NationStates Jolt Archive

Really, what, exactly, has the United Nations ever done for (or to, for that matter) you, personally?

Really, what, exactly, has the United Nations ever done for (or to, for that matter) you, personally?
They took away my HS girlfriend with promises of helping the poor in Africa. I managed to get over it though!

Not much. I'm lucky enough to live in a country with adequate freedoms and a pretty good economy. But I'm sure it's done tons for people who aren't as lucky.

It made sure that my country could remain independant.

Pressurised South Africa, and as such contributed to the fall of apartheid, giving me and millions of others equal rights.

The UN has done wonderful things in the 3rd world. My mother-in-law works for the UN. Very decent outfit. Sure there are always a few bad apples in any thing. However that is no reason to demonize the whole institution. They have been highly effective and successful in some endeavors and not so much in others. Find me any thing that has a 100% success rate? No government, no company, and certainly no institution can you name. The UN has done more good than it's ever done harm. That's good enough for me.

The UN has done wonderful things in the 3rd world. My mother-in-law works for the UN. Very decent outfit. Sure there are always a few bad apples in any thing. However that is no reason to demonize the whole institution. They have been highly effective and successful in some endeavors and not so much in others. Find me any thing that has a 100% success rate? No government, no company, and certainly no institution can you name. The UN has done more good than it's ever done harm. That's good enough for me.
The UN just happens to have an exceptionally high rate of bad apples.

The UN just happens to have an exceptionally high rate of bad apples.

How do you figure that?

Possibly all the corruption from the tip top and on down?

Possibly all the corruption from the tip top and on down?

How about less hyperbole and more actual analysis?

I belive the UN is nothing more then a corrupt piece of world crap. It has done nothing...nothing at all. Are they doing anything for Chechnya, or how about the trouble in Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon or East Timor. It seems like the United States since Clinton has been trying to bring peace and stablity to the world. The UN are failin to do anything against China, Syria, Iran, Russia, Zimbabwe, Africa. or the Middle East. You know there is a problem when China is on the Human Rights Commission and Syria is on the Security Council. It is anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic organization as well being controlled by France, and the Arab World. If they weren't why then is Israel being voted against for defending herself? her people? Do they condemn Palestinian terriorism, suicide bombings and arab nations supporting that? No. Sadly they see violence as a way to bring peace. For the first time in history this year had the UN finally hold a remembrance for the Holocaust victims.

True, no group is perfect, but the crimes they allowed. Remember Rowanda anyone? New leadership needs to be in the UN. The world is suffering and the UN is not doing a damn thing about it.
Case Close.

How about less hyperbole and more actual analysis?
That was a pretty cogent analysis actually.

The UN made sure to take away my country's sovereignty, and made it ultra-socialist (Oh wait, that's the NSUN - I still hate both of them tho)

The UN just happens to have an exceptionally high rate of bad apples.

I would challenge that assertion. On what bases do you make it? In contrast to oh, I dunno, lets say Enron, Worldcom, Umm the Bush administration,(Oh and I bet Nixon was a beacon of non-corruption) Several other administrations around the world. Name one government or company or institution the size of the UN who has never had some corruption? Just name me one?

Nothing. The UN is a joke! I say we just close it.

Nothing. The UN is a joke! I say we just close it.

Well since the UN has had less corruption than that of the United States, should we also close the US? I think not, huh?

The UN detered direct war with the Soviet Union during the Korean Conflict...

who detered a war with russia because of korea my freind my freind it wasnt the U.N. that was america in fact the U.N. stayed away from it.

their isnt really alot of bad apples just really big ones. personaly i dont think the U.N. should be closed or a new administration put in but some laws definitly have to be changed. for one the law about standard issue bullet size 5.56 mm i think that needs to be changed i hate it, it should be every countries own choice to pick the size of their bullets. oh yeah and the torture one we need that one gone, the only way to get through to these terrorist punks is to toruture the info. out of them you think their gonna talk when were giving them free room and board plus the best health care we have to offer. we need to torture to get the best information screw humanitarism if they wanted us to be nice they should never have attacked america and every other country out there that supports us.

basically the U.N. would be good if it could do more right now all they can do is humanitarism efforts and tell someone to do something and have America enforce what they say. and dont say other countries do that as well because without america no one would take britian seriously and france dont get me started what they would say about france.

The UN is nothing more than an organization for wannabe democracies and would be dictators to have a stage to challenge the US. They have their hands out for US taxpayer money, and in the same breath condem the US for acting on their behalf. I say we move them to someplace like Sudan and pull the US out of all donations to such a corrupt body of anti-freedom zealots.

If we can not move them off our shores then use of nuclear weapons should be used to remove the plague from the shores of such a great country.

who detered a war with russia because of korea my freind my freind it wasnt the U.N. that was america in fact the U.N. stayed away from it.

their isnt really alot of bad apples just really big ones. personaly i dont think the U.N. should be closed or a new administration put in but some laws definitly have to be changed. for one the law about standard issue bullet size 5.56 mm i think that needs to be changed i hate it, it should be every countries own choice to pick the size of their bullets. oh yeah and the torture one we need that one gone, the only way to get through to these terrorist punks is to toruture the info. out of them you think their gonna talk when were giving them free room and board plus the best health care we have to offer. we need to torture to get the best information screw humanitarism if they wanted us to be nice they should never have attacked america and every other country out there that supports us.

basically the U.N. would be good if it could do more right now all they can do is humanitarism efforts and tell someone to do something and have America enforce what they say. and dont say other countries do that as well because without america no one would take britian seriously and france dont get me started what they would say about france.

My my, aren't we a bit self-righteous. It's all good if you do it, I suppose?
*Tear eyed* Mommy, mommy, they hit me back!

Right now *all* they can do are humanitarian efforts? Excuse me, would you rather have it to be a complete warmachine at the control of the US? Speaking of which, without the US there would be a stock market crash, 10 years (tops) of low conjuncture and then we'd get over it. You're not *that* all-powerful and all-pervasive.

I.

Pressurised South Africa, and as such contributed to the fall of apartheid, giving me and millions of others equal rights.

yay preebles. has this gone totally unremarked in this thread?

also, if i don't know something has happened, is that the same as it not happening?

The UN is nothing more than an organization for wannabe democracies and would be dictators to have a stage to challenge the US. They have their hands out for US taxpayer money, and in the same breath condem the US for acting on their behalf. I say we move them to someplace like Sudan and pull the US out of all donations to such a corrupt body of anti-freedom zealots.

If we can not move them off our shores then use of nuclear weapons should be used to remove the plague from the shores of such a great country.

wannabe democracies and wouldbe dictators like the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Spain, Mexico, Brazil, etc etc? Yes I can see all my compatriots with our hands out for US taxpayer's money, corruptly diverting it from its proper use funding gasoline purchases from halliburton at double the market price etc. Oh, no I can't.

Definition of freedom in this case - the capacity for the US government to do what it likes, regardless of whether anyone else likes it.

wannabe democracies and wouldbe dictators like the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Spain, Mexico, Brazil, etc etc? Yes I can see all my compatriots with our hands out for US taxpayer's money, corruptly diverting it from its proper use funding gasoline purchases from halliburton at double the market price etc. Oh, no I can't.

Definition of freedom in this case - the capacity for the US government to do what it likes, regardless of whether anyone else likes it.it's amazing how to you, only the US is guilty of this.

I wonder, can you put this effort into finding the flaws of other countries or is the US media the only ones enjoying their Freedom of the Press.

hmm. I recall other incidents where countries other than the US openly defied the UN and... lo and behold. Nothing happened.

The main problem with the UN is that when faced with a crisis that requires action in time to save lives, it either does nothing (and allows a slaughter), or does too little too late (allowing a slaughter).

Unless the Permanent members of the Security Council actually want to do something, no action is taken or action is taken too late. You can't blame the US alone for this lack of action.

Each permanent member has their own axe to grind - a good non-US example is China. They have historically vetoed or threatened to veto (just as good a way to stop a resolution because it isn't brought up) any resolution that "interferes with a nation's right to self-determination" or "interferes with a nation's internal affairs". Other nations, such as France and Russia, veto or threaten to veto on the basis of to whom they were selling billions of dollars of weapons. And the US vetoes anything critical of Israel, or at least abstains from criticizing Israel.

And we all know about the US/USSR thing during the Cold War. After the USSR learned that votes could be taken if they left the room (Korean War), the two of them never left the room again and spent most of their time gumming up the works.

Even if there was no Security Council veto, the UN lacks any real teeth - it can't call up a military force that could credibly oppose any superpower.

Today there was a French diplomat whom I heard on NPR. He basically admitted that the US "could go to war" as it wished, but for any aftermath of a war, it needed allies. I would agree with his statement, but it also indicates an admission by the French that there is no power on Earth that is capable of opposing the US military if it wishes to invade or conquer another country - while also pointing out that pacifying a conquered people is not as easy as some might think.

This, too, will change with time. Despite continued sporadic acts by the Iraqi insurgents, the insurgency is essentially crippled - it has no ability to conquer the country, no real ability to engage US troops, and no ability to take any of them hostage. US troops essentially control wide areas of the country, except concentrated areas in the vicinity of Baghdad.

Really, what, exactly, has the United Nations ever done for (or to, for that matter) you, personally?
It gave my government an excuse to stay the hell out of the war in iraq. :)

it's amazing how to you, only the US is guilty of this.

I wonder, can you put this effort into finding the flaws of other countries or is the US media the only ones enjoying their Freedom of the Press.

hmm. I recall other incidents where countries other than the US openly defied the UN and... lo and behold. Nothing happened.

I wasn't talking about the US at all, but about the quoted poster's attitude. read his post and then read mine. And incidentally, what has happened to the US over its defiance of the UN? nothing.

If your country is part of the UN, you have benifitted from the US tax payer more times than the US tax payer has benifitted from you. The US tax payer forks out 25% of the UN budget, that doesn't include any peace keeping action. The US tax payer forked out 15 billion for AIDS in africa, tell me how much has UK, France, Germany gave?

Out of those countries you mentioned not one is a true Democracy. Even the US is not a true democracy. Eurpeans have a need to have a monarchy, while they chose to be more of a Socialist government than a Republic. Your countries pay lip service to democracy and yet keep Monarchs. Even Saddam held elections, of course the cards were punched out for the people. that Just means because you hold elections does not neccassarily make you an Democracy.

Why should anything happen to the country that pays 25% of the UN budget? Would you punish your largest payee because s/he failed to listen to you? I doubt it, the way I see it the UN owes the US for keeping it relevant all these years. With out the US tax payer the UN would have nothing.

I hate the UN almost as much as I hate Liberalism. They both breed laziness and corruption on a scale that would make most US politicians envious.

They had the US fight the first Persian Gulf war, which ended up establishing ONW (Operation Northern Watch), which was supposed to keep the Iraqi army from carrying out their genocidal plans against the Kurds. ONW existed for about 11 years, during a time of cease fire. During this time of "cease fire", the Iraq army regularly wheeled out SAM sites into the no-fly zone and shot at patrolling UN aircraft (mostly American, with a couple Brit RAF fighter and tanker squadrons). I was in those airplanes and don't appreciate being shot at during a time of cease fire, let alone as a matter of regular everyday business. The UN put up with that shit for 11 years, while writing endless resolutions that did NOTHING.

Did inspections work? Probably. Did Iraq have WMDs? Probably not. But why were they shooting at aircraft that were doing what Saddam agreed to do and why didn't the pussy-ass UN do anything about it? Why did they put up with an almost DAILY breaking of a cease fire agreement? For that reason alone, the UN, in my eyes, has shown themselves to be completely impotent and deserve no respect. They should not be a governmental entity, but instead a neutral international forum.

As the UN is today, F*CK THEM!

I wasn't talking about the US at all, but about the quoted poster's attitude. read his post and then read mine. And incidentally, what has happened to the US over its defiance of the UN? nothing.just pointing out what the UN does...


Nothing.

They had the US fight the first Persian Gulf war, which ended up establishing ONW (Operation Northern Watch), which was supposed to keep the Iraqi army from carrying out their genocidal plans against the Kurds. ONW existed for about 11 years, during a time of cease fire. During this time of "cease fire", the Iraq army regularly wheeled out SAM sites into the no-fly zone and shot at patrolling UN aircraft (mostly American, with a couple Brit RAF fighter and tanker squadrons). I was in those airplanes and don't appreciate being shot at during a time of cease fire, let alone as a matter of regular everyday business. The UN put up with that shit for 11 years, while writing endless resolutions that did NOTHING.

Did inspections work? Probably. Did Iraq have WMDs? Probably not. But why were they shooting at aircraft that were doing what Saddam agreed to do and why didn't the pussy-ass UN do anything about it? Why did they put up with an almost DAILY breaking of a cease fire agreement? For that reason alone, the UN, in my eyes, has shown themselves to be completely impotent and deserve no respect. They should not be a governmental entity, but instead a neutral international forum.

As the UN is today, F*CK THEM!

Umm...you do know that the UN is not technically a governmental entity, but is indeed as you declared it should be; that is a neutral international forum. However, all international groups such as the UN, created from people who represent their countries will naturally have their policies/tactics call them what you will dictated by their governments.

They had the US fight the first Persian Gulf war, which ended up establishing ONW (Operation Northern Watch), which was supposed to keep the Iraqi army from carrying out their genocidal plans against the Kurds. ONW existed for about 11 years, during a time of cease fire. During this time of "cease fire", the Iraq army regularly wheeled out SAM sites into the no-fly zone and shot at patrolling UN aircraft (mostly American, with a couple Brit RAF fighter and tanker squadrons). I was in those airplanes and don't appreciate being shot at during a time of cease fire, let alone as a matter of regular everyday business. The UN put up with that shit for 11 years, while writing endless resolutions that did NOTHING.

Did inspections work? Probably. Did Iraq have WMDs? Probably not. But why were they shooting at aircraft that were doing what Saddam agreed to do and why didn't the pussy-ass UN do anything about it? Why did they put up with an almost DAILY breaking of a cease fire agreement? For that reason alone, the UN, in my eyes, has shown themselves to be completely impotent and deserve no respect. They should not be a governmental entity, but instead a neutral international forum.

As the UN is today, F*CK THEM!

For starters, the UN is intended to be impotent. It has no standing army nor will it. Try reading it's charter. Inb other words, they ARE a neutral international forum - not a governmental entity.

For seconds, you completely fail to mention that Operation Northern Watch, as well as it's predecessor - Operation Provide Comfort - were NOT agreed to by Saddam. The no-fly zones were imposed by the US/UK unilateraly, and were never part of any UN resolution. So complaining that "the UN" put up with "that shit" which was never part of a truce that they brokered is rather silly.

My my, aren't we a bit self-righteous. It's all good if you do it, I suppose?
*Tear eyed* Mommy, mommy, they hit me back!

Right now *all* they can do are humanitarian efforts? Excuse me, would you rather have it to be a complete warmachine at the control of the US? Speaking of which, without the US there would be a stock market crash, 10 years (tops) of low conjuncture and then we'd get over it. You're not *that* all-powerful and all-pervasive.

I.

yes i am self-righteous and so are you as with every other dam country on this earth its just that the U.S. is the country that has ahold of the reins to the rest of the world and no one likes that. personally i dont give a dam about your stock market because guess what if it wasnt for the U.S. their wouldnt be a europe it would have fallen to germany, russia, or hell maybe britian if our fore fathers hadnt started up the revolution. so really your dam little money factors weigh into nothing at all considering that the world needs us to protect them. and we are that all powerful and all pervasive.

personally i wouldnt give a dam if someone did the same things, because guess what they are right now. as much as you all hate to admit it your human and human beings live by the law of the jungle eye for an eye tooth for a tooth that sort of thing get over yourself. Americans may think they are the best country in the world but at least they have some pride when they say it because we have never really needed any of the european nation or any other nation for that matter.

so when we say were the biggest and baddest country alive. its the truth

I will admit that the UN needs an overhaul but I guess it comes down to this. What is your vision of humanity in the future? Is it a world divided against itself that flouts the flags of nationalism and consumes resources preparing for wars that may or may not happen. Do you believe that it is in humanity’s best interest to be perpetually divided against itself or do you think that one day we might co-operate. You see for as many inefficiencies as may be exposed in the UN I will always advocate reform to abolition, for I hope that one day we might all be united. To achieve that we need international entities that bridge the gap.

People need to realize that while we have made amazing advances in political responsiveness and form of governance we are still no better than the villages we grew out of. We are merely larger, more complex, and able to bully the smaller ones better. As far as I’m concerned the UN, in all its deficiencies, is humanity’s best chance for co-operating on grand scale projects that will benefit everyone.

You talk about how the US taxpayer subsidies the 3rd world. Well this may be true, but look at them; are you saying they don’t need some sort of help? I think the problem right now is the fact that we are in a slump. The UN is reacting to crisis as fast as it can. The problem is that it is reacting. The UN needs to form its own independent intelligence gathering agencies and be able to preempt some of these disasters. It sounds trite but “a pinch of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

If your country is part of the UN, you have benifitted from the US tax payer more times than the US tax payer has benifitted from you. The US tax payer forks out 25% of the UN budget, that doesn't include any peace keeping action. The US tax payer forked out 15 billion for AIDS in africa, tell me how much has UK, France, Germany gave?

Out of those countries you mentioned not one is a true Democracy. Even the US is not a true democracy. Eurpeans have a need to have a monarchy, while they chose to be more of a Socialist government than a Republic. Your countries pay lip service to democracy and yet keep Monarchs. Even Saddam held elections, of course the cards were punched out for the people. that Just means because you hold elections does not neccassarily make you an Democracy.

Why should anything happen to the country that pays 25% of the UN budget? Would you punish your largest payee because s/he failed to listen to you? I doubt it, the way I see it the UN owes the US for keeping it relevant all these years. With out the US tax payer the UN would have nothing.

I hate the UN almost as much as I hate Liberalism. They both breed laziness and corruption on a scale that would make most US politicians envious.
You are a credit to the american education system.
There are about 5 countries in Europe (Europe's the one near the top of the map with the really wiggly coast line) which are monarchies. I don't know the exact number because we don't much pay attention to it. Other countries (the vast majority) have a president as a head of state.
Democracy is about giving the people the choice of govt. We don't much care if you don't like our choice. We are generally content with it. The US is on it's way down. posturing and posing on a world stage that only americans think it dominates. Do your worst. We don't need you, want you and mostly don't even like you. Europe will do fine without the US. The UN will do fine without the US (who are always late paying and then make deductions for troops supplied). Oh, as for Korea, it was a UN police action and a lot more americans would have died if their incompetence hadn't of been compensated for by the proffessional British, Anzac and troops of the other UN nations.
:mad:

Not much. I'm lucky enough to live in a country with adequate freedoms and a pretty good economy. But I'm sure it's done tons for people who aren't as lucky.

Adequate freedoms? The only freedoms we are missing are (in my opinion) gay marriage, and if we took away the patriot act it would be complete! But that will be repealed in the next 10 years.

Second of all even though we have gone through a minor recesion, the econemy is on the rise and the US is still the worlds leading economic power.

...because guess what if it wasnt for the U.S. their wouldnt be a europe it would have fallen to germany, russia, or hell maybe britian if our fore fathers hadnt started up the revolution...

Actually "your" revolution was supported by France and if France hadn't of supported you they may have been running Europe which would really piss you off wouldn't it. Britain never had any plans to run Europe. The rest of the world...but not Europe.


Americans may think they are the best country in the world but at least they have some pride when they say it

Pride come before a fall. See my previous post and cower in your bunkers waiting for the next plane to crash or bomb to go off. All empires fail. We can wait.

[quote}
so when we say were the biggest and baddest country alive. its the truth[/QUOTE]
Ooooh Scarey. Spending vast amounts on weapons just makes you uncivilised.
Well done. I'm glad you're happy with that.

It seems like the United States since Clinton has been trying to bring peace and stablity to the world.

Remember Rowanda anyone?


interestingly enough the United States is the main reason that the UN didnt intervene in Rowanda. Apparently they couldnt decide what the exact definition of genocide is. So they decide that theyd better debate that before allowing the UN to do anything. The United States is one of several countries that has veto rights in the UN.

The UN has done more good than it's ever done harm.

ROFLMAO!!!! :D

The UN detered direct war with the Soviet Union during the Korean Conflict...

And they were also responsible for us losing that war. Almost every war we fought since then has been fought under the auspices of the U.N.

Well since the UN has had less corruption than that of the United States, should we also close the US? I think not, huh?

Corruption? I don't care. The UN is a wate of funds and causes more trouble then it is worth.
Granted it helps the people that can not spend their money in the right way but so do charity's.

The U.N. was also largely responsible for the genocide in Rwanda. Read Global Gun Grab by William Norman Grigg.

Corruption? I don't care. The UN is a wate of funds and causes more trouble then it is worth.
Granted it helps the people that can not spend their money in the right way but so do charity's.
A hell lot of charity's are corrupt. I remember donating money to Arc, which was supposed to be a local charity organisation doing research against cancer.

The U.N. was also largely responsible for the genocide in Rwanda. Read Global Gun Grab by William Norman Grigg.
It was the US in this case.

I doubt if the UN has done more good than harm.
Partially, because it does harm mostly by apathy or inaction.

Can't blame the US alone for that apathy or inaction - there are other members of the Security Council.

Millions have died around the globe since its inception, mostly as the result of civil war, ethnic cleansing, or other conflict identified but not dealt with by the UN. To many around the globe, especially in the Third World, the UN peacekeeper's helmet is a point of derision and fear - fear that now that the blue helmets have arrived, the group with the upper hand (whether it is the government army, a local militia, or enraged ethnic group) will now be free to massacre people at will.

The UN has insufficient military power at its discretion to really intervene, and most of the time, no political will to do so.

It also has far too little logistical capability to deliver aid, and no internal safeguards to prevent the misdirection and pocketing of aid.

While it is certain that the UN has distributed aid, it is questionable how efficient it has been in comparison to other NGOs.

I don't give any organization credit for saying and wishing good things (for the same reason that I think it's silly for the Pope to keep calling for world peace). So Kofi can just shut up and finish shredding the papers and deleting the email in his office so we won't trace the Oil For Food scandal to him.

It was the US in this case.

It was the U.N. that disarmed the people the genocide was committed against (I don't remember the name of the tribe), not the U.S.

Can't blame the US alone for that apathy or inaction - there are other members of the Security Council.Indeed but the US uses its veto the most.

Without the UN, there'd be no MUN and without MUN, I would never have cured my fear of speaking in front of a crowd. And I got to see Kofi live.

It was the U.N. that disarmed the people the genocide was committed against (I don't remember the name of the tribe), not the U.S.
The Tutsies. They were not disarmed and they shot the plane containing the rwandese president.
It was the US which refused to let the UN intervene.

Indeed but the US uses its veto the most.

I get it. People outside the US want the US to intervene on their behalf - even when it conflicts with US interests or when the US could care less - and they want the US to be the military muscle and logistical source for aid since it's the nation with the ability (although if the EU stopped paying those pensions and spent their money on weapons and transport planes, they could do the same).

But, they don't want the US doing anything without their permission.

Well, I didn't see any Europeans or other nations paying for the US Defense budget over the past few decades, so we'll use that force where we want to use it. We're not you're policeman or aid worker on call, no matter what you think.

If you really want to intervene in the world, there are many more people outside the US. They could all dig into their pockets and spend the money and train the forces to go do those things. But you see, they AREN'T doing it, because they would rather spend the money on themselves and their August vacations and their six weeks of sick leave and six weeks of vacation and their socialized medicine and old age pensions and their BMW and their summer house. So they'll complain bitterly when the US doesn't do what they ask, and when the US actually does something (like try to re-order the Middle East, which was screwed up by Europeans, thank you very much) there's a lot of ranting.

Don't ask us to do something you won't even spend the first dime to prepare for.

The Tutsies.
It was the US which refused to let the UN intervene.

If it wasn't for the U.N.'s disarmament of the population, the genocide would never been possible.

I get it. People outside the US want the US to intervene on their behalf - even when it conflicts with US interests or when the US could care less - and they want the US to be the military muscle and logistical source for aid since it's the nation with the ability (although if the EU stopped paying those pensions and spent their money on weapons and transport planes, they could do the same).

But, they don't want the US doing anything without their permission.

Well, I didn't see any Europeans or other nations paying for the US Defense budget over the past few decades, so we'll use that force where we want to use it. We're not you're policeman or aid worker on call, no matter what you think.

If you really want to intervene in the world, there are many more people outside the US. They could all dig into their pockets and spend the money and train the forces to go do those things. But you see, they AREN'T doing it, because they would rather spend the money on themselves and their August vacations and their six weeks of sick leave and six weeks of vacation and their socialized medicine and old age pensions and their BMW and their summer house. So they'll complain bitterly when the US doesn't do what they ask, and when the US actually does something (like try to re-order the Middle East, which was screwed up by Europeans, thank you very much) there's a lot of ranting.

Don't ask us to do something you won't even spend the first dime to prepare for.
My country was involved in the campaign in Afghanistan for the search of Bin laden. For what? Al Qaeda didn't ever do something to us.
Actually in my country, people are tired of the arrogant talks of the US government. They are tired of supporting the US and get nothing in return but insults.

If it wasn't for the U.N.'s disarmament of the population, the genocide would never been possible.
Which disarmament are you talking about?

My country was involved in the campaign in Afghanistan for the search of Bin laden. For what? Al Qaeda didn't ever do something to us.

There may be one-off actions by individual countries (acting much as the US does - when it suits them to do so), but for some reason, everyone outside the US expects the US to be the operational arm of the UN - and act at the request of everyone outside of the US.

Well, there are less than 300 million Americans. There are billions of other people who are by and large too lazy and too daft to get off their asses and try to police the world. If people don't like the way that the Americans are doing things, then they should form their own organization and deal with it.

But it looks like no one else has a military that even comes close - heck, no one even has close to the number of transport aircraft available to the US military. So you couldn't even drop aid if you wanted to - not on the scale that the US can muster. Why not? Because you spend too much money eating potted meat product (that's what Americans call pate), drinking beaujolais, and smoking blue pack Gauloises.

I firmly believe that if the rest of the people in the world ACTUALLY CARED about world peace, they would have formed this force long ago. As it is, everyone is still sitting on their collective sphincters and waiting for the US to do it their way.

I get it. People outside the US want the US to intervene on their behalf - even when it conflicts with US interests or when the US could care less - and they want the US to be the military muscle and logistical source for aid since it's the nation with the ability (although if the EU stopped paying those pensions and spent their money on weapons and transport planes, they could do the same).

But, they don't want the US doing anything without their permission.

Well, I didn't see any Europeans or other nations paying for the US Defense budget over the past few decades, so we'll use that force where we want to use it. We're not you're policeman or aid worker on call, no matter what you think.

If you really want to intervene in the world, there are many more people outside the US. They could all dig into their pockets and spend the money and train the forces to go do those things. But you see, they AREN'T doing it, because they would rather spend the money on themselves and their August vacations and their six weeks of sick leave and six weeks of vacation and their socialized medicine and old age pensions and their BMW and their summer house. So they'll complain bitterly when the US doesn't do what they ask, and when the US actually does something (like try to re-order the Middle East, which was screwed up by Europeans, thank you very much) there's a lot of ranting.

Don't ask us to do something you won't even spend the first dime to prepare for.
A great deal of the problems in the world were caused by your CIA undermining legally elected socialist government because they don't fit in with your idealism and supplying weapons to minority right wing groups while the Russians supplied the communist groups. Don't blame Eurpoe for all the worlds Ills when you are responsible for a great many of them.
OK you dont want us telling the US what to do. Well you only pay (according to an earlier post) 25% of th UN funds. The rest of us pay the other 75% and we do pay which is more than you do most years.
You seem jealous of our European standards of living. Arrr poor babies.

Europe was helped in screwing up the middle east after the second world war by, you guessed it, the US who had quite a say in how the post war ME was split up. And yes you're doing a great job "re-ordering" it now aren't you. Shame they don't actually want you to re-order them.

Now I remember why the World is fed up with the US.
You're ill educated, self-opinionated cretins.
Your country is doomed and we only worry who you'll take with you in your death throws.

There may be one-off actions by individual countries (acting much as the US does - when it suits them to do so), but for some reason, everyone outside the US expects the US to be the operational arm of the UN - and act at the request of everyone outside of the US.

Well, there are less than 300 million Americans. There are billions of other people who are by and large too lazy and too daft to get off their asses and try to police the world. If people don't like the way that the Americans are doing things, then they should form their own organization and deal with it.

But it looks like no one else has a military that even comes close - heck, no one even has close to the number of transport aircraft available to the US military. So you couldn't even drop aid if you wanted to - not on the scale that the US can muster. Why not? Because you spend too much money eating potted meat product (that's what Americans call pate), drinking beaujolais, and smoking blue pack Gauloises.

I firmly believe that if the rest of the people in the world ACTUALLY CARED about world peace, they would have formed this force long ago. As it is, everyone is still sitting on their collective sphincters and waiting for the US to do it their way.
Well my country intervened in Ivory coast for instance. The EU is the largest provider of humanitarian aid worldwide.
We are tired of supporting the US and getting nothing in return but arrogant ignorant childish insults from undereducated politicians.

Which disarmament are you talking about?

The U.N. disarmed the Tutsis and armed the Hutus. Read all about it in Global Gun Grab.

Well my country intervened in Ivory coast for instance. The EU is the largest provider of humanitarian aid worldwide.
We are tired of supporting the US and getting nothing in return but arrogant ignorant childish insults from undereducated politicians.

Providing money doesn't mean any aid gets there. As an example, the EU was the biggest provider of aid to the Palestinians.

It's come out that nearly all that money went into Arafat's pockets.

The EU doesn't have the ability to project power or deliver the aid itself in the same way that the US has.

In fact, France intervened in Ivory Coast out of its own self-interest. It also machinegunned unarmed people in the street. Had the US intervened in the Ivory Coast to protect its chocolate supply, and machinegunned unarmed protesters, I would still be hearing about it from the world press.

Thanks to the Europeans, the Middle East was a clusterfuck waiting to happen. I can say the same thing about European colonialism in Africa - we haven't seen the end of the chaos there. And the Europeans keep expecting the US to somehow "intervene".

The French can't even send their own troops. They have to send the Foreign Legion.

Providing money doesn't mean any aid gets there. As an example, the EU was the biggest provider of aid to the Palestinians.

It's come out that nearly all that money went into Arafat's pockets.

The EU doesn't have the ability to project power or deliver the aid itself in the same way that the US has.

In fact, France intervened in Ivory Coast out of its own self-interest. It also machinegunned unarmed people in the street. Had the US intervened in the Ivory Coast to protect its chocolate supply, and machinegunned unarmed protesters, I would still be hearing about it from the world press.

Thanks to the Europeans, the Middle East was a clusterfuck waiting to happen. I can say the same thing about European colonialism in Africa - we haven't seen the end of the chaos there. And the Europeans keep expecting the US to somehow "intervene".

The French can't even send their own troops. They have to send the Foreign Legion.
There are french troups there.
European colonialism has largely been surpassed by the US one.

Well my country intervened in Ivory coast for instance. The EU is the largest provider of humanitarian aid worldwide.
We are tired of supporting the US and getting nothing in return but arrogant ignorant childish insults from undereducated politicians.
You tell 'em Psylos

I can say the same thing about European colonialism in Africa - we haven't seen the end of the chaos there.

Colonialism can be a blessing or a curse. While colonialism is responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in history, it has also done some truly wonderful things.

You haven't answered any of my points Whispering Legs.
were they too complicated for you or are you ignoring what you don't like or understand?

I still don't see any European force in the world.

I also don't see any shortage of Europeans who kept urging the Bush administration to solve the problems of the Middle East.

Well, the whole thing festered until 9-11. Now, we're doing things our way, because we paid to develop the forces we have.

Even the French admitted today that there is nothing that can stop the US from going to war and being successful - but they did say that in order to stabilize a country, the US would need allies.

And now, it would appear, they are willing to be allies.

Heard it on NPR - so it must be true.

Colonialism can be a blessing or a curse. While colonialism is responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in history, it has also done some truly wonderful things.

Yep, America was a clony. Oh wait, thats not a good example. Ohhh, if I'll get to heaven (or hell) I'll curse goddamned Columbus for discovering America!

I still don't see any European force in the world.

I also don't see any shortage of Europeans who kept urging the Bush administration to solve the problems of the Middle East.

Well, the whole thing festered until 9-11. Now, we're doing things our way, because we paid to develop the forces we have.

Even the French admitted today that there is nothing that can stop the US from going to war and being successful - but they did say that in order to stabilize a country, the US would need allies.

And now, it would appear, they are willing to be allies.

Heard it on NPR - so it must be true.
The french government is just trying to get oil contracts back.

A couple of points.

The French intervention in the Cote D'Ivoire is not something to be proud of. While protesting American intervention in Iraq in 2002, the French invade the Cote D'Ivoire. Very, very little made the press here in Canada, but at the time I came across one article - an article about how the French used helicopter gunships on an unarmed village.

Of course, in the last year we have the "accidental" bombing of a French peacekeeper position and the French retaliation, effectively proving French siding with the rebels by crippling the government forces.

As for Rwanda, it's also well recorded (especially in Gen Dallaire's "Shake Hands With the Devil") that France trained and armed the Hutu militants that would go on to murder 800,000 Tutsis. Sure, the US didn't want any part of it, but neither did any other Western country - save France, and when France intervened, they set up a "humanitarian zone" and refused to disarm the genocidaires within while firing upon the soldiers of the victorious Rwandan Patriotic Front.

As for the UN.... It's obviously broken. It's little but a way for states to grandstand and puff themselves up. France didn't consult the UN on its Indochina problem, or Algeria; did the UK wait for the UN over the Falklands? China's been rather horrific, fighting wars with the Soviet Union, India, Vietnam, the Republic of China and the UN, all within a 30 year time period - BEFORE 1980. Russia isn't better with its repression in then-Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and now in Chechnya. All that without bringing in the many messes the US has been involved in.

If we make the UN more powerful, who gets to control it? The majority? I think a number of nations would opt out, mostly Western. If the Security Council runs it that's just not fair, I think most people would agree India and Brazil probably deserve permanent seats (and thus a veto). It seems that the situation as we have it now is probably best - a weak, impotent and vacillating UN. We just need to suck it up when states decide they can't get what they want through the UN and do it alone.

(on that topic, we've done a lot of negative examples of states working outside the UN, but there are positive ones. While the no-fly zones in Iraq were imposed on Saddam, they were designed to hinder Saddam's genocidal campaigns. Kosovo, in addition, was a NATO effort - and though it was somewhat misguided, and severely compromised in the media, it had a laudable aim. States within Africa have had some success as of late with quelling or quieting (some of) the various wars, and a lot of that is thanks to leadership and commitment within the African continent and not the UN. I believe Thabo Mbeki stands out here as well.)

The french government is just trying to get oil contracts back.

That just proves my point - that Europeans want the US to do the dirty work while they reap the benefits.

Oh, look, now we have the sanctions lifted (they were never going to be lifted under Saddam), and look, the US was nice enough to get its own people killed and take all the bad press for knocking him out, and look, it's a western friendly government, how nice, and now can we have an oil contract?

I still don't see any European force in the world.

That's because you're in the US and have trouble finding the rest of the world without help.
the british army have been almost everywhere the US have been and have usually stayed longer to clear up the mess left behind. Somalia for instance. Another great US success.

The reason we don't like fighting along side you is that you are so increadibly incompetant that more casualties come from your "help" than from the enemy.

You even have the arogance to suggest we shouldn't launch our own GPS system 'cos it might be used against you while missing the irony (another thing you don't understand) that yours might well be used against us.

1. I belive the UN is nothing more then a corrupt piece of world crap. It has done nothing...nothing at all. Are they doing anything for Chechnya, or how about the trouble in Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon or East Timor. It seems like the United States since Clinton has been trying to bring peace and stablity to the world.

2. The UN are failin to do anything against China, Syria, Iran, Russia, Zimbabwe, Africa. or the Middle East.

3. You know there is a problem when China is on the Human Rights Commission and Syria is on the Security Council.

4. It is anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic organization as well being controlled by France, and the Arab World.

5. If they weren't why then is Israel being voted against for defending herself? her people?

6. Do they condemn Palestinian terriorism, suicide bombings and arab nations supporting that? No. Sadly they see violence as a way to bring peace.

7. True, no group is perfect, but the crimes they allowed. Remember Rowanda anyone? New leadership needs to be in the UN. The world is suffering and the UN is not doing a damn thing about it.
1. Well, it's failed to create paradise on earth, but it's extreme hyperbole to say the UN has done nothing. The third world is far more prosperous than it was 50 years ago.

How much power do you think it has? It has no military of its own unlike America. It's made up of the sum of its parts. If you are unhappy that there are no soldiers in UN uniforms galavanting around the world, "solving" all its problems, blame the UN members, not the UN itself.

2. What do you have in mind?

3. I agree.

4. Anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic? How? They did let Israel join, they allow Jews to work there. France has no more UN power than America does, and the Arab world certainly doesn't.

5. Because Israel sometimes goes to unacceptable extremes in "defense".

6. Well, unlike Israel, Hamas is not a member of the UN or a legitimate organisation. Maybe that's why they don't condemn their terrorism.

Maybe they sadly do see violence as a way to bring peace. Totally unlike the good ol' USA, right? :rolleyes:

7. How do you think they should have dealt with Rwanda? I think that if you are going to blame any international body for that, blame France and the USA for pretending that nothing was happening as they evacuated their own diplomats from the country.

The UN does nothing about world suffering? Do the aid workers count for nothing? Well, they're not on TV every night so I suppose in your eyes they don't.

The U.N. has done inestimable harm around the world, especially in Africa. While the U.N. condemned apartheid- and rightly so- it ignored the government's attempts in the 1980's to gradually dismantle it, insisting instead on immediate integration. Abolishing something as massive and bureacratic as apartheid could not have been expected to happen over night. As a result, Marxists are now in control of South Africa, and that once prosperous nation is ravaged by rampant corruption, massive and widespread poverty, even worse racism than what existed under apartheid, and all-pervasive crime which makes it possibly the most dangerous place in the world outside of a war zone. Ignored by the U.N. were the communists' terrorist tactics against innocent, defenseless blacks during the 'liberation' struggle, and the ongoing murder of white farmers today, which the South African government turns a blind eye to.

Rhodesia was once a thriving, economically prosperous, socially progressive nation renowned for its cordial relations between whites and blacks. However, many Rhodesians were reluctant to hand over the government to blacks too quickly, for legitimate reasons. Many blacks were illiterate, unfamiliar with the democratic system, or heavily influenced by the communists. Rhodesia wanted to pursue a process of 'meritocracy'- admitting natives into the government when they were capable of responsible governance. Rhodesia, a peaceful nation, was denounced by the U.N. as a "threat to world peace," and U.N. sanctions were imposed when Rhodesia's anti-communist prime minister Ian Smith declared independence in 1965 to thwart spineless Harold Wilson's plans for his country. As always, the widespread, horrific, brutal communist atrocities were largely ignored, while the government was vilified and undermined, delaying the process of meritocracy and weakening its efforts to quell the terrorist threat, which was one of the major obstacles to eventual majority rule. Thanks to U.N., U.K., and U.S. sanctions and support of the terrorists, Rhodesia eventually succumbed to communism, and today Rhodesia is a Marxist cesspool called Zimbabwe, where HIV is widespread, crime flourishes, inflation hovers near 700%, white farmers are slaughtered and their farms are confiscated and handed to government supporters, and millions face starvation while gangster Robert Mugabe lives like a king.

In the early 1960s, observing with great alarm the Congo's encroaching communization, anti-communist Moise Tshombe and the province of Katanga attempted to secede from chaos. The U.N. responded by invading Katanga, massacring and raping thousands of innocent people, and forcibly re-uniting Katanga with the Congo.

These are but a few of many examples.

These are but a few of many examples.
You're right all those marxists and communists were directly supported by the Leninist fools at the UN.
While The US valiantly stood alone against the encroaching clouds of Socialism by encouraging and financing internventions in Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Haiti, El Salvador ,Costa Rica, Brazil, Uruguay and Granada to name just the South American help you gave.
We all feel safer with you in the world.
Thanks from the heart of my bottom.

You're right all those marxists and communists were directly supported by the Leninist fools at the UN.
While The US valiantly stood alone against the encroaching clouds of Socialism by encouraging and financing internventions in Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Haiti, El Salvador ,Costa Rica, Brazil, Uruguay and Granada to name just the South American help you gave.
We all feel safer with you in the world.
Thanks from the heart of my bottom.

:upyours:

Nothing, well except taking my Tax money via my government. What a waste! :rolleyes:

It's funny how some people are incapable of rational arguments. Instead, all they do is bash the U.S., rather than refute who they were arguing with.

These are but a few of many examples.
You're right all those marxists and communists were directly supported by the Leninist fools at the UN.
While The US valiantly stood alone against the encroaching clouds of Socialism by encouraging and financing internventions in Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Haiti, El Salvador ,Costa Rica, Brazil, Uruguay and Granada to name just the South American help you gave.
We all feel safer with you in the world.
Thanks from the heart of my bottom.

You're right all those marxists and communists were directly supported by the Leninist fools at the UN.
While The US valiantly stood alone against the encroaching clouds of Socialism by encouraging and financing internventions in Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Haiti, El Salvador ,Costa Rica, Brazil, Uruguay and Granada to name just the South American help you gave.
We all feel safer with you in the world.
Thanks from the heart of my bottom.

I think you're repeating yourself.

Well for one thing, I do believe it is hard for a medium to large nation to all (or even mostly) agree on one thing, as for the entire world, well that's going to be a trial any way you throw it. As it stands currently, I figure the UN is necessary, though the amount of debate needed just to get everyone to say "the sky is blue" is aggravating at best. :headbang:

I think you're repeating yourself.
Some things bear repeating and I don't hear any arguments back.
The UN's record imperfect but the US record is far worse.
All I hear on this thread is Americans throwing stones.

Just checked and you're right the post went out twice. Typical British Efficiency.

You're right all those marxists and communists were directly supported by the Leninist fools at the UN.
While The US valiantly stood alone against the encroaching clouds of Socialism by encouraging and financing internventions in Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Haiti, El Salvador ,Costa Rica, Brazil, Uruguay and Granada to name just the South American help you gave.
We all feel safer with you in the world.
Thanks from the heart of my bottom.

The U.S. has been one of the greatest spreaders of socialism and communism in the world. Were it not for the U.S., the communists would never have come to power in Cuba (read The Fourth Floor by Earl E.T. Smith, the last U.S. ambassador to Cuba), Nicaragua (read Nicaragua Betrayed by Anastasio Somoza and Jack Cox), Rhodesia (read The Great Betrayal by Ian Smith), Vietnam (read Background to Betrayal by Hilaire du Berrier), Russia (read Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton), the Congo (read The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin), Germany (read Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony Sutton), Poland (read I Saw Poland Betrayed by Arthur Bliss Lane), and China (read America's Retreat from Victory by Joe McCarthy, which has a bibliography of over 20 sources, all of which were friendly to George Marshall, who the book is about), etc.

The U.S. has been one of the greatest spreaders of socialism and communism in the world. Were it not for the U.S., the communists would never have come to power in Cuba (read The Fourth Floor by Earl E.T. Smith, the last U.S. ambassador to Cuba), Nicaragua (read Nicaragua Betrayed by Anastasio Somoza and Jack Cox), Rhodesia (read The Great Betrayal by Ian Smith), Vietnam (read Background to Betrayal by Hilaire du Berrier), Russia (read Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton), the Congo (read The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin), Germany (read Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony Sutton), Poland (read I Saw Poland Betrayed by Arthur Bliss Lane), and China (read America's Retreat from Victory by Joe McCarthy, which has a bibliography of over 20 sources, all of which were friendly to George Marshall, who the book is about), etc.
Then they seem to spend a lot of money working against themselves. Or they are so incredibly incompetent that they do it by accident.
The US don't now or haven't in the past deliberately put a left wing govt. in power. (or have they??)
I think intention is everything here. After all the UN intends good out comes every time.
The debate is about the UN. Yes it's sometimes incompetent but these things nead comparison and the US stands as a good comparison.

After all the UN intends good out comes every time.

Really? That's laughable.

Tell you what. Go to Rwanda and talk to some Tutsi survivors and tell them that the UN intends good outcomes every time.

Make sure someone else videotapes the whole thing, because it's likely that we won't see you again.

Actually "your" revolution was supported by France and if France hadn't of supported you they may have been running Europe which would really piss you off wouldn't it. Britain never had any plans to run Europe. The rest of the world...but not Europe..[/QUOTE]

your right it was supported by france for one battle as i remember granted it was the most important but without france we still would have won the revolution it simply would have taken a bit longer. and you know as far as i can remember that was really the only time weve ever needed help from another country and i think we payed france back during the war of 1812 or hell maybe ww1 or ww2, and then we beat the North Vietmenese like france couldnt, and dont say we didnt we won every major battle, killed more NV soldiers as well as VC soldiers than they ever killed americans. france has gone to the shit hole ever since the fall of napolean, so no it wouldnt really have pissed me off as long as they didnt throw it down the train. and just whos to say Britian wouldnt they were the most powerful nation at the time, and with americas resources could have gone very far. they were already on bad terms with the french

.[/QUOTE]Pride come before a fall. See my previous post and cower in your bunkers waiting for the next plane to crash or bomb to go off. All empires fail. We can wait..[/QUOTE]

that was something id hear off of a terrorist site are you from the middle east. if not then you have just as much to fear from terrorists as america does, your country is allied toward us, and we are at war with the terrorists, and the terrorists at war with us and they do not view civilians the way america does. so you should pray we root them all out because if we fall who do you think they will come after next do you think you will be safe that they will be content. then your mistaken, just like they attacked the World trade center they will attack the world. and wasnt there a country in europe that had a terrorist attack and they all voted on someone who would go over better with the terrorist it seems to me that the dam europeans are a bit more cowardly since they stand down when attacked while america picks itself up and goes on the offense without anyones help.

[/QUOTE]Ooooh Scarey. Spending vast amounts on weapons just makes you uncivilised.
Well done. I'm glad you're happy with that.[/QUOTE]

I am happy with that because it ensures our saftey and gaurentees your destruction humanity will never be civilised, not as long as we exists as human we are not above the animals its funny isnt it how europe and for that matter alot of civilians think they are better than nature just because they build cities. well my freinds i have something to share with you..... so do ants and termites.

The U.S. has been one of the greatest spreaders of socialism and communism in the world. Were it not for the U.S., the communists would never have come to power in Cuba (read The Fourth Floor by Earl E.T. Smith, the last U.S. ambassador to Cuba), Nicaragua (read Nicaragua Betrayed by Anastasio Somoza and Jack Cox), Rhodesia (read The Great Betrayal by Ian Smith), Vietnam (read Background to Betrayal by Hilaire du Berrier), Russia (read Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton), the Congo (read The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin), Germany (read Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony Sutton), Poland (read I Saw Poland Betrayed by Arthur Bliss Lane), and China (read America's Retreat from Victory by Joe McCarthy, which has a bibliography of over 20 sources, all of which were friendly to George Marshall, who the book is about), etc.

you cant say its the U.S.'s fault. because you would never know you would have to something to make it so that the U.S. never existed. in which case europe still might be fucked because i think the people of germany would still believe in their superiority as a race. but to say that america actually spread communism is false because you have no evidence of it being possible or not if america hadnt been there. i guess mommy and daddy never told you that books arent always correct. in this case its a mans opinion

US out of the UN and the UN out of the US! See how the Korrupt Kofi Klan prospers if situated in Sudan.

For starters, the UN is intended to be impotent. It has no standing army nor will it. Try reading it's charter. Inb other words, they ARE a neutral international forum - not a governmental entity.
The UN has a constitution, therefore it is a governmental entity. They also go around acting like a governmental entity by telling countries what they can and cannot do. An international forum cannot do that, only a government can, because governments have authority. A meeting place has no authority, it is simply a piece of dirt where people come to talk.

I will admit that the UN needs an overhaul but I guess it comes down to this. What is your vision of humanity in the future? Is it a world divided against itself that flouts the flags of nationalism and consumes resources preparing for wars that may or may not happen. Do you believe that it is in humanity’s best interest to be perpetually divided against itself or do you think that one day we might co-operate. You see for as many inefficiencies as may be exposed in the UN I will always advocate reform to abolition, for I hope that one day we might all be united. To achieve that we need international entities that bridge the gap.
I agreed with everything except that last sentence. The UN should be a forum, nothing more. The EU is an interesting thing, and I can't wait to see what happens with it. That will essentially make Europe one country with different states, each with it's own language.

Unfortunately, I don't think division is going to end anytime soon. That is hardwired into us. We are hardwired to think that we are great, and they are not. For hundreds of thousands of years, we had little groups which all competed for limited resources for survival. If we are stronger then them, we will get more resources and grow. I think we can learn to voluntarily overcome these ancient drives, but it will be a very long and difficult road to do so.

It seems like the United States since Clinton has been trying to bring peace and stablity to the world.

Remember Rowanda anyone?


interestingly enough the United States is the main reason that the UN didnt intervene in Rowanda. Apparently they couldnt decide what the exact definition of genocide is. So they decide that theyd better debate that before allowing the UN to do anything. The United States is one of several countries that has veto rights in the UN.
Sort of like how the UN is doing now? Debating the definition of genocide while there is one currently occuring in Africa.

I still don't see any European force in the world.
To be fair, in my time in the service, I have worked with many international military units. I've worked with the British RAF, Italian Air Force, German Air Force, Turkish Army and the Japanese Navy.

Some things bear repeating and I don't hear any arguments back.
The UN's record imperfect but the US record is far worse.
All I hear on this thread is Americans throwing stones.
To say the the UN is bad, but the US is worse is a red herring, and a tu quoque ad hominem.

This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. For instance:

"You're just being randomly abusive."

"So? You've been abusive too."

This is a personal attack, and is therefore a special case of Argumentum ad Hominem.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#tuquoque

What is the alternative to the UN?

It does seem that given the opportunity to take with impunity groups of people are prone to doing that.

The EU is a very good step for Europe. I would very much advocate similar agreements in other areas of the world. In fact I would like to see NAFTA turned into it. This is however where we get into the nationalism thing again. I would be willing to give up my dollar, but not to replace it with an American one. It’d seem too much like I’d been conquered; so I am an obstacle to my own utopia.

I think a good first step would be a world currency and removal of trade barriers. I will purport being a bit of a socialist but capitalism builds relations like nobody’s business.

So perhaps instead of a military agency the UN could be set aside for a reformed world bank. With protectionism eliminated and only one currency to be used people might build on their commonalities. This would stop a lot of international exploitation of 3rd world countries in its tracks. Companies would no longer be able to gouge on the basis of currency depreciation.

But I dream, none of the world players are going to give up their currency any time soon; pity.

Gengis Khan and his family should have conquered the known world when they had the chance. That way we would all be speaking mongolian ;) And please no one try to give me some crap on how the europeans kicked the mongolians out of europe. If their great khan didnt die of old age and their armies didnt turned around to elect a new khan, poland (which armies had ceased to exist after being wiped out by a 20,000 strong diversionary force) and hungary, the doorways into europe, europe would have been conquered by asians. hahaha the irony of life. eat THAT KKK members :p

personally i would have liked Alexander the great to have conquered the world i think his family would come up with the ebst technological advances... well at least more than the great khan would have hell wed all probably be running around on horses right now, or America might never have existed.

personally though i think that keeping countries divided instead of a whole is for the betterment of the human race. yes true thats how alot of wars start up but america is connected yet we have gang wars and thats what i think would happen to the world the russian mafia would still be around and Chinas Triad and the Muslims would still be pissed at us for taking over their countries calling us infedels and starting up that banschee crie of theirs. but really if you look at history the only way humanity has ever advanced in terms of technology is through competition of arms. computers, jets, medicine, hell even music are just a few of the things that war has given to us for progress,

and yes i know this is a horrible thing to say but in the overall scheme of things war is good. it keeps our population in control since there really isnt any predator on earth that actually hunts us for food, we have to do it to eachother. and with all the advances in technology and prosperity that we've gained isnt that wort the loss of probably over 20 million people, i cant say for sure how many people died because of war, because i dont know i can only guess on how long humanties been around and what wars ive heard of and their population at that time, back in the times of kings there was probably only about 3,000 men that fought as an entire army. and then their was the world wars, which i heard the gene pool lost about 2 million maybe more i dont know, maybe some one can figure a better estimate, but it is still smaller than what the race is today.

so i say they gave their lives in hope of progress. and the U.N. is failing them

personally i would have liked Alexander the great to have conquered the world i think his family would come up with the ebst technological advances... well at least more than the great khan would have hell wed all probably be running around on horses right now, or America might never have existed.

personally though i think that keeping countries divided instead of a whole is for the betterment of the human race. yes true thats how alot of wars start up but america is connected yet we have gang wars and thats what i think would happen to the world the russian mafia would still be around and Chinas Triad and the Muslims would still be pissed at us for taking over their countries calling us infedels and starting up that banschee crie of theirs. but really if you look at history the only way humanity has ever advanced in terms of technology is through competition of arms. computers, jets, medicine, hell even music are just a few of the things that war has given to us for progress,

and yes i know this is a horrible thing to say but in the overall scheme of things war is good. it keeps our population in control since there really isnt any predator on earth that actually hunts us for food, we have to do it to eachother. and with all the advances in technology and prosperity that we've gained isnt that wort the loss of probably over 20 million people, i cant say for sure how many people died because of war, because i dont know i can only guess on how long humanties been around and what wars ive heard of and their population at that time, back in the times of kings there was probably only about 3,000 men that fought as an entire army. and then their was the world wars, which i heard the gene pool lost about 2 million maybe more i dont know, maybe some one can figure a better estimate, but it is still smaller than what the race is today.


Umm, WWII on its own was 50-60 million counting the holocaust and civilians.

As for the age of Kings. You might be closer, the Roman Empire was responsible for 8 million war deaths. (Christians and slaves not included in this total)

The age of imperialism (18th century) is a harder guesstimate but we can hazard 18 million. This number however does include governments turning on their own people, something I would hope we could avoid in my ideal setup.

But with the reference to the people being pissed off, why? You assume that the world order would be forced on them. (Again my idealism is showing here.)

As for the advance of humanity I will admit that A LOT of it has been through arms races but it is hard to say which breeds which. Since the industrial revolution there has been a faster increment of technological advance. At the same time there has been more wars. The question comes down to a chicken and the egg kind of dilemma. Did we have the ability so we built the weapons or did we build the weapons and gain the ability? The two are much intertwined. I for one would like to take the optimistic view and say that humanity is capable of more than technologically assisted barbarism.

I would say that we have not had enough ‘progress’ to justify some of the more mundane atrocities in WWII let alone the big name droppers like Auschwitz. Perhaps I am naïve and the coming years, that seem as harbingers of more war, I will be proven wrong. I however see human beings as something greater than the sum of their parts. I cannot justify using another person as a means to my own ends. Look around your country, your friends, family, literature, culture, architecture and every other thing you hold dear. Are you willing to give it up tomorrow if some country is today putting the finishing touches on supersonic low orbit bombers and missile defence avoidance? Your country would be in ruins but a new chapter in aerospace, rocketry, and electronics would be upon us. Perhaps the perfection of controlled fusion is around the corner because of the information gathered as the H-bombs rain on your soil, leaving it irradiated for generations.

You are right, war can lead to huge advances in technology but I would contend that the cost is too high; there must be a better way. Think about how many people have died in wars supporting their country. These men, and occasional woman, are patriotic people with good hearts. They believed in the ideals of their countries and had the courage to lay their lives on the line. Personally I’d like to have more of those people around, contributing to our progress, not less.

As for your last sentence.


so i say they gave their lives in hope of progress. and the U.N. is failing them

It is a cheap blow but if your living in a western country, I assume you are, volunteer at your local legion or veteran’s home; someplace where some WWII veterans still exist. Put on CNN, FOX, BBC, CTV, or any other news program when they are covering the conflict in the Middle East. See how long they can stomach, see how long you can tell them with a straight face that they fought for progress, they fought to advance our technology. Tell them that this is being broadcast on a satellite feed that would not have been possible if their friends didn’t pass on.

I normally don’t like to illicit emotion in a debate like this but I think you’d have a hard time with that.

Now as a concession I will admit that the UN is not living up to its potential and that could be construed as failure. It’s why I think an independent intelligence agency needs to be at the disposal of the Security Council. I also think that we should remove the permanent seats on said council, try to get some representative governance and some needed skills. The UN is not too far gone, reform is still an option.

Now I will apologize as this is hour 28 without sleep so I can’t make any semblance of a valid claim to coherence.

P.S. Alexander the Great would’ve been amazing, if he only had a better immune system…

I belive the UN is nothing more then a corrupt piece of world crap. It has done nothing...nothing at all. Are they doing anything for Chechnya, or how about the trouble in Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon or East Timor. It seems like the United States since Clinton has been trying to bring peace and stablity to the world. The UN are failin to do anything against China, Syria, Iran, Russia, Zimbabwe, Africa. or the Middle East. You know there is a problem when China is on the Human Rights Commission and Syria is on the Security Council. It is anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic organization as well being controlled by France, and the Arab World. If they weren't why then is Israel being voted against for defending herself? her people? Do they condemn Palestinian terriorism, suicide bombings and arab nations supporting that? No. Sadly they see violence as a way to bring peace. For the first time in history this year had the UN finally hold a remembrance for the Holocaust victims.

True, no group is perfect, but the crimes they allowed. Remember Rowanda anyone? New leadership needs to be in the UN. The world is suffering and the UN is not doing a damn thing about it.
Case Close.

While I am no big fan of the United Nations, it is impossible to cast aside all of their humanitarian acheivements

The UN helped secure South Korea (even thought it was US forces it was completed under a UN flag) Dealt with Iraqi in the GUlf War, and hold peace keeping forces throughout the world including bosnia today. Humanitarian relief efforts such as those in South East Asia for the Tsuanmi victims, and providing essential services to those refugees world wide including the Palestinean people.

Its also simple why the UN passes so many resolutions against Israel... when it is in clear violation of international law. The Israeli settlements on Palestinean land are clear violations, and are a lightning rod for opposition. I am in no way supporting all of the opposition Israel faces from the UN but much of it is justified. And I do feel Palestine deserves more blame that it is given within the UN.

As far as a humanitarian organization, the UN is invaluable... but beyond that, as a supranational governmental organization, or one simply one ment to complete its central purpose (to prevent genocide) it is a sad failior and it beggs the question, is it not time to retire this antiquated system and come up with something more efficent, more effective... something with more legitimacy

Nothing. The UN is a joke! I say we just close it.



huh?

Umm, WWII on its own was 50-60 million counting the holocaust and civilians.

As for the age of Kings. You might be closer, the Roman Empire was responsible for 8 million war deaths. (Christians and slaves not included in this total)

The age of imperialism (18th century) is a harder guesstimate but we can hazard 18 million. This number however does include governments turning on their own people, something I would hope we could avoid in my ideal setup.

But with the reference to the people being pissed off, why? You assume that the world order would be forced on them. (Again my idealism is showing here.)

As for the advance of humanity I will admit that A LOT of it has been through arms races but it is hard to say which breeds which. Since the industrial revolution there has been a faster increment of technological advance. At the same time there has been more wars. The question comes down to a chicken and the egg kind of dilemma. Did we have the ability so we built the weapons or did we build the weapons and gain the ability? The two are much intertwined. I for one would like to take the optimistic view and say that humanity is capable of more than technologically assisted barbarism.

I would say that we have not had enough ‘progress’ to justify some of the more mundane atrocities in WWII let alone the big name droppers like Auschwitz. Perhaps I am naïve and the coming years, that seem as harbingers of more war, I will be proven wrong. I however see human beings as something greater than the sum of their parts. I cannot justify using another person as a means to my own ends. Look around your country, your friends, family, literature, culture, architecture and every other thing you hold dear. Are you willing to give it up tomorrow if some country is today putting the finishing touches on supersonic low orbit bombers and missile defence avoidance? Your country would be in ruins but a new chapter in aerospace, rocketry, and electronics would be upon us. Perhaps the perfection of controlled fusion is around the corner because of the information gathered as the H-bombs rain on your soil, leaving it irradiated for generations.

You are right, war can lead to huge advances in technology but I would contend that the cost is too high; there must be a better way. Think about how many people have died in wars supporting their country. These men, and occasional woman, are patriotic people with good hearts. They believed in the ideals of their countries and had the courage to lay their lives on the line. Personally I’d like to have more of those people around, contributing to our progress, not less.

As for your last sentence.



It is a cheap blow but if your living in a western country, I assume you are, volunteer at your local legion or veteran’s home; someplace where some WWII veterans still exist. Put on CNN, FOX, BBC, CTV, or any other news program when they are covering the conflict in the Middle East. See how long they can stomach, see how long you can tell them with a straight face that they fought for progress, they fought to advance our technology. Tell them that this is being broadcast on a satellite feed that would not have been possible if their friends didn’t pass on.

I normally don’t like to illicit emotion in a debate like this but I think you’d have a hard time with that.

Now as a concession I will admit that the UN is not living up to its potential and that could be construed as failure. It’s why I think an independent intelligence agency needs to be at the disposal of the Security Council. I also think that we should remove the permanent seats on said council, try to get some representative governance and some needed skills. The UN is not too far gone, reform is still an option.


thanks for letting me know about the numbers i didnt really feel like researching them.

you are right but we can never really tell, there are always theories about it mine being that yes countries do start wars because of their advances, and yet they dont. theirs a difference between haveing the capabilities and devolping them. as with all things in this world everything needs a push to get it started. the A bomb was created from the push in a time of war a competition race between America and Germany if it wasnt for that it probably would have never been conceived, and therefore no Nuclear reactors would have ever been made. but the internet was created in a time of peace so that operatives could communicate more efficiently with their counterparts. and thus devolping chat rooms and other informative links for the public. im not sure if you get what im trying to say im not very good at putting things into words.

and many people do see human beings that way but really all you have to do is look around in the world and youll see that we are as barbaric as our ancestors we have the chinese triad, russian mafia, warlords in africa, and gangs all over the world. you dont even have to fight for a country anymore.

and again you are right alot of good men have died because of war, but probably the worst thing of war is that no one really pays attention to it. yes they erect monuments to fallen vets but shouldnt the greatest monument be what they already have done people should have followed their example, and by that i dont meen charge into a machine gun nest with a bayonet. but be patriotic people think they are trying to fight against wars in their name and memory, but they disgrace their very memory through their actions by calling their acts barbaric, sadistic, inhuman, etc.

progress always comes at a price i would assure them that the progress their freinds and them themselves have given to us was justworthy, it would be hard many would tell me to go to hell. others would cry. probably none would agree except for a few, because in the end a soldier and a terrorist have one thing in common, their romantics, and nothing else.

It does seem that given the opportunity to take with impunity groups of people are prone to doing that.

The EU is a very good step for Europe. I would very much advocate similar agreements in other areas of the world. In fact I would like to see NAFTA turned into it. This is however where we get into the nationalism thing again. I would be willing to give up my dollar, but not to replace it with an American one. It’d seem too much like I’d been conquered; so I am an obstacle to my own utopia.
Why adopt the Dollar? The EU didn't adopt the Pound, the Franc, the Deutsch Mark, or the Lira (Turkish, Italian or otherwise).