery or equipment.

The German High Command will at once issue to the appropriate commander, and ensure the carrying out of any further orders issued by the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and by the Soviet High Command.

This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on behalf of the United Nations and applicable to GERMANY and the German armed forces as a whole.

In the event of the German High Command or any of the forces under their control failing to act in accordance with this Act of Surrender, the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and the Soviet High Command will take such punitive or other action as they deem appropriate.

Signed at RHEIMS at 0241 on the 7th day of May, 1945. France
On behalf of the German High Command.

JODL

IN THE PRESENCE OF

On behalf of the Supreme Commander,
Allied Expeditionary Force.

W. B. SMITH

On behalf of the Soviet High Command

SOUSLOPAROV
F SEVEZ

Major General, French Army
(Witness)

http://www.historica...nySurrender.htm

...and this one for Japan:

INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER BY JAPAN
September 2, 1945
Tokyo Bay

We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Power of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated.

We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property and to comply with all requirements which may be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters to issue at once orders to the Commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their control.

We hereby command all civil, military and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, orders and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.

We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all allied prisoners of war and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance and immediate transportation to places as directed.

The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.

SIGNED at Tokyo Bay, Japan at 0904 I on the Second day of September, 1945.

[Signed:]

MAMORU SHIGEMITSU

By Command and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan and the Japanese Government

[Signed:]

YOSHIJIRO UMEZU

By Command and in behalf of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters

ACCEPTED at Tokyo Bay, Japan at 0908 I on the Second day of September, 1945, for the United States, Republic of China, United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and in the interests of the other United Nations at war with Japan.

[Signed:]

DOUGLAS MACARTHUR

Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers

[Signed:]

C W NIMITZ

Representative of the United States of America

HSU YOUNG-CHANG

Representative of the Republic of China

BRUCE FRASER

Representative of the United Kingdom

DEREVYANKO

Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

T A BLAMEY

Representative of Australia

MOORE COSGRAVE

Representative of Canada

LECLERC

Representative of the Provisional Government of the French Republic

D E L HELFRICH

Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

LEONARD M ISITT

Representative of New Zealand

http://www.isop.ucla...pnsurrender.htm

Surrendering to the United Nations as opposed to a small group of major players helped ensure that hostilities didn't break out immediately afterward. Continued dialogue in the United Nations in the years that followed helped ensure that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union didn't escalate into any Hot Wars. Granted, a number of proxy wars were fought between these two powers, but these were kept on the table - ensuring a bare minimum of diplomatic channels.

Well, this may be my sole commemoration of Memorial Day on LF, since I've got people to see and places to go today. Hope those crickets don't get too oppressive in The Bunker. Maybe Mommy will be back with more Cheetos® soon; let The Cheese That Goes Crunch drown out the noise from those crickets!

[Alex S.]

The historical record is very clear about how very rare it is for genocide to be attempted - let alone succeed - against an armed populace. If every family on this planet owned a good-quality rifle, genocide itself would be on the path to extinction.

Between 18 - 156 million people were killed last century by genocide depending on which numbers and what definition you use.

In rwanda the UN abandoned innocent civilians to their slaughter.

I'm sorry, as a person studying history and genocide studies I have to take issue with this. This statement shows a very grave misunderstanding of how modern genocides have occured, and you propose a solution that, frankly, is absurd.

There are a number of cases where genocide was undertaken against an "armed populace." There success or failure was never dependant on the number of targeted people with guns resisting them. I'll argue two of the more recent examples, Darfur and Rwanda. One a case which you bring up, and the other a contemporary case where we might apply your solution.

The most recent conflict in Darfur began when two rebel groups (JEM, SLM) attacked the Khartoum government's facilities and forces in 2003. Khartoum, with most of its army occupied in southern Sudan in another conflict, issued a "call to arms," with the result that a number of militia were formed. Some of those militia, mostly the Janjaweed, have with the help of government aid begun a campaign of systemically cleansing regions of villages. A number of these villages have some guns, some villages the whole population of men has joined the rebels. Either way, they have weapons and are resisting genocide, but it's effect so far is negligable except in creating a stalemate that allows the Janjaweed to kill with impunity on their side.

Rwanda for some reason seems to be a bane of conservatives against the UN despite their own political leaders' inaction. Instead of "Remember the Alamo!" it's "Remember Mogadishu!" for Bob Dole and other Congressional Republicans of the time calling for inaction over both Rwanda and Bosnia, see Samantha Power's "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide". Well in Rwanda you had a very unique situation. There were two, perhaps three if I remember correctly, genocides against the Tutsi minority in the 50-60 years before 1994. Those genocides caused a number of people to flee to Uganda, where the men were formed into an army under Paul Kagame and Ugandan Tutsi military leaders that was called the "Rwandese Patriot Front." In 1990 they launched an attack against Habyarimana's Rwanda which continued until a UN-led ceasefire in 1993. In those three years, with tremendous casualties, the RPF had still grown from 5,000 men in 1990 to 25,000 highly trained, well-supplied soldiers with a number of supporting units like artillery, sappers, etc. that began to look like a real army. When the genocide began in 1994, they were still hardly in any shape to stop it. Instead of devoting his forces to stopping genocide in the major urban sectors, Kagame led his forces to capture key political centers and to defeat the Rwandan Army in the field. The protection of civilians, Kagame thought, was what the UN Forces were for. And even then, he didn't make the UN's job any easier when he sometimes deliberately shelled UN positions and vehicles. Despite this, the UN did an outstanding job considering the forces available. Dallaire was able to protect thousands of civilians in the football stadium in the capitol, despite shelling from both the Rwandan Army and the RPF, and the lack of food and water. As seen in the movie "Hotel Rwanda" Dallaire posted two men permanently to the Hotel Milles Colline, who were able to drive off a number of Hutu Power militia raids (that part not seen in the movie). There were about a dozen places under the protection of Belgian forces which were completely safe until Belgium withdrew, causing something around 10,000 immediate deaths alone. All this is in Dallaire's memoirs, "Shake Hands With The Devil". While the RPF invasion ultimately ended the genocide, that was an unintended byproduct. The UN made it their mission to protect civilians and compared to immediate actions by the RPF to do the same thing, the UN forces far exceeded the RPF.

In both of these cases there are sizeable contingents of armed people resisting genocide. In only one case so far have they been successful, and even then not as an intentional action. There are some reasons the UN is better for this sort of thing:
- It's mission obligations typically include a message about protecting civilians, which has been successfull before. Usually this is not a proactive mission, meaning the UN forces typically cannot unfortunately intervene ahead of time to protect life. However, it's defensive mission has been more immediately successful than the armed populace method.
- A proactive mission allowing the intervention of the UN in stopping a buildup in order to prevent a later genocide would help even more than a defensive mission.
- Historically, you'll find that when a state commits genocide it only helps them to have a real enemy and attach all their imagined enemies to that one. This way you suddenly see thousands of "fifth columnists" who must be "destroyed like rats and traitors" because they "help our enemies." Assuming a stalemate and negotiations took place between a genocidal state and the group/s resisting it, the genocidal state would almost never allow a portion of the resisting forces to stay in their territory to protect civilians. A UN force, as a third party in keeping the peace, is typically immune to this and can far better protect civilians on the re-opening of hostilities than contingents of resisting forces.

[jke45654]

I'm sorry, as a person studying history and genocide studies I have to take issue with this. This statement shows a very grave misunderstanding of how modern genocides have occured, and you propose a solution that, frankly, is absurd.

First of all:\
the proposed solution is not mine it is a quotefrom another

second :
I believe either you are studing from the wrong books or you are not paying attention to what is actually in them

third:
I understand perfectly well how modern genocides have and do occur
Your following statements show you do not have a clue

There are a number of cases where genocide was undertaken against an "armed populace." There success or failure was never dependant on the number of targeted people with guns resisting them. I'll argue two of the more recent examples, Darfur and Rwanda. One a case which you bring up, and the other a contemporary case where we might apply your solution.

The most recent conflict in Darfur began when two rebel groups (JEM, SLM) attacked the Khartoum government's facilities and forces in 2003. Khartoum, with most of its army occupied in southern Sudan in another conflict, issued a "call to arms," with the result that a number of militia were formed. Some of those militia, mostly the Janjaweed, have with the help of government aid begun a campaign of systemically cleansing regions of villages. A number of these villages have some guns, some villages the whole population of men has joined the rebels. Either way, they have weapons and are resisting genocide, but it's effect so far is negligable except in creating a stalemate that allows the Janjaweed to kill with impunity on their side.

Rwanda for some reason seems to be a bane of conservatives against the UN despite their own political leaders' inaction. Instead of "Remember the Alamo!" it's "Remember Mogadishu!" for Bob Dole and other Congressional Republicans of the time calling for inaction over both Rwanda and Bosnia, see Samantha Power's "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide". Well in Rwanda you had a very unique situation. There were two, perhaps three if I remember correctly, genocides against the Tutsi minority in the 50-60 years before 1994. Those genocides caused a number of people to flee to Uganda, where the men were formed into an army under Paul Kagame and Ugandan Tutsi military leaders that was called the "Rwandese Patriot Front." In 1990 they launched an attack against Habyarimana's Rwanda which continued until a UN-led ceasefire in 1993. In those three years, with tremendous casualties, the RPF had still grown from 5,000 men in 1990 to 25,000 highly trained, well-supplied soldiers with a number of supporting units like artillery, sappers, etc. that began to look like a real army. When the genocide began in 1994, they were still hardly in any shape to stop it. Instead of devoting his forces to stopping genocide in the major urban sectors, Kagame led his forces to capture key political centers and to defeat the Rwandan Army in the field. The protection of civilians, Kagame thought, was what the UN Forces were for. And even then, he didn't make the UN's job any easier when he sometimes deliberately shelled UN positions and vehicles. Despite this, the UN did an outstanding job considering the forces available. Dallaire was able to protect thousands of civilians in the football stadium in the capitol, despite shelling from both the Rwandan Army and the RPF, and the lack of food and water. As seen in the movie "Hotel Rwanda" Dallaire posted two men permanently to the Hotel Milles Colline, who were able to drive off a number of Hutu Power militia raids (that part not seen in the movie). There were about a dozen places under the protection of Belgian forces which were completely safe until Belgium withdrew, causing something around 10,000 immediate deaths alone. All this is in Dallaire's memoirs, "Shake Hands With The Devil". While the RPF invasion ultimately ended the genocide, that was an unintended byproduct. The UN made it their mission to protect civilians and compared to immediate actions by the RPF to do the same thing, the UN forces far exceeded the RPF.

nice history lesson and pretty factual

but you left out the parts such as those that are and were being the victims of genocide not being able to own guns or if they do very few in  number because of gun control laws that forbade them to

"Rwanda  Decree-Law No. 12, 1979 •Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify
need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers "
http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm

in the case of rwanda the gov (mainly hutu's) controlled who could own guns
to be a tutsi and given permission to own a gun was a very rare thing indeed

sudan "      In Sudan, it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to lawfully acquire and possess the means for self-defense. According to gun-control statutes, a gun licensee must be over 30 years of age, must have a specified social and economic status, and must be examined physically by a doctor.  Females have even more difficulty meeting these requirements because of social and occupational limitations. "
http://www.chronwatc...ay.asp?aid=9116

In sudan the laws are pretty stacked against the victims having guns also
from my readings it seems that the gov of sudan also picks and chooses who can and can't own a gun and for a woman to own a gun is basically impossible
YET women are being slaughtered and raped and disfiggured at a very high rate in sudan at present

In both of these cases there are sizeable contingents of armed people resisting genocide. In only one case so far have they been successful, and even then not as an intentional action. There are some reasons the UN is better for this sort of thing:
- It's mission obligations typically include a message about protecting civilians, which has been successfull before. Usually this is not a proactive mission, meaning the UN forces typically cannot unfortunately intervene ahead of time to protect life. However, it's defensive mission has been more immediately successful than the armed populace method.

lets asked the 800,000 tutsi's if this is true......... wait we cant the are DEAD killed while waiting on the united nations and its countries to decide wether or not the the killings are by definition a "genocide"

this is the time line
http://www.pbs.org/w.../slaughter.html

- A proactive mission allowing the intervention of the UN in stopping a buildup in order to prevent a later genocide would help even more than a defensive mission.
- Historically, you'll find that when a state commits genocide it only helps them to have a real enemy and attach all their imagined enemies to that one. This way you suddenly see thousands of "fifth columnists" who must be "destroyed like rats and traitors" because they "help our enemies." Assuming a stalemate and negotiations took place between a genocidal state and the group/s resisting it, the genocidal state would almost never allow a portion of the resisting forces to stay in their territory to protect civilians. A UN force, as a third party in keeping the peace, is typically immune to this and can far better protect civilians on the re-opening of hostilities than contingents of resisting forces.

once again a genocide has never been attempted on an arned populance. if all citizens in the world were allowed to own their own arms genocide would be extinct along with cruel dictators

QUOTE(jke45654 @ May 28 2006, 09:01 PM)
since the crickets are chirping pretty loud





Your mommy needs to get her basement fumigated. If you get tired of listening to crickets, stay on some simpatico site where all the members have no lives aside from playing keyboard kommando. I'm sure you'll find a sympathetic ear 

Occasionally I like to revive this bit of history - pertaining to the United Nations and the end of World War II - that has fallen between the cracks:


QUOTE
Only this text in English is authoritative

ACT OF MILITARY SURRENDER

We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces and simultaneously to the Soviet High Command all forces on land, sea and in the air who are at this date under German control.

The German High Command will at once issue orders to all German military, naval and air authorties and to all forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European time on 8 May and to remain in the positions occupied at that time. No ship, vessel, or aircraft is to be scuttled, or any damage done to their hull, machinery or equipment.

The German High Command will at once issue to the appropriate commander, and ensure the carrying out of any further orders issued by the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and by the Soviet High Command.

This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on behalf of the United Nations and applicable to GERMANY and the German armed forces as a whole.

In the event of the German High Command or any of the forces under their control failing to act in accordance with this Act of Surrender, the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and the Soviet High Command will take such punitive or other action as they deem appropriate.

Signed at RHEIMS at 0241 on the 7th day of May, 1945. France
On behalf of the German High Command.

JODL

IN THE PRESENCE OF

On behalf of the Supreme Commander,
Allied Expeditionary Force.

W. B. SMITH

On behalf of the Soviet High Command

SOUSLOPAROV
F SEVEZ

Major General, French Army
(Witness)

http://www.historica...nySurrender.htm

...and this one for Japan:


QUOTE
INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER BY JAPAN
September 2, 1945
Tokyo Bay

We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Power of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated.

We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property and to comply with all requirements which may be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters to issue at once orders to the Commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their control.

We hereby command all civil, military and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, orders and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.

We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all allied prisoners of war and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance and immediate transportation to places as directed.

The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.

SIGNED at Tokyo Bay, Japan at 0904 I on the Second day of September, 1945.

[Signed:]

MAMORU SHIGEMITSU

By Command and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan and the Japanese Government

[Signed:]

YOSHIJIRO UMEZU

By Command and in behalf of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters

ACCEPTED at Tokyo Bay, Japan at 0908 I on the Second day of September, 1945, for the United States, Republic of China, United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and in the interests of the other United Nations at war with Japan.

[Signed:]

DOUGLAS MACARTHUR

Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers

[Signed:]

C W NIMITZ

Representative of the United States of America

HSU YOUNG-CHANG

Representative of the Republic of China

BRUCE FRASER

Representative of the United Kingdom

DEREVYANKO

Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

T A BLAMEY

Representative of Australia

MOORE COSGRAVE

Representative of Canada

LECLERC

Representative of the Provisional Government of the French Republic

D E L HELFRICH

Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

LEONARD M ISITT

Representative of New Zealand

http://www.isop.ucla...pnsurrender.htm

Surrendering to the United Nations as opposed to a small group of major players helped ensure that hostilities didn't break out immediately afterward. Continued dialogue in the United Nations in the years that followed helped ensure that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union didn't escalate into any Hot Wars. Granted, a number of proxy wars were fought between these two powers, but these were kept on the table - ensuring a bare minimum of diplomatic channels.

Well, this may be my sole commemoration of Memorial Day on LF, since I've got people to see and places to go today. Hope those crickets don't get too oppressive in The Bunker. Maybe Mommy will be back with more Cheetos® soon; let The Cheese That Goes Crunch drown out the noise from those crickets!

WOW



the united nations did all that before they ever were even chartered

a brief history lesson on the un

"The UN came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the Charter had been ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council — Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and the United States — and by a majority of the other 46 signatories."
http://en.wikipedia..../United_Nations

you need to learn your history

the "united nations" you show as the conquerors of germany and japan were the fore runner of the modern un but in reality at the time they were the allies

the allies knew they were going to win and in the early 1945 decided that a group of countries should form to try and have a way to prevent what they had just been through

they began caling themselves the united nations

short but brief history lesson for you

by the way I live in my own basement not mommies

jon

[jke45654]

Vaccination campaigns in Africa
Healthcare projects in africa.  Child mortality and average life expectancy had significantly improved untill Africa became the AIDS continent in the 90's.
Aids research and care programmes
Emergency relief programmes throughout Africa and Asia
Relief programmes after the Pakistan earthquake (which unlike the Tsunami went largely un noticed by the general public)
The UN refugees programme is involved in keeping a few million war refugees throughout Africa alive and healthy
Oh and if you're looking for ripping bullets and exploding bombs stuff: the peace keeping/enforcing operations in former Yugoslavia.
While we're at it: 90% of the former Yugoslavian war criminals are behind bars right now (Milosevic unfortunately died during his trial).
If you want some older stuff: The Korean war was a UN operation too.
The Human Rights treaties are ratified world wide (though not always respected, even by the members of the security council).  So are the international Children's rights treaties.
Kyoto agreements aren't dead yet, they're waiting for ratification by the US so mabe in 3 years time they'll finally be implemented.  The EU and Japan have gone ahead without the US by the way, so there's still hope.
The Gatt and it's successor the WTO are spin-offs of UN agreements.
The UN illegal arms trade proposal, should it not be torpedo-ed, could dramatically increase the security of over a billion people throughout Africa and Asia.

The UN could do a thousand things more, if some of it's main participants would stop seeing it as an extension of foreign politics but rather as a world wide forum that stands on it's own and who'se needs not always coincide with national politics.

yours is the closest to showing that the UN is good for something

of your statements I do not agree with them all, mainly because they are not actual accomplishments of the UN but are failures, failures to come or are the accomplishments of other nation states with the uN along for the ride

to many things to do today to elaborate but the statement about yugoslavia being a uN accomplishment I am intriqued with so I will do further study on that one

jon

[Alex S.]

I believe either you are studing from the wrong books or you are not paying attention to what is actually in them

Just for kicks, which ones for example?

I understand perfectly well how modern genocides have and do occur
Your following statements show you do not have a clue

Such as what, again, for example? You're signature seems to not notice that genocides occur even when a large, armed, and even superior army is nearby to intervene, e.g. Rwanda, Kosovo... It is very clear that professional armies do not deter genocide from being attempted, and there is no reason given why an unprofessional force of people with rifles would do any better.

nice history lesson and pretty factual

but you left out the parts such as those that are and were being the victims of genocide not being able to own guns or if they do very few in  number because of gun control laws that forbade them to

Of course I did, because it's an absurd dream to think you can fiat the distribution of rifles to every family on earth to guard against genocide. If we're going to keep thinking up utopian solutions then here's my alternative: ban gun ownership by all and everyone! Hey, that solves genocide too! But it's not going to happen. The closest thing to an "armed populace" is a rebelling army composed of members of the victim group, which has proven unsuccessful or unwilling to stop genocide.

lets asked the 800,000 tutsi's if this is true......... wait we cant the are DEAD killed while waiting on the united nations and its countries to decide wether or not the the killings are by definition a "genocide"

this is the time line
http://www.pbs.org/w.../slaughter.html

Let's also ask the thousands the General Dallaire saved, which is much more than the RPF saved by intentional action. Let's also ask the people of Cyprus where a UNPKO has prevented hostilities for many years. Let's also ask the people of Georgia, where a ceasefire has been maintained for years. Let's ask the people of Bosnia and Kosovo where US and UN action finally stopped the ethnic cleansing.

Then let's compare these actions and others like them to cases where "armed populaces" have stopped genocides in the "rare times" they were attempted.

I hardly need the link to the timeline of Rwanda. I have the PBS DVD right here on my shelf, and I guarantee I've studied the books on Rwanda which provide a better background and history of the genocide than that link can provide.

once again a genocide has never been attempted on an arned populance. if all citizens in the world were allowed to own their own arms genocide would be extinct along with cruel dictators

I guess then that you're going to have to tell me exactly what an "armed populace" is. I would think that the RPF, SEM, JLM count because they are armies with weapons (more than even simple rifles) that are resisting genocide. If by "armed populace" you mean every person owns guns, then we're back at the utopian fantasy.

Also, your sig does not say it's never been attempted, only that it is rare. When then has a genocide been attempted against an "armed populace" and how successful was the resistance? These sorts of comparisons are very helpful in determining the effectiveness of solutions.