NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like the tool has lost its worth to the neocons:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050617/ap_on_go_co/us_un_reform_19

House Passes Bill to Slash Funds to U.N. By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 17, 2:58 PM ET



WASHINGTON - Culminating years of frustration with the performance and behavior of the United Nations, the House voted Friday to slash U.S. contributions to the world body if it does not substantially change the way it operates.

The 221-184 vote, which came despite a Bush administration warning that such a move could actually sabotage reform efforts, was a strong signal from Congress that a policy of persuasion wasn't enough to straighten out the U.N.

"We have had enough waivers, enough resolutions, enough statements," said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the author of the legislation. "It's time we had some teeth in reform."

The legislation would withhold half of U.S. dues to the U.N.'s general budget if the organization did not meet a list of demands for change. Failure to comply would also result in U.S. refusal to support expanded and new peacekeeping missions. The bill's prospects in the Senate are uncertain.

Just prior to the final vote, the House rejected, 216-190, an alternative offered by the top Democrat on the International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos of California, that also would have outlined U.N. reforms but would have left it to the discretion of the secretary of state whether to withhold U.S. payments.

During the two days of debate, legislators discussed the seating of such human rights abusers as Cuba and Sudan on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the oil-for-food program that became a source of up to $10 billion in illicit revenue for former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., won backing for an amendment under which the United States would use its influence to ensure that any member engaged in acts of genocide or crimes against humanity would lose its U.N. membership and face arms and trade embargoes.

Hyde was joined by lawmakers with a litany of complaints against what they said was the U.N.'s lavish spending, its coddling of rogue regimes, its anti-America, anti-Israel bias and recent scandals such as the mismanagement of the oil-for-food program in Iraq and the sexual misconduct of peacekeepers.

The administration on Thursday had urged the Republican-led House to reconsider the legislation. The administration said in a statement that it is actively engaged in U.N. reform, and the Hyde bill "could detract from and undermine our efforts."

Eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, including Madeleine Albright and Jeane Kirkpatrick, also weighed in, telling lawmakers in a letter that withholding of dues would "create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed support earlier this week for another congressional effort to bring about U.N. reform. A task force led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and former Senate Majority leader George Mitchell, a Democrat, recommended such changes as setting up an independent auditing board and weighted voting on financial issues for members who contribute more to the budget.

Also Thursday, the administration supported a measured expansion of the Security Council, but said widespread reform of the United Nations takes precedence.

"We are not prepared to have Security Council reform sprint out ahead of the other extremely important reforms that have to take place," Rice said at a news conference. She cited management, peace-building and halting the proliferation of dangerous weapons technology.

The bill, with amendments, lists 46 reforms sought. They include cutting the public information budget by 20 percent, establishing an independent oversight board and an ethics office, and denying countries that violate human rights from serving on human rights commissions.

The secretary of state would have to certify that 32 of the 39 reforms have been met by September 2007, and all 39 by the next year, to avoid a withdrawal of 50 percent of assessed dues.

U.S.-assessed dues account for about 22 percent of the U.N.'s $2 billion annual general budget.

The financial penalties would not apply to the U.N.'s voluntarily funded programs, which include UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

It has yet to be done.

It needs to get through the Senate.
And it needs to get through the President.
And if the President veteos it, Senate (HoR?) needs to approve it by a 2/3 majority.

In any case, I support this.

allthough I think the UN is a good tool, it has many problems and needs heavy revamping in several areas. I think that the UN as well as the US has put forth good reform ideas, and I can't wait to see what is implemented and how it turns out. We should not cut funding just yet but if they continue to go down the same road, maybe fund cuts are just what they need to kick them in the ass.

Cutting their budget is the only way we can get them to reform. Otherwise, we're just giving tacit approval to their actions through our funding. This is some real action on oil-for-food at last.

The legislation would withhold half of U.S. dues to the U.N.'s general budget if the organization did not meet a list of demands for change.
Makes it sound like they're holding the money hostage. "Meet my demands or I'll spend him on the military, I swear!"

I'd be curious as to what the suggested reforms are. The UN is in need of serious reform, although these reforms would limit the power of the US along with the other Security Council nations (that whole veto thing needs to be abolished), so I doubt they are suggesting anything which would actually help.

I hope the UN tells them politely to fuck off.

No one country should dictate policy and reform.

I hope the UN tells them politely to fuck off.

No one country should dictate policy and reform.
Tell that to the Americans. They always think due to their money, they're the boss of everything. :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']Tell that to the Americans. They always think due to their money, they're the boss of everything. :rolleyes:
It's the law of life.

Whoever pays up gets the power.

I mean, c'mon...we're pretty pissed with admin's decisions about mods sometimes...but Max is the guy who pays for the site.

Put up or shut up time?

Ein Deutscher']Tell that to the Americans. They always think due to their money, they're the boss of everything. :rolleyes:

How about just tell the Government?

I can tell them what to do, so, it isn't my fault. :(

I hope the UN tells them politely to fuck off.

No one country should dictate policy and reform.


I agree that no one country should dictate the direction of UN policy and reform, but Kofi Anan himself knows that they are in need of reform and has suggested some good ones which I hope they implement. The US has also put together a good list of reforms (which I believe some of them coincide with that Kofi Anan has proposed) and some of them should at least be taken into consideration.

I hope the UN tells them politely to fuck off.

No one country should dictate policy and reform.

So do I, although I would hope for an unpolite response from the UN. The level of anger this would generate in the States against the UN would be wonderful to watch. There could be talk of leaving the UN, then the UN would get its back up even more and a nice spiral of anger and resentment could explode out of control and then, finally then the US could leave the dead weight of the UN behind. An eviction notice could be sent to the UN and New York could get some valuable land! Maybe make a park or a shopping mall out of it, you know, something actually useful.
Ah but tis just a dream and will never happen. :D

I agree that no one country should dictate the direction of UN policy and reform, but Kofi Anan himself knows that they are in need of reform and has suggested some good ones which I hope they implement. The US has also put together a good list of reforms (which I believe some of them coincide with that Kofi Anan has proposed) and some of them should at least be taken into consideration.
Of course it needs reform, but the US wont help anything if those cuts go through.

And like I said, no one country should dictate it, which is exactly what the Us is trying to do.

So do I, although I would hope for an unpolite response from the UN. The level of anger this would generate in the States against the UN would be wonderful to watch. There could be talk of leaving the UN, then the UN would get its back up even more and a nice spiral of anger and resentment could explode out of control and then, finally then the US could leave the dead weight of the UN behind. An eviction notice could be sent to the UN and New York could get some valuable land! Maybe make a park or a shopping mall out of it, you know, something actually useful.
Ah but tis just a dream and will never happen. :D
I'm all for the irony of building a giant globe in place of the UN H.Q.

Honestly, I hope the U.N does cave into some kind of reform giving it a stronger backbone and it becomes a body powerful enough to stand up against the clout of the U.S. That'll push Congressional arrogance right back in our faces.

God I hate the United States...

These are ridicilous reforms that would basically make the United Nations a US institution. 'Reform' is a good thing but some of these measures are just designed to make the UN toothless and to prepare new wars for neoconservatives. This is just unacceptable. Colodia and the enemies of peace and international cooperation can cheer tonight.

IMHO, if congress goes through with this then Europe should just increase its budget and have these people suck on it. Maybe fudge up some trade sanctions too to compensate... where it hurts. Get the people who voted Bush. Make them care about the rest of the world.

If the US thinks that hurting people financially is the way to go, it is only fair to retalliate. Their idea, after all.

It's the law of life.

Whoever pays up gets the power.

I mean, c'mon...we're pretty pissed with admin's decisions about mods sometimes...but Max is the guy who pays for the site.

Put up or shut up time?
hmmm...
This Max pays ALL of the expenses of this site, right? Has he asked others to chip in? I'm more than willing to contribute. I pay for much poorer (in content (yes! hard to believe!)) sites.

This goes with the UN... how? No 'Max' in your analogy of the UN. The US pays a LOT, but not all.

Gee thanks. Is it my fault for thinking of the U.N. as a sorry and pathetic excuse for an international body after it's failure to stop the Iraq invasion?

hmmm...
This Max pays ALL of the expenses of this site, right? Has he asked others to chip in? I'm more than willing to contribute. I pay for much poorer (in content, yes! hard to believe!) sites.

This goes with the UN... how? No 'Max' in your analogy of the UN. The US pays a LOT, but not all.
It's an example....

It's an example....
I know. I'm anal.

I know. I'm anal.
Well that saved me a warning from the mods. :D

EDIT: Oh shit. j/k...

about time. The UN will never get anything done. I applaud congress.

I despise the UN.
The sad thing is that now that the US is cutting funding people are going to be screaming even MORE about how we dont 'pull our weight' in the international community, because we dont funnel money into the mouth of ANOTHER bloated and useless buerocracy.

I personaly think that the UN building should be demolished, and then priests from a number of religious should erect whatever they consider to be the most dire warnings in their religions that nobody should be buried on the ground under any circumstances.
The earth should be sown with salt, then melted into glass, then irradiated and buried under twenty feet (at least) of concrete which will then be covered in a few feet of lead and steel, this in turn will be covered in holy symbols from any religion you care to name.
This (might) contain the buildup of evilness that the UN leave behind.

Aside from that, I think that they need to stop freeloading in New York and go buy a damn island somewhere, in the Yellow Sea...just off North Korea.

Well that saved me a warning from the mods. :D

Well, that's a good thing. After all, this is ONLY a discussion forum in the net. No need to get your colon on a knot.

I despise the UN.
The sad thing is that now that the US is cutting funding people are going to be screaming even MORE about how we dont 'pull our weight' in the international community, because we dont funnel money into the mouth of ANOTHER bloated and useless buerocracy.

I personaly think that the UN building should be demolished, and then priests from a number of religious should erect whatever they consider to be the most dire warnings in their religions that nobody should be buried on the ground under any circumstances.
The earth should be sown with salt, then melted into glass, then irradiated and buried under twenty feet (at least) of concrete which will then be covered in a few feet of lead and steel, this in turn will be covered in holy symbols from any religion you care to name.
This (might) contain the buildup of evilness that the UN leave behind.

Aside from that, I think that they need to stop freeloading in New York and go buy a damn island somewhere, in the Yellow Sea...just off North Korea.

Wow! I thought I hated the blue helmets. . .you get a medal for the use of the phrase "sown with salt", it is really an under used phrase.

Well, that's a good thing. After all, this is ONLY a discussion forum in the net. No need to get your colon on a knot.
Aye.

Ein Deutscher']Looks like the tool has lost its worth to the neocons:
I think the title of this thread would be more accurate if it stated:

US proposes funding cuts to UN?

I do agree that the UN needs to be reformed and strengthened but it should be done democratically.

I think that UN isn't powerful enough and needs to do something about certain events in the world. Seems like no one wants war to stop a war anymore... we saw what happened before WWII. But really the US is the only country that is feared on the UN... aside from probably China, but we know China sucks up to North Korea. Eh... If you look at it this way... The UN helps the US in no way... it helps other nations who really can't hold enemies off. It was the UN's job of protecting nations, all for one and one for all kind of thing. I doubt the US ever needs that from the UN. So this "slashing" of funds to the UN is just our way of saying, we're going to be compassionate anymore because the UN doesn't help anyone anymore.

*hard to follow my chain of thinking, sorry*

*hard to follow my chain of thinking, sorry*
A bit. But what I did catch was funny. Great sarcasm.

just our way of saying, we're going to be compassionate anymore because the UN doesn't help anyone anymore.

*hard to follow my chain of thinking, sorry*
From now on, you don't get to debate on my team anymore.

These are ridicilous reforms that would basically make the United Nations a US institution. 'Reform' is a good thing but some of these measures are just designed to make the UN toothless and to prepare new wars for neoconservatives. This is just unacceptable. Colodia and the enemies of peace and international cooperation can cheer tonight.
Yes, how evil of the US, demanding that countries that violate human rights do not serve on human rights commissions. :rolleyes:

I hope the UN tells them politely to fuck off.

No one country should dictate policy and reform.

So do I, but mainly because I would like very much to see it closed down completely and started from scratch. Preferably in a place other than the United States.

Yes, how evil of the US, demanding that countries that violate human rights do not serve on human rights commissions. :rolleyes:

Take the most inoffensive one, then assume it is all I object to. Clever. :)

Ejecting other nations from the U.N. and face arms and trade embargoes. Unprecedented, ridicilous, as the UN is a world body and not just a coalition of states the US likes.

Demanding the United Nations endorse crimes by Israel. The complaints include this, as does the pressure on the UN to be friendly to US foreign policy. It is a world body, not a slave to the war machine of George W. Bush.

Cutting the public information budget by 20 percent - so the United Nations cannot get its word out. Because the UN exposing lies by the US government would be a bad thing (look at Iraq again). Not that the UN is being listened much to in the US anyway.

Even your "inncocent" example will be abused by US politicians. After all, they are protesting that Cuba serves on a human rights committee, but they would NEVER protest against US allies with MUCH worse human rights abuses from doing the same. Its a double standard.

It's interesting to read this thread, you do realise that the US contribution to the UN is $283 million a year? Which to a country the size of the US is peanuts. Do you also know that Japan contributes $218 million a year and Germany $109 million and neither one of them has any more say in the running of things than, say, Tonga? Did you further know that if you added Germany, France, the UK and Italy (which gives a roughly equivalent population to the US) their total contribution is $300 million? And, finally, did you realise that the US is $1.2 billion in arrears to the UN which is already struggling to make good on its $10 billion per year spending (equivalent to $1.66 per person on Earth, per year). Such a bloated bureaucracy?

The UN is a valuable body, but it desperately needs reform, rather than using the stick the US could maybe try the carrot? I'm glad to see some backing for increasing the number of permenant members of the Security Council, but more is needed. And, if the whole thing is to work at all, the US needs to act less like it's in opposition to the UN and more like it's a part of it. I'm not for a minute suggesting that the US needs to bow to the UN's will, or anything like it. It just seems that often the US refuses to accept that getting 191 nations marching in step can take time, so it either uses it's veto or acts unilaterally instead. Sometimes patience and negotiation are the best way. Not all the UN's problems are the fault of the US though, and it is certainly the case that other countries need to pull their weight a lot more as far as the peacekeeping efforts are concerned - something that will be easier if Japan and Germany are allowed to take their proper place in that (though, note, the US is not the biggest contributor there - it's India, followed by Jordan, Nigeria and Bangladesh, not the countries you'd expect).

All in all, I think the UN is a useful forum, and as the only proper global body a vital link between nations and the only real place that a small, powerless nation can seek redress for wrongs. If we all co-operate a bit more, calm down a little bit and stop waving vetoes around left, right and centre I think it can be reformed and can assume a worthwhile, productive and beneficial place in the world.

The United Nations is corrupt and weak. It is time for it to either be reformed or go. The top three contributers to the UN are the US, Japan and Germany. Why does Japan and Germany not have a say on the Security council? These three nations provide 60% of UN funding. I say tell the to reform or take a hike.

The top three contributers to the UN are the US, Japan and Germany...These three nations provide 60% of UN funding. I say tell the to reform or take a hike.

Only a little over 40%, in fact.

Yes, how evil of the US, demanding that countries that violate human rights do not serve on human rights commissions. :rolleyes:
That is a good point. Or a bad point. Depends on how you look at it. Would it be better to keep dictatures and violators of human rights out of 'democratic decision making'/forums?

I see the UN as this very forum: every idiot can state their case here. Their cases are either heard and debated, or violently ignored... much like in the GA of the UN. The best cases are debated violently here... or/and sent to our own Security Council (the mod cave)... yes, the analogy sucks. But anyway.

so three countries provide most of the money in the UN...

What has the UN done for those three countries recently...

In fact what has the UN done for anyone...can anyone say Rwonda or Sudan.

It's interesting to read this thread, you do realise that the US contribution to the UN is $283 million a year? Which to a country the size of the US is peanuts. Do you also know that Japan contributes $218 million a year and Germany $109 million and neither one of them has any more say in the running of things than, say, Tonga? Did you further know that if you added Germany, France, the UK and Italy (which gives a roughly equivalent population to the US) their total contribution is $300 million? And, finally, did you realise that the US is $1.2 billion in arrears to the UN which is already struggling to make good on its $10 billion per year spending (equivalent to $1.66 per person on Earth, per year). Such a bloated bureaucracy?

The UN is a valuable body, but it desperately needs reform, rather than using the stick the US could maybe try the carrot? I'm glad to see some backing for increasing the number of permenant members of the Security Council, but more is needed. And, if the whole thing is to work at all, the US needs to act less like it's in opposition to the UN and more like it's a part of it. I'm not for a minute suggesting that the US needs to bow to the UN's will, or anything like it. It just seems that often the US refuses to accept that getting 191 nations marching in step can take time, so it either uses it's veto or acts unilaterally instead. Sometimes patience and negotiation are the best way. Not all the UN's problems are the fault of the US though, and it is certainly the case that other countries need to pull their weight a lot more as far as the peacekeeping efforts are concerned - something that will be easier if Japan and Germany are allowed to take their proper place in that.

All in all, I think the UN is a useful forum, and as the only proper global body a vital link between nations and the only real place that a small, powerless nation can seek redress for wrongs. If we all co-operate a bit more, calm down a little bit and stop waving vetoes around left, right and centre I think it can be reformed and can assume a worthwhile, productive and beneficial place in the world.

You have a few very good points there. Yes, I believe you do. The UN should be removed from the corrupting sphere of US influence and sent straight to Europe where others can have their proper say in its affairs. After all, how dare the US attempt to force the UN to clean up its act. Why if it were in France, Germany, or Italy it would never get in the sorry shape it has gotten into while on US soil. I just can't get over the nerve of us for not having done this a long time ago. Bad USA Bad! Viva UN! Viva UN!

It also seems a lot of Americans are anti-UN because of the whole Iraq situation, but we should remember that the body does an awful lot more than that.

Right now there's peacekeeping work going on in Kosovo, East Timoe, India/Pakistan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Congo, Cyprus, Georgia, Ethiopai/Eritrea, Western Sahara, Golan Heights and the Middle East, involving 42,000 servicemen and women from 91 countries, but that still only accounts for a little over $2 billion of their work.

Administration of the UN is a little under 10% of the total budget the rest is spent on humanitarian programmes such as OCHA, World Food Programme, UNICEF, UNESCO and so forth (as well as the peacekeeping detailed above), then there's Human Rights, Crime, Civil Aviation, Telecommunications, the IMF, the environment, the World University. It's actually a pretty diverse body. I think by suggesting it should be scrapped you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Liverbreath']You have a few very good points there. Yes, I believe you do. The UN should be removed from the corrupting sphere of US influence and sent straight to Europe where others can have their proper say in its affairs. After all, how dare the US attempt to force the UN to clean up its act. Why if it were in France, Germany, or Italy it would never get in the sorry shape it has gotten into while on US soil. I just can't get over the nerve of us for not having done this a long time ago. Bad USA Bad! Viva UN! Viva UN!

Could you distort what I said any more?? I agree it needs to be reformed, and I don't think the US is to blame for all its woes. I was trying to answer many of the points raised on this thread. but thanks for ignoring that completely.

I think the title of this thread would be more accurate if it stated:

US proposes funding cuts to UN?

I do agree that the UN needs to be reformed and strengthened but it should be done democratically.
That doesn't grab enough attention. :p

Could you distort what I said any more??
Actually he makes a good case. That is what we should do. Viva! And I say it without the sarcasm. Europe should assert itself and show the world an alternative to American barbarism. I for one would be willing to pay a bit more taxes to accomplish that.

I feel a bit sorry for you though, being the only moderate here in this matter. But I am still not siding with you because I do not support 'reforms' that will make the UN weaker and more US-dependent. Anti-corruption measusures are okay, but that is clearly not what this is about.

Actually, I disagree. I very much think the UN should be based in the USA. They ARE a very important part of it, the single most important, and that should be acknowledged. But the reforms should acknowledge that the other 190 are important too and that the UN exists to help the smallest and weakest countries that cannot necessarily help themselves. The big, powerful countries shouldn't be getting anything back really, but they should be exercising their power in the world for the benefit of all. Besides, reform of the number of permenant seats on the SC actually weakens the US influence (and that of France, China, Russia and the UK) rather than increasing it.

Could you distort what I said any more??

I was not trying to distort what you said, please forgive me if my cynicism appears directed toward you. It truely is my considered opinion that the UN not be on US soil, and I do believe that it has become an insturment of division despite its name. I also believe that if the world insists on keeping it around in anything resembling its current form, the Germany or France would do more to keep it that way than anywhere else on earth.

Liverbreath']I was not trying to distort what you said, please forgive me if my cynicism appears directed toward you.

Fair enough, my mistake.

It has yet to be done.

It needs to get through the Senate.
And it needs to get through the President.
And if the President veteos it, Senate (HoR?) needs to approve it by a 2/3 majority.

In any case, I support this.

Odds are, it'll be approved by the Senate and signed into law.

*dances to celebration*

Actually, I disagree. I very much think the UN should be based in the USA. They ARE a very important part of it, the single most important, and that should be acknowledged. But the reforms should acknowledge that the other 190 are important too and that the UN exists to help the smallest and weakest countries that cannot necessarily help themselves. The big, powerful countries shouldn't be getting anything back really, but they should be exercising their power in the world for the benefit of all. Besides, reform of the number of permenant seats on the SC actually weakens the US influence (and that of France, China, Russia and the UK) rather than increasing it.

Well, they sure are not acting the part then. We treasure the UN institutions that we have here, like the ICC. (Despite the fact that the US has authorised the use of military force in the The Hague invasion act if we should ever try an American.) Over there, Texans are whipped into a culture-war induced frenzy over New York parking tickets. They should be ashamed of themselves.

It would be nice if the US would like the United Nations and work with them, but they are obviously not interested. Moving now would be a very bad signal, but should the jingoistic elements of the US ever kick them out then Europe should be welcoming them with open arms.

I'm not talking about the expansion of the Security Council (which is simply needed) but about the bellicose threats uttered by the dogs of war in Congress. Read the article.

I'm not talking about the expansion of the Security Council (which is simply needed) but about the bellicose threats uttered by the dogs of war in Congress. Read the article.

I did read the article, did you read what I posted before the one you're disagreeing with?

God I hate the United States...

I hate you too!

These are ridicilous reforms that would basically make the United Nations a US institution. 'Reform' is a good thing but some of these measures are just designed to make the UN toothless and to prepare new wars for neoconservatives.

How can it get anymore toothless than it already is? I can tell you it can't.

This is just unacceptable. Colodia and the enemies of peace and international cooperation can cheer tonight.

No, the champions of peace and international cooperation can rejoice tonight!

IMHO, if congress goes through with this then Europe should just increase its budget and have these people suck on it.

I guess someone here doesn't realize that the EU couldn't come up with a budget! :D

Maybe fudge up some trade sanctions too to compensate... where it hurts. Get the people who voted Bush. Make them care about the rest of the world.

I smell a violation of the WTO coming :D

If the US thinks that hurting people financially is the way to go, it is only fair to retalliate. Their idea, after all.

And who are we hurting? THis just deals with the UN and not other international organizations.

I reckon it's fairly clear what's happening.
The UN wants reform, wants to include others in the security council and so on.
Now Condi says they need reform, in other issues, and not yet on the security council.
So she expects the UN to submit itself and become a tool of US foreign policy, while it is fairly clear that the US is not going to go ahead with a new security council that would in any way weaken its' influence.
I think the UN should take suggestions on board, but just as it would from Tonga. The US should not have more weight in a supposedly democratically run decisionmaking body.

Liverbreath']So do I, but mainly because I would like very much to see it closed down completely and started from scratch. Preferably in a place other than the United States.
I've always thought that Haiti would be a good place for the UN. Maybe Ruwanda, or Darfur should also be considered.

As far as the funds go, Maybe Ted Turner will make up the difference.

I think the UN should take suggestions on board, but just as it would from Tonga. The US should not have more weight in a supposedly democratically run decisionmaking body.
Well, If UN was taken as a forum for sovereign countries, as it was intended to be, that would be the case. Reality, I'm afraid, is more mundane. :)

So do I, although I would hope for an unpolite response from the UN. The level of anger this would generate in the States against the UN would be wonderful to watch. There could be talk of leaving the UN, then the UN would get its back up even more and a nice spiral of anger and resentment could explode out of control and then, finally then the US could leave the dead weight of the UN behind. An eviction notice could be sent to the UN and New York could get some valuable land! Maybe make a park or a shopping mall out of it, you know, something actually useful.
Ah but tis just a dream and will never happen. :D
God that would be a dream come true

Well, they sure are not acting the part then. We treasure the UN institutions that we have here, like the ICC. (Despite the fact that the US has authorised the use of military force in the The Hague invasion act if we should ever try an American.) Over there, Texans are whipped into a culture-war induced frenzy over New York parking tickets. They should be ashamed of themselves.

It would be nice if the US would like the United Nations and work with them, but they are obviously not interested. Moving now would be a very bad signal, but should the jingoistic elements of the US ever kick them out then Europe should be welcoming them with open arms.

I'm not talking about the expansion of the Security Council (which is simply needed) but about the bellicose threats uttered by the dogs of war in Congress. Read the article.

Exactly! The United Nations should move immediately to Europe where Europeans can have the benefits and control that they feel they deserve. In fact, the world will be a better place for all concerned if the US withdraw from the UN immediately and entirely.

God that would be a dream come true

Put up some giant skyscrapers and build up the skyline a little.

Incidentally, no offence to any Tongans reading this when I cited Tonga as an example of a small and unimportant nation. :)

As I've said already though, I think a lot of people on this board who are so vehemently anti-UN could stand to find out a little about what it does first.

I know I shouldn't even be saying this, but two dildos in a same thread complaining about how the UN handled "Rwonda" (or) "Ruwanda" BAD is just too much. If you felt so fucking strong about it, I'd suppose you'd get the name right.

Anyone remember the League of Nations? Yeah that's what the UN has become. It really became obsolete after the USSR colapsed. Why do we allow other nations to make policy for us and why do we presume to make policy for other stable nations? George Washington warned the American public when he stepped down after his second term not to get involved with "entangling alliances". That same thing he warned us about started WWI which incedetally set the stage for WWII and then the Cold War and the minor wars associated with it. Did we learn from this? No, we're still in the UN- the greatest realization of entagling alliances the world has ever seen.

I know I shouldn't even be saying this, but two dildos in a same thread complaining about how the UN handled "Rwonda" (or) "Ruwanda" BAD is just too much. If you felt so fucking strong about it, I'd suppose you'd get the name right.
I don't know if I'm one of the dildos that you refer to, but Ruwanda is an accepted spelling, even if it isn't the preferred one. In fact, Ruwanda seems to be more common in Europe than anywhere else.

I don't know if I'm one of the dildos that you refer to, but Ruwanda is an accepted spelling, even if it isn't the preferred one. In fact, Ruwanda seems to be more common in Europe than anywhere else.
You may be even right (Ruanda in here). I'm somewhat sorry about that post....hug..? Maybe you're no dildo at all... *that would be a let down though*

I don't know if I'm one of the dildos that you refer to, but Ruwanda is an accepted spelling, even if it isn't the preferred one. In fact, Ruwanda seems to be more common in Europe than anywhere else.

Ruwanda is used in both English and Dutch, although Rwanda is as you mentioned the most correct name.

In fact, Ruwanda seems to be more common in Europe than anywhere else.

It does?

I trust you both were balling your eyes out then. Fair enough?

It does?
Just try googling it. Most of the few hits there are show up in German. Most of the places that I found it spelled Ruwanda on AP were Benelux countries. But, you know, Ruwanda is just the way we say it down South. Ruuuwanda.

Anyone remember the League of Nations?

Yes. Do you know why it failed?

It really became obsolete after the USSR colapsed.

In what way? Did poverty and war go away?

Why do we allow other nations to make policy for us and why do we presume to make policy for other stable nations?

Not only does it not have the power to, I'd be interested to hear one example of where the UN tried to "make policy" for the USA.

That same thing he warned us about started WWI which incedetally set the stage for WWII and then the Cold War and the minor wars associated with it.

Historical rubbish. If the League of Nations had been given the strength it needed many of the causes of WWII could have been avoided.

*dances*

The UN will get their funding slashed and since we're the biggest contributor.....

That should get them to take notice that their days are numbers.

*dances*

The UN will get their funding slashed and since we're the biggest contributor.....

That should get them to take notice that their days are numbers.

Yes, the biggest by about $80 million a year. And in terms of your size as a nation, not even close to the biggest. Why can't America see that like it or not it's part of the world? I ask again, do you know what the UN does or do you hate it because of Iraq? Have you read anything on this thread?

That should get them to take notice that their days are numbers.
"Their" as the nations of the world? Healthy attitude.

Yes, the biggest by about $80 million a year. And in terms of your size as a nation, not even close to the biggest. Why can't America see that like it or not it's part of the world? I ask again, do you know what the UN does or do you hate it because of Iraq? Have you read anything on this thread?
Why does being a "part of the world" depend on funding a corrupt club for dictators? Why can't being a "part of the world" consist of coalitions and treaties between free and democratic nations of our choosing?

Why does being a "part of the world" depend on funding a corrupt club for dictators? Why can't being a "part of the world" consist of coalitions and treaties between free and democratic nations of our choosing?

It can. But is being part of a global forum so very bad? Should larger nations not take any responsibility for the small ones? Should we not attempt to address global problems in a global way (see previous posts on the UN's work)? Besides which, of 191 member states how many are dictatorships?

But again you perpetuate the myth that the UN is funded by the US, showing again that you have difficulty understanding that there are 190 other member nations.

Why does being a "part of the world" depend on funding a corrupt club for dictators? Why can't being a "part of the world" consist of coalitions and treaties between free and democratic nations of our choosing?
Because you do it by the treaties and coalitions already? In no way does the UN take those away from you. Being a part of a world wide forum is so revolting? Easy, write your congressman or whoever speaks for you. I'm sure you will (never)get rid of it.

Yes, the biggest by about $80 million a year.

Who cares by how much. The fact is that it is the biggest contributors and the UN is on our soil too. That is an even bigger hit.

And in terms of your size as a nation, not even close to the biggest.

And your point?

Why can't America see that like it or not it's part of the world?

So is every other nation. What about those that ignore the UN for devious reasons and that the UN lets them get away with doing so?

I ask again, do you know what the UN does or do you hate it because of Iraq? Have you read anything on this thread?

I know full well what the UN does! Supports terror, genocidal regimes, human rights abusers.. everything they do now is in violation of the UN charter. I don't hate it because of Iraq. I hate it for Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda (proper spelling of it), Sudan, Congo, Sexual abuses done by their peacekeepers, etc etc etc.

As to point 2, yes I have.

I'm still to hear one good argument agaisnt the UN in principle. All I'm getting is American flag-waving and a general display of ignorance of what the organisation is actually for and what it actually does.

And the post above confirms it. The UN is guilty of all those crimes? While your treaties with "democratic" and "free" nations make the world a better place? how many corrupt or dictatorial regimes has/does the US support? how many times has the US helped countries (one in particular) evade international law and flout the UN?

"Their" as the nations of the world? Healthy attitude.

Their=UN

Incidentally, no offence to any Tongans reading this when I cited Tonga as an example of a small and unimportant nation. :)

As I've said already though, I think a lot of people on this board who are so vehemently anti-UN could stand to find out a little about what it does first.

Actually I think you would find that Americans are far better informed on the UN than most. Having grown up with it from it's beginning it is one of the few areas our public education spent a great deal of effort selling it to our children. Back in the day they pretty much had to. It was a hard sell to their parents.
There in lies the heart of the problem. In the minds of many in the US, myself included, the United Nations has evolved into an entity contrary to its origional intent and contrary to it stated intent. Many of us believe that it has become a unjustified liability so throughly corrupted its purpose is really to aid in the supression of freedom and the expansion of tyranny. We believe that once an organization becomes so slanted in a manner such as this it can never be reformed without first being entirely dismantled.
If Europe believes that it has value other than a spy nest or haven for well dressed con artists, many of us would welcome its departure, and gladly withdraw from it entirely with best wishes and good riddance.

Their=UN
So I got it right. Waiting it for dawn to(for?) you.

Liverbreath']Actually I think you would find that Americans are far better informed on the UN than most. Having grown up with it from it's beginning it is one of the few areas our public education spent a great deal of effort selling it to our children. Back in the day they pretty much had to. It was a hard sell to their parents.
There in lies the heart of the problem. In the minds of many in the US, myself included, the United Nations has evolved into an entity contrary to its origional intent and contrary to it stated intent. Many of us believe that it has become a unjustified liability so throughly corrupted its purpose is really to aid in the supression of freedom and the expansion of tyranny. We believe that once an organization becomes so slanted in a manner such as this it can never be reformed without first being entirely dismantled.
If Europe believes that it has value other than a spy nest or haven for well dressed con artists, many of us would welcome its departure, and gladly withdraw from it entirely with best wishes and good riddance.

This says it better than I ever can.

Believe. Believe. Believe. But you ignore what it does and you do what I see on almost every thread on here, you couch it in terms of the US versus everyone else. Not productive.

I know full well what the UN does! Supports terror, genocidal regimes, human rights abusers.. everything they do now is in violation of the UN charter. I don't hate it because of Iraq. I hate it for Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda (proper spelling of it), Sudan, Congo, Sexual abuses done by their peacekeepers, etc etc etc.

As to point 2, yes I have.

Hey mods, flamer guy, your hijacking a thread. Take it up somewhere else, will ya?

So I got it right. Waiting it for dawn to you.

:confused:

Who's flaming?

Hey mods, flamer guy, your hijacking a thread. Take it up somewhere else, will ya?

What are you talking about?

Who's flaming?

Corneliu, as always, for me it is flaiming for others just biased and easy talk without knowledge.

Who's flaming?

Beats me. I think everyone has argued this debate properly.

Corneliu, as always, for me it is flaiming for others just biased and easy talk without knowledge.

How did I flame?

:confused:
Yeah, sorry mate. Not my first language... not even 4th. What I ment, was I got you right the first time.

Corneliu, as always, for me it is flaiming for others just biased and easy talk without knowledge.

You've lost me completely. Who are you directing the accusation at? This has been a pretty civil discussion - but now with that interjection you've derailed it.

Corneliu, as always, for me it is flaiming for others just biased and easy talk without knowledge.

Many of the things he mentioned are abuses that have happened under UN supervision. The UN of today is a far cry from its original intentions.

Yeah, sorry mate. Not my first language... not even 4th. What I ment, was I got you right the first time.

Ahh ok :)

It can. But is being part of a global forum so very bad? Should larger nations not take any responsibility for the small ones? Should we not attempt to address global problems in a global way (see previous posts on the UN's work)? Besides which, of 191 member states how many are dictatorships?

But again you perpetuate the myth that the UN is funded by the US, showing again that you have difficulty understanding that there are 190 other member nations.
Turn off the nitpicking filter. Funding can mean in full or in part.

When Somalia and Libya are appointed to replace the United States on the Human Rights committee, when Iraq is appointed to oversee the destruction of WMD, when the SecGen runs a UN sponsored program for his own gain, then it's time to work outside of that organization. The fact that a small, insignificant nation can have equal representation with large developed nations in the General Assembly is bad, but when the same nation can block world policy in the Security Council is reason to quit the place.

Yeah, big nations should have more privileges than small ones. The big nations usually do more to implement the UN decisions and stand to loose more in the process.

I'm still to hear one good argument agaisnt the UN in principle. All I'm getting is American flag-waving and a general display of ignorance of what the organisation is actually for and what it actually does.
You want your principles? You got them!

The problem with if the UN were a fully functioning body is that it would undermime a country's soveriegnty (that's to say, its self-rule). It takes leaders and their accountability further away from the governed. The odds are that leader of a country would care more for his people (and could be held accountable) to a greater extent, than some leader from the other part of the globe that may not care as much.....

The UN would probably stray down the path of America's current Federal system. In the beginning it was good and all, and states (in the UN's case, countries) held onto a lot more of their soveriegnty than expected. But little after little, the Federal government (or in the world's case, the UN) began to siphon off that soveriegnty.

Turn off the nitpicking filter. Funding can mean in full or in part.

I'm well aware of that. From the way you phrased it though, it seemed you were saying that without US money there would be no UN. I apologise if I misunderstood, I can assure you I wasn't nitpicking.

When Somalia and Libya are appointed to replace the United States on the Human Rights committee, when Iraq is appointed to oversee the destruction of WMD, when the SecGen runs a UN sponsored program for his own gain, then it's time to work outside of that organization.

So no country wuith any human rigths abuse should be on that committee? That any person appointed to serve on it will be guilty? Will use their position on it to hoodwink the world?

The allegations against the Secretary General are completely unproven as they are against several other people. Did you see George Galloway at the Senate hearing?

The fact that a small, insignificant nation can have equal representation with large developed nations in the General Assembly is bad, but when the same nation can block world policy in the Security Council is reason to quit the place.

but we come to the nub of it. The system of the UN attempts to give a voice to smaller nations, it attempts to make a more level playing field. Your nose is out of joint because a corollary of that is the US doesn't get to do its own thing and push everyone else around - or at least it wouldn't if it played by the rules.

The problem with if the UN were a fully functioning body is that it would undermime a country's soveriegnty (that's to say, its self-rule). It takes leaders and their accountability further away from the governed.

Twaddle. It is not now, nor was it ever intended to be, a supra-national government. It has no power to enforce laws or policies on any of its member nations. It exists as a forum for nations, to coordinate global actions and to - hopefully - bring to heel rogue nations. You totally misunderstand its function, no wonder you hate it.

Ahh ok :)
""Their" as the nations of the world? ..." Was what I said. I thought you meant the rest of the UN, as you stated later to be true... so you pretty much said: "The days of the rest of the world are numbered"

"Healthy attitude", I said to that. Nothing more here to see. :)

Twaddle. It is not now, nor was it ever intended to be, a supra-national government.[quote]
That, I understand. However, even the most noble of ideas can become corrupted to misuse
[quote] It has no power to enforce laws or policies on any of its member nations.
Does it have any power to enforce them? No; but can it make laws/treaties that members are (theoretically) bound by? Yes. It's that philosophical point that I'm opposed to.
It exists as a forum for nations
You see, if it was stripped down to nothing BUT a forum, I might be a bit more receptive to it. However, it's choked over with so much bureaucracy and the ability to create law; both of which I oppose

It has no ability to create law. Especially where it concerns the US, which is a country singularly unwilling to abide by international law.

It is not a legislative body. What law has the UN ever tried to enforce on the US?

Believe. Believe. Believe. But you ignore what it does and you do what I see on almost every thread on here, you couch it in terms of the US versus everyone else. Not productive.

I did say believe a lot in there, but when all is said and done, what we believe is all any of us really have.
No, actually I do not ignore what the UN stood for and did in the past. Believe it or not, I was one of the very first people to ever contribute to UNICEF, and thrilled to go from door to door collecting for it. (I was in kindergarden) I spent the next 35 years being a staunch supporter of the UN and what it stood for, so to say I ignore what it does is hardly fair in my opinion. Nor do I believe I am viewing things in terms of the US versus everyone else. I simply believe that the UN is no longer a good or honorable institution and do not wish to see my country involved with what it has become.
This does not mean for a minute that I don't believe we have many outstanding allys or that there are not many deserving smaller nations, and people around the world entitled to the opportunity to have a good life. Much to the contrary, I believe they have a much better chance of achieving that if the US is no longer a part of that paticular orgainzation. I find it troubling to come to this conclusion, but after careful consideration it is the correct decision to make.

So you advocate the US going it alone and taking over all the peacekeeping, aid and humanitarian functions of the UN - but to only those countries you choose? What of international co-operation in terms of telecommunications, maritime matters, air travel, the IMF etc? All to be hived off as separate bodies funded separately?

(not an attack, an attempt to seek clarification)

[QUOTE=Vaevictis]It has no ability to create law[quote]
Then what do you call all those resolutions?

I call them resolutions. They are the resolved position of the UN. They're not national laws.

*dances*

The UN will get their funding slashed and since we're the biggest contributor.....

That should get them to take notice that their days are numbers.
I can see that you like to tear things down rather than build them up? You are certainly not of the "nation builder" class. :eek:

Still find it hard to look at the big picture?

I can see that you like to tear things down rather than build them up?
When is the memorial service for the League of Nations anyway?

I think we decided to skip it in favour of a second world war.

I think we decided to skip it in favour of a second world war.

Actually, it didn't cease to exist until after WWII. (Yes, that's how effective it was, no-one noticed).

Liverbreath']Actually I think you would find that Americans are far better informed on the UN than most.
Okay, lets defer to your greater knowledge?

Liverbreath']There in lies the heart of the problem. In the minds of many in the US, myself included, the United Nations has evolved into an entity contrary to its origional intent and contrary to it stated intent.
What were the original intentions of the UN?

Liverbreath']Many of us believe that it has become a unjustified liability so throughly corrupted
Who is causing the corruption?

Liverbreath']its purpose is really to aid in the supression of freedom and the expansion of tyranny.
Demonstrate how its PURPOSE is "to aid in the suppression of freedom"

Demonstrate how its PURPOSE is "to aid the expansion of tyranny"

Liverbreath']We believe that once an organization becomes so slanted in a manner such as this it can never be reformed without first being entirely dismantled.
So the many good working parts should be "entirely dismantled" to reform it?

So if you have a car with 4 flat tires, you take the whole car apart to fix it? This makes zero sense. Wouldn't it be better to recognize the defects and work on improving them?

Liverbreath']If Europe believes that it has value other than a spy nest or haven for well dressed con artists, many of us would welcome its departure, and gladly withdraw from it entirely with best wishes and good riddance.
Have you entirely thought out the consequences of such an action? And I do mean entirely.

What were the original intentions of the UN?


Elimination of Hitlerism, Fascism and the Japanese Empire.

When is the memorial service for the League of Nations anyway?
Perhaps there could be a dual service along with the UN, right after WW 3?

Actually, it didn't cease to exist until after WWII. (Yes, that's how effective it was, no-one noticed).

Indeed, 1946. But it was hamstrung from the start because the US wouldn't join up, and while it had a few successes in the Baltic States and South America, it was effectively dead by 1930.

*dances*

The UN will get their funding slashed and since we're the biggest contributor.....

That should get them to take notice that their days are numbers.

That's "numbered," Junior.

Oh, and is this the same Cornelius who alleges that he doesn't hate the United Nation?

Let's see here... France fought valiantly in WW2 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426386&page=16&pp=15)

Again, when you hold the UN in contempt, why do you care if a Resolution is violated?Because I believe in the ideals of the UN. People have been violating there resolutions going all the way back to 1948. What happened in 1948? Anyone care to guess?

You claim to believe in the ideals of the UN, but you're about to cream your pants with the thought of the UN's days being numbered.

Wow... and people keep saying Clinton and Kerry were flip-floppers.

:rolleyes:

Elimination of Hitlerism, Fascism and the Japanese Empire.
You can do much better than that I am sure?

Elimination of Hitlerism, Fascism and the Japanese Empire.

Nonsense.



WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

You can do much better than that I am sure?

That was the original ideals. The UN was conceived during WWII.

Nonsense.
Yes it was nonsense indeed and you got the number one answer!! :)

I am willing to bet that many of these UN bashers have never even looked at the UN Charter, much less understand it?

Nonsense.

Oh really,

DECLARATION BY UNITED NATIONS

(Subscribing to the Principles of the Atlantic Charter, January 1, 1942)

...A Joint Declaration by the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia.

The Governments signatory hereto,

Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of United States of America and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dated August 14, 1941, known as the Atlantic Charter.

Being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands, and that they are now engaged in a common struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world,

DECLARE:

(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government is at war.

(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.

The foregoing declaration may be adhered to by other nations which are, or which may be, rendering material assistance and contributions in the struggle for victory over Hitlerism.


DONE at Washington

January First, 1942

[The signatories to the Declaration by United Nations are as listed above.]

The adherents to the Declaration by the United Nations, together with the date of communication of adherence, are as follows:

Mexico ......... June 5, 1942 Ecuador ........ Feb. 7, 1945
Philippines .... June 10, 1942 Peru ........... Feb. 11, 1945
Ethiopia ....... July 28, 1942 Chile .......... Feb. 12, 1945
Iraq ........... Jan. 16, 1943 Paraguay ....... Feb. 12, 1945
Brazil ......... Feb. 8, 1943 Venezuela ...... Feb. 16, 1945
Bolivia ........ Apr. 27, 1943 Uruguay ........ Feb. 23, 1945
Iran ........... Sept. 10, 1943 Turkey ......... Feb. 24, 1945
Colombia ....... Dec. 22, 1943 Egypt .......... Feb. 27, 1945
Liberia ........ Feb. 26, 1944 Saudi Arabia ... Mar. 1, 1945
France ......... Dec. 26, 1944

See cliky (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Text/declaration_united_nations.html)


Atlantic Charter
August 14, 1941
The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Winston S. Churchill

So you advocate the US going it alone and taking over all the peacekeeping, aid and humanitarian functions of the UN - but to only those countries you choose? What of international co-operation in terms of telecommunications, maritime matters, air travel, the IMF etc? All to be hived off as separate bodies funded separately?

(not an attack, an attempt to seek clarification)

No, I wouldn't advocate the US taking over anything belonging to the UN. As far as peacekeeping functions go, I believe these should be mostly of a regional matter and secondly by treaty or request. I don't see this as a problem really because it would be hard to do worse than the UN in this area.

The US's humanitairian resources can easily co exist with those of the UN. The implied competition would probably provide an astronomical increase for those in need like the world has never seen.

The IMF is something I have had a problem with for a very long time for other reasons. I believe it to have some rather sinister motives that benefit a very few international bankers and very rich corporations, ultimately at the expense of common people. I would have to take a very long and hard look at this operation.

Martime matters- This all depends on what you are referring to in this area. I don't believe the UN has any business in it, much less attempting a tax to support it. Same for the US. No business policing international waters beyond where you float your boat and it's maximum effective range.

For the rest, air travel and telecommunications I really dont know why the UN would be involved with it in the first place to be honest. Maybe there are reasons I am unaware of, but I seriously doubt it.

For the record, I in no way believe the US should be the worlds police just as firmly as I believe that the UN shall not be allowed to be the US's police.

Liverbreath']
Martime matters ... For the rest, air travel and telecommunications I really dont know why the UN would be involved with it in the first place to be honest. Maybe there are reasons I am unaware of, but I seriously doubt it.

Oh? Then you really do need to take a look at some of the UN's functions.

Oh really,


See cliky (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Text/declaration_united_nations.html)

Which is not, in fact, the Charter of the UN that was established and that runs to this day. So, yes, nonsense.

tag

Which is not, in fact, the Charter of the UN that was established and that runs to this day. So, yes, nonsense.

The question asked what was the original intentions of the UN. I provided them. I never claimed it was the charter. So, no, not nonsense. The fact it became something else later is beside the point.

Oh really,


See cliky (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Text/declaration_united_nations.html)
That was a declaration by United Nations, but the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/) was:

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter.

I hope we do slash UN funds. Let Europe pick up the slack if they give a shit.

If the UN is hurting for money maybe they can borrow some money from the French, Germans and Russians... Between them and Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son I hear they might have some extra money hanging around somewhere... :rolleyes: Sure, it might have a few blood and oil stains on it but from what I hear it's still worth something... :p

I see a lot of "one country shouldnt dicatate" blah blah blah how the rest of the world should run.

Yeah, that's good and fine - and sound judgement, but why should the rest of the world be able to dictate how one country runs itself?

Especially since half of the UN resolutions are complete wastes of time and money, but i guess you can't expect any different from a large group of people with power that they didn't earn. (Most, if not all UN delegates are appointed, rather than elected.)

The UN is certainly an important aspect of multinational relations, but it shouldnt be the sole factor.

BTW, the questions were for LiverBreath, since he claimed a greater knowledge of the UN. I wanted to see if he was up for the challenge and see if he could back up his statements.

Questions for LiverBreath (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9088306&postcount=105)

Yeah, that's good and fine - and sound judgement, but why should the rest of the world be able to dictate how one country runs itself? *snip*


I've asked this about six times- how has the UN told you how to run your country?

It's not a parliament!! Why should they be elected? They're spokesmen for their countries' governments.

That was a declaration by United Nations, but the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/) was:

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter.

Obviously I am aware of the UN charter. The fact remains that the UN existed and did things that pre-date the charter. You wanted the original intentions, and I condensed them, and gave them to you. There is no point in getting upset because the UN charter is not in fact representative of the organizations original intent, or the reason for its existence.

Anyway, they should have adopted Churchill's plan for the UN, it made far more sense.

Most, if not all UN delegates are appointed, rather than elected.
Why don't we talk about things you know?
Yes, most of the delegates are appointed indeed. In fact, I don't know one elected one. And that's your problem..?

In the beginning it was good and all, and states (in the UN's case, countries) held onto a lot more of their soveriegnty than expected. But little after little, the Federal government (or in the world's case, the UN) began to siphon off that soveriegnty.

Yeah, it was good until it had some critics towards the US, from that point, US neocons in power did not agree with the UN. But when the UN sucks their balls it is OK. It is as simple as that. It is not a question of rules, because it is the US together with some other regimes like China and Russia, N-Korea aso that acts against most rules of this organisation.

It's certainly indisputable that no country even approaches the US for veto use (which didn't stop rabid criticism of France for using its veto!).

Obviously I am aware of the UN charter. The fact remains that the UN existed and did things that pre-date the charter. You wanted the original intentions, and I condensed them, and gave them to you. There is no point in getting upset because the UN charter is not in fact representative of the organizations original intent, or the reason for its existence.

Anyway, they should have adopted Churchill's plan for the UN, it made far more sense.
Thanks for your post, and you did go one better, and I am not upset. However, I was basing my questions on the actual UN Charter.

Having said that, I am glad that the original writings that you posted were NOT incorporated into the final UN Charter. If they had been, the UN would probably have died a long time ago.

Why don't we talk about things you know?
Yes, most of the delegates are appointed indeed. In fact, I don't know one elected one. And that's your problem..?

It would be better if they were elected.

Of course that would make for a pretty empty general assembly, and an empty seat (perhaps two the way things are going) among the permanent security council members.

I hope we do slash UN funds. Let Europe pick up the slack if they give a shit.

We agree, a UN without the Us would be great.great to for the netto payers because it is Europe that pays more then the US, in number and pro capita.
I agree 100% a Un with a Nazi Germany to would be hypocrit so lets drop todays Nazi Germany. :gundge: :sniper:

Oh? Then you really do need to take a look at some of the UN's functions.

Wow you are right, I sure did need to take a look a little deeper. After looking into Air Travel, there is no doubt this body has gone entirely off the cliff in its mission. They want a 1% tax on international flights too! Yes my assessment was correct. This group doesn't need US participation. This isn't one nation under the United Nations and neither are any of the other nations I am aware of.
Please enlighten me if you know. Exactly what is it they feel that they have done for this one percent tax on international flights? They offer no explanation other than they want it because no one wants them to be able to issue bonds.

If the UN is hurting for money maybe they can borrow some money from the French, Germans and Russians... Between them and Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son I hear they might have some extra money hanging around somewhere... :rolleyes: Sure, it might have a few blood and oil stains on it but from what I hear it's still worth something... :p
Ooooh, now I'm impressed. Like those countries/people are the only ones.
I hear many people talk to me about how the market does things just fine and how any intervention is bad.
But when confronted with the results, they start rolling their eyes...

I agree 100% a Un with a Nazi Germany to would be hypocrit so lets drop todays Nazi Germany. :gundge: :sniper:
Hmmm? Is that sarcasm?

Liverbreath']Please enlighten me if you know. Exactly what is it they feel that they have done for this one percent tax on international flights? They offer no explanation other than they want it because no one wants them to be able to issue bonds.
Probably for humanitarian purposes.
Voluntary charity hasn't exactly helped the third world so far, so I don't see why a tax (1% really is nothing to an individual) shouldn't be used to make up for the money various governments rather keep for themselves.

Liverbreath']Wow you are right, I sure did need to take a look a little deeper. After looking into Air Travel, there is no doubt this body has gone entirely off the cliff in its mission. They want a 1% tax on international flights too! Yes my assessment was correct. This group doesn't need US participation. This isn't one nation under the United Nations and neither are any of the other nations I am aware of.
Please enlighten me if you know. Exactly what is it they feel that they have done for this one percent tax on international flights? They offer no explanation other than they want it because no one wants them to be able to issue bonds.

Yeah, well Air Travel is regulated by the Warsaw (as amended by Montreal) convention. So I think the UN will have to wait on that one.

It would be better if they were elected.

You are absolutely right. But aren't they representing the political will of the people who elected them the first place? There is a need to elect a 'person to represent us in the UN' too? Good luck with that.

BTW, the questions were for LiverBreath, since he claimed a greater knowledge of the UN. I wanted to see if he was up for the challenge and see if he could back up his statements.

Questions for LiverBreath (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9088306&postcount=105)

Based on your condesending misrepresentation of what I said I certainly feel no
inclination to undergo an interrogation or take a test designed by someone so obviously intent on making themselves feel superior.

Thanks for your post, and you did go one better, and I am not upset. However, I was basing my questions on the actual UN Charter.

Having said that, I am glad that the original writings that you posted were NOT incorporated into the final UN Charter. If they had been, the UN would probably have died a long time ago.

Hmm, well I will admit I was probably being a little facetious. I actually have no problem with the UN. It's a good place for nations to blow off steam. But as I look at it, I think it hasn't really succesfully made the transition from the cold war mentality that governed it for so long to adequately address the new international order. It seems a little adrift.

I also don't like the knee-jerk US v. UN mentality from the majority of people. Given that the US has no intention of actually cutting UN funds (and the administration has said as much) I look at this current round of anti-UN sabre rattling as an attempt to attention to issues the US believes (or rather a subset of US politicians believes) need addressing.

And you really can't complain about the human rights points. If the UN charter is actually going to function as international law, at the very least the UN should make some effort to try and bring its members into general accord with it. Otherwise it seems a little farcical. I understand that historically this was not a concern, because the big powers were playing us v. them coldwar game, and would overlook these types of things in order to further geo-political goals. But that has changed now. You shouldn't get a pass just because you are an ally, or are offering to be an ally, of nation x. But that's what I was talking about when I meant that it hasn't made the transition from the cold war.

Ultimately, I think it would be fair for the US and UK to have to answer for the actions in Iraq to the UN. But this should only happen if, and only if, all other nations are brought to account for their own transgressions of the charter. (Mind you that would make for a lot of hearings).

I think a fair way to start would be to only allow those members that are in good standing to vote in the general assembly, and take commitee seats.

I would also like to see more work on non-proliferation.

Liverbreath']Based on your condesending misrepresentation of what I said I certainly feel no
inclination to undergo an interrogation or take a test designed by someone so obviously intent on making themselves feel superior.
But a claim that most US citizens are better informed about the purposes of the UN than others was certainly questionable.
Especially reading what many people here feel about the UN, and assuming that they have come to this position with lots of help from US media, especially FoxNews talking heads.

You are absolutely right. But aren't they representing the political will of the people who elected them the first place? There is a need to elect a 'person to represent us in the UN' too? Good luck with that.

Yes, but in many cases the Nations that UN ambassadors represent are hardly democracies. So you can't really claim that they are representing the political will or the people the represent. Take Burma, China or Saudi Arabia for example.

The point is, with or without oversight large nations will continue to push their agenda. The US is not the first, and it is most certainly not the last. It will be put in its place at some point. Making that point, The UN has become convoluted. Perhaps a mandate that they stop sucking up funds and accomplish something. Not allow a large nation to start a war, because they falsely justify it. Not allow small nations to manufacture nuclear arms with absolutely no oversight. And certainly not allow any nation to walk around asserting power.

10% of the UN's funding goes on Admin costs. That's not half bad, it's the sort of number the UK Charities Commission expects of registered charities, for example.

The point is, with or without oversight large nations will continue to push their agenda. The US is not the first, and it is most certainly not the last. It will be put in its place at some point. Making that point, The UN has become convoluted. Perhaps a mandate that they stop sucking up funds and accomplish something. Not allow a large nation to start a war, because they falsely justify it. Not allow small nations to manufacture nuclear arms with absolutely no oversight. And certainly not allow any nation to walk around asserting power.

Large nations are usually driven by concerns other than the UN. Imagine a European super-state streching from the atlantic to the Urals. I imagine that it would persue policy goals completely seperate to the concerns of the general assembly. And further, when UN policy and European policy conflicted the European state would pressure the UN to conform.

It's just how things are.

-snip-
Can you think of an example? An issue where an EU (most likely dominated by German and French foreign policy ideals) would seriously disagree with the UN and pressure it?
Western Europe stands for the same ideals as the UN. Helping people out in need, preventing war wherever possible (except in cases where all else fails and many lives are at stake...genocide, not dictatorships, that is) and so on.

Now that's my bit of idealism for the day.

Yes, but in many cases the Nations that UN ambassadors represent are hardly democracies. So you can't really claim that they are representing the political will or the people the represent. Take Burma, China or Saudi Arabia for example.
True. Just take them as your normal representatives of your constituent... a pedohile here, a guy evading taxes there. They make it to the govt, somebody is elected to represent you in the UN...

And I never claimed all the nations in the UN should represent the political will of their peoples. We are talking about the United NATIONS, not United peoples, right? Let's keep it real. :D

EDIT: cynical enough to call a night, right? late.

Thatl can all be true but 99% of the UN still think that Eddy Merckx (60 today) is bigger then Lance :cool:

But a claim that most US citizens are better informed about the purposes of the UN than others was certainly questionable.
Especially reading what many people here feel about the UN, and assuming that they have come to this position with lots of help from US media, especially FoxNews talking heads.

There was no claim. That was a response to the insuation that americans against the UN didn't know what the UN did. I simply pointed out that was one of the areas that our educational system emphasized in its virtues so americans did have some understanding of it just as the "enlightened and thoughtful" europeans and canadians did.
I dont know how to tell you this, but fox news is about 18 years late in mentioning the UN's declining support in the US. The fact is, it was being tolerated almost entirely because the case was successfully presented to keep it around because it allowed security agencies to keep track of certain spy networks that were operating out of it. Fox news is also about 5 years too late to effect my opion that it has outgrown it's usefulness. Of course you would never hear such a thing from our networks because if they don't report it, it doesn't exist. You could fill volumes with what those clowns don't report and even more with what they lie about.

Liverbreath']-snip-
I don't live in the US, I don't know what FoxNews shows, hell I haven't even seen OutFoxed!
All I see here is a whole set of people who think the UN is corrupt, that it supports oppression and evil in general, that it shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever and so on. And I see you saying "it has outgrown its usefulness" as if it is yours to decide.
Just take the UN as given. No nation has the right to change anything about it unilaterally. Only all nations together, voting in the semi-democratic process that we are smitten with right now can decide to change anything.
What US politicians feel about the UN is of no consequence to me, or pretty much anyone else on this planet, and making the world community (which is currently represented by the UN) conform to your politician's whims is arrogant at best.

allthough I think the UN is a good tool, it has many problems and needs heavy revamping in several areas..

A good start can be abolishing the US veto ((a poor payer and the bigest user of it, (mostly to play dirty in it's own interest like extreme right regime support or illegal armdeals), instead of global ones)), the Russian and Chinese veto. And give a veto to the biggest contributors /or biggest nations. EU (instead of a ridiculous apart French and UK one)/ India (why not).

what with a South Africa or other symbolic nation for the black continent?

I think I just had a revalation. Poking about in the NationStates game I paid attention to the UN page for the first time:

"The UN is the world's governing body. Membership is voluntary, but all member nations must abide by UN rules."

I have a sinking feeling that a few of the contributors to this thread think that's true for the real UN as well.

What US politicians feel about the UN is of no consequence to me, or pretty much anyone else on this planet, and making the world community (which is currently represented by the UN) conform to your politician's whims is arrogant at best.

PNAC anyone?

Can you think of an example? An issue where an EU (most likely dominated by German and French foreign policy ideals) would seriously disagree with the UN and pressure it?
Western Europe stands for the same ideals as the UN. Helping people out in need, preventing war wherever possible (except in cases where all else fails and many lives are at stake...genocide, not dictatorships, that is) and so on.

Now that's my bit of idealism for the day.

I agree that in general, for the moment, European nations are generally in accord with UN policy. (Well the UK sticks out like a sore thumb a bit, and Spain, Italy, and Poland's positions have been somewhat antithetical in recent history).

There have been instances in the past when this has not been the case in respect of the UK and France. Probably the cold war and the relative size of either overshadowed any attempt to pressure the UN however.

Moreover I chose a hypothetical European super state because it is easy to conceptualize. It is not difficult to imagine a strong federal Europe as a superpower that would rival the US in economic, and potentially millitary, strength. Naturally such a large powerful entity would have a diverse range of international interests, and it is not difficult to imagine that its preffered course of action could be in sharp variance to the rest of the world. In that case, it would only be natural that it would attempt to pressure the UN (and have the financial and millitary muscle to back it up). I very much doubt, as a democracy, it would embark upon one course of action, then overule itself against the interests of its populace because of the UN general assembly.

Of course, this is just a hypothetical for the moment. (Though I, unlike many US citizens see the creation of a ferderal EU as inevitable. Eventually.)

Of course, this is just a hypothetical for the moment. (Though I, unlike many US citizens see the creation of a ferderal EU as inevitable. Eventually.)

Hmm, not convinced. I just don't think Europe will ever be as inclined as the US is to view the world in terms of blocs.

Hmm, not convinced. I just don't think Europe will ever be as inclined as the US is to view the world in terms of blocs.

Because it isn't one. Yet. And it was quite good at viewing the world as blocs for the majority of recent history.

And France certianly saw the world as blocs in the run up to the Iraq Fracas.

Sorry, to clarify - to see it in terms of opposed blocs. I think I said on another thread that the US seems at times to be casting about for a new enemy now that the USSR has collapsed and it's not too bothered if it's Europe, China or even Islam. It's easier to define yourselves if you have an enemy that you can point to and say "well at least we're not x".

Sorry, to clarify - to see it in terms of opposed blocs. I think I said on another thread that the US seems at times to be casting about for a new enemy now that the USSR has collapsed and it's not too bothered if it's Europe, China or even Islam. It's easier to define yourselves if you have an enemy that you can point to and say "well at least we're not x".

Yah, that I can see to an extent. The US has the problem of being a "super-power" with no-one to fight. I don't think that the Foreign service here has made the transition from the bi-polar worldview very well either. I mean let's face it, when the USSR was on the other side of the Fulda Gap with a billion tanks, western europe tended to fall in with US policy a little more eagerly. (Except for france, which I kinda respect). The fact that Western Europe doesn't almost automatically back every US play these days seems to confuse them.

At the same time, Europe is in a period of redefining itself. So the Europeans aren't a coherent bloc at the moment either. I imagine both sides could benefit from a little consensus building and give and take. (i.e., the US reliquinshes some of it's my way or the highway attitude, and Europe becomes a little more flexible where mutual goals are concerned, instead of trying to define itself as "not the US.")

The US realtionship with the Islamic world and china is even more confused.

Personally, I find discord between the US and europe silly, because in many ways the two regions are natural allies.

Hmm, well I will admit I was probably being a little facetious. I actually have no problem with the UN. It's a good place for nations to blow off steam. But as I look at it, I think it hasn't really succesfully made the transition from the cold war mentality that governed it for so long to adequately address the new international order. It seems a little adrift.
Thanks for your candor. It is easier to discuss issues that way. I agree that the UN has problems but I would rather see a movement to correct those issues rather than discard the organization.

I also don't like the knee-jerk US v. UN mentality from the majority of people. Given that the US has no intention of actually cutting UN funds (and the administration has said as much) I look at this current round of anti-UN sabre rattling as an attempt to attention to issues the US believes (or rather a subset of US politicians believes) need addressing.
I agree and it should be interesting to see what proposals that Congress is putting forward.

And you really can't complain about the human rights points. If the UN charter is actually going to function as international law, at the very least the UN should make some effort to try and bring its members into general accord with it. Otherwise it seems a little farcical. I understand that historically this was not a concern, because the big powers were playing us v. them coldwar game, and would overlook these types of things in order to further geo-political goals. But that has changed now. You shouldn't get a pass just because you are an ally, or are offering to be an ally, of nation x. But that's what I was talking about when I meant that it hasn't made the transition from the cold war.
Again I agree, and perhaps the human rights issues will be somewhat more thorny than others.

Ultimately, I think it would be fair for the US and UK to have to answer for the actions in Iraq to the UN. But this should only happen if, and only if, all other nations are brought to account for their own transgressions of the charter. (Mind you that would make for a lot of hearings).
This is perhaps the most difficult area. The US refusal to commit to the ICC certainly hinders the advancement of the UN in matters of human rights, and in matters of sovereignity. Although the UK is a signator to the ICC, I severely doubt there will be any ramifications for their actions. I do agree however, that the US and UK should be held accountable. Like I said though. I don't see that happening in the near future.

Perhaps the best way around this would be to make membership in the UN contingent upon ratifying membership in the ICC. I think the best way to go forward, would be to wipe the slate clean and start afresh. However, ALL future transgressions would be dealt with the utmost severity.

I think a fair way to start would be to only allow those members that are in good standing to vote in the general assembly, and take commitee seats.
Again, I agree.

I would also like to see more work on non-proliferation.
Once again I have to concur, but I would also like to see greater control of conventional armaments as well.

What originally appeared as a confrontational debate has in fact led to a rational discussion and a better understanding. It also appears that we agree in principle on a number of items. Thanks for your post.

This is perhaps the most difficult area. The US refusal to commit to the ICC certainly hinders the advancement of the UN in matters of human rights, and in matters of sovereignity. Although the UK is a signator to the ICC, I severely doubt there will be any ramifications for their actions. I do agree however, that the US and UK should be held accountable. Like I said though. I don't see that happening in the near future.

Perhaps the best way around this would be to make membership in the UN contingent upon ratifying membership in the ICC. I think the best way to go forward, would be to wipe the slate clean and start afresh. However, ALL future transgressions would be dealt with the utmost severity.


It is my understanding though, that for the US to submit to the ICCs jurisdiction, most probably a constitutional amendment would be required. I just can't ever see that passing.

I agree with you about starting afresh. It's probably the best way because otherwise vested interests will hinder any type of reform.

What originally appeared as a confrontational debate has in fact led to a rational discussion and a better understanding. It also appears that we agree in principle on a number of items. Thanks for your post.

I think all reasonable people would like to see a move towards better human rights globally, and less international conflict.

For me, it is also self interest. I believe that the size of the US millitary budget is destroying the US economy bit by bit. I would like to see a world where no nation felt it had to spend more than 1% GDP on the millitary. Unfortunately that is seemingly not an option at the moment. If the UN - or some other agency - could bring around a new era of global harmony, everyone would benefit incredibly. But that's me, I am an old fashioned right winger.

It is my understanding though, that for the US to submit to the ICCs jurisdiction, most probably a constitutional amendment would be required. I just can't ever see that passing.
No, I don't see that happening either, which I find unfortunate, because it truly is a stumbling block for the UN.

I agree with you about starting afresh. It's probably the best way because otherwise vested interests will hinder any type of reform.
Yes, otherwise there will be too much finger pointing and counter productive.

I hope the UN tells them politely to fuck off.

No one country should dictate policy and reform.

Indeed. It is not up to one member out of 191 to dictate and impose policy through threat for the whole of the UN. It's called the United Nations for a reason.

The UN can consider the US's proposals, but to cave in to threat would be a very bad idea and would set a horrible precedent.

Cutting their budget is the only way we can get them to reform. Otherwise, we're just giving tacit approval to their actions through our funding. This is some real action on oil-for-food at last.
Pity we're not cutting funding to the World Bank and IMF to get them to reform...

i dont see how budget cuts is goign to help anyone,

ill take your money till you find a way to get money to make a reform

i dont see how budget cuts is goign to help anyone,

ill take your money till you find a way to get money to make a reform

In any large beaurocracy, the first real sign of reform, is firing Friends, Brothers and In-Laws that were sucking up pay and funneling resources to their offshore accounts.
the U.S. Congress seems to see this as a "Rate payer" might: "I'm Paying out x amount of dollars for this service-what does it do?"

Unlike our European cousins, most Americans think ill of taxes and tax-bringers. There's a reason the U.N. can't issue bonds anymore-abuse.

It's a natural progression in the U.S. to demand that a greater share of the budget given to a service should result in a greater say in how that service behaves-even if it isn't a greater share of your own resources.

Europe, taken collectively, (all nations of Europe) carries a huge portion of the U.N. Budget. It would be reasonable, then, for European concerns to dominate... if those concerns could,somehow, be made into a coherent bloc.
taken individually the US pays more of the bill, therefore, demands some say in the menu.

This may be why America is a richer and more powerful country than nations established thousands of years ago. we don't tend to accept bad service or incompetent work unless we're forced to. the United Nations probably has not stopped a war. We know it hasn't stopped genocides. It has not stopped, or visibly impacted, gross human-rights abuses, and in fact, the General Assembly put two nations on the Human Rights comission that routinely do things that make the worst charges out of Abu Ghraib look like a soft kiss behind the ear in the park bandstand by way of comparison.
The U.N. is as corrupt as any other multinational corporation, but it has extranational authority no (private) corporation could dream of.

Still, it's a good point to pick up intelligence on foreign agencies working in the U.S., and it's a decent spot to find out who's going to be gunning for us next...

The UN can consider the US's proposals, but to cave in to threat would be a very bad idea and would set a horrible precedent.

Have you noticed that the UN has no teeth in the world anyway? They have already set the horrible precedent!

I hope and pray that the US will never agree to the ICC! It is wrong. The US takes care of its own problems and to agree to the ICC just makes no sense. The UN can not take care of leaders who kill thousands of their own people, attack other sovereign nations, start environmental disasters on purpose, and seek WMD openly. How the hell can we trust it to judge individuals? Not to mention that the judges will likely be looking to hammer any American that came before them just because.
I think this is a good thing for both the UN and the US and (although I am generally a supporter of President Bush) I hope the President agrees to the cut if it gets to him.

...the United Nations probably has not stopped a war. We know it hasn't stopped genocides...
Do you think we'd still be alive if the UN never had existed? Do you think the USSR and the US could have sat down on one table and managed things like the Missile Crisis without an organisation like this? I don't.
Well, on one hand you argue it shouldn't have power of nations, over people, over policies while on the other hand you complain that the UN couldn't stop genocides. Personally, I'd say: "Give the UN an intervention force!" I trust the UN to know when to use it, and that could stop genocides.

-snip-
That's not exactly a new argument. As for not being able to deal with problems, see above.
As for why the US doesn't want people to have the possibility to sue for war crimes, I reckon that just implies that you want to be free to commit war crimes when you want to. And that is not exactly befitting the US you are trying to hang on to.

I think all reasonable people would like to see a move towards better human rights globally, and less international conflict.
The key word here is "reasonable". Take this thread for an example. There are people who would celebrate the demise of the UN, despite one of its' stated goals being "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small"

Why would people oppose such a noble goal?

For me, it is also self interest. I believe that the size of the US millitary budget is destroying the US economy bit by bit. I would like to see a world where no nation felt it had to spend more than 1% GDP on the millitary. Unfortunately that is seemingly not an option at the moment. If the UN - or some other agency - could bring around a new era of global harmony, everyone would benefit incredibly. But that's me, I am an old fashioned right winger.
This would only come about with a stronger UN that could enforce the Resolutions that they pass, and enforce the peace. I don't believe that the US should be the worlds's police force. Currently, the US military spending (approximately $450 Billion annually) is equal to that of the "rest of the world". I can see your concern that spending that kind of money is "destroying the US economy bit by bit". While the military might is ever present, the economic muscles are weakened.

Wars upon wars is not the route to "global harmony". One would think that after thousands of years of history that mankind would have figured that out by now?

Ein Deutscher']-snip

Hooray! Death to the child-bayoneting, hospital-bombing, goat-raping U.N.!

The allegations against the Secretary General are completely unproven as they are against several other people. Did you see George Galloway at the Senate hearing?

They are not unproven against other people Vaevictis. Secretary General Annan's son had the allegation pretty much proven. I wouldn't start to be a UN apologist. As for Secretary General Annan, he's being investigated again because of a couple of emails that surfaced.

but we come to the nub of it. The system of the UN attempts to give a voice to smaller nations, it attempts to make a more level playing field. Your nose is out of joint because a corollary of that is the US doesn't get to do its own thing and push everyone else around - or at least it wouldn't if it played by the rules.

No, we have our nose out of joint because of all the corruption, its disdain for those that do try to follow The Declaration on Human Rights, and its support for terror.

It has no ability to create law. Especially where it concerns the US, which is a country singularly unwilling to abide by international law.

This is so false, it isn't even funny

It is not a legislative body. What law has the UN ever tried to enforce on the US?

The General Assembly isn't no but the UNSC....

I call them resolutions. They are the resolved position of the UN. They're not national laws.

Actually, under the UN Charter, they are as good as laws and need to be followed.

That's "numbered," Junior.

Oh, and is this the same Cornelius who alleges that he doesn't hate the United Nation?

Let's see here... France fought valiantly in WW2 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426386&page=16&pp=15)



You claim to believe in the ideals of the UN, but you're about to cream your pants with the thought of the UN's days being numbered.

Wow... and people keep saying Clinton and Kerry were flip-floppers.

:rolleyes:

I said I believe in the IDEALS of the UN! Where did I show support for the UN? I lost support for the UN along time ago.

Do you think we'd still be alive if the UN never had existed? Do you think the USSR and the US could have sat down on one table and managed things like the Missile Crisis without an organisation like this? I don't.
Well, on one hand you argue it shouldn't have power of nations, over people, over policies while on the other hand you complain that the UN couldn't stop genocides. Personally, I'd say: "Give the UN an intervention force!" I trust the UN to know when to use it, and that could stop genocides.

I recall the missile crisis in Cuba was pretty much handled outside of the UN. The UN didn't vote to go to Korea until the USSR stormed out of a meeting of the Security Council and couldn't vote to veto the resolution. How would an UN controlled intervention force avoid the rapes and extortion that are currently the result of UN peacekeepers in Africa? Nah, the UN is just a club for corrupt tyrants that enjoy the amenities, like diplomatic immunity and free parking, that the United States has to offer.

Actually, under the UN Charter, they are as good as laws and need to be followed.


Only in so far as there is a fucking enforcement provision put in place, as - much like US domestic law - where there are not enforcement provisions in enacted legislation the police and/or courts are not expected nor permitted to pull their own policies our of their asses on how to enforce things.

Nonsense.
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war


Name me a war that the UN has prevented!

which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,

Name a country that has severe Human Rights abuses and the UN does nothing about them!

in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

The UN doesn't do this.

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

Iraq War comes to mind. Bosnia comes to mind. Oops, the UN wasn't involved there. Next!

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

Name a country they did this in!

Secretary General Annan's son had the allegation pretty much proven.
"pretty much proven". Is that like partially pregnant?

I wouldn't start to be a UN apologist.
It might conflict with your Bush apologist position?

As for Secretary General Annan, he's being investigated again because of a couple of emails that surfaced.
And that proves what?

No, we have our nose out of joint because of all the corruption, its disdain for those that do try to follow The Declaration on Human Rights, and its support for terror.
Prove that the UN is corrupt.

You have "disdain for those that do try to follow The Declaration on Human Rights"? Why is that?

How does the UN "support terror"?

Name me a war that the UN has prevented!


How about the civil wars in Cyprus and East Timor that were mitigated by peacekeeping efforts? Does the Suez Crisis ring a bell?


You don't notice the wars that don't happen because, well, they don't happen. It would be pretty fucking hard to come up with a named war if it didn't actually happen now wouldn't it.....because oddly the fuck enough, they don't name the things that don't fucking exist!

How about the civil wars in Cyprus and East Timor that were mitigated by peacekeeping efforts? Does the Suez Crisis ring a bell?


You don't notice the wars that don't happen because, well, they don't happen. It would be pretty fucking hard to come up with a named war if it didn't actually happen now wouldn't it.....because oddly the fuck enough, they don't name the things that don't fucking exist!
Are you talking about the Suez war in 1956? That was halted when the UN peacekeepers arrived. Halted implies that a war was in progress, not prevented. Mitigation, while better than aggravation, isn't prevention.

The only thing the U.N. is any good at is raping goats and women, bayoneting children, bombing hospitals and ambulances, and turning a blind eye to genocide and terrorism.

No, I don't see that happening either, which I find unfortunate, because it truly is a stumbling block for the UN.

*just watches CH's support for sovereignty BLOW UP* We will never pass such a thing that overrode our own Judicial System. A damn good thing we wont too.

Yeah, it was good until it had some critics towards the US, from that point, US neocons in power did not agree with the UN. But when the UN sucks their balls it is OK. It is as simple as that. It is not a question of rules, because it is the US together with some other regimes like China and Russia, N-Korea aso that acts against most rules of this organisation.
No, you miss my entire allegory. My allegory was showing that in a national or a world Federal system, unless the Federal government is kept in check, its growth and power spirals out of control.

Are you talking about the Suez war in 1956? That was halted when the UN peacekeepers arrived. Halted implies that a war was in progress, not prevented. Mitigation, while better than aggravation, isn't prevention.


True to some extent, however it also often proves pretty fucking hard to get soldiers into foreign lands BEFORE hostilities break out. Still, had the Suez War been left it was likely to have expanded and extended as other countries were drawn in due to their alliances, and as such a wider war that could have destroyed the stability of the Middle East might likely have been prevented.

Of course, we can't KNOW that, which goes back to the point where it is pretty fucking hard to say when international diplomacy stops something or doesn't stop something as you can't prove whether a war would have broken out or not. You can certainly point to instances of high tension around the world where diplomatic efforts from the International Commnity have got incvolved and where tensions have eventually relaxed. Did we stop a war? Or was it not going to have happened anyway?

Case in point, the UN has worked hard for the past several years to resolve both land and sea border issues between Cameroon and Nigeria that have threatened to escalate. So far, there has been no war. Was there going to be one for sure that the UN has stopped? Or would they have settled it without bloodshed? Who the fuck knows. But we DO know that there has been no war in this instance.



In other words, it's an impossible statement to prove or disprove, and so is a lousy debating point to try and bring up.

"The 221-184 vote"

So you're saying that 221 members of Congress are "neocons?" Wow! I had no idea there were that many "neocons" around.

I said I believe in the IDEALS of the UN! Where did I show support for the UN? I lost support for the UN along time ago.

You believe in the ideals of the UN by creaming your pants at the thought of its alleged impending demise instead of trying to come up with positive solutions. Riiiiight.

Bushevik.

:rolleyes:

The key word here is "reasonable". Take this thread for an example. There are people who would celebrate the demise of the UN, despite one of its' stated goals being "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small"

*yawns*

I love it when people bold this particular section. It hasn't reaffirmed faith in the fundamental human rights, people are still being degraded (even by UN Peacekeepers and UN Employees), and there are nations that still don't have equal rights and that the UN is also ignore that too. Yea, so much for this portion of the UN Charter.

Why would people oppose such a noble goal?

We don't. However, the UN isn't doing much to promote it. That gets under people's skin.

This would only come about with a stronger UN that could enforce the Resolutions that they pass,

I believe that they only have enforced TWO resolutions. The Resolution on North Korea (war ended in a cease-fire) and the 1st Persian Gulf War (Another war that ended in a cease-fire)

and enforce the peace.

They haven't enforced in regards to North Korea and they sure as hell didn't enforce peace in regards to Iraq. Or in the Israeli/Arab Conflict, India/Pakistan Affair, etc.

I don't believe that the US should be the worlds's police force.

Neither do I! But since the rest of the world is to chicken to do anything, that leaves it to the US and those that are willing to go in and get the job done.

Currently, the US military spending (approximately $450 Billion annually) is equal to that of the "rest of the world". I can see your concern that spending that kind of money is "destroying the US economy bit by bit".

And yet we have an economy growing at a rate not seen since Reagan! Unemployment is at a very low 5.2%. Now how is it destroying America's economy again? Oh and what is your unemployment rate while your at it.

While the military might is ever present, the economic muscles are weakened.

I think you broke my BS Detector.

Wars upon wars is not the route to "global harmony". One would think that after thousands of years of history that mankind would have figured that out by now?

We are human after all. Its in our nature to fight.

The only thing the U.N. is any good at is raping goats and women, bayoneting children, bombing hospitals and ambulances, and turning a blind eye to genocide and terrorism.
Yup! And guess what! You're next! Bend over. :D

True to some extent, however it also often proves pretty fucking hard to get soldiers into foreign lands BEFORE hostilities break out. Still, had the Suez War been left it was likely to have expanded and extended as other countries were drawn in due to their alliances, and as such a wider war that could have destroyed the stability of the Middle East might likely have been prevented.

Of course, we can't KNOW that, which goes back to the point where it is pretty fucking hard to say when international diplomacy stops something or doesn't stop something as you can't prove whether a war would have broken out or not. You can certainly point to instances of high tension around the world where diplomatic efforts from the International Commnity have got incvolved and where tensions have eventually relaxed. Did we stop a war? Or was it not going to have happened anyway?

Case in point, the UN has worked hard for the past several years to resolve both land and sea border issues between Cameroon and Nigeria that have threatened to escalate. So far, there has been no war. Was there going to be one for sure that the UN has stopped? Or would they have settled it without bloodshed? Who the fuck knows. But we DO know that there has been no war in this instance.



In other words, it's an impossible statement to prove or disprove, and so is a lousy debating point to try and bring up.
If you can show a chain of resolutions that address a potential conflict, I think you could prove the UN actually stopped a war. Let's say Saddam actually complied with one of the numerous resolutions that were passed in the United Nations after he surrendered to the U.S. coalition in the first Gulf War. Then the standoff would have been abated and we wouldn't have had any reason to form another coalition to force his compliance. I don't think that there are very many, if any, resolutions that have had their desired effect. The UN seems to be able to deal with select problems after the fact, not to be able to prevent them, as was their intended purpose.

Regarding the US--USSR cold war, I think Mutal-Assured-Destruction probably did more to prevent any outbreak of hostility between these countries than the UN or NATO ever could have done.

Do you need a pointer to a thesaurus for some alternatives to your profanity? I could help.

"pretty much proven". Is that like partially pregnant?

You don't follow the news do you?

It might conflict with your Bush apologist position?

What? Im not a Bush Apologist but you are a UN apologist.

And that proves what?

Nothing yet.

Prove that the UN is corrupt.

You have got to be kidding me. Oil-For-Food Ring about?

You have "disdain for those that do try to follow The Declaration on Human Rights"? Why is that?

Nice twist of words. I have disdain for those that don't and who are in the UN. The UN does nothing but ignore them. Yea, we to promote it :rolleyes:

How does the UN "support terror"?

They haven't yet condemn the Hamas yet, they haven't condemned Al Aqsa Marters Brigade, Islamic Jihad, nor have they condemned the Palestinian Authority who has a seat at the UN even though there seat is, in reality, ILLEGAL because they are not a nation.

How about the civil wars in Cyprus and East Timor that were mitigated by peacekeeping efforts? Does the Suez Crisis ring a bell?

I remember reading about the Suez War of 1956. Notice the word WAR in there. The UN didn't prevent it L.M.

You don't notice the wars that don't happen because, well, they don't happen.

Nah really?

It would be pretty fucking hard to come up with a named war if it didn't actually happen now wouldn't it.....

You missed my point entirely. It didn't prevent 2 arab/Israeli Wars, it didn't prevent the 3 India/Pakistan wars, it didn't Prevent Korea, it didn't prevent Persian Gulf (though I'll let them off the hook on this one), I could go on but it ain't worth the effort.

because oddly the fuck enough, they don't name the things that don't fucking exist!

:rolleyes: I hate cuss words.

You believe in the ideals of the UN by creaming your pants at the thought of its alleged impending demise instead of trying to come up with positive solutions. Riiiiight.

:rolleyes:

Its time to start afresh. Get rid of the UN and start over.

If you can show a chain of resolutions that address a potential conflict, I think you could prove the UN actually stopped a war. Let's say Saddam actually complied with one of the numerous resolutions that were passed in the United Nations after he surrendered to the U.S. coalition in the first Gulf War. Then the standoff would have been abated and we wouldn't have had any reason to form another coalition to force his compliance. I don't think that there are very many, if any, resolutions that have had their desired effect. The UN seems to be able to deal with select problems after the fact, not to be able to prevent them, as was their intended purpose.

Regarding the US--USSR cold war, I think Mutal-Assured-Destruction probably did more to prevent any outbreak of hostility between these countries than the UN or NATO ever could have done.


Well great, you've covered two wars. Frankly, I think that there has been whole lot of other history around the world that ISN'T US-centric that you are being quite careful to ignore. And, believe it or not, the UN does not only concern itself with the US.


Do you need a pointer to a thesaurus for some alternatives to your profanity? I could help.

No thank you. I could give a rat's ass if my language meets the standards of your delicate sensibilites or not.

I'm in your face - true, but to be perfectly honest I consider that to be a far more honest approach than some of the veiled insults and innuendo I read from people who seem to deem themselves to be somehow intellectual superior because they have a penchant for polysylables.

If you can't get past the language to get to the substance, then that is YOUR problem - not mine. And if you think that having a thesaurus makes you more knowledgeable, then I think you are focusing on the wrong education.

You missed my point entirely. It didn't prevent 2 arab/Israeli Wars, it didn't prevent the 3 India/Pakistan wars, it didn't Prevent Korea, it didn't prevent Persian Gulf (though I'll let them off the hook on this one), I could go on but it ain't worth the effort.


Well, if perfection is the standard by which politcal entities are to be judged, then you had best disband them all. Pointing to failures is easy. But doing that while ignoring successes is simply disingenuous.


:rolleyes: I hate cuss words.

Well, that's too fucking bad. I don't.

Well great, you've covered two wars. Frankly, I think that there has been whole lot of other history around the world that ISN'T US-centric that you are being quite careful to ignore. And, believe it or not, the UN does not only concern itself with the US.

These were examples of UN activity. Resolutions that failed to meet their purpose and resolutions that succeeded, but for external reasons. There have been many more examples of UN failures that didn't involve the U.S. I don't need to repeat them; you can read back through the posts.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if perfection is the standard by which politcal entities are to be judged, then you had best disband them all. Pointing to failures is easy. But doing that while ignoring successes is simply disingenuous.

Where did this post come from? I never even implied that perfection is the standard. I pointed out what the UN failed to prevent. They failed to prevent those wars. They also failed to prevent the Genocide in Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Kosovo, Iraq.

They didn't do nothing about the Human Rights abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, and other places.

They haven't even done anything to further equal rights in other places either. I find it Ironic that the US takes out Saddam Hussein and now we have the cooperation of Libya (Scared they'll be next), the women having the right to vote in Kuwait, limited democracy in Saudi Arabia. These weren't done by the UN but by the invasion of Iraq.

Well, that's too fucking bad. I don't.

It shows your level of intellect.

I don't live in the US, I don't know what FoxNews shows, hell I haven't even seen OutFoxed!
All I see here is a whole set of people who think the UN is corrupt, that it supports oppression and evil in general, that it shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever and so on. And I see you saying "it has outgrown its usefulness" as if it is yours to decide.
Just take the UN as given. No nation has the right to change anything about it unilaterally. Only all nations together, voting in the semi-democratic process that we are smitten with right now can decide to change anything.
What US politicians feel about the UN is of no consequence to me, or pretty much anyone else on this planet, and making the world community (which is currently represented by the UN) conform to your politician's whims is arrogant at best.

Yes, I believe that the UN has outgrown it usefulness and become a hinderance to it's origional intent. I was asked my thoughts on the subject and you act as if I made some sort of demand.
No, I will not just take the UN as a given, nor do I care to change it. I wish to leave it and I will lobby as hard as I possibly can for as long as it takes to get my country to leave it as it stands. Furthermore, it is folks like you who wish to deny the problems with the UN and demand that we as a nation accept it as it is that make me certain leaving it is best. I believe many of you feel you can use the UN to gain global domination over all independent countries. If that is the case, I prefer it be over my dead body.

It shows your level of intellect.


No, it only shows your level of snobbery.

But then again, it seems as though finding excuses to dismiss opposing viewpoints by any reason possible is a full-time hobby for you.

No, it only shows your level of snobbery.

But then again, it seems as though finding excuses to dismiss opposing viewpoints by any reason possible is a full-time hobby for you.

Just like you to find any excuses to dismiss opposing arguements yourself.

Liverbreath']So do I, but mainly because I would like very much to see it closed down completely and started from scratch. Preferably in a place other than the United States.

Sweden or Switzerland would be suitable, IMO.

I hope the UN tells them politely to fuck off.

No one country should dictate policy and reform.

You do know that the UN is stationed in the United States and funded most by them?

You do know that the UN is stationed in the United States and funded most by them?

And the relevance of that point in regard to what you've quoted would be... ?

*yawns*

I love it when people bold this particular section. It hasn't reaffirmed faith in the fundamental human rights, people are still being degraded (even by UN Peacekeepers and UN Employees), and there are nations that still don't have equal rights and that the UN is also ignore that too. Yea, so much for this portion of the UN Charter.
And I cannot understand why you cannot see some of the underlying problems with the UN being unable to attain these goals:

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 Afirms 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 Afirms 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 Criticises 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 Afirms 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.

ALL of these vetoes and yet you gloat over the failures of the UN. If you cannot see that the massive intervention by US politics into the functions of the UN has stifled human rights and peace processes, then you are indeed blind. Your hollow rhetoric and dancing with glee does nothing to convince me that you indeed support "human rights" and the "equality" of nations.

Neither do I! But since the rest of the world is to chicken to do anything, that leaves it to the US and those that are willing to go in and get the job done.
Here you would support the invasion of Iraq and in the process violate UN Resolution 1441, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Your hypocrisy must be weighing you down by now?

I hate cuss words.
Awwww, you are "sensitive" about swear words but insensitive about death and destruction. You are an enigma to say the least.

We are human after all. Its in our nature to fight.
So, is it in your "nature" to kill and continue to "kill"? Is that God"s will for you these days? Somehow, I don't think so.

1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.

The "liberation movement" that put flaming tires around poor blacks' necks?

*snip*

Now that most of the anti-israeli resolutions are out of the way and not to mention the Bosnian veto (Good that we did that too), name me a war or genocide that the UN has prevented in conjectured with the UN Charter.

[quote]ALL of these vetoes and yet you gloat over the failures of the UN.

I suggest you also look that most of those vetos dealt with Israel. Of course we're going to veto resolutions that dealt with them. Not to mention, why should the UN get involved in Bosnia when in fact they didn't get involved in the first place. China threatened Veto there and Clinton got NATO to do that campaign. I'm glad we used our vetos in regard to Israel's self-defense.

If you cannot see that the massive intervention by US politics into the functions of the UN has stifled human rights and peace processes, then you are indeed blind.

If you cannot see that:
1: Israel has the right to self defense (they are a sovereign Country)
2: The land they have is the land the got after defeating the muslim world 3 different times. Not to mention, Palestine is NOT a state.
3: The Palestinian problem is the result of the 1st Arab/Israeli War. The Arabs asked them to leave and they did. Let the Arab League handle that problem
4: The Palestinian Authority's seat is illegal under the UN Charter
5: That terrorists have done more harm to the Peace Process than Israel
6: Israel offered 95% of the land BACK and Yasar Arafat TURNED DOWN!

Then it is you that is blind and deaf for that matter.

Your hollow rhetoric and dancing with glee does nothing to convince me that you indeed support "human rights" and the "equality" of nations.

I do support Human Rights, otherwise, I would not have supported the Iraq War nor would I have supported Bosnia. I was pretty upset with Clinton for pulling us out of Somalia (though I was alot younger when that occured, I was still upset because I did know the mission there). Where was the UN during this? Nowhere to be found.

Here you would support the invasion of Iraq and in the process violate UN Resolution 1441, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Your hypocrisy must be weighing you down by now?

Compared to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS killed under Saddams reign of Terror. As for violating UNR 1441, he wasn't complying with that either just to let you know. We did it right and proper. We don't need a stickin' UN Resolution to tell us we can go to war. It goes to that Soveriegnty thing again.

Awwww, you are "sensitive" about swear words but insensitive about death and destruction. You are an enigma to say the least.

Who said I was insensitive to death and destruction?

So, is it in your "nature" to kill and continue to "kill"? Is that God"s will for you these days? Somehow, I don't think so.

I guess you don't know that fighting is in the blood of our race? Judging by the wars fought throughout our history, I'm surprised you havent learned that fact by now. I guess Canadian Education failed you.

The "liberation movement" that put flaming tires around poor blacks' necks?

SHHH!! you're not supposed to notice that! You're also not supposed to notice that the PLO and its friends were using Mt. Lebanon as an artillery park to shell Israeli civilians, or that the Palestinians have been barred from every surrounding nation, forcing them to live in refugee camps for the last forty years, or that the U.N's position in the General Assembly opposes the existence of Israel, but outright saying so would be impolitic.
Nor the thunderous silence when Pol-Pot brought his "Year Zero" campaign to a head in Cambodia. The Vietnamese were sickened enough to invade a fellow communist-run country to stop it... but the U.N had nothing to say about it until the fighting was over with...and somehow, if the U.S. had gone in instead, we'd see resolutions condemning the American action against a "Sovereign Nation", and hand-wringing about the "poor Khmer Rouge".

Pointing to failures is easy. But doing that while ignoring successes is simply disingenuous.
*falls over laughing*

Then the vast majority of posters on this forum are disingenuous, because every single thread that attacks the US (or any other country, but especially attacks on the US) patently ignores any good done and focuses on the small ammount of bad.

*falls over laughing*

Then the vast majority of posters on this forum are disingenuous, because every single thread that attacks the US (or any other country, but especially attacks on the US) patently ignores any good done and focuses on the small ammount of bad.

Yea I found his statement to be rather hypocritical Texpunditistan. :D

*falls over laughing*

Then the vast majority of posters on this forum are disingenuous, because every single thread that attacks the US (or any other country, but especially attacks on the US) patently ignores any good done and focuses on the small ammount of bad.


Point taken and fully agreed with, nor did I ever suggest otherwise now did I.

*rereads posts*

Nope, I didn't.


However that doesn't mean that Corneliu's intial statements that the UN has done NO good, followed up with his speedy backtrack to focus on a few specific failures isn't equally as disingenuous either now does it?


I mean, as long as we're calling a spade a fucking spade, then how about putting aside any regional or political affiliation and calling him for the same crap you are calling others for.

Because, you ARE correct that it IS disingenuous crap.

Oh, and look - he agrees with us on that point.

Good.

Self knowledge is, after all, a good thing.

Now that most of the anti-israeli resolutions are out of the way and not to mention the Bosnian veto (Good that we did that too), name me a war or genocide that the UN has prevented in conjectured with the UN Charter.

I suggest you also look that most of those vetos dealt with Israel. Of course we're going to veto resolutions that dealt with them. Not to mention, why should the UN get involved in Bosnia when in fact they didn't get involved in the first place. China threatened Veto there and Clinton got NATO to do that campaign. I'm glad we used our vetos in regard to Israel's self-defense.
I presume by your heavy defense of Israel that you are Jewish?

If you cannot see that:
1: Israel has the right to self defense (they are a sovereign Country)
2: The land they have is the land the got after defeating the muslim world 3 different times. Not to mention, Palestine is NOT a state.
3: The Palestinian problem is the result of the 1st Arab/Israeli War. The Arabs asked them to leave and they did. Let the Arab League handle that problem
4: The Palestinian Authority's seat is illegal under the UN Charter
5: That terrorists have done more harm to the Peace Process than Israel
6: Israel offered 95% of the land BACK and Yasar Arafat TURNED DOWN!

Then it is you that is blind and deaf for that matter.
So your take on the Israeli/Palestinian situation is that only the Palestinians are at fault? Israelis have committed no crimes? Perhaps we have different news sources? From what I can see, the kill ratio is almost 4 Palestinians to 1 Israeli.

http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/resources_counts/total05_06.jpg

Palestinians = bad guys/terrorists?

Israelis = good guys defending themselves?

I do support Human Rights, otherwise, I would not have supported the Iraq War nor would I have supported Bosnia. I was pretty upset with Clinton for pulling us out of Somalia (though I was alot younger when that occured, I was still upset because I did know the mission there). Where was the UN during this? Nowhere to be found.
From your posts on here, you do NOT support human rights period.

Compared to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS killed under Saddams reign of Terror.
Greatly assisted by the US of A.

As for violating UNR 1441, he wasn't complying with that either just to let you know.
Under what clause was Saddam NOT complying?

We did it right and proper. We don't need a stickin' UN Resolution to tell us we can go to war. It goes to that Soveriegnty thing again.
Yes you do need a UN Resolution to go to war, according to the UN Charter. And you wonder how the UN appears to be a failure in your eyes. The US violated the UN Resolution, and the UN Charter, as well as the US Constitution.

Bremer's Orders also violated international laws and the UN Charter.

Who said I was insensitive to death and destruction?
Your words. Yes, your own words, time after time, demonstrate your insensitivity to death. Perhaps you are unaware of what you are typing?

I guess you don't know that fighting is in the blood of our race? Judging by the wars fought throughout our history, I'm surprised you havent learned that fact by now. I guess Canadian Education failed you.
If warring is in your blood, then why aren't you over in Iraq helping out the cause? Oh, thats right, you wouldn't get along with the Generals because you "don't follow orders too well".

I guess if fighting is in your blood, you obviously have no room for love and compassion, or did you just misplace those human qualities?

And after all of these wars, over all of these years, just what is it that man has learned?

I presume by your heavy defense of Israel that you are Jewish?

Methodist actually!

So your take on the Israeli/Palestinian situation is that only the Palestinians are at fault?

Actually, the arabs are at fault but that is a different thread.

Israelis have committed no crimes?

Didn't say that but when your enemy hides among civilians, its hard not to get a clean kill at your target.

Perhaps we have different news sources? From what I can see, the kill ratio is almost 4 Palestinians to 1 Israeli.

And when your enemy hides among civilians, I'm not surprised

Palestinians = bad guys/terrorists?

As I told Jaba Hutts (BTW: He called me a liberal :eek:), you can't group all of them under one banner. Palestinian terrorists are the bad guys. They have been hiding among civilians and when they get targeted, citizens die. Its unfortunate but, I really hate to say this since I know what your going to say, that's war and Israel is at war with Terrorism.

Israelis = good guys defending themselves?

For the most part, yes.

From your posts on here, you do NOT support human rights period.

You can't judge someone by what he posts. I do support human rights period.

Greatly assisted by the US of A.

Oh brother. I have a bridge for sale in San Fransico if you believe that.

Under what clause was Saddam NOT complying?

Under all 17 UN Resolutions not to mention not complying with the Cease Fire. Under what clause did he comply with UN Resolutions?

Yes you do need a UN Resolution to go to war, according to the UN Charter.

The UN Charter does not trump the US Constitution. I looked at it CH. I've read it alot. No where in there does it say that a nation gave up its right to wage war on another nation. Before you point to it, let me ask you questions.

1) What about the agressions of the Arab States against Israel in 1948?
2) What about the India/Pakistani affair of 1949?

If you can tell me that these acts don't violate the UN Charter, then by God don't yell at the US.

And you wonder how the UN appears to be a failure in your eyes. The US violated the UN Resolution, and the UN Charter, as well as the US Constitution.

Sorry to burst your fantasy land but the President had authorization to use force on Iraq so therefor, the US Constitution wasn't violated *shakes his head* We didn't violate the UN Charter either nor did we violate a UN Resolution.

Bremer's Orders also violated international laws and the UN Charter.

Ohhh this is interesting. Very interesting. Prove it. And just give me a link and not the link plus article. I won't read it otherwise.

Your words. Yes, your own words, time after time, demonstrate your insensitivity to death. Perhaps you are unaware of what you are typing?

I'm fully aware what I type. *goes back to the question*

If warring is in your blood, then why aren't you over in Iraq helping out the cause? Oh, thats right, you wouldn't get along with the Generals because you "don't follow orders too well".

HAHAHA!!! Where did I say my blood? I said the Blood OF THE HUMAN RACE! Is your reading comprehension that far gone?

I guess if fighting is in your blood, you obviously have no room for love and compassion,

I dare you to tell this line to my gf.

or did you just misplace those human qualities?

Nope. But overall, fighting is in the blood of the Human Race. I guess they don't teach that up in Canada. Not surprising really.

And after all of these wars, over all of these years, just what is it that man has learned?

Absolutely nothing because the Human Race is too stupid to learn from the mistakes of the past.

And after all of these wars, over all of these years, just what is it that man has learned?

Absolutely nothing because the Human Race is too stupid to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Having stated that, I guess your only option is to fall in line, and support the staus quo?

Before you go to bed tonight, look in the mirror and ask yourself why you hate Arabs so much, and before you go to bed, pray to God and HE will help you.

Are we back at your "the Arabs started it!" again?
Do I need to get the old posts out again, or do you just accept that there is always two sides to a war, and never is only one side at fault.

Having stated that, I guess your only option is to fall in line, and support the staus quo?

HAHA! No. However, I do believe that there is a time to fight and a time to negotiate. There are also people that you can't negotiate with. The human race itself needs to change if violence is to disappear.

Before you go to bed tonight, look in the mirror and ask yourself why you hate Arabs so much,

Nice twist. I don't hate Arabs at all. I don't even hate muslims. The people I do hate are those that pervert the Islamic Faith. Would it surprise you to know that I actually have a copy of the Koran? I do. I actually read it too. It is a religion of peace. To bad its been hijacked.

and before you go to bed, pray to God and HE will help you.

I pray to God each and every single solitary night.

Are we back at your "the Arabs started it!" again?
Do I need to get the old posts out again, or do you just accept that there is always two sides to a war, and never is only one side at fault.
Apparently Corny only sees white (Mr. Bush) or black (everything else), and if it ain't white, it ain't right. There is no in between, and it is all or nothing.

The Israelis need to depart the "occupied territories" and both sides need to sign a non agression pact that would be enforced by the UN. The Israelis should also have to destroy their nukes, and of course the Palestinians would need financial support to re-establish "their" new country.

be enforced by the UN.
Bwahahaha. Berfore that, I thought you were serious.

Bwahahaha. Berfore that, I thought you were serious.
What is your problem?
1) He said "should", which allows for many things
2) The Middle East Conflict is big enough for the world to send lots of troops if the UN asks for a peace keeping force.
3) I still think the UN should have a sizable independent intervention unit for things like genocides and humanitarian help that can intervene quickly while the UN members have a big discussion about what to do next.

Bremer's Orders also violated international laws and the UN Charter

Ohhh this is interesting. Very interesting. Prove it. And just give me a link and not the link plus article. I won't read it otherwise.
I guess you won't read it then? These threads are not your personal domain and if I want to post the text to allow other posters to read of US illegal actions in Iraq, well I will post them:

From the Hague Conventions (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm):

MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE

Art. 43.

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Art. 55.

The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

Art. 56.

The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.

This means that Mr Bremer is not allowed to change Iraq's existing laws, including those that govern investment, unless it is "absolutely" essential to do so.

Mr Bremer, therefore, appears to have no right to sell off nationalised industries.

Resolution 1483 (2003)

5. Calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907;

What we have here, is the theft of the Iraqi economy by the United States of America. :eek:

Democracy in action?

I snip

aren't you hijacking the thread just a bit there Canuckheaven?

On the subject, I wouldn't worry too much about the US cutting its funding to the UN just yet. Once such a measure clears the House, it still has to clear the Senate, and then Bush would have to sign it. The measure does not have the votes to be veto proof, and the Administration has already severely criticized it.

The UN has never done anything useful anyways. they put sanctions in place, and refuse to enforce them. frankly, i think the world would be better off if the UN were disbanded. at least france, germany, and russia wouldn't have had to vote NO on iraq invasion to cover their asses.

aren't you hijacking the thread just a bit there Canuckheaven?
Oh no, whenever those two get together that is exactly what you get. He posts lots of evidence, the other side ignores it largely.

at least france, germany, and russia wouldn't have had to vote NO on iraq invasion to cover their asses.
And the rest of the world of course. 140 countries didn't want anything to do with it.

*SNIP*

1: US and Iraq fought a war
2: Iraq lost that war
3: They lost their soveriegnty when they did so
4: The COALITION Provincial Authority took control of the government
5: The CPA were CIVILIANS! Please tell me what military rank Bremer had. He didn't have a military Rank. He was a civilian and not a military governor
6: Once you lose a war, you give up alrights to administer your country
7: The Iraqi Government is back incharge now so they can undo anything that Bremer did.

CH, you don't know the full story. I don't know the full story. Speculation is fun though don't you think?

1: US and Iraq fought a war
2: Iraq lost that war
3: They lost their soveriegnty when they did so
4: The COALITION Provincial Authority took control of the government
5: The CPA were CIVILIANS! Please tell me what military rank Bremer had. He didn't have a military Rank. He was a civilian and not a military governor
6: Once you lose a war, you give up alrights to administer your country
7: The Iraqi Government is back incharge now so they can undo anything that Bremer did.

CH, you don't know the full story. I don't know the full story. Speculation is fun though don't you think?
As usual, I bring facts, and you bring rhetoric. As you like to say, thanks for playing.

Read more and you just might learn something, especially about Bremer's Orders and their durability.

As usual, I bring facts, and you bring rhetoric. As you like to say, thanks for playing.

Read more and you just might learn something, especially about Bremer's Orders and their durability.

I'm finding your hypocracy a tad to much to bear.

You have constently stated that what we've been doing is a violation of international law and it isn't. However, when other nations break it, you don't have a problem with it.

I've pointed out several nations in violation of it and you dodged it by refering back to Israel and the US. This is the problem today. No one wants to do anything about these people who are violating International Law but when some do, the world goes bonkers.

As for the UN, the funding cuts will pass the US Senate. If Bush is smart, he'll sign it into law. Frankly, since the UN hasn't done crap in regards to preventing wars (and I can name several it hasn't prevented) nor stopped any genocides (again I can name several), it is time to desolve it and start fresh.