This also includes E.U.

Russia wants to veto a war in Iraq. Okay it is Russias opinion that taking Saddam down won't do any good (Iraqi money do talk in Russia).

What the media does not say is : Why did U.N. let Russia slip by two times when they invaded Chechnia? Why do people of Russia send their children to die in Chechnia?


Today in Germany and other countries people do protest when Russian president comes to visit because of Chechen conflict.


What some are not saying is: Why doesn't U.N. say something.

Lets go back to Balkans. When the conflict started the Belgium troops were there. They were there when the ethnic clensing started. They were there when childred and women and old men were shot. The U.N was there too. What is more interesting is that the U.S let an attack, stopping the war. France did not the war to end.

The U.N did not help, but it was U.S forces and NATO who stopped the war.

In the Chechen conflict you have no victims. Russian want their oil and an easy route to the Middle East. Chechens want their independents with help of radical Islam. Russians die and Chechens die.

When Russia withdrew its troops in 1996, the U.N. should of done something. Well, the Islamic government of Chechnia killed thousands of its citizen in three years because U.N and E.U. had their eyes in the other direction.

After a building bombing in Russia by a Chechen terrorist, Russians went back to Chechnia. Again, U.N. did not do anything.

Even today there are plenty of bad things that happen in Chechnia and the U.N. does not do anything. It shows that they cannot do anything to a powerful nation. They can't attack it and they can't run away from it.



Until the U.N. does anything the wrong things will happen in this world.

[ 15. March 2003, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: VYACHESLAV ]

1. Because Russia has veto in the United Nations.
2. Because it's an civil war and internal conflict. Have you seen any U.N. forces in Israel or in Northern Ireland?
3. The U.N. don't 'attack' other nations.

Best regards/ Daniel

Before the hostile of a few hundred people in a theatre in Moscow, the Russian were already back in Chechnia.

I agree with you on the last statement, but this goes also for the US.

__________________

True, but remember when the Russians left the first time they gave Chechnia independence.

The U.N. has a right to attack other nations. Think about Korea in the 50's and during the Gulf war in 1991.

I was talking about a different bombing. It happened in 1999 in Southern Russia. Over three hundred people were killed after a bomb blew up in an apartment building. They found a Chechen rebel behind it. After that Putin promised Russian people that the Russian government will deal with it.

Well, I agree with Daniel. This is an internal conflict and you can't do anything against powerful nations. And Russia, evem in bad times, has always been a very powerful one.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Well if this is an internal conflict then why do Chechens get help from Saudi Arabia?

[ 16. March 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: VYACHESLAV ]

The same reason the IRA get help from the USA? Because war is business and maybe some Saudis sympathise with the Chechens?

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

From what I've heard they call it Muslim pride.

And your point is...?

Best regards/ Daniel

True, but remember when the Russians left the first time they gave Chechnia independence.

The U.N. has a right to attack other nations. Think about Korea in the 50's and during the Gulf war in 1991. </font>[/quote]I don't think that the UN has the right to attack other nations without something happening in the past.

I don't know the complete situation in Korea, but I do know it for Iraq in 1991. First they attacked Quewait, than the UN gave the Allies the opportunity to attack. This was a liberation act, not a real offensife war.

__________________

From what I've heard they call it Muslim pride. </font>[/quote]Like CDS said, your point is? Is that so different from 'Irish pride'? Hardly like the US is totally clean when it comes to internal conflicts, or Britain or any other nation for that matter.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Like in Palestine the only reason why Saudis help Palestinians is because they are Muslim. Same thing is in Yugoslavia and Chechnia.

And your point is...? What do you want to say with that?

Best regards/ Daniel

The point is there will always be a conflict in Chechnia because of Middle Eastern Countries getting involved. They help Chechens by saying "We're helping our Muslims brothers."

If countries like Saudi Arabia did not help it would probably end.

Well you see countries have always helped other countries and probably will continue to do so in the future. It's nothing new and will never end.

Best regards/ Daniel

That's true.

__________________

More to the point there will always be conflicts everywhere because of one nation helping another, always have been always will be. As I was saying earlier the main reason a lot of US citizens support the IRA (despite it having been founded in Boston) is because they claim Irish decent and are helping their 'Irish brothers'. Don't bank on the rebels stopping fighting without the backing of Saudi either, they may start to take heavier losses than they do and so on but it will just degenerate into terrorism and so on.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

What about those Muslims in England who said that killing infidels is moral?

If a lot of Irish nationals supported IRA then Bill O'Reilly would not be talking about some news but rather help the IRA.

There is a lot of difference between the IRA and Chechens. First off, Irish people have been fighting for centuries and don't blow up buildings and kill hundreds of people for no reason.

[ 18. March 2003, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: VYACHESLAV ]

The IRA dont blow up buildings or kill people for no reason? Thanks for that, that makes me feel so much better, so they had a reason for trying to bomb my friends school or for trying to bomb my local shopping centre? This was several years ago and both buildings were evacuated and then the bombs were defused but like I say, it makes me feel so much better to hear that the IRA dont blow up buildings or kill people unless they have a reason. Aside from that there were two Major bombing incidents in one month (february) in 1996, more before that. Maybe things have calmed down a bit since then but that still does not change the fact that the IRA have been responsible for many hundreds of deaths in the UK, specifically Britain, often because they have blown up buildings killing many innocents for 'no reason'.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

The UN was alway as strong as the unity amongst thier member nations was. During the cold war, it was a paper tiger caught between rock and the hard place - under this conditions it's pretty impressive what they achieved anyway (health, human rights, anti-povery programs etc.) between 1945-1990.

Now after the USSR broke up, the remaining world power USA was leading the way for the UN: as long as U.S. and the rest of the Worlds' interests were somewhat in sync, everything was fine. Now this situation changed as the UN finally refused herself to the U.S. blackmailing and preferred to rather commit political suicide, splitting the world in the U.S.A. and her satellites and all the others.

If not tremoundous diplomatic efforts are taken on all sides in the next months and years (and I doubt that the current U.S. admin is very skillfull in that), we can scrap all such achievements like the UN charta of human rights, the UNESCO health, food and medical programs, the World-wide programs to fight AIDS, povery, illiteration and child work.

International law and jurisprudence and in the consequence, International Security, the World Bank system and many other international organisatzins who need consensus among their members will cease to work.

I just hope central Europe has enough nuclear, chemical and bacteriological firepower and the means to deliver them everywhere in the world to deter any outside nation to start the next "preventive" war on us.

Cheers,

[ 20. March 2003, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

__________________
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
(President Merkin Muffley in "Dr. Strangelove")

U.N had 12 years in Iraq to check for weapons. They got kicked out in 1998 and U.N. did not do anything. Then after 1441 they had four month and inspectors were finding weapons and again did not do anything.

Well, it is not the first time U.N. failed.

In Cumbodia, 2 million people were killed by Vietnam and U.N. did not do anything.

In Yuogoslavia, for years fighting was going on and U.N. as well as E.U. did not do anything. It was United States who went in.

In Africa, millions were killed and again U.N. did not do anything.


American companies do more research on diseases then U.N.

[ 21. March 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: VYACHESLAV ]

Glad someone finally sees it like it is, thanks "V"

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

The UN inspectors were not "kicked out" in 1998: they left. When America started talking about attacking Iraq, they were not allowed to return (big surprise.)

Knight, why don't you look here

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pub.../timeline3.htm