UN Approval for India Navy 'To Go After Pirates'

Agreed! As should terrorists on land!

It's India because they are the closest nation with a reasonable Navy and the US is busy doing other things.

it would be funny if i was a tv show.. but somolia was having al qauda problems and real al quada problems before we went into iraq who didnt have an al quada problem and actually hated al quda so much they probably would have allied with us agaisnt al quada.

What, were they thinking? (suspicious use of punctuation)

pirates are not a soverign nation.
with sovereign nations you kind expect them to be sure.. innocent people could be hurt, innocent people could be displaced.

With pirates. you can pretty much blow them up wihtout displacing millions of people.. at most you have to watch out for the hostages.

we should learn from this.. you know let them weapons inspectors that say iraq had no wmds.. finish their job before sending 4000 of our kids to heir graves for wmds er al quada er to save the iraqis from saddam.

The un is only useless cause it fought bush on iraq.. dont you know that is the total reason the right wingers hate the UN.. the same reason yall turned on scott ritter.
funny though.. who did we turn to to put fett on the ground in lebanon? Come on I know you know the answer.. we could cause we were in two wars and no popular in the region..
so who put their bodies in harms way so americans could fight their little war of choice?

The UN is a great whipping boy.. we get them todo our dirty work and then we use them as a scape goat for the worlds problems.

the problem isnt the UN.. the problem is who gets the vetos

What planet do you live on? Here is an article written by one of the UN's own. I can provide many more if you would like.

Warning if you read this it might confuse you with the facts.

The UN is a failed institution..Period.

How Many More Must Die Before Kofi Quits?

Former UN human rights lawyer Kenneth Cain says the secretary-general could finally redeem himself by saving lives - after years of lethal passivity

it details the withdrawal of UN troops, even while blood flowed and the assassins reigned, leaving 800,000 Rwandans to their fate.

His own legions have raped and pillaged. In two present scandals, over the oil-for-food programme in Iraq, and sex-for-food in Congo, Annan was personally aware of malfeasance among his staff, but again responded with passivity. Having worked as a UN human rights observer in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti and Liberia, there are two savage paradoxes for me here. The first is that, while the media and conservative politicians and pundits have suddenly discovered that the UN has been catastrophically incompetent, this is very old news to anyone with the mud (or blood) of a UN peacekeeping mission on his boots. In the meantime, a quarter of a million Liberians died, and warring factions committed war crimes. And the UN did - nothing. Just as it was simultaneously doing nothing, more infamously, in Rwanda and Bosnia.

The un is only useless cause it fought bush on iraq.. dont you know that is the total reason the right wingers hate the UN.. .........................................

joulesbeef......nothing to do with iraq war......tell me if UN suceeded in current burma affair where hundred of political activist are in prison....tibet - china conflict...any answer yet....russia and georgia???......world hunger -africa still is a problem for the last 20 yrs.....what about world oil crisis....what about nuclear arms proliferation?.......iran issue....did UN stop any of those or they just look at US to act on the problem.....

The un is only useless cause it fought bush on iraq..

The UN was useless the day it was formed.

Josh,

Did you just say the US is useless?  I mean we tried to stop almost all those things you talked off too, but we couldn't do anything.  Thus by your reasoning the US is useless.

The UN has problems of course it does, but the idea was sound.  One of the bigger problem is how people get sent into it to begin with.   Not even the US sends anyone seriously to be the diplomat there.

I wonder what it would be like with out the UN I have noticed no Germany take overs recently, no real super power take overs anywhere but what the US has done.   In history what is the longest time the world has gone with out one country invading another country and then saying they are now part of them by military force and was succussful?    I can't think of any since hmmm 1945.

josh that would be like asking what have they ever done with out Canada.  Or asking about Green Bay Packers what they ever do with out Farve when he was on the team. 

Each country is to do what they can. I can tell you this, few others are behind on their dues like the US is, or has been for many years.  We are to pay for 30% of missions, what is ok being most are done because we asked them to be done.   But being we supply a lot of the troops places for combat we get a slide on the dues, they just say we have a debt to them and that is it.   But just as we pay a large sum, so does China, and Japan (they are 14% for japan, that has alot less people and money then the US does), Russia and the UK.  It would be nice if they figured a new system that added more Europe countries being they are gaining wealth now.  Just like they did tell China they were to pay more, and so far they have kept up with it as far as I can find. 

But for your argument being some of the money comes from dues, that every country pays, I could say and would be right.  What has the UN done with out the support of Tanzania, nothing and I would be correct too.

So again what your saying is the UN is useless but the US couldn't do it either so what does that make us?  Come on you already said it once, you called the US useless because they couldn't stop world hunger.

i didnt called US useless...i called UN useless...even you cant come up with anything that UN acomplished by itself WITHOUT THE HELP OF US....

so NAME ONE...stop taking this discussion smewhere else.....NAME ONE..........US is the only one acting on it ha.....if your argument is only how much percentage each country pay who care.....i dont have any argument about any country contribution....are you blind ..read my comment...im asking ONE ACCOMPLISHMENT THAT UN IS INSTRUMENTAL WITHOUT.... US HELP........

dont give a long history of anything ....just one

nice of you to change the subject and accuse me of calling US useless......cmon just one  accomplishment

daniel sage

im still waiting....

Josh,

One I don't check this everyday got work to do.  Second, name me one thing that Greenbay did with out Farve while he was on the team?  It is a team, what part of that don't you get.   The UN has done nothing with out Russia, nothing with out China, nothing with out the UK, or the US it is all the same team.  You have proved that you don't understand  even that simple concept how can you understand anything?

I mean do you not understand what a team of nations is?

again no answer....you only proven my point UN is useless........for you to compare greenbay to UN...oh thats really educated guess - like let say...G E D ......

so your saying UN is a team of nation....nice what do they do? coz u cant come out with anything....US seems to be the only country...ONLY COUNTRY....that your so called UN always depend on..DEPEND ON....if your not aware because of your limited brain that US have its own economic problem and cannot police the world by itself....so your UN as a team of nation have to step up and do their job using other nation resources...after all you said ' i mean do you understand what a team of nation is"......tean that what u call a team

cant come out with one accomplishment........cmon man thought your a worthy opponent....guess not...bye go grow some brain

time for the rest of your so called team to do as much as what US contributed to UN cost.

india navy did just that even without UN approval....what will UN do if india didnt act againts those pirate...........................answer NOTHING

Josh,

Now you want a list of what the UN has all done? Let's see let's start that not one nation has invaded another and was successful in taking over that nation since the UN. 

As I said above, second, let's use Iraq, after Gulf War 1 it was the UN that safe guarded all the WMD's in Iraq.  They were held there because no country wanted them moved to their own country.  The UN had them guarded and safe all the way till the US invaded, and told them to leave.  Those WMD's have since disappeared, some of the weapon caches that were there have been found in IUD's that have killed US soldiers.  So let's see the US tried to do something couldn't do it what the UN did fine doing.  Something less then useless again is useless.

Also the UN is the one that said Iraq didn't have WMD new ones made the reason we went to this war and guess what???? THEY WERE RIGHT.

Even Afganastan right now is also through the UN.  Right now there are a total of 18 UN missionsfor peace keeping around the world.  If you say more people need to step up look up the one for Georgia, the countries that have military there...

Albania, Austria, Bangladesh, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Yemen

In their history they have had 47 peace keeping missions.  Haiti ring a bell to ya?  How about Yugoslavia, how about Lebanon? 

So I guess the fact that not one country has done what Germany did, is a failure of the UN? 

You said for African Hunger, yet the US still has people hear that die of Hunger.  So the US can't do anything about that?  Are they useless because of that?

See your problem is your so on these sites and not even educating yourself.  I had to bring up Greenbay because it is clear you don't get what a team is, yet you want to say I am intelligent, interesting.  It doesn't affect me because my 4 year old knows what a team is, and you still don't seem to get it.

Last for the pay, of course we pay more.  We are the richest country it is like taxes.  If you want everyone to pay the same, then you should pay the same in your taxes that everyone else would have too.  That equal amount would be around 2 million a year for each person in the US.  So even if you don't have it go on you have to pay your fair share.  Things don't work like that even here because it is stupid to think they should work like that.  Again shows how uneducated you truly are.

 Again will have to teach you how the UN works, they don't get involved till any country brings it up to the table.  India could of asked to go against them at any time.  The UN would of gave them their blessing or start up a mission to get it under control.  The problem is no country not even the US brought it up.

think u are so dumb to even understand my question.....first nobody care and nobody ask how much US or other country have to pay for UN...no one ask u...u put it up there eventhough ITS NOT A QUESTION...soo put that back in your ass.....

let me cap this so your GED can see this......WHAT UN ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM US???? ur answer haiti ...really ..no us involvement ha ..so educate yourself

you keep insisting i mentioned US is useless.....AGAIN CAP....UN IS USELESS

also your 18 peace mission done by UN.....i could name more than 20 countries that US alone help one way or another either economic or military (help with NATO)....so the point is Again CAP.....US CAN ACCOMPLISHED THINGS BY ITSELF compare to your UN.

INDIA did take action without US help.........THATS NOT UN ACCOMPLISHEMENT...its INDIA...what the hell is wrong with you....

stop making excuse for UN failure, if you cant come out with the proper answer then dont even try.......georgia step up???......india did step up and UN thinks its their accomplishment???????

like i said its not for US to police the world...for you to ask that even US didnt brought up the pirate issue ...who cares i know thid for a fact....your UN DIDNT DO ANYTHING....

Josh this is the last time I will say this, no team can accomplish anything without any member of said team.  I don't understand how anyone cannot understand what a team is.  That is just amazing, so what has the UN done with out the US, nothing, what has the UN done with out Russia, nothing, Tanzania, nothing.  I have answered your question 4 times now, yet you can't understand it at all, what again shows who of us couldn't even get a GED (that would be you being I have to explain everything to you.)

So again what has the UN done without the US (5 times), nothing.  But your question is stupid, and has no basis of argument.  I could say I am super important to the US because what have they done in the last 20 years with out my taxes?  Nothing, same answer, doesn't mean that I am running the US by myself now does it. 

You really need to go to school, you can't even write a sentence right, not one of your sentences starts with a capital letter.  You cannot make a single complete sentence and your misspellings are ridiculous, and this is coming from someone that has an issue with spelling.  You know they have something here called spell check, I suggest you use it.

For the pirate thing, the UN did nothing because the representatives of each country did nothing.  Again I am done explaining this to you, because it is clear you don't understand how the UN even works or what it is.

thank you...for admitting that UN hasnt accomplished anything without US help....that aint hard at all right.....school or not u just admit im right.....

US resources have been tied so much to UN cost and rest of the UN member prefer to sit and watch....well US economy is worsening like i said its so simple time for the rest of UN to step up..........india did just that.....so what are we debating for????????

Josh, what part of you're not right do you not get?  Your question was pointless is the point.  The UN can't do anything with out any member of it.   You also said that it all falls on the US but it doesn't, many countries are involved, it is the US that puts itself more in the front.

You mentioned NATO above, what is just funny to me because again you don't get how anything works.  NATO asks the UN to head military operations for the UN, here is a link to NATO's own web page to the ways they work together.   NATO is basically just a smaller UN with nations from Europe and North America.  But that is also why when NATO says they want to head something militarily we have the troop force there.  You're saying more countries are to step up but are they to go on the battle field with NATO?  How would that work? 

In layman terms, what you obviously are, that is like the starting line of a sports team saying they have the game no big deal.  Yet you're asking why someone on the bench just doesn't jump in there and play anyway with out approval.  

Being NATO keeps trying to police the world that also means the US is in two groups that do just that, and they still go rogue sometimes.  If you don't like the US doing that, well don't ever vote Republican because it was Teddy Roosevelt that started that whole idea and has been carried out by them ever since.  But again it is the US that is putting itself in that stance to police the world.

The US resources are not so tied to UN costs, we don't pay our dues.  Do you not get that?  Not to mention the costs of 30% of global efforts over 100% of trying to do the same thing is a deal.  We are more tied to NATO costs what you said you like.   Yes the US economy is worsening so is every other country again something you don't seem to get.  You also don't seem to understand that a world that is less aggressive is a good thing for the US.  Don't you remember WWII the big thing was don't get involved let those countries stand on their own.  That worked real well didn't it? Again you don't even get why the UN was formed.

Also I like how NATO in Iraq right now their mission was to train Iraqi soliders, that has gone so well too.  Being that is head by the US and can't get done, what does that make NATO and the US????  

You said the UN is useless, it isn't, it has helped to stop a major world war such as WWII.  Russia and us was just a cold war, I consider that a success.  The fact that as far as I can find not one country has taken over another by military force to expand their borders that is a success.   What I am proud that US is a leader in that, but I still acknowledge that other countries are highly involved in that.  

So again you said one reason the UN is useless is they can't fix starvation in Africa.  So what is the US if they can't fix starvation in their own country????

Also this is the last time I am posting to you, you're so lost in your own world you're hopeless, the fact you still can't write a complete sentence is shocking.  You have not won anything, nor are you right.  Have you not noticed the voting on comments, your the only one voting for yourself no one thinks your right.

Your whole problem is that you are making it appear that the UN is forcing the US to take a major role.  Though I will say this, it would be nice if the UN would step up as a force.  Especially against a country that goes against UN mandates, bombs another country and invades it, tortures prisoners, all against UN statutes.  What you are saying is that the UN as a force should go against such a country and take out its President.  So guess what country the UN would have to attack.  That would be the United States, I know you would not be smart enough to figure that out for yourself.

pointless because u have no answer.......NATO is not UN stupid...warsaw pact is not UN...why dont you just admit you dont have an answer coz i could give you one answer....no UN help , NO US HELP....INDIA NAVY DID JUST THAT...did it click yet

UN forcing US? whose ass did u pull that out. Being UN is useless they always look for US to police the world.....did you understand that at all.....UN to take out a president ? again whose ass did u pull that out.....

problem with you is you open your mouth and have nothing to back it out...cant give an answer but u always make sure you turn to subject thats not even in question...u lose thats it.

didnt i told you to grow some brain...bye loser...oh yeah chk the news maybe u can figure out if UN will do anything...or for your ged mind....ur greenbay...ha ha

also...UN was formed in 1945...after WW2

The UN was founded in 1945 after and to provide a platform for dialogue.

There are currently , the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization is divided into administrative bodies, primarily:

• The );
• The (decides certain resolutions for peace and security);
• The (assists in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development);
• The (provides studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN);
• The (the primary judicial organ).

THIS JUST SHOW HOW WELL INFORMED YOU ARE............ARE YOU GONNA DEBATE ME ON THIS FACT TOO...

UN didnt stop WW2....go back to school and this time try to stay awake

The fact that as far as I can find not one country has taken over another by military force to expand their borders that is a success.   ACCORDING TO DANIEL SAGE

AFGHANISTAN WAR, KOREAN WAR, VIETNAM WAR,  AFTER WORLD WAR 2 RUSSIA PUT UP BERLIN WALL

DO YOU NEED ANYMORE...ALSO before world war 2 there is what they call league of nation and was replaced by Un only after WW2.........just to educate you a little

also AGAIN nobody ask for how much if any do US pay....who cares....US military presence is not free it takes million maybe billion...thats US contribution...Can u say the same thing with saudi or korea or any other country.

again bye...wonder what you gonna come up next.....

US that is putting itself in that stance to police the world...according to daniel sage

simple answer..........US STEP UP BECAUSE YOUR UN IS USELESS.........

DOES IT HURT WHEN STUPIDITY HIT YOU IN THE FACE