U.N. bashing thread

[Darth Rotor]

I understand now that you adhere to the Weinberger Doctrine. Whatever that may be.

I could have told you to use Google, but for you, Joe, special price just today!

The Weinberger doctrine:

1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.

2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.

3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.

4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.

6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

DR

 

[DanishDynamite]

I could have told you to use Google, but for you, Joe, special price just today!

The Weinberger doctrine:



DR

A wonderful doctrine. How many inside the US support it? How many outside the US supports it?

 

[Mike B.]

Thanks for looking that up, Mike.

Nevertheless, my question remains.

It was more of just a silly post DD,

I am not sure of your original point. Because there is corruption in the US (I am beginning to think 9/10 of it is in Philadelphia) therefore people in the US should think corruption is no big deal in the UN?

 

[Chaos]

It was more of just a silly post DD,

I am not sure of your original point. Because there is corruption in the US (I am beginning to think 9/10 of it is in Philadelphia) therefore people in the US should think corruption is no big deal in the UN?

Why not? Just like an inordinate number of US posters have persistently claimed (in many different threads) that, because someone else has done worse, whatever bad things the US has done are perfectly okay.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why not? Just like an inordinate number of US posters have persistently claimed (in many different threads) that, because someone else has done worse, whatever bad things the US has done are perfectly okay.

Or, at least, not as bad. Because it's the US.

 

[Mike B.]

Why not? Just like an inordinate number of US posters have persistently claimed (in many different threads) that, because someone else has done worse, whatever bad things the US has done are perfectly okay.

I'm sorry this doesn't make sense to me.

Are you saying that US people would say corruption in the US is fine because there is worse corruption in the UN?

I must admit I have never heard anyone make that kind of argument.

 

[Darth Rotor]

A wonderful doctrine. How many inside the US support it? How many outside the US supports it?

I am not sure.

A lot of the senior officers in the US military are keen adherents of it, the doctrine having been a core teaching point for about the last 15 years of Advanced level staff college in all four services.

That said, no one in Congress, nor in the civilian secretariat, nor in the State Department, is obliged to complete that sort of formal schooling and education, nor to ascribe to that doctrine, before getting assigned there.

I think it would be correct to assert that the Weinberger Doctrine has been overcome by the doctrine of pre-emption and the Cheney Doctrine, which seems to be 'if there is a one in a hundred chance someone might harm us in the future, it is in our interest to attack him now.'

DR

 

[DanishDynamite]

I think it is more accurate to say that some internationalists feel that way, and that theirs is but one voice in American politics, opposed by those who prefer Washington's admonition against foreign entanglements. The UN, being a key conduit of "policeman of the world" activities, accrues "guilt by association."

Sorry, still lost. There are some US "internationalists" who feel that the UN is at fault for making them feel that the US should be the policeman of the world? Sorry, but in what way are these people "internationalists"? Shouldn't they be called the "isolationists"?

It isn't. It is the idiotic RoE that unnecesserily constrain US troops on UN ops that is at issue, which then leads to a "why do we bother to send people who are supposed to fight when all they are allowed to be is targets?" This sentiment I agree with. You want American troops, you have to let them behave as US troops, or go shopping for your targets elsewhere. The weakness of will in the UN method, a result of its structure, is to blame, as is the foolishness of UN bureaucrats in general regarding the utility peacekeepers in missions that are peace enforcement. In too many cases, there is no peace to keep in the first place. The fault there is explicitly the UN process for those operations. See LTC Lar Moeller's case for a modest example.

I agree that if peacekeeping forces are to be sent in, there must already be a peace to keep. I.e. both sides of the conflict must already have agreed to some reasonable extent that a peace was in action and agreed to let the peacekeeping forces in keep the peace.

But you seem to have evaded my question. Once a country decides to volunteer troops for a UN peacekeeping mission, knowing the basis of this troop deployment, how is the fault of the UN if the agreed peace breaks down?

Yes, and the US is a big enough place, and our Congress a diverse enough body, that the willingness to cede control of US Blood and Treasure is variable, at best. That is the politics of a nation of 300,000,000 people for you.

Yes, I'm sure opinions can change, and in fact they should change when new vital info is received, but again I fail to see why the UN is to blame.

Perhaps, but the matter of "mission creep" and horrid RoE raises it ugly head time and again. A related matter is the raw incompetence of some offered forces (non US) who are treated as "equal" when in fact they are basket cases. The Bangladesh contingent (or was is Pakistani?) in Bosnia are a fine example. Not all UN forces offered are as professional as the Nordics, or the Irish.

"Perhaps"? Perhaps the US felt that the rules of the UN should be changed immediately regarding payment of dues to the UN because the US decided to volunteer troops for certain UN actions?

Perhaps they did, and perhaps it would be a good idea, but how in the world can the UN be blamed for not immediately changing its dues rules because of the sentiments of some US lawmakers? Lawmakers who knew what they did when they allocated the troops? Who knew that the changing of the rules for dues would require a vote within the UN based on a discussion in the General Assembly, etc, etc?

The two are related due to the critical internal American debate on who does what with US blood and treasure.

They are only related by insincere politics. The facts are different.

It appears to me that for some reason the UN has become an easy target for insincere blowhearts in US politics. Which is probably par for the course. What amazes me is that there appear to be defenders, no whistleblowers, no skeptics laying down the facts of how the UN actually functions.

It was the link and quote I offered in the first reply. Somalia was, for example, not refunded. That was an expensive op. I posted a link to that about a month ago in another thread, I may or may not be able to find that post. Where Congressman Paul got his numbers from I won't pretend to know.

And Somalia was supposed to be refunded?

Yes, and much of Congress is not willing to not get credit for the force offering.

So in short, the US congress demands what it knows is illegal and not in accordance with the UN statutes, statutes they knew were in place when they volunteered the troops in question.

In short, the US congress is insincere. It seems the hatred of the UN in the US is more related to the nature of the US Congress and the lack of reporting of the facts in the US press.

Below, I requote something you quoted on my behalf:

Ah, but did they? They simply decided that a rebate, for some odd reason, was in order. Right?

I never said that first sentence. Just happened to notice this. Go back and check.

What are you doing DR? Have you been misquoting me in general?

Anyway, to get on with what I assume are your responses to things I actually said:

Yes, that is a part of it. There are some voices in the US who think we should be more generous with our support.

Ok, but there is a feeling that the US is paying too large a part of the UN budget.

Which a perfectly OK position to have. So why doesn't the US try to change this? Why isn't this the point of contention in the US debate on the UN? Does anyone in the US think they might be paying too much for the UN WHO program? Or their contribution to NATO? Or to any other international organization?

I'll let your slander slide. The US is one of the most transparent Western nations around, in terms of what is raised for public comment. We've got nothing on the Italians for corruption. Hell, America are rookies. Unlike many other nations, it is against US law to accept of offer bribes to get business done internationally. That is another topic for another time.

Sorry, you are currently right. I was relying on outdated lists. The US is currently at a very proud position of 9th on the world's list of corrupt countries.

No, it is with the UN. To consider as a valid member a nation that is not a representative government (like most of the West, who led and are still the core leaders of the UN and the internationalist movement) is not just hypocrisy, it is counterproductive.

It is neither hypocrisy nor counterproductive. It is in fact direly necessary for all countries to be members in order for the UN to have any purpose at all. I refer you to the Charters of the UN.

I don't care if you find it bogus, and the bubblegum (paid for by private funds, not tax revenue), is irrelevant. It's not your money, it is American money, and how Congress spends our money is America's business, not anyone else's. You will note that America has one of the lower tax rates of any Western nation, and there is still immense public interest and conflict over how taxes are allocated.

It is bogus. The richest nation in the world finds that because it contributes an amount close to what the youth of that nation spend on bubblegum a year to this organization, this is ample reason to hate forever this organization. An organization is was one of the 3 founding members of. Where it has a veto in the Security council.

Get real.

I expect there are a plethora of other reasons, based in the four main schools of US "political thought" on what America's role is in international affairs. I recommend to you Russel Gordon Mead's "Special Providence" as a lucid treatment of this complex subject. We cannot do it justice in a single thread.

Certainly not, but I'm still at a loss to understand the hatred. I simply cannot fathom it. I wish I could as then perhaps something could be done to alleviate this hatred.

No, that the UN has been used as the bully pulpit for slander on the US. As I said, this has been true since about the 1950's, so I can only offer you this: the US founded, and led, the UN and by providing it a backbone, and the bulk of its funding, has been repaid in some cases with slander. Many people feel it is the action of ingrates to tell lies about the US on the GA floor and not be held accoutnable. (Chavez and Mahmoud are very modest examples) I recognize this hot air and rhetoric as politics, and one of the prices paid for hosting a generally useful forum for international concerns.

Unbelievable! The hatred for the UN in the US derives from the fact that it was co-founder of an organization with, in many ways, a wonderful charter concerning the establishment of a forum in which all nations could talk freely of their gievances, etc, and now free speech of these nations of the world is a reason to hate the UN?!!!!!

Sorry, I simply don't think the problem is with the UN.

Roughly, very roughly, but I must caveat that it does not speak for all Americans, just one of the more vocal parties. The distaste for the UN covers considerable ground. We covered some of the more easily addressed points. There is a sizeable faction, who you could call Wilsonian (after Woodrow Wilson, ref Mead) Americans who are ardent supporters of the UN. "American opinion" does not exist as a single, monolithic agreed entity. Anyone who represents that as the fact, including me, is selling you a glass of bad beer. American opinion on a lot of topics is chaotically divided and diverse. It's part of our charm.

I realize that the US is by no means a monolithic entity. But I was hoping to get a real understanding of that part of the US, well represented on this forum, which feels hatred for the UN.

I'm not sure, even after your wonderful attempts at explaining, that I do.

 

[Mike B.]

Sorry, you are currently right. I was relying on outdated lists. The US is currently at a very proud position of 9th on the world's list of corrupt countries.

DD,

I was looking at the various lists of corruption and was struck with something. Germany is usually right around the US in these lists.

See here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2222954.stm

Yet I would bet, correct me if I am wrong, that you don't think of Germany as a very corrupt nation. Or at the very least wouldn't be so quick to throw the accusation around.

Taking this with your contempt of court thread, do you think maybe it might behoove you to take a somewhat less one-dimensional view of the US?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

It probably isn't too late to ask the mods to rename this thread to fix the title, DD.

You have an obvious typo on one letter.

 

[DanishDynamite]

DD,

I was looking at the various lists of corruption and was struck with something. Germany is usually right around the US in these lists.

See here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2222954.stm

Yet I would bet, correct me if I am wrong, that you don't think of Germany as a very corrupt nation. Or at the very least wouldn't be so quick to throw the accusation around.

Taking this with your contempt of court thread, do you think maybe it might behoove you to take a somewhat less one-dimensional view of the US?

Sorry, my mistake, Mike. I didn't make myself clear in my post. The new list on degrees of corruption which I viewed before I made the post you refer to, said the US was 9th on the list from the top, i.e. it was the 9th least corrupt.

I wasn't kidding about the "proud" bit.

Once again, my apologies.

 

[DanishDynamite]

It probably isn't too late to ask the mods to rename this thread to fix the title, DD.

You have an obvious typo on one letter.

Pray explain. (It's almost like this thread was in the Puzzle Forum!)

 

[Rob Lister]

I skipped about 111 posts to this thread. How'd it turn out?

Do we get to evict them from the US yet?
Do we at least get to withdraw our membership?

I'm willing to settle for the former but prefer the latter.