NationStates Jolt Archive

I will post a short first post so you can debate more with each other than with me. But here goes, the UN has no backbone, Iraq broke around 14 UN regulations and they did nothing. Im not saying that was a need for the US to invade them but the UN has to put a stop to this, Iran isnt letting the UN investigate its nuclear program, do you think they will do anything? No.

Let's not forget the UN's genocide in Katanga.

http://www.getusout.org/resources/fearful_master/

G. Edward Griffin's whole book, The Fearful Master is available here for free.

What's wrong with the UN? Its members. And the veto powers.

What's wrong with the UN? Its members. And the veto powers.
Which member vetoed labeling the situation in Rwanda and Darfur genocide?

members ignoring it

if that continues...it will go the way of the League - where it had no powers whatsoever by the mid 30s because so many nations ignored it

Which member vetoed labeling the situation in Rwanda and Darfur genocide?

Pretty much everyone for Rwanda, and the UN study itself plus several members for Darfur.

Pretty much everyone for Rwanda, and the UN study itself plus several members for Darfur.
Pretty much everyone is about as helpful as that guy.

Whats wrong with tehe United Nations?

The United states Dominating the council.

Kick out the United states, everything works.

Whats wrong with tehe United Nations?

The United states Dominating the council.

Kick out the United states, everything works.
Kick out the United States, you get the oh-so-successful League.

Pretty much everyone for Rwanda, and the UN study itself plus several members for Darfur.
Don't forget the Oil-For-Food program - *stamps a big 'Corrupt' sign on it*

In some ways, the league worked, just nobody had the balls to do anything.

Can anyone name anything that the UN has actually done? That isn't also being done better by NATO or G7 countries?

In some ways, the league worked, just nobody had the balls to do anything.
So in other words it didn't work?

"What is wrong with the UN."

Virtually everything. The UN is more a club than it is anything else. Everything from the membership, the way the organizaton is structured, the fact that it has no way to enforce its directives, the recently noted opportunity for sady dealings by the upper echelons, the list is virtually endless.

"What is wrong with the UN."

Virtually everything. The UN is more a club than it is anything else. Everything from the membership, the way the organizaton is structured, the fact that it has no way to enforce its directives, the recently noted opportunity for sady dealings by the upper echelons, the list is virtually endless.

When you let bureaucrats and politicians design their ultimate bureaucracy, it is hardly suprising that it winds up with so many checks and balances to render it near useless on many levels.

That being said, the fact that it HAS managed to defeat the impediments put into it's design and be an instrument that has done a fair bit of good in many instances is astounding.

When you let bureaucrats and politicians design their ultimate bureaucracy, it is hardly suprising that it winds up with so many checks and balances to render it near useless on many levels.

That being said, the fact that it HAS managed to defeat the impediments put into it's design and be an instrument that has done a fair bit of good in many instances is astounding.
What instances would those be?

I will post a short first post so you can debate more with each other than with me. But here goes, the UN has no backbone, Iraq broke around 14 UN regulations and they did nothing. Im not saying that was a need for the US to invade them but the UN has to put a stop to this, Iran isnt letting the UN investigate its nuclear program, do you think they will do anything? No.

I suggest we start invading every nation that broke UN regulations and as we are rational people, let's start with the nation that broke most regulations ...

I suggest we start invading every nation that broke UN regulations and as we are rational people, let's start with the nation that broke most regulations ...
Good! On to Iraq! Or did you mean the nonbinding general council ones that were mostly made by Israel-haters?

Can anyone name anything that the UN has actually done? That isn't also being done better by NATO or G7 countries?


Yes. Been a voice for the third world at a time when the cold war was the only pre-occupation of groups like Nato and the G7, and it has always provided a forum where problems HAVE been brought to the public eye even as it's most powerful members refused to do anything about them.

Done a good job organizing things like worldwide immunization programs to try and eradicate some of the worst diseases. Provided organizational resources to groups dedicated to helping those that need it.

The fact that the major press services also provide poor service to many issues that groups within the UN have highlighted and tried to do something about doesn't mean that these efforts have not happened.

The US breaks about as many UN rules as any other country out there. Should they attack us too?
But I do agree in the fact that the UN's rules need more enforcement, and yes, enforce them against the US just like everyone else. Just because we comprise ~70% of its budget and military doesn't mean we get to make and break any rule we want.

Kick out the United States, you get the oh-so-successful League.
I don't think you'd get much fuss from most Americans if they were kicked out of the UN. We could turn the building into condos and probably eliminate any sort of personal tax in NYC.

Yes. Been a voice for the third world at a time when the cold war was the only pre-occupation of groups like Nato and the G7, and it has always provided a forum where problems HAVE been brought to the public eye even as it's most powerful members refused to do anything about them.

Done a good job organizing things like worldwide immunization programs to try and eradicate some of the worst diseases. Provided organizational resources to groups dedicated to helping those that need it.

The fact that the major press services also provide poor service to many issues that groups within the UN have highlighted and tried to do something about doesn't mean that these efforts have not happened.
The CDC and Red Cross have does as much to wipe out disease as the UN has. Especially since with all the raping of Africans the peacekeepers were caught doing, some diseases probably increased. But then again, all the UN has done, by your admission, is do humanitarian things. No military purpose whatsoever. And thus, should not have anything to do with military actions.

Can anyone name anything that the UN has actually done? That isn't also being done better by NATO or G7 countries?

The Korean War. It was enforcement of UN resolutions that let most of the free world send troops to help stop the invasion. Now the UN doesn't have the guts to anything like that.

I don't think you'd get much fuss from most Americans if they were kicked out of the UN. We could turn the building into condos and probably eliminate any sort of personal tax in NYC.
I would be very happy if we left the UN. More tax dollars for real purposes.

When you let bureaucrats and politicians design their ultimate bureaucracy, it is hardly suprising that it winds up with so many checks and balances to render it near useless on many levels.

That being said, the fact that it HAS managed to defeat the impediments put into it's design and be an instrument that has done a fair bit of good in many instances is astounding.

Agreed! :eek:

The Korean War. It was enforcement of UN resolutions that let most of the free world send troops to help stop the invasion. Now the UN doesn't have the guts to anything like that.
That only happened because Russia threw a hissy hit and boycotted. And most of the troops were American anyway.

Good! On to Iraq! Or did you mean the nonbinding general council ones that were mostly made by Israel-haters?

Why would they be made by "Israel-haters"? (the term just sounds a bit biased). I myself do think most of these resolutions (i say most as i don't have knowledge about every single resolution) are just. I do not hate Israël and I am not in favor of nuking it, but it's actions aren't allways just.

Untill 1947, it was palestine, and the people living there were palestines with a minority of zionists (they had been moving there for a while, "Balfour" might be googled). After wwII, something had to be done and the 'big countries' in the UN simply gave a part of palestine to form Israel, ignoring the fact that this was land occupied by others (this is not a fault of israel, but the fault of the big countries). Israel however occupied more land than allowed by the UN and it still does this day. Leaving that aside, it has mistreated palestines ever since.

Why would they be made by "Israel-haters"? (the term just sounds a bit biased). I myself do think most of these resolutions (i say most as i don't have knowledge about every single resolution) are just. I do not hate Israël and I am not in favor of nuking it, but it's actions aren't allways just.

Untill 1947, it was palestine, and the people living there were palestines with a minority of zionists (they had been moving there for a while, "Balfour" might be googled). After wwII, something had to be done and the 'big countries' in the UN simply gave a part of palestine to form Israel, ignoring the fact that this was land occupied by others (this is not a fault of israel, but the fault of the big countries). Israel however occupied more land than allowed by the UN and it still does this day. Leaving that aside, it has mistreated palestines ever since.
Each country gets one vote. Syria gets as many votes as the US. That's a bit biased.

May have made up bulk but Australia made a fair contribution.

From 29 June 1950 to 27 July 1953, some 17,000 Australian sailors, soldiers and airmen served in the Korean War. Australian casualties were 339 killed, 1,216 wounded and 29 prisoners of war. (http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/korea_un.htm) Australian War Memorial Website.

Somalia was a complete mess, the rules of engagement imposed by the UN on the soldiers where stupid to say the least. the troops might as well have stayed home.

The UN has out lived its use by date.

Each country gets one vote. Syria gets as many votes as the US. That's a bit biased.
Not to mention the UN thinks that China and Libya should lead a Human Rights Commitee. . . . ya gotta love logical fallacies

Each country gets one vote. Syria gets as many votes as the US. That's a bit biased.

If the UN would issue votes on population size, it could be governed by an alliance of only the biggest countries. The reason everyone get's a vote is because every country has an equal right to be heard. The big countries also succeeded in 'bypassing' this form of equality by getting a permanent seat in the safety council and veto-right. biased you say?

The CDC and Red Cross have does as much to wipe out disease as the UN has.

The CDC? That is a domestic American oraganization who has, of course, given knowledge and expertise to international initiatives (as have disease control groups of a number of countries) , but has done precious little in the actual delivery of services internationally. The Red Cross (And crescent) certainly has done much - granted. However I think you will discover if you talk to them that they engage in a lot of coordination with UN bodies such as the WHO and Unicef. for example, UNICEF had an initiative last year that innoculated 63 million african children against polio.



Especially since with all the raping of Africans the peacekeepers were caught doing, some diseases probably increased. But then again, all the UN has done, by your admission, is do humanitarian things. No military purpose whatsoever. And thus, should not have anything to do with military actions.

No, I did not say that, although as an organization dedicated to the wellbeing of ALL mankind I think that your casting aspersions on that aspect of it's mandate to be pretty small-minded. However if you think that it has done nothing worthwhile in relation to keeping peace in the world, then perhaps you should a) revisit the comments regarding how some members can hamstring it in that regard, b) read and understand it's charter (it is NOT supposed to be a military instrument), and c) do a bit of reading up on the times that it's members DID agree that action was needed and stepped in. Start with the Suez crisis and work forward from there.

Not to mention the UN thinks that China and Libya should lead a Human Rights Commitee. . . . ya gotta love logical fallacies


No, "The UN" doesn't think that. The people who drew up it's initial organization plans (primarily the US, Britain, and the USSR) thought that rotating committee memberships was the way to get countries to sign up to it.

They were right, but are faced with instances such as this where the system shows it's flaws.

Let's not forget the UN's genocide in Katanga.

http://www.getusout.org/resources/fearful_master/

G. Edward Griffin's whole book, The Fearful Master is available here for free.

*cough*

*cough*

*sniggers*

*cough*


I'm sorry, but did you want somebody to take the time to rebut a whole book point by point? Or should we start with the section that implies that the UN is under control by communists? I mean, the guy shoots himself in the foot right off with


The casual observer might conclude that the degree of Communist control over the United Nations can be measured by the number of votes they have from satellite countries. On this basis the Communists could only come up with about 12 out of the total of 113. The record shows, however, that a substantial number of countries classified as neutral consistently vote with the Communist bloc. The Afro-Asian bloc, for instance (which now has over half the total number of votes in the entire organization), and much of the Latin American bloc almost never vote on the same side as the United States unless the United States happens to be voting on the same side as the Soviets-as is often the case. Not all of these countries, of course, are under the full control of Moscow; but they are, without exception, fiercely socialist and anti-U.S. in their orientation. Many of them consist of little more than primitive areas of the world ruled by tribal chiefs and petty despots. Kenya, for instance, is now run by Jomo ("Burning Spear") Kenyatta, former leader of the terrorist Mau Mau uprisings of the 1950's.

Many nations in the United Nations are dictatorships with hardly a pretense at representative Government. Few of them share values and traditions similar to ours. There is widespread contempt for the rich Yankee who thinks that his money can buy friendship. And we should not deceive ourselves. Most of what apparent support we do get in the UN is the result of financial bribery, nothing more.


OK, let's go on to the section entitled Psychological Warfare:

In these three brief statements, the Communists themselves have fully explained what UNESCO in America was designed to accomplish:

1. Achieve effective control of the educational system of our country. If the Communists can condition the minds of the youth of a nation for just one generation, that nation will be theirs within that generation.

2. Deride, ridicule and ultimately destroy any feelings of patriotism or loyalty to our country among the youth.

3. Instill in our youth an outlook of so-called internationalism and world-mindedness. This can easily be reconciled at a later date with the concept of a one-world Communist empire.

4. Indoctrinate the youth to embrace Marxian socialism (not under that name, of course) as the correct political and social viewpoint.

5. Neutralize the youth against the religious influences of the home and all other concepts of rigid morality which might interfere with the acceptance of Marxian and Communist doctrine.

As former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed it: "UNESCO corresponds to the agitation and propaganda department in the Communist party. This department handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old."





Oh. Still with the commies...


Methinks he needs an updated edition....


OK, regarding KAtanga - which relates to the atrocities that occurred in the Belgian Congo after independance, he writes:

, Belgium ordered its troops back to the Congo to protect the lives and property of its citizens there. In a fit of rage Lumumba officially declared war on Belgium and called on the United Nations for military help against Belgian intervention. The United Nations complied, as we shall see. At the outset, however, Belgium called on its NATO friend, the United States, for help so that it could not be accused of trying to perpetuate its influence in its former possession. Washington refused, saving it would rather act through the United Nations. Khrushchev lashed out against the Belgians, calling them "criminal aggressors." The very same day, July 14, 1960, the United States delegation at the United Nations sided with the Soviets in a resolution stoutly condemning Belgium, demanding immediate withdrawal of her troops, and authorizing the United Nations to send troops of its own to assist Lumumba.24 Within four days, the first four thousand United Nations troops were flown into the Congo by U.S. Air Force planes. Many additional thousands were on the way. By July 23 most of the Belgian troops had withdrawn. The territory was now in the hands of Lumumba's mutinous army and the United Nations "peace-keeping" forces.

The plunder and rape continued and spread. Smith Hempstone reported:

Not only was the United Nations singularly ineffective in reestablishing order in these regions but it did little to assist in the evacuation of terrified white women and children from these provinces. The United Nations had planes available to evacuate to Stanleyville Gizengists [supporters of the Communist Antoine Gizenga] who felt themselves in danger in areas under the control of the Leopoldville Government. But it showed little interest in evacuating whites from Stanleyville. . . . If a Lumumbist was maltreated, a general outcry could be expected from the Communist bloc, the Afro-Asian nations, and from liberal circles in Britain and America. If a white woman was killed or molested. . .it made little difference.25



Sooooooooooooo..... it's the UN's fault that the permanent members of the Security Council (including the US) decided to send in peacekeepers to quell an ongoing civil war and failed to assert full control over the country immediately? And this is reason to hate the UN?

In other news, the American's recently sent troops to another country and have singularly failed to provide instant peace and security.

Should the US, using this book as a benchmark, now withdraw from itself and declare itself useless?

I'm sorry, but did you want somebody to take the time to rebut a whole book point by point? Or should we start with the section that implies that the UN is under control by communists? I mean, the guy shoots himself in the foot right off with



OK, let's go on to the section entitled Psychological Warfare:






Oh. Still with the commies...


Methinks he needs an updated edition....


OK, regarding KAtanga - which relates to the atrocities that occurred in the Belgian Congo after independance, he writes:




Sooooooooooooo..... it's the UN's fault that the permanent members of the Security Council (including the US) decided to send in peacekeepers to quell an ongoing civil war and failed to assert full control over the country immediately? And this is reason to hate the UN?

In other news, the American's recently sent troops to another country and have singularly failed to provide instant peace and security.

Should the US, using this book as a benchmark, now withdraw from itself and declare itself useless?

Did you check out the footnotes?

(As for the 'commie' thing, the book was written in 1964)

Did you check out the footnotes?


Which ones? Hell - each chapter has about 30... and I'm not about to try and track down the published docs that he is sourcing things from. given the date, it in unlikely that many of them are available online. So finding out what he extracted from where it what context was added or removed would be impossible without heading to the reference section of a few different libraries.


And frankly - his basic premise is so pathetically flawed that it's not worth it.

He keeps noting that the US agreed with, voted with, and involved itself in most of the very actions of the UN that he is blaming THEM for without any sort of acceptance of the role the US played as a permanent member of the Security Council.

It's like listening to my 6-year old complain that he got in trouble for doing something he knew was wrong.... because a friend did it first. :rolleyes:

If the UN would issue votes on population size, it could be governed by an alliance of only the biggest countries. The reason everyone get's a vote is because every country has an equal right to be heard. The big countries also succeeded in 'bypassing' this form of equality by getting a permanent seat in the safety council and veto-right. biased you say?
It didn't have to do size, it had to do with the results of a war 60 years ago. Syria does not deserve the same say as the Vatican, which does not deserve the same say as Brazil. The first step towards a successful world body would be to not allow every nation in.

Incidentally Roach-Busters, you ARE aware that the Congressman who wrote the preface for that book, James B. Utt made national headlines in '63 when he stated that "a large contingent of barefooted Africans" might be training in Georgia as part of a United Nations military exercise to take over the U.S....


I'm not really sure that he's a source you want to treat with much reverence...

Libya's the chair of the Human Rights Council [whose members also include Syria and the PRC], and Iraq's on the Disarmament Council. The UNGA labelled Zionism 'racism.'

'Nuff said.

Libya's the chair of the Human Rights Council [whose members also include Syria and the PRC], and Iraq's on the Disarmament Council. The UNGA labelled Zionism 'racism.'

'Nuff said.



Because Iraq didn't know anything about disarmament?



And to my mind Zionism - not to be mistaken for Judaism - IS a form of racism. It is, after all, premised on the notion that they are the divine people chosen by God as his favourites and to whom he promised lands that they are entitled to - regardless of who might be on it.

Once you view yourself as a superior people chosen and favoured by God, it sounds far to close to "Master Race" to me..

If the UN would issue votes on population size, it could be governed by an alliance of only the biggest countries.
You make the same argument as those who defend the electoral college.

He has a point.

Hell, if the UN countries were represented by population, it would be ruled by the indians and chinese.

As far as the peacekeepers raping africans, what nationality is most of the 'peacekeepers'? American. So, americans are raping and pillaging in africa, protected by the UN banner.

Kick the Americans out, we would all be better.

ONe of the UN's main problems is that when they do go in and provide support for a country, they like to stay there for as long as then can and ensure a dependence on UN services. Here are 2 examples of UN working only for themselves. I personally witnessed these examples.

Example 1
In Northern Iraq, during the Oil-For-Food Program time period, the UN took some of that revenue from oil sales and built and rebuilt infrastructure in the region. This included water well with disiel pumps. That's a good thing, increses the amount of clean drinking water for the local population. Here's the bad part; the pump is in place and running, one local man has been told how to refuel and how to add more oil to the pump. The village leader has been told, if the pump breaks tell the Ministry of Rural Water. The Ministry then tells the UN of the problem and the UN fixes it. Now the bad; the UN never bothers to teach anyone how to fix the pump or where to get more parts. They do that job themselves, that creates a dependency on the UN. That way the UN never has to leave.

Example 2
Again Northern Iraq, the Food Basket program (under the OIl-For-Food) is designed to distribute food to the population so that noone starves. Good idea, bad execution. Northern Iraq, for those who don't know, has the ability to grow enough wheat and barley to sustain themselves and can still export a sizeable amount. The UN, instead of buying local supplies of wheat and barley, buys poorer quality grain from other countries. This ensures that local farmers can't sell enough of their grain. After all, why buy when you can get it for free. So, by the summer of 2003, the prices are extremely low per ton and the farmers were actually losing money by planting and harvesting their crops.

A little long but true.

ONe of the UN's main problems is that when they do go in and provide support for a country, they like to stay there for as long as then can and ensure a dependence on UN services. Here are 2 examples of UN working only for themselves. I personally witnessed these examples.

Example 1
In Northern Iraq, during the Oil-For-Food Program time period, the UN took some of that revenue from oil sales and built and rebuilt infrastructure in the region. This included water well with disiel pumps. That's a good thing, increses the amount of clean drinking water for the local population. Here's the bad part; the pump is in place and running, one local man has been told how to refuel and how to add more oil to the pump. The village leader has been told, if the pump breaks tell the Ministry of Rural Water. The Ministry then tells the UN of the problem and the UN fixes it. Now the bad; the UN never bothers to teach anyone how to fix the pump or where to get more parts. They do that job themselves, that creates a dependency on the UN. That way the UN never has to leave.

Example 2
Again Northern Iraq, the Food Basket program (under the OIl-For-Food) is designed to distribute food to the population so that noone starves. Good idea, bad execution. Northern Iraq, for those who don't know, has the ability to grow enough wheat and barley to sustain themselves and can still export a sizeable amount. The UN, instead of buying local supplies of wheat and barley, buys poorer quality grain from other countries. This ensures that local farmers can't sell enough of their grain. After all, why buy when you can get it for free. So, by the summer of 2003, the prices are extremely low per ton and the farmers were actually losing money by planting and harvesting their crops.

A little long but true.


See my previous post...

Damn Americans

He has a point.

Hell, if the UN countries were represented by population, it would be ruled by the indians and chinese.

As far as the peacekeepers raping africans, what nationality is most of the 'peacekeepers'? American. So, americans are raping and pillaging in africa, protected by the UN banner.

Kick the Americans out, we would all be better.
"America! America! God shed his grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea."

See my previous post...

Damn Americans
"Oh beautiful, for pilgrims' feet
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!"

As far as the peacekeepers raping africans, what nationality is most of the 'peacekeepers'? American. So, americans are raping and pillaging in africa, protected by the UN banner.

Kick the Americans out, we would all be better.



Most peacekeepers in Africa under the UN banner are actually African. There is also a significant French presence in Africa in Africa.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/yir/english/page6.html

Take a look at the figures for 2002.
US Total: 643 (611-Police, 31-Military Observers, 1 Soldier)
Bangladesh: 5,437 (127-Police, 65-Military Observers, 5,245 Soldiers)

Funny, didn't know 1 beat 5,425+ the other nation's totals
Some fact checking next time.

As for my last post, American soldier cleaning up the UN's and Saddam's mess in Northern Iraq!!!!!

ONe of the UN's main problems is that when they do go in and provide support for a country, they like to stay there for as long as then can and ensure a dependence on UN services. Here are 2 examples of UN working only for themselves. I personally witnessed these examples.

Example 1
In Northern Iraq, during the Oil-For-Food Program time period, the UN took some of that revenue from oil sales and built and rebuilt infrastructure in the region. This included water well with disiel pumps. That's a good thing, increses the amount of clean drinking water for the local population. Here's the bad part; the pump is in place and running, one local man has been told how to refuel and how to add more oil to the pump. The village leader has been told, if the pump breaks tell the Ministry of Rural Water. The Ministry then tells the UN of the problem and the UN fixes it. Now the bad; the UN never bothers to teach anyone how to fix the pump or where to get more parts. They do that job themselves, that creates a dependency on the UN. That way the UN never has to leave.


So, the UN intends to maintain influence through diesel mechanics? Because the locals would neve be able to figure them out or read the logo on the side to find a source for spares? That's a bit of a stretch... and should not the Ministry of Rural Water take a more proactive role and source parts and secure training for some staff to divorce themselves from this need? I mean - really - you would need to suggest that the UN is forcing the locals not to become self reliant when there are avenues out there to secure the knowledge and machinery. There IS some personal responsibilty that people can exercise....

Of course, during the sanctions sending out for parts would have been dificult in which case the UN providing a point of contact was the only way to ensure that their help continued to work rather than have it become useless after the first breakdown.

That is not a way to try and maintain control, but rather to ensure that the investment paid off.


Example 2
Again Northern Iraq, the Food Basket program (under the OIl-For-Food) is designed to distribute food to the population so that noone starves. Good idea, bad execution. Northern Iraq, for those who don't know, has the ability to grow enough wheat and barley to sustain themselves and can still export a sizeable amount. The UN, instead of buying local supplies of wheat and barley, buys poorer quality grain from other countries. This ensures that local farmers can't sell enough of their grain. After all, why buy when you can get it for free. So, by the summer of 2003, the prices are extremely low per ton and the farmers were actually losing money by planting and harvesting their crops.

A little long but true.

That second, I grant you, seems like bad planning. Perhaps they underestimated the availability of raw materials and so had already contracted other sources to ensure that they met their targets. I don't know. However even this seems odd. You like the fact that they distributed food, however you also indicate that the farms were producing enough that this aid wasn't really needed.

In that case it seems that the money would have been better spent on other initiatives.

Of course sometimes aid doesn't work out the way it is planned. Happens anywhere where peole jump in to help out. I remember when a person I knew lost everything in a fire and neighbours all donated spare stuff they had to help hss family get back on their feet. Well, they wound up with 17 chairs and three dining room tables.... most of which were, obviously, superfluous to their needs.

Sometimes the heart is in the right place but the help offered turns out to not be exactly what is needed.

That is hardly an indictment of the reasons they came to help though.

B
And to my mind Zionism - not to be mistaken for Judaism - IS a form of racism. It is, after all, premised on the notion that they are the divine people chosen by God as his favourites and to whom he promised lands that they are entitled to - regardless of who might be on it.

Once you view yourself as a superior people chosen and favoured by God, it sounds far to close to "Master Race" to me..
The Jews ARE a Chosen People -- not to say they're superior, though (re: Deuteronomy 14:2). Zionism is, however, nothing more than "political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) which maintains that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland" (WIKIPEDIA). That's it.

It's not racism. I'm a Zionist. I'm also a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Zionism isn't racism -- but the impetus for the passing of the resolution in question WAS racism. It was anti-Semitism, and anti-Semitism is something that is still, sadly all-too-prevalent in the official policy of many U.N. members.

Is the desire for a national homeland racism? Of course to. To quote (poorly, as my memory fades) Leon Uris' Exodus:

"All they were looking for was one place in the world where the word 'Jew' wasn't an insult."

Not to mention the UN thinks that China and Libya should lead a Human Rights Commitee. . . . ya gotta love logical fallacies
That is one of the things that really leads me away from the UN's legitimacy.

I think my biggest problem with the UN is that it should be an international forum, not a governmental body. As an "international" government, it has no particular soverign land. Rather, its soverignty is EVERY land, which means that they have to usurp the soverignty of every other government on Earth, which means that no nation is truly soverign.

The UN's constitution should be destroyed, and the UN made into a neutral international forum for diplomats to meet and work out problems, period.

If the UN would issue votes on population size, it could be governed by an alliance of only the biggest countries. The reason everyone get's a vote is because every country has an equal right to be heard. The big countries also succeeded in 'bypassing' this form of equality by getting a permanent seat in the safety council and veto-right. biased you say?
You mean the security council? There should be no such thing as a permanent seat on the council. Russia has one, yet they are no longer a major world power. Germany and Spain are more "world powers" then Russia, yet Russia, no matter how large or small their political power, they will always be on the security council. The same is true with France. Security council seats should be dependant on any nation's GDP every 5 years or so. That would ensure that only the most powerful nations would have seats on the security council. It's not going to happen, though.

Ideally, there would be NO security council, since that is a governmental function and the UN should not be a function, but a neutral international forum.

The Jews ARE a Chosen People -- not to say they're superior, though (re: Deuteronomy 14:2). Zionism is, however, nothing more than "political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) which maintains that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland" (WIKIPEDIA). That's it.


No, that is NOT it. Not unless you take a very narrow definition that suits your needs. Indeed, to quote from yuor same source:

Zionism has always had both religious and secular aspects, reflecting the dual nature of Jewish identity, as both a religion (Judaism) and as a national or ethnic identity (Jewishness). Many religious Jews opposed Zionism, while some of the founders of the State of Israel were atheists.

Religious Jews believe that since the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, the right of the Jews to that land is permanent and inalienable. To generations of diaspora Jews, Zion has been a symbol of the Holy Land and of their return to it, as promised by God in Biblical prophecies


I can agree that they are a people deserving of a homeland without accepting the tenants of many zionists which include the inalienable bounderies of set land as defined by God.


It's not racism. I'm a Zionist. I'm also a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Zionism isn't racism -- but the impetus for the passing of the resolution in question WAS racism. It was anti-Semitism, and anti-Semitism is something that is still, sadly all-too-prevalent in the official policy of many U.N. members.


IT is way to easy toss that term around. CAre to provide a factual basis for that statement besides your assumptions that this must be the cause? Isreal is so perfect that there can be no racist elements by some of it's proponents? Is the USA likewise such a beacon of tolerance that a statement that KKK is racist be taken to be a statement based in anti-americanism?

Is the desire for a national homeland racism? Of course to. To quote (poorly, as my memory fades) Leon Uris' Exodus:

"All they were looking for was one place in the world where the word 'Jew' wasn't an insult."

Well, that oversimplifies things now doesn;t it.... hell, ANY minority could say that was al they wanted. And there would probably be some truth to it. However if they added to that statement "and God told us that he loved us best and that the place in the world we got to keep was Kansas so all you other lesser beings can get the hell off our land!" then you might also think there was a bit more to it than they were saying...

And yes, I realize that there are different viewpoints on what zionism means even amongst Zionists. And I do not equate all Israelis to radical Zionism. However that brand of radical intolerance DOES exist within the Zionist movement, and that is what I object to and deem racist.

If the UN would issue votes on population size, it could be governed by an alliance of only the biggest countries. The reason everyone get's a vote is because every country has an equal right to be heard. The big countries also succeeded in 'bypassing' this form of equality by getting a permanent seat in the safety council and veto-right. biased you say?
This ensures that the biggest, not the most powerful and influential countries are in power. Japan is FAR smaller in size and population then India or Russia, but FAR more economically powerful. What happens in Japan effects the world FAR more then what happens in India or Russia.

That is one of the things that really leads me away from the UN's legitimacy.

I think my biggest problem with the UN is that it should be an international forum, not a governmental body. As an "international" government, it has no particular soverign land. Rather, its soverignty is EVERY land, which means that they have to usurp the soverignty of every other government on Earth, which means that no nation is truly soverign.

The UN's constitution should be destroyed, and the UN made into a neutral international forum for diplomats to meet and work out problems, period.


You would have a point, except that the UN Charter is clear that it is NOT an international government and that it's mandate explicitely bars it from usurping sovereignty regarding domestic affairs - except in specific instances of human rights abuses.

It is rather the international forum that you claim to want, which has the downside that it spends far more time talking than actually doing.

To be precise, Articles I and II of the Charter:


Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The only reason why the US has been for some time seen as the UN's only military power is that the other 1st world nations of Europe besides the UK don't invest their military power in any substantial way in the interest of enforcing UN resolutions. Thus the US has to go in and act as the UN's hatchet man, leaving it with the blame for the results of their poor decision-making and corruption. I have always been of the opinion that international alliances can go one of two ways. They are either ineffective, choked by nations with opposing interests and no ability to use force unanimously, or, in the case that the organization has its own military and the willingness to use it, too powerful, leading the way to world hegemony. Basically the whole idea of the League of Nations was bad. It's better just to stick with economic partners and protect them when it is in your interest than to join an international club filled with both respectable democratic nations and rogue states.

IT is way to easy toss that term around. CAre to provide a factual basis for that statement besides your assumptions that this must be the cause? Isreal is so perfect that there can be no racist elements by some of it's proponents? Is the USA likewise such a beacon of tolerance that a statement that KKK is racist be taken to be a statement based in anti-americanism?

It is true that a certain degree of anti semitism still exists in modern Europe today, mainly in France and Germany, where they recieve a large number of middle eastern immigrants, and are afraid of angering anti-jew immigrants from those countries with pro-isreal policy. (This is of course, not to suggest that all of the middle eastern immigrants are anti-semetic, but it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a large portion of the middle east hates Israel, and that France and Germany have large numbers of middle eastern immigrants.) I think the fact that many UN nations want nothing to do with helping Israel fight its nearly constant battle for survival is evidence enough, but it is admittedly tenuous as a charge of anti-semitism. Just that, I think perhaps that has something to do with it, much like supposedly many pro palestinian leftists in America are actually anti-semetic.
I find it difficult not to support Israel, seeing as they are allies of America, and surrounded by countries that have always been trying to destroy them.

I will post a short first post so you can debate more with each other than with me. But here goes, the UN has no backbone, Iraq broke around 14 UN regulations and they did nothing. Im not saying that was a need for the US to invade them but the UN has to put a stop to this, Iran isnt letting the UN investigate its nuclear program, do you think they will do anything? No.
ONLY 14??

Try this on for size:

1972-2002 Vetoes from the USA
---
Year --Resolution Vetoed by the USA

1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticizes the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Affirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities 1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

Kinda pales by comparison huh?

Ideally, there would be NO security council, since that is a governmental function and the UN should not be a function, but a neutral international forum.

Agreed. I don't think that the U.N. should take on the role of any governmental functions.

ONLY 14??

Try this on for size:

1972-2002 Vetoes from the USA
---
Year --Resolution Vetoed by the USA
[quite a few deleted]
Kinda pales by comparison huh?

I know there's a point lurking out there. I just don't get it. What I see is that the US vetoed a lot of resolutions. So what? Numbers in and of themselves mean absolutely nothing.

What I also see is a number of resolutions against Iraq that the UN failed to support with anything but another resolution.

It is true that a certain degree of anti semitism still exists in modern Europe today, mainly in France and Germany, where they recieve a large number of middle eastern immigrants, and are afraid of angering anti-jew immigrants from those countries with pro-isreal policy. (This is of course, not to suggest that all of the middle eastern immigrants are anti-semetic, but it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a large portion of the middle east hates Israel, and that France and Germany have large numbers of middle eastern immigrants.) I think the fact that many UN nations want nothing to do with helping Israel fight its nearly constant battle for survival is evidence enough, but it is admittedly tenuous as a charge of anti-semitism. Just that, I think perhaps that has something to do with it, much like supposedly many pro palestinian leftists in America are actually anti-semetic.
I find it difficult not to support Israel, seeing as they are allies of America, and surrounded by countries that have always been trying to destroy them.

You know, it IS possible to support a countries right to exist without excusing all of the means it uses to do so. For example, allowing it's citizens to unilaterally take over other people's land at the point of a gun.

Israel has a right to exist - granted. However I can't classify myself a s a Zionist as I do not believe that they have a contract with God that provides them unfettered ownership of all the Holy Lands, nor can I support some of it's actions.

I think more people feel that way then some blind supporters assume.

I know there's a point lurking out there. I just don't get it. What I see is that the US vetoed a lot of resolutions. So what? Numbers in and of themselves mean absolutely nothing.

What I also see is a number of resolutions against Iraq that the UN failed to support with anything but another resolution.
You have kinda contradicted yourself with those two statements?

In regards to Iraq, Resolution 1441 (http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp) was a combination of ALL previous Resolutions against Iraq, and if you read that Resolution carefully, you will discover that Iraq was being given a final opportunity to comply, which in my humble opinion was progressing to that end. After the Gulf War, Iraq was one of the most demilitarized countries in the world after UN inspections (http://www.commondreams.org/views/030900-101.htm).

In 2002 when the UN inspectors went back into Iraq, they were unable to find any of the WMD that the Bush administration insisted were in Iraq. Blix's report detailed that Iraqi co-operation for the most part was excellent, and the inspectors were in the process of cutting up short range missles that barely exceeded UN standards when Bush decided that the US could wait no longer. In defiance of Resolution 1441 (http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp) the US invaded Iraq.

So the UN was doing the job and Bush and Co. stopped them in their tracks. After 3 different inspections (post war Iraq), the conclusions were all the same......NO WMD IN IRAQ!!

Whats wrong with tehe United Nations?

The United states Dominating the council.

Kick out the United states, everything works.

Yes! Kick out the US! Than you not only dont have someone to pay your bills but you have a jumble of countries whose only purpose of gathering is to diss America, but dont you already have that? I thought it was called the EU.

As far as the peacekeepers raping africans, what nationality is most of the 'peacekeepers'? American. So, americans are raping and pillaging in africa, protected by the UN banner.

http://www.peacewomen.org/un/pkwatch/pknews.html

Most impartial as to country of origin site on the issue I could find. Since you're so interested in the subject, how about you tabulate the ratio of UN atrocities by nationality.

You know, it IS possible to support a countries right to exist without excusing all of the means it uses to do so. For example, allowing it's citizens to unilaterally take over other people's land at the point of a gun.
There was no nation called palestine. The palestinians are just Jordanians that Jordan won't take back because they want to drive out the scaaarrrrrryyy eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvviiiiiiilllllllll Jooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssss. That pissant country is an insult to my name actually.

He has a point.

Hell, if the UN countries were represented by population, it would be ruled by the indians and chinese.

As far as the peacekeepers raping africans, what nationality is most of the 'peacekeepers'? American. So, americans are raping and pillaging in africa, protected by the UN banner.

Kick the Americans out, we would all be better.

I was pointing out the flaw of the people who argue against electoral reform by using the UN as a red herring. I think my point was well made.

As far as the peacekeeper in Africa - you oughta become a bit more informed before you post something that ignorant again. What makes you assume all UN peacekeepers are US forces?? There are few if any US soldiers participating in that excersize. AFIK they are mostly from Arab states. Even if there were US soldiers it shows extreme prejudice for you to attribute any actions such as that to them without any evidence. On its own merits this post defines you as an uninformed and prejudiced. I would hope that you would not be content with that.

I would be very happy if we left the UN. More tax dollars for real purposes.
Or even better, less tax dollars for me to pay...

I will post a short first post so you can debate more with each other than with me. But here goes, the UN has no backbone, Iraq broke around 14 UN regulations and they did nothing. Im not saying that was a need for the US to invade them but the UN has to put a stop to this, Iran isnt letting the UN investigate its nuclear program, do you think they will do anything? No.

No, actually Iraq didn't actually break that many. It just appeared they did. By the way "no fly zones" weren't created by the UN. They were created by America. Think about that.

UN isn't doing anything because the US doesn't like them. Why would I want to work with someone who is mean to me?

Israel however occupied more land than allowed by the UN and it still does this day. Leaving that aside, it has mistreated palestines ever since.

Apparently you never bothered to learn about why that is. You really oughta before you go atrtributing blame to Israel. I'll give you a hint; it was more than a six day misunderstanding... The behavior o the UN was appalling - as usual.

Yes! Kick out the US! Than you not only dont have someone to pay your bills but you have a jumble of countries whose only purpose of gathering is to diss America, but dont you already have that? I thought it was called the EU.


It's not like the US actually pays it's UN dues anyway. We haven't for a long time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/521686.stm

No, actually Iraq didn't actually break that many. It just appeared they did. By the way "no fly zones" weren't created by the UN. They were created by America. Think about that.

UN isn't doing anything because the US doesn't like them. Why would I want to work with someone who is mean to me?
I don't know why the US wouldn't like the UN. After all, the US dominates the UN and if they don't get their way, they just use their veto power, and they have exercized that "right" many more times than any other country over the past 25 years.

The reason that the US is in a huff recently, is the fact that the UN Security Council would not sanction the invasion of Iraq and in retrospect that was a good decision. The supposed links to Al-Queda and the proposition that Iraq possessed WMD have been proven to be false. Because of America's decision to take the law into their own hands, has left them with egg on their faces.

No, actually Iraq didn't actually break that many. It just appeared they did. By the way "no fly zones" weren't created by the UN. They were created by America. Think about that.

UN isn't doing anything because the US doesn't like them. Why would I want to work with someone who is mean to me?
Thats right, it should be quite obvious by now that the UN does not have a problem with Genocide, be they Africans, Kurds or Jews.