--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So on one hand the UN should be called in to solve the problems of > > > Iran, and Zimbabwe, and on the other hand the Security Council > > should be abolished because it is ineffective in dealing with > problems. So which is it? > > > > Both. Maharishi was quite right in His ridicule of the UNO. But now > > it is the only International organization we have, though the SC's > > veto makes the whole thing rather impotent. As you probably know > > Israel has about 60 resolutions against their activity of creating > > settlements in occupied territory, and do they care ? > > Nab, it seems to me that Mr. Creme has no real answer. It is easy to > say, "Have the United Nations Do It", but then a few answers later, he > acknowledges how ineffective the organization is. > > Exception: Iraq War #1, which everyone got behind, and it worked. But > anything short of a clear cut case like that, where no nation has > anything to lose, and no axes to grind, and where the nations aren't > playing the "pay back" card, I don't think you can get anything done. > > When you think about it, deadly force is what is ultimately behind > every rule and law we have in society. This is nothing new of course, > but it is threat of armed action that ultimaely keeps things in check. > At least in Kali Yuga,
Mr. Creme's answer, from what I understand, is that the UNO must be revitalized through abolishing that veto of the members of the Security Council. The vetos effectively prevents the UNO to intervene if actions interfere with the policy of one of it's members. As is so evident in the case of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory where the UNO can do nothing since this illegal occupation is backed by the USA. The UNO is therefore ineffective, as you say, because the americans effectively block any attempt to stop the illegal activities by Israel.
