NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen middle east people call the UN the pawn of America and I've seen Europeans treat the UN like the end-all be-all world authority - even above their own national sovereignty.


So which is it?

If the U.N. is America's pawn, then it's a relationship much like using your penis to type with: Sure, you can do it. But it's difficult, uncomfortable, time consuming, and there will be frequent mistakes.

The U.N and and Coffe aAn Cream or whatever the hell his name is or whoever the hell is in charge of the United Daycare Center for some odd reason like to critisize america and the things we do, yet their HQ is in NY. I wish the President would say screw the UN, screw what Europe thinks and just do what the hell we want. Like I give a damn about what a bunch of euro trash thinks.

The U.N and and Coffe aAn Cream or whatever the hell his name is or whoever the hell is in charge of the United Daycare Center for some odd reason like to critisize america and the things we do, yet their HQ is in NY. I wish the President would say screw the UN, screw what Europe thinks and just do what the hell we want. Like I give a damn about what a bunch of euro trash thinks.

My idea exactly.

The U.N and and Coffe aAn Cream or whatever the hell his name is or whoever the hell is in charge of the United Daycare Center for some odd reason like to critisize america and the things we do, yet their HQ is in NY. I wish the President would say screw the UN, screw what Europe thinks and just do what the hell we want. Like I give a damn about what a bunch of euro trash thinks.
yay someone bright yay celebrate

I wish the President would say screw the UN, screw what Europe thinks and just do what the hell we want. Like I give a damn about what a bunch of euro trash thinks.
Wow, sounds like a great way to build up a lot of anti-American hatred!

I really cannot believe how many people think that a war on terrorism can be won without co-operation from other countries and their intelligence agencies.

Also, people like you sometimes speak as if the UN = Europe, and other times say that the UN is a bunch of dictatorships. There is a contradiction here, unless you're saying the Europe is composed of dictatorships, which is patently not true.

The US believes it has some sort of right to impose it's will on the entire world. It doesn't. The UN is none of the above. If the UN agrees with the US they love them, if the UN disagrees with the US it's a joke. The US needs to accept the fact that they are not the only country in the world and they are not always right. That's what it boils down to.

The UN was born evil and remains evil to this day. All one needs to do is look at its origins. The ultra-secret, Illuminist meetings that gave birth to it, the arch-traitors and radical internationalists that founded it- men such as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Victor Perlo, Andrei Gromyko, and other slimeballs- clearly reveal this. Anyone who believes the UN is a 'peace-keeping' organization needs only to examine its actions in the past. From Katanga to Somalia to Kosovo to virtually every other place where they have made their malodorous presence, the UN has demonstrated time and time again that they are a war-making organization, not a peace-keeping organization.

bump

The US believes it has some sort of right to impose it's will on the entire world. It doesn't. The UN is none of the above. If the UN agrees with the US they love them, if the UN disagrees with the US it's a joke. The US needs to accept the fact that they are not the only country in the world and they are not always right. That's what it boils down to.
yeah we are the one's with the work of it we have 80% of the UN army heck we need to stop impossing right.

The UN was born evil and remains evil to this day. All one needs to do is look at its origins. The ultra-secret, Illuminist meetings that gave birth to it, the arch-traitors and radical internationalists that founded it- men such as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Victor Perlo, Andrei Gromyko, and other slimeballs- clearly reveal this. Anyone who believes the UN is a 'peace-keeping' organization needs only to examine its actions in the past. From Katanga to Somalia to Kosovo to virtually every other place where they have made their malodorous presence, the UN has demonstrated time and time again that they are a war-making organization, not a peace-keeping organization.


Uhhhh.... wow.

In other words, a committee of world representatives whose proceedings are almost entirely public can do no right through either action or inaction in your eyes.

You see, no matter who founded it, it is exactly what the member nations choose to make of it. Unfortunately, it seems that the member nations have completely forgot that it was supposed to be a forum for compromise fo rthe global good, and to help resolve issues before they become problems.

The UN is not the problem. It is only, after all, a forum. The problem is that compromise is something few countries are willing to give, and that willfull blindness to problems exists. That is often due to the fact that the most powerful members are all from democracies where there is a hope that a required expensive solution can be postponed and put on the tab of the next guy to hold office.

In other words, the UN is simply a manifestation of the selfish interests of it's members, and so is bound to be ineffective much of the time except when enough of the powerful selfish interests happen to coincide.

Uhhhh.... wow.

In other words, a committee of world representatives whose proceedings are almost entirely public can do no right through either action or inaction in your eyes.

You see, no matter who founded it, it is exactly what the member nations choose to make of it. Unfortunately, it seems that the member nations have completely forgot that it was supposed to be a forum for compromise fo rthe global good, and to help resolve issues before they become problems.

The UN is not the problem. It is only, after all, a forum. The problem is that compromise is something few countries are willing to give, and that willfull blindness to problems exists. That is often due to the fact that the most powerful members are all from democracies where there is a hope that a required expensive solution can be postponed and put on the tab of the next guy to hold office.

In other words, the UN is simply a manifestation of the selfish interests of it's members, and so is bound to be ineffective much of the time except when enough of the powerful selfish interests happen to coincide.
BRAVO, BRAVO, Very good chap.

yeah we are the one's with the work of it we have 80% of the UN army heck we need to stop impossing right.

The UN was never meant to have any army, it's purpose was diplomacy, not a need for an army.

For some odd reason there is this delusion that the guy with the biggest gun is the smartest guy. News Flash, he's not!

The UN was never meant to have any army, it's purpose was diplomacy, not a need for an army.

For some odd reason there is this delusion that the guy with the biggest gun is the smartest guy. News Flash, he's not!
The ideal UN to me would be the logical construction not of might is right, but rather might for right.

The UN was never meant to have any army, it's purpose was diplomacy, not a need for an army.

For some odd reason there is this delusion that the guy with the biggest gun is the smartest guy. News Flash, he's not!
it doe's thou doesn't it, it is like communism you know it is supposed but doesn't. sorry forgot you where a commie where's my pistol, damit, (bad joke)

it doe's thou doesn't it, it is like communism you know it is supposed but doesn't. sorry forgot you where a commie where's my pistol, damit, (bad joke)

hehe, a commie? Hardly, I live in North America... I like capitalism as much as any one else..lol

must have rembered some one else sorry.

The UN reminds me of one of the last scenes in Monty Python's Life of Brian, where the members of the PFJ are all sitting around trying to figure out what to do now that Brian's been captured by the Romans. Immediate action is required, but they CAN'T DO IT. They sit around, make motions, call votes, keep minutes, and then finally agree on doing something totally useless. Why? Because that's the only thing they could agree on.

As for being America's pawn, I can't see that happening. If anything, it's a pain.

The UN was born evil and remains evil to this day. All one needs to do is look at its origins. The ultra-secret, Illuminist meetings that gave birth to it, the arch-traitors and radical internationalists that founded it- men such as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Victor Perlo, Andrei Gromyko, and other slimeballs- clearly reveal this. Anyone who believes the UN is a 'peace-keeping' organization needs only to examine its actions in the past. From Katanga to Somalia to Kosovo to virtually every other place where they have made their malodorous presence, the UN has demonstrated time and time again that they are a war-making organization, not a peace-keeping organization.

Another thing to consider: What is the UN the direct descendant of?

Answer: The League of Nations

Who was the main mastermind behind it?

Answer: Edward Mandell House.

House, in fact, devised the name 'League of Nations' years before giving birth to that monstrosity. In his novel, Philip Dru: Administrator (which he published anonymously in 1912), a Marxist named Philip Dru stages a bloody coup d'etat, overthrows the US government, starts a civil war that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands, creates a dictatorship based on "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx," embellished with "a spiritual leavening," makes any attempt to restore the Constitution a crime punishable by death, and eventually submerges the United States into a world government called the League of Nations (the exact term used in the book). House, who described that novel as "my political and ethical faith," was the chief architect of the Federal Reserve System and the income tax, and played a large role in drafting the Treaty of Versailles. House was the main (and perhaps only) reason that Thomas Woodrow Wilson, a virtual unknown who had only entered politics a year or two before becoming President, was nominated for that job. House was described by Wilson as "my second self." Wilson once said, "Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one." So there you have it. The League of Nations was founded by two power-hungry, corrupt, bloodthirsty lunatics and ardent internationalists, one of whom was a hard-core Marxist and arch-conspirator. For more info on 'Colonel' House, I'd recommend the following sources:

1.Philip Dru: Administrator (by Edward M. House)
2.The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I (by Thomas Fleming)
3.July 17, 1926 issue of The Saturday Evening Post
4.Intimate Papers of Colonel House (by Charles Seymour)
5.To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order by Professor Thomas J. Knock

The UN is a pain not just to America, but to everyone. By definition, the world is an anarchic place. There's nothing holding nations back from doing anything. The UN can make all the rules it wants, but it means nothing without an independent governing structure and a professional military of its own. In this sense, the UN is a joke, and nothing more than a giant illusion that the world can work together.

The UN was born evil and remains evil to this day.
Since the US is a founding member of the UN I can only agree with you on this.

Since the US is a founding member of the UN I can only agree with you on this.

No offense, but that sounded a little too racist for my taste.

No offense, but that sounded a little too racist for my taste.
In which way?

The United Nations is essentially a pawn-for-hire, where countries buy international legitimacy with economic and humanitarian aid. So both options in the poll are unsatisfactory to me. The UN sumetimes ends up as an American Pawn and sometimes a French Pawn (and thus a pain to America by definition).

In which way?

Er, never mind. You called the US evil, not Americans. Sorry. :(

Another thing to consider: What is the UN the direct descendant of?

Answer: The League of Nations

Who was the main mastermind behind it?

Answer: Edward Mandell House.

House, in fact, devised the name 'League of Nations' years before giving birth to that monstrosity. In his novel, Philip Dru: Administrator (which he published anonymously in 1912), a Marxist named Philip Dru stages a bloody coup d'etat, overthrows the US government, starts a civil war that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands, creates a dictatorship based on "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx," embellished with "a spiritual leavening," makes any attempt to restore the Constitution a crime punishable by death, and eventually submerges the United States into a world government called the League of Nations (the exact term used in the book). House, who described that novel as "my political and ethical faith," was the chief architect of the Federal Reserve System and the income tax, and played a large role in drafting the Treaty of Versailles. House was the main (and perhaps only) reason that Thomas Woodrow Wilson, a virtual unknown who had only entered politics a year or two before becoming President, was nominated for that job. House was described by Wilson as "my second self." Wilson once said, "Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one." So there you have it. The League of Nations was founded by two power-hungry, corrupt, bloodthirsty lunatics and ardent internationalists, one of whom was a hard-core Marxist and arch-conspirator. For more info on 'Colonel' House, I'd recommend the following sources:

1.Philip Dru: Administrator (by Edward M. House)
2.The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I (by Thomas Fleming)
3.July 17, 1926 issue of The Saturday Evening Post
4.Intimate Papers of Colonel House (by Charles Seymour)
5.To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order by Professor Thomas J. Knock



No offense, but what does the mindset or contents of novels of the founders of the League of Nations have to do with how the nations now are using the UN?

The League of Nations failed. the Treaty of Versailles failed. And out of the ashes people learned from this and replaced the League of Nations with something else - the UN. The brainchild largely of Roosevelt and Churchill.


Methinks you are digging a tad too deep into the murky realms of conspiracy theory....

No offense, but what does the mindset or contents of novels of the founders of the League of Nations have to do with how the nations now are using the UN?

The League of Nations failed. the Treaty of Versailles failed. And out of the ashes people learned from this and replaced the League of Nations with something else - the UN. The brainchild largely of Roosevelt and Churchill.


Methinks you are digging a tad too deep into the murky realms of conspiracy theory....

Well, thanks for at least disagreeing intelligently and without flaming. :)

The brainchild largely of Roosevelt and Churchill.

Who were also very evil men.

Who were also very evil men.

Well, who isn't in this day and age.... lol.

Seriously though, the intent of the founders is irrelevant now. It was created as a forum that would hopefully work in a given way. It is up to the leaders of today to make it work for them, or not to.

Most choose not to, but that is not the fault of the UN as a forum but rather an indictment of the members. People who are unwilling to work cooperatively will not do so even if you give them a place and opportunity to do so.

Well, who isn't in this day and age.... lol.

Seriously though, the intent of the founders is irrelevant now. It was created as a forum that would hopefully work in a given way. It is up to the leaders of today to make it work for them, or not to.

Most choose not to, but that is not the fault of the UN as a forum but rather an indictment of the members. People who are unwilling to work cooperatively will not do so even if you give them a place and opportunity to do so.

Well said.