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

[Petergee]

5-Decades-a-Day:

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

Be careful what you wish for. You think the US doesn’t “need” the UN because the US is at present far more powerful than any other country and can basically force the rest of the world to do what it wants, and the UN is only an annoyance to the US doing so. History and current trends tell us this situation is unlikely to last. In just 20 or 30 years, it’s likely that the world’s most powerful countries will be Communist China, a European Federation, India and a pan-Arab or even pan-Islamic federation, with the USA trailing in 5th place. When that day comes, you will hope the US has stayed in and strengthened the UN.

 

[Libero]

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.

Do that, and it is more than likely that America will be the biggest looser. Loosing military bases in Europe, then finding it no longer has the cooperation of military intelligence from European countries - and as the CIA has proven so effective in collecting credible evidence in the past, this may be a slight problem.

I am sure that Europe could probably defend itslef anyway, France and the UK’s navy could easily acheive great feats, then if you include forces from the numerous otheer countries, I am sure that Europe would become very capable of defending itself.

 

[mjdonnelly]

Libero:

I am sure that Europe could probably defend itslef anyway, France and the UK’s navy could easily acheive great feats, then if you include forces from the numerous otheer countries, I am sure that Europe would become very capable of defending itself.

But the Italian army kind of offsets this. When did they land in the wrong country?

 

[Libero]

But the Italian army kind of offsets this. When did they land in the wrong country?

Fine, so we wouldn’t let the Italians be field commanders. - I also heard the other day that Germany still has restrictions on the size of it’s armed forces, I was sure that this wasn’t true - anyone know?

 

[Geldain]

Philip P:

What do you think the new, improved UN should look like?

Member nations must be democracies/representitive republics only.

What kind of power would it have?

None. Zip. Zero.

What role would it play?What would its purpose be?

A forum for nations to discuss relevant threats to freedom and to create viable plans to spread freedom to nations where it doesn’t presently exist.

How would you avoid the mistakes that exist in its current incarnation?

1)By allowing only democracies/representitive republics to be members.
2)No diplomatic status for all employees of this new creation

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Petergee:

Be careful what you wish for. You think the US doesn’t “need” the UN because the US is at present far more powerful than any other country and can basically force the rest of the world to do what it wants, and the UN is only an annoyance to the US doing so.

Forum guideline:

It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.

My own opinion of the UN – and I venture to say the opinion of others on this forum – has little to do with “need.”

In my opinion the UN is ineffectual due to bureaucratic top-heaviness and due to corruption.

Also the name ‘United Nations’ hints at the purpose for which this body was created. That purpose is inextricably bonded to the concept of ‘nation state.’ The War on Terror is fought against unlawful combatants who are nationless. Therefore the UN has nothing to say about the matter.

Petergee:

History and current trends tell us this situation is unlikely to last. In just 20 or 30 years, it’s likely that the world’s most powerful countries will be Communist China, a European Federation, India and a pan-Arab or even pan-Islamic federation, with the USA trailing in 5th place. When that day comes, you will hope the US has stayed in and strengthened the UN.

History and current trends in the UN gave us Rwanda. When the day comes – if the day comes – that China, the EU, India, and the Kaliphate form a coalition against the Americas then we’ll see in which government hope abides: government of the people, for the people, and by the people – or government of the masses, for the few, by the very few.

 

[Isidore_AK]

Petergee:

Be careful what you wish for. You think the US doesn’t “need” the UN because the US is at present far more powerful than any other country and can basically force the rest of the world to do what it wants, and the UN is only an annoyance to the US doing so. History and current trends tell us this situation is unlikely to last. In just 20 or 30 years, it’s likely that the world’s most powerful countries will be Communist China, a European Federation, India and a pan-Arab or even pan-Islamic federation, with the USA trailing in 5th place. When that day comes, you will hope the US has stayed in and strengthened the UN.

And I’d bet on us in a shooting war against any of 'em. Bring it on.

My biggest issue with the UN is that they threaten the sovereignty of our nation. By attempting to impose worldwide taxation, by attempting to limit member nation military strengths (and eliminate national Militaries altogether), and to eliminate personal rights…all while strenuously promoting abortion, euthanasia, birth control, and general immorality.

Hell, I think the biggest threat to the world and Christianity is the UN…the ragheads we can deal with, the scum if the UN are a lingering problem…

 

[MikeWM]

Isidore_AK:

Hell, I think the biggest threat to the world and Christianity is the UN…the ragheads we can deal with, the scum if the UN are a lingering problem…

Personally, I think one of the biggest threats to the world, and to the image of my faith, is the people who have the mindset to call people ‘ragheads’ and ‘scum’.

Mike

 

[Petergee]

Isidore_AK:

And I’d bet on us in a shooting war against any of 'em. Bring it on.

Just wondering how you reconcile this statement with your professed Catholic faith. You actually would much prefer World War III than that nations peacefully resolve their differences. I’ve seen some stunningly contradictory statements from some “Catholics” but this one really takes the cake.

My biggest issue with the UN is that they threaten the sovereignty of our nation. By attempting to impose worldwide taxation, by attempting to limit member nation military strengths (and eliminate national Militaries altogether), and to eliminate personal rights…all while strenuously promoting abortion, euthanasia, birth control, and general immorality.

What the…?? Who did this?When?Where?How?Apart from some agencies tending to promote abortion and contraception, your statement has no basis in fact. And as I said, the only reason “they” (some UN agencies) promote abortion and contraception is because their masters, the majority of member States, tell them to.

Hell, I think the biggest threat to the world and Christianity is the UN…the ragheads we can deal with, the scum if the UN are a lingering problem…

All the Popes since Pius XII vehemently disagree with you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Petergee:

the only reason “they” (some UN agencies) promote abortion and contraception is because their masters, the majority of member States, tell them to.

This excuses the UN in some way?

 

[Petergee]

Ani Ibi:

This excuses the UN in some way?

And what do you suggest people working for the UN should do? Refuse to carry out the orders they receive from the Member States? That would be the right thing for individuals to do if the order is immoral, but the only result would be that those individuals would be dismissed and new staff hired who were willing to carry out the policy determined by the Member States. “The UN” is a vehicle for the Member States’ directives. It has no will or policy of its own. Blaming “the UN” is like blaming the police because you disagree with some of the laws they have a duty to enforce, laws made by their rulers.

 

[Jeffrey]

The UN is a digrace… and needs to be done away with… at the very least… get it the heck outta the US. We don’t need’m.

Petergee:

Just wondering how you reconcile this statement with your professed Catholic faith. You actually would much prefer World War III than that nations peacefully resolve their differences. I’ve seen some stunningly contradictory statements from some “Catholics” but this one really takes the cake.
What the…?? Who did this?When?Where?How?Apart from some agencies tending to promote abortion and contraception, your statement has no basis in fact. And as I said, the only reason “they” (some UN agencies) promote abortion and contraception is because their masters, the majority of member States, tell them to.All the Popes since Pius XII vehemently disagree with you.

 

[Petergee]

Ani Ibi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petergee
Be careful what you wish for. You think the US doesn’t “need” the UN because the US is at present far more powerful than any other country and can basically force the rest of the world to do what it wants, and the UN is only an annoyance to the US doing so.

Forum guideline:
Quote:
It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.

You seem to be accusing me of assuming I know what 5-decades-a-day thinks. But you’re assuming YOU know. If I’m breaching the guideline so are you.

In my opinion the UN is ineffectual due to bureaucratic top-heaviness and due to corruption.

then it seems the obvious solution is to fix these faults, not to “do away with” the whole organisation.

Also the name ‘United Nations’ hints at the purpose for which this body was created. That purpose is inextricably bonded to the concept of ‘nation state.’ The War on Terror is fought against unlawful combatants who are nationless. Therefore the UN has nothing to say about the matter.

The UN has had PLENTY to say about this and many other matters (poverty, health, culture, etc.etc) which are definitely NOT “inextricably bonded to the concept of nation state”.

Originally Posted by Petergee
History and current trends tell us this situation is unlikely to last. In just 20 or 30 years, it’s likely that the world’s most powerful countries will be Communist China, a European Federation, India and a pan-Arab or even pan-Islamic federation, with the USA trailing in 5th place. When that day comes, you will hope the US has stayed in and strengthened the UN.

History and current trends in the UN gave us Rwanda. When the day comes – if the day comes – that China, the EU, India, and the Kaliphate form a coalition against the Americas then we’ll see in which government hope abides: government of the people, for the people, and by the people – or government of the masses, for the few, by the very few.

Now you’re really scaring me. All I said was that other countries will be more powerful than the US. Now your fevered mind sees a scenario in which:

1. All these countries (many of which have been democratic for generations) become dictatorships;
2. All of them simultaneously make war on the US (this would make the Rwanda genocide look like a ladies’ tea party);
3. The US will have previously annexed the entire Western Hemisphere (apparently there’s nothing undemocratic about that; you perhaps see the good citizens of Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Jamaica, Cuba etc all happily voting yes to becoming a State of the USA.!)

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

This excuses the UN in some way?

Democracy means not always getting the results you want. Should I crusade for the abolition of Catholic Answers forums because its vehemently pro-war? After all, many (I would venture to say most) posters on CAF are pro just about every war the US has entered. Does that make Catholic Answers “pro-war?”

I think it would make more sense to separate the views of specific posters from the forums as a whole. Similarly, it is far more accurate to note that many member states support [fill in the blank], rather than saying The UN is [blank].

Maybe it’s not the UN people have issues with…maybe it’s the rest of the world. Do you think you are more, or less, likely to change world opinion by dismantling the forum by which you can speak with them?

 

[Geldain]

Philip P:

Democracy means not always getting the results you want. Should I crusade for the abolition of Catholic Answers forums because its vehemently pro-war? After all, many (I would venture to say most) posters on CAF are pro just about every war the US has entered. Does that make Catholic Answers “pro-war?”

I think it would make more sense to separate the views of specific posters from the forums as a whole. Similarly, it is far more accurate to note that many member states support [fill in the blank], rather than saying The UN is [blank].

Maybe it’s not the UN people have issues with…maybe it’s the rest of the world. Do you think you are more, or less, likely to change world opinion by dismantling the forum by which you can speak with them?

Respectully, what does this post have to do with this thread?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Petergee:

And what do you suggest people working for the UN should do? Refuse to carry out the orders they receive from the Member States?

Forum guideline:

Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.

Petergee:

Blaming “the UN” is like blaming the police because you disagree with some of the laws they have a duty to enforce, laws made by their rulers.

I believe this to be a false analogy. The obstacles between the UN and the prevention of genocide – as one example – have been bureacratic inefficiency and corruption.

Bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption within the UN. Surely you are not suggesting that the members states take responsibility for an organization which is not performing its job? Are you suggesting that?

Also the name “United Nations” might give you some idea of how relevant this organization is to the War on Terror which is a war between certain nations and certain nationless unlawful combatants.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Petergee:

You seem to be accusing me of assuming I know what 5-decades-a-day thinks.

You said “You think.”

Petergee:

But you’re assuming YOU know. If I’m breaching the guideline so are you.

This is simply a false assertion.

Petergee:

then it seems the obvious solution is to fix these faults, not to “do away with” the whole organisation.

The UN has had its chance. It is time to replace it.

Petergee:

The UN has had PLENTY to say about this and many other matters (poverty, health, culture, etc.etc) which are definitely NOT “inextricably bonded to the concept of nation state”.

My beef is about Rwanda.

Petergee:

Now you’re really scaring me. All I said was that other countries will be more powerful than the US. Now your fevered mind sees a scenario in which:

My “fevered mind”? This is charitable in what way? Would you please illuminate me?

Petergee:

1. All these countries (many of which have been democratic for generations) become dictatorships;

There is a danger of being absorbed into the influence of Al Queda - fed dictatorships, yes.

Petergee:

1. All of them simultaneously make war on the US (this would make the Rwanda genocide look like a ladies’ tea party);

Frankly, sir, I do not think any amount of spin on your part will persuade me to view Rwanda as a lady’s tea party.

Collaboration with the enemy is not exactly declaring war on the US. It is, however, interfering in the ability of the US to defend itself.

Petergee:

1. The US will have previously annexed the entire Western Hemisphere (apparently there’s nothing undemocratic about that; you perhaps see the good citizens of Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Jamaica, Cuba etc all happily voting yes to becoming a State of the USA.!)

“Annexing” is terminology which I reserve for dictators with aggressive messianic designs on the takeover and iron rule of neighbouring countries. Much in the Americas will depend on what kind of economic partnerships will be entered into. On the other hand we do have a coupla dictators in the Americas who have aggressive designs on the takeover and iron rule of the Caribbean, Central and South America. Will they take over the US and Canada? No.

 

[Philip_P]

Geldain:

Respectully, what does this post have to do with this thread?

The context was this:

Originally Posted by Petergee
the only reason “they” (some UN agencies) promote abortion and contraception is because their masters, the majority of member States, tell them to.

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi
This excuses the UN in some way?

Ani Ibi’s response seemed to imply that it is irrelevant that the reason some UN agencies favor contraception and legalization of abortion is because those are the views favored by its member state (this is what the text of Ani’s response implies – I wouldn’t presume to know what Ani herself believes).

My response points out that, in fact, the connection between the beliefs of the member states and the policies of the UN are extremely relevant. It is not, in fact, the UN as such that is the “problem” but rather the beliefs of the member states. To call for the dissolution of the UN because you dislike the views held by its member states makes about as much sense as calling for the abolition of CAF because you dislike the views of its members. The better choice is to engage the members in dialog, in both analogies, rather than withdraw participation and demand that the forum be dissolved.

 

[Geldain]

Philip P:

The context was this:

Originally Posted by Petergee
the only reason “they” (some UN agencies) promote abortion and contraception is because their masters, the majority of member States, tell them to.

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi
This excuses the UN in some way?

Ani Ibi’s response seemed to imply that it is irrelevant that the reason some UN agencies favor contraception and legalization of abortion is because those are the views favored by its member state (this is what the text of Ani’s response implies – I wouldn’t presume to know what Ani herself believes).

My response points out that, in fact, the connection between the beliefs of the member states and the policies of the UN are extremely relevant. It is not, in fact, the UN as such that is the “problem” but rather the beliefs of the member states. To call for the dissolution of the UN because you dislike the views held by its member states makes about as much sense as calling for the abolition of CAF because you dislike the views of its members. The better choice is to engage the members in dialog, in both analogies, rather than withdraw participation and demand that the forum be dissolved.

Ah, I see. The apples and oranges fallacy. I understand now. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Geldain:

Ah, I see. The apples and oranges fallacy. I understand now. Thank you for the clarification.

Geldain: I noticed that you had also quoted the following material, but did not say whom you were quoting. Some folks are on my ignore list. As I was not able to locate the author of this material, I am attributing the material to “unknown poster”:
unknown poster:

Ani Ibi’s response seemed to imply that it is irrelevant that the reason some UN agencies favor contraception and legalization of abortion is because those are the views favored by its member state (this is what the text of Ani’s response implies – I wouldn’t presume to know what Ani herself believes).

The unknown poster posits that the reason some UN agencies favour contraception and legalization of abortion is because those views are favoured by its member states.

The UN is still responsible for its choices. The question of relevance is itself irrelevant.

I am not commenting on contraception and abortion on this thread, because contraception and abortion has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

For the poster to try and draw remote conclusions from my comments on the UN and on Rwanda appears to me to be a transparent attempt to put words in my mouth.
unknown poster:

My response points out that, in fact, the connection between the beliefs of the member states and the policies of the UN are extremely relevant. It is not, in fact, the UN as such that is the “problem” but rather the beliefs of the member states.

We don’t need to go to the member states because the UN has demonstrated sufficient inefficiency and corruption on its own merits. The UN as such is the “problem.”
unknown poster:

To call for the dissolution of the UN because you dislike the views held by its member states makes about as much sense as calling for the abolition of CAF because you dislike the views of its members.

This false analogy and detraction by innuendo is so far out in left field that it staggers belief. It is clearly an attempt, in my opinion, to flame-bait.

I did not say that I am calling for the dissolution of the UN because I “dislike the views held by its member states.” The unknown poster said that. And now that poster is trying to attribute that view to me.

My reason for dissolving the UN is because the inefficiency and corruption demonstrated by the UN in Rwanda turned me off the UN. I don’t trust the UN.

If the unknown poster – whoever that may be – would like to make his own case for the culpability of the member states – or merely for not liking the member states – then no one is stopping him.

But I would ask that poster to please have the good manners to take responsibility for his own views; to please be kind enough to refrain from attributing views to me which are not mine; and to please also be kind enough to refrain from putting words in my mouth.

As for calling for the unknown poster’s reference to the abolition of CAF: I have not called for the abolition of CAF. Nor would I. Why would the unknown poster articulate such an unkind and untrue attribution? To what end? What purpose does it serve?

The poster’s flailing attempt to cast suspicion on my name in the eyes of the CAF administration, mods, and community looks like flame bait to me, if not an attempt at outright false witness and detraction through false analogy and innuendo. If I am wrong in seeing it in this way, then I stand corrected.

The better choice is to engage the members in dialog, in both analogies, rather than withdraw participation and demand that the forum be dissolved.

This is a false dichotomy. There are more choices than either engaging in dialogue or dismantling the UN.

Dialogue involves contributing toward growth in common understanding. It does not involve putting words in other people’s mouths or misrepresenting facts or statements or casting aspersions on the reputations of others or exerting coercion on the free flow of respectful views in any way.

Some nations do not contribute honourably to “dialogue.” When those nations demonstrate by their own behaviour that dialoguing with them produces no growth in common understanding but only discord and predation, then choices open up which include ignoring those nations, imposing sanctions, making trade agreements with other nations, and so on.