• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The United Nations... where does it go from here...

Questioninggeller

Illuminator
Q
Joined
May 11, 2002
Messages
3,048
I know a lot of Americans depise the United Nations, though I happen not to be one. Over the years the UN has been manipulated in many ways and failed to prevent some horrible military wars, but it has done some good humanitarian work.

In light recent develops, the UN was ineffective at preventing/detouring this War and was not conducive to keeping will the equality of all nations say. I think the UN is, in my opinion, has sadly and effectively been damaged from it's peace keeping activities.

Now I know the opinion, the US should be a slave to the UN... blah, blah... But I like to look at the world as a whole, not just the US. It provides (not always) a means to prevent invading countries with detouring factors and gives food aid to the countries that suffer from famine and drought. I don't conclude the UN to be a bad thing, and I think it is sad that the US (as well as other countries, like the USSR) disobey and damage the UN.

So anyway, I was wondering what peoples' opinions are on what you think will happen to the UN (Note: it has done some good things for other countries)? Will it go by way of the League of Nations?
 
I think the big question is, is the security council a waste? A common gathering of world diplomats is not so bad an idea. However, I think in the future we should rely on Nato/Seato for making the tough decisions and leave the UN a debate club. We can't afford to attribute more international say-so to the security council when it will most likely logjam when needed.

Perhaps if France was replaced by India on the security council, it might be worthwhile to keep. However, I don't see the need for the council at all really. Keep the UN, axe the council.
 
The UN is working very well, and we need to remain a member of it.

However, it is not perfect. The primary impediment is not that it couldn't prevent the war in Iraq. It hasn't prevented a lot of things, this probably not as serious as some others.

The problem with the UN is also one of its best features. The UN is not a "strong" body. It is not a "world" government. For example, there is no independent world army. No independent world court. No independent constitution. No world elections, etc.. So each country maintains its identity.

We need the UN. Nothing to think about on this score, really. The idea of leaving the UN makes no sense.
 
Yes, I find most of the contempt for the UN to be misplaced. Someone has a beef with the security council or some farcical conference and they blanket the UN as bad and say we should leave.

The UN itself is a good thing.
 
Oy! I hate to jump in on another thread because I just won't have time for this any longer, but I just read this analysis by someone who supports the action against Hussein, but who criticizes Bush for making enemies out of our allies. He examines the importance of formal alliances.
There are no double-blind studies in diplomacy, so we can never know for certain if a president's strategy for a given crisis is wise or if a different one might have worked better. Occasionally, however, history throws up a comparison that is so apt that it can serve as a pretty reasonable test. If, for instance, you want to know whether the collapse of George W. Bush's efforts to gain international support for war on Iraq is the inevitable result of difficult circumstances and intransigent allies or a fundamentally flawed strategy, consider the following comparison.
Click to expand...
 
ZeeGerman said:


How and - more interesting - why would you do that?

Zee
Click to expand...

I hope Jed Babbin's new book Inside the Asylum will make it obvious to everyone.


From the Inside Flap

If John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have their way, Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac will gain veto power over American foreign policy. Scared? You should be. It could happen. And in Inside the Asylum, former deputy undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin shows just how it could happen and why the UN deserves the nickname "The Asylum."

In Inside the Asylum, you'll discover:

* How the UN assists international terrorists. Babbin exposes the shocking links between the UN and terrorist organizations.

* The money trail from the UN to Saddam Hussein. Babbin rips the veil from the outrageous Oil-for-Food program-proving that the UN sold its moral legitimacy for oil, stuffed its own pockets at the expense of the Iraqi people, and undermined American pressure on Saddam Hussein: the UN's cash cow. The UN's Oil-for-Food program, according to Babbin, "provided Saddam Hussein with the means to bribe politicians, to deprive his people of needed food and medicine, and to literally steal billions of dollars. There is even emerging evidence that money from the program might have gone to support al-Qaeda."

• The UN's raid on the American Treasury. Babbin provides a hair-raising glimpse into the UN bureaucracy, dominated by Third World staffers who consider the United States Treasury "the common heritage of mankind." Babbin starts at the top, exposing Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, as an anti-American moral relativist who misses no opportunity to arrogate power from the United States to the UN.

• How the United Nations and the European Union are morally bankrupt-and open enemies of the United States. Babbin shows how France and the United Nations have cost American lives in Iraq by their perverse delaying of American action in the Iraq War. American troops are fighting and dying today because of a terrorist strategy Saddam Hussein developed while France and the United Nations delayed Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As Jed Babbin shows, the UN is more of an international criminal than a dispenser of legitimate international law. If America wants to retain its sovereignty and security, it's time to escape from the UN asylum and say goodbye to the false friends of Old Europe. "We owe no tribute to the UN and the EU," declares Babbin. "We should look after our own defense."

The United Nations building in Manhattan is an international enclave, no longer American territory. Inside the Asylum is a powerful argument that it's time to reclaim that land for America.


About the Author
Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the administration of President George H. W. Bush. He is a contributing editor of The American Spectator Magazine and a contributor to National Review Online.
 
For immediate release by the Office of Homeland Security

"DANGER - whoosh whoosh whoosh, danger, the UN black helicopters, piloted by Democrats and worse then that, women democrats are coming your way. You must abandon all skeptical thought processes, assume the fetal position locate and carefully cover your private parts. Maintain your position, avoiding contact with any reason or logic, until such time you can safely emerge and vote to reelect George Bush.
 
DavidJames said:
For immediate release by the Office of Homeland Security

"DANGER - whoosh whoosh whoosh, danger, the UN black helicopters, piloted by Democrats and worse then that, women democrats are coming your way. You must abandon all skeptical thought processes, assume the fetal position locate and carefully cover your private parts. Maintain your position, avoiding contact with any reason or logic, until such time you can safely emerge and vote to reelect George Bush.
Click to expand...

You forgot to include 'married lesbian woman democrats' in there.
 
DavidJames said:
For immediate release by the Office of Homeland Security

"DANGER - whoosh whoosh whoosh, danger, the UN black helicopters, piloted by Democrats and worse then that, women democrats are coming your way. You must abandon all skeptical thought processes, assume the fetal position locate and carefully cover your private parts. Maintain your position, avoiding contact with any reason or logic, until such time you can safely emerge and vote to reelect George Bush.
Click to expand...

Have you read the book?
 
I haven't read the book yet, but you'll also notice that I haven't judged, endorsed, or criticized it either. I hope none of you were among those lambasting the people critical of Moore's new film before they had ever actually viewed it.
 
Kodiak said:


Have you read the book?
Click to expand...

I haven't, but the claim that "the inmates are running the asylum" is not his, but (probably knowingly) taken from Daniel Mohaniyen (sp???), as his description of the UN after being the US ambassador there. Moahniyen was, to say the least, was not exactly a conservative.

This is to be expected, of course. In an organization where every country--regardless of size and also, more importantly, regardless of whether it is a democracy of a mideaval theocratic dictatorship--has the same vote, it goes without saying that freedom and democracy will not exactly be advanced. Instead, it is far more likely to be cynically perverted by the dictatorships. As happened, of course.
 
Regarding:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Richard G
We brought the U.N. into this world. We can take it out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ZeeGerman said:


How and - more interesting - why would you do that?

Zee
Click to expand...

First I'll give my impression of 'How', though I might be mistaken.

Step 1. Drop out. That accomplishes the majority of 'How'.

Step 2. Evict them (IAW NY law- 90-day notice). Sell the water-front property to Wallmart or Microsoft.

Now for the 'why'.

Reason 1. Because we can.

**********

Now, it may or may not be within our best interests to drop out of the UN but if we did I can't really see how it would continue to assert its 'authority'. <--- not the right word but I'm at a loss for a better one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom