We should do away with the UN! It does not work

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

Unless of course they should approve of yet another war that seems to pop up every 8 years, then they’re our buddies again.

“They’re our buddies again”… “They” I presume means the US. Is that correct? “Our” refers to whom?

AndyF:

What’s that famous Bush “war drum” phrase again, something like “If their not with us their against us”?Andy

Yes, and…?

 

[MikeWM]

Ani Ibi:

Please explain Rwanda.

Rwanda was a failing by the UN. Shall we call for the disbanding of everything because they make mistakes? Let’s start with the Catholic Church then, because of the abuse cover-up. Perhaps not, eh?

Often the best things are done by those who confront past weakness and find a better way to do things. That’s part of the reason of examining our consciences.

Mike

 

[Philip_P]

Geldain:

Please share with us how, if you know, the UN has prevented WW3?

The US and USSR could actually talk to each other and work out differences short of all out war. I think Kruschev pounding his shoe in the General Assembly was far better than Soviet tanks pounding on the walls of Paris. Do you disagree?

Oil for food. Rhwanda. Bosnia.

And do you believe that the correct answer to corruptions and failure is reform, or destruction? Take a close look around before you begin casting stones.

How so?

The UN was a US initiative. At its best, the US has helped point the way to a more democratic and representative international order. We (the US and the world at large) have often fallen short, but rather than cause for despair, I prefer to salute past success and try and build on it, rather than disown our legacy and tear it down.

 

[Geldain]

Philip P:

The US and USSR could actually talk to each other and work out differences short of all out war. I think Kruschev pounding his shoe in the General Assembly was far better than Soviet tanks pounding on the walls of Paris. Do you disagree?

I think the US and USSR could and did talk to one another without the UN. Also, I don’t know of any real differences the US and the USSR settled thru the UN. Maybe you can name one for us. The UN didn’t stop the USSR from going into Czecklsolvakia (I butchered that spelling, didn’t I). The UN didn’t stop the USSR from invading Afghanistan.

And do you believe that the correct answer to corruptions and failure is reform, or destruction?

From where I sit, the UN is beyond reforming. Dissolve (destroy it if you prefer that term) it. Sell the real estate/buildings in Ny to private businesses. Perhaps if the Vatican wished to host, manage and enforce the charter a new UN I could go for that.

Take a close look around before you begin casting stones.

Good advice for everyone.

The UN was a US initiative.

You are factually correct.

At its best, the US has helped point the way to a more democratic and representative international order.

Is this a typo? Because the US is not the UN. The UN has certainly permitted some unique representation. The human rights committee comes to mind immediately. Sudan and Syria have obviously represented the international perspective of human rights…oh wait, no they haven’t…oh no, they actually have respresented their lack of appreciation for human rights–and the UN rewards them. Makes sense

We (the US and the world at large) have often fallen short, but rather than cause for despair, I prefer to salute past success and try and build on it, rather than disown our legacy and tear it down.

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. If there are any past UN successes has nothing to do with it’s viability now. If the UN did something positive in the past or no has nothing to do with the documented corruption that saturates the organization now.

In addition, dissolving the UN wouldn’t be disowning our legacy. From where I sit, dissolving the UN would be honoring our legacy as a nation.

 

[Philip_P]

Geldain:

Is this a typo? Because the US is not the UN.

Not a typo. The point I was trying to make is that the founding of the UN was in accord with the best tradition of the US.

The UN has certainly permitted some unique representation. The human rights committee comes to mind immediately. Sudan and Syria have obviously represented the international perspective of human rights…oh wait, no they haven’t…oh no, they actually have respresented their lack of appreciation for human rights–and the UN rewards them. Makes sense

So, rather than reform the HR committee so that egregious violators do not get a powerful seat, you think we should dissolve the whole thing? Is it the people on the committee, or the concept of a HR committee itself that you don’t like?

 

[AndyF]

“They’re our buddies again”… “They” I presume means the US. Is that correct? “Our” refers to whom?

Yes, and…?

Ah,Ah!!

If your anything, your predictable. I wagered you’d be the first post. Let me know when the glue wears off.

BTW: Still waiting for the answer on the Daillaire question.

Andy

 

[Libero]

What on earth in Matt’s post do you manage to construe as “anti-American”? It seems you think that anyone who fails to endorse the USA as the world’s one and only true saviour whose government must be allowed free reign to do whatever it likes throughout the world, is “anti-American”.

 

[5-Decades-a-Day]

Whether the UN “works” or not is beside the point. The US should just get out, period.

 

[Libero]

Whether the UN “works” or not is beside the point. The US should just get out, period.

Well it will never work then, and you never know, the US may regret leaving once it has, the UN provides a unique place for dialogue between all nations, one where everyone can engage in democracy.

Do I sense a repeat of the League of Nations coming on? - I hope not.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

Ah,Ah!!If your anything, your predictable. I wagered you’d be the first post. Let me know when the glue wears off.

Your posts persist in being needlessly inflammatory and unfriendly. I gave you a link to the forum rules and guidelines. Do you not understand the rules and guidelines or do you believe yourself to enjoy special privileges which the rest of us do not enjoy?

AndyF:

BTW: Still waiting for the answer on the Daillaire question.

Your question on the Dallaire question has been answered. However, if you like waiting, then please go right ahead and wait.

You have asked me for a reply. I have given you a reply.

Your refusal to acknowledge my reply does not mean that I have not actually given you that reply.

The appropriate response to receiving a reply to a request is “thank you.” Yet there has been no “thank you” from you. Why is that? What do you hope to gain by discourtesy?

The appropriate response is certainly not pretending that no reply was given. What do you hope to achieve by pretending? My reply is there for all to see.

Saying that you are waiting is not a commentary on whether or not I have I have answered you. In light of the fact that I have answered you, your waiting is a commentary on the lack of logic and good will shown in your posts today.

Hopefully tomorrow you will have reconsidered your approach to “discussion” as opposed to “telling us things.”

Speaking of waiting for answers, I note that you have not demonstrated the courtesy and respect to answer a question put to you at least eleven times:

Orogeny:

How do you get genocide from that article?

So, tell us, Andy: is there one standard for questions which you ask and another standard for questions which we ask? Who created this double standard? Do you think double standards serve “discussion”? Or do they serve “telling us things”? How do you justify “telling us things” as opposed to “engaging in discussion” on a discussion board?

 

[Geldain]

Philip P:

Not a typo. The point I was trying to make is that the founding of the UN was in accord with the best tradition of the US.

Very good. It’s sad the UN hasn’t followed in the best tradition of the US.

So, rather than reform the HR committee so that egregious violators do not get a powerful seat, you think we should dissolve the whole thing?

Absolutely! Dissolve it swiftly.

Is it the people on the committee, or the concept of a HR committee itself that you don’t like?

Are you seriously asking this question? I respectfully ask this because, it seems to me you’re missing the fact the forest has burned down while you’re focusing on a couple of indivdual trees. There’s a phrase that escapes me at the moment which applies here. It’s used in debating circles. Ah, yes logical fallacy

The HR committee situtation is just a single example why the UN should be dissolved. I must add, cleaning up the HR situation will not cleanse the UN of it’s ineffectiveness nor the corruption within.

 

[Geldain]

Ani Ibi:

Your posts persist in being needlessly inflammatory and unfriendly. I gave you a link to the forum rules and guidelines. Do you not understand the rules and guidelines or do you believe yourself to enjoy special privileges which the rest of us do not enjoy?

Your question on the Dallaire question has been answered. However, if you like waiting, then please go right ahead and wait.

You have asked me for a reply. I have given you a reply.

Your refusal to acknowledge my reply does not mean that I have not actually given you that reply.

The appropriate response to receiving a reply to a request is “thank you.” Yet there has been no “thank you” from you. Why is that? What do you hope to gain by discourtesy?

The appropriate response is certainly not pretending that no reply was given. What do you hope to achieve by pretending? My reply is there for all to see.

Saying that you are waiting is not a commentary on whether or not I have I have answered you. In light of the fact that I have answered you, your waiting is a commentary on the lack of logic and good will shown in your posts today.

Hopefully tomorrow you will have reconsidered your approach to “discussion” as opposed to “telling us things.”

Speaking of waiting for answers, I note that you have not demonstrated the courtesy and respect to answer a question put to you at least eleven times:

So, tell us, Andy: is there one standard for questions which you ask and another standard for questions which we ask? Who created this double standard? Do you think double standards serve “discussion”? Or do they serve “telling us things”? How do you justify “telling us things” as opposed to “engaging in discussion” on a discussion board?

Is there no penalty for violating the forum guidelines?

 

[Horab]

Matt25:

When did the United Nations refer to the USA as a terrorist nation? Was that the Security Council or the General Assembly? Where can I read this official UN statement? Why did the US not veto it since they have that power?

hi, Matt, i think it was just someone from a country like Jordan that went onto the UN floor and said that the US was a terrorist nation and some other countries agreed with that.

when i made the post i didnt know if it was ok to link to other sites too much so i didn’t provide any.

all i know is there’s a movement in the US to pull out of the UN:

getusout.org/

and i went to this site for background info awhile back:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

and a rather boring govt piece on the UN/US/Canada thing:

state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/56971.htm

here’s a specific example of the UN picking on Canada:

prisonjustice.ca/starkravenarticles/UNhumanrights_1105.html

still not sure if its okay to link this much, i just wanted to clarify my position on the issue.

best regards- horab

 

[MikeWM]

Horab:

still not sure if its okay to link this much, i just wanted to clarify my position on the issue.

I’ve not seen anyone pilloried for linking too much on here. I’ve seen many people moaned at for not linking enough though

Mike

 

[Philip_P]

Geldain:

Are you seriously asking this question? I respectfully ask this because, it seems to me you’re missing the fact the forest has burned down while you’re focusing on a couple of indivdual trees. There’s a phrase that escapes me at the moment which applies here. It’s used in debating circles. Ah, yes logical fallacy

Yes, I’m serious. In my experience, sweeping denunciations, such as “the UN is evil and corrupt” rarely hold up to scrutiny. Details are important. At least, if one is serious about cleaning up corruption.

But I get the impression from most people that oppose the UN that they are not really interested in cleaning up corruption, but rather they have an ideological bias against its very existence. In such a case, the details hardly matter. The HR committee could be reformed, the bureucracy made more transparent, the financing mechanisms made more accountable, and people would still adamantly oppose the UN.

So we come to a junction. If you buy into the concept of the United Nations, then list what you see as it’s major problems and speculate on possible ways to fix it. If, on the other hand, it is the very existence of a “United Nations” that you oppose, then bemoaning corruption is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy. Instead of pretending to be scandalized by its failings, it would be more helpful to explain your ideological position for opposing the organization’s existence.

 

[Jeffrey]

Great point! I agree 100% :clapping:

Lance:

While we’re at it I see no reason to keep NATO either. The USSR is no longer a threat and it’s about time you Europeans started defending yourselves. Just my opinion.

 

[Geldain]

Philip P:

But I get the impression from most people that oppose the UN that they are not really interested in cleaning up corruption, but rather they have an ideological bias against its very existence.

I think the notion of a UN, as originally chartered is a great idea. The UN as it’s come to be is, from where I sit, is nothing like what it was intended to be.

If you buy into the concept of the United Nations, then list what you see as it’s major problems and speculate on possible ways to fix it.

Or you dissolve the corrupt mess we have now and start from scratch, which is what I advocate.

 

[Petergee]

Lance:

Then we have nothing left to discuss and will have to agree to disagree, because I see nothing in the UN oil for food/sex for food/ drug dealing that reminds me of any Christian Church much less the Catholic Church.

Some Church employees have demanded sex in exchange for spiritual favours, which I see as far, far worse than demanding sex for food. (Of couse I speak of small minorities. The vast majority of employees of both the Church and the UN are honest and dedicated.)

BTW the occupation of Afghanistan is a NATO not an American operation. Your countries habit of ignoring even its allies who are fighting and dying alongside you doesn’t boost US popularity around the world.

It’s worse than that Matt. They’re also ignoring Australia and several other non-NATO countries whose soldiers were fighting and dying in Afghanistan from day one.

 

[Philip_P]

Geldain:

I think the notion of a UN, as originally chartered is a great idea. The UN as it’s come to be is, from where I sit, is nothing like what it was intended to be.

Or you dissolve the corrupt mess we have now and start from scratch, which is what I advocate.

Even if we dissolve and start from scratch, a vision of what ought to be is necessary in order to know what we’re trying to accomplish.

What do you think the new, improved UN should look like? What kind of power would it have? What role would it play? What would its purpose be? How would you avoid the mistakes that exist in its current incarnation?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Petergee:

It’s worse than that Matt. They’re also ignoring Australia and several other non-NATO countries whose soldiers were fighting and dying in Afghanistan from day one.

The anxiety among the American troops in A-stan is that the other troops have not or will not bring the fight to the terrorists with the necessary proactive vigour. The Taliban is playing a waiting game in A-stan. The troops there cannot allow themselves to be gulled into believing that the Taliban is cooperating when in fact they continue to sabotage the effective operation of that civil society, particularly in the south.

The waiting game

The handoff of Regional Command South to NATO is due to occur this year, on a date yet to be determined. But already some U.S. officers fear that the NATO troops will not pursue the Taliban as aggressively as the Americans do, and that cutting or eliminating the Special Forces role in the Taliban’s strongholds in the south would only compound the error… Indeed, the Taliban’s resurgence this year is a direct result of coalition complacency…

The coalition’s failure to establish a permanent security presence in any but the largest towns has allowed the Taliban to create what U.S. officers refer to as a “sanctuary” in Oruzgan, northern Helmand, northwest Zabul and northern Kandahar provinces… But if the Taliban’s sanctuary is inside Afghanistan, its “safe haven,” as TF Bayonet commander Col. Kevin Owens described it, is across the border in Pakistan’s virtually lawless Pashtun tribal areas…

But if the Taliban is trying to create the impression in the coalition’s minds that they are finished as a threat to Afghan stability, that raises the question of why all indices of violence in southern Afghanistan… appear to be on the rise… The consensus among Special Forces and conventional U.S. officers in Afghanistan is that there has been more fighting because the units that arrived in the spring of 2005 have pursued the enemy far more aggressively than those they replaced”…

“The United States Army doesn’t have any staying power here… We have enormous mobility, enormous firepower, a lot of resources and wherewithal, but we can’t just stay here and do their job… The Afghan national security forces are getting better and better every day, but they’re not capable of taking over the counterinsurgency fight at this point in time… I am constantly thinking about what the enemy’s going to do next. He’s waiting to see what we’re going to do next. He’s got time on his side. I don’t.”

Another obstacle is that, while the A-stan military does good work (they are paid by the US), the A-stan police is almost completely corrupted (they are paid by A-stan when A-stan gets around to writing their cheques).