# who likes the u.n.



## washamericom (Jul 9, 2010)

boy that u.n. is a heavy hitter. they came to the conclusion that they might be thinking about maybe having some deep (not too deep) reservations about north korea blowing up that south korean ship killing 41. that's a searing decree.... searing. like a steer branding on the loins of the world's sunburned ass.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 9, 2010)

Is the UN doing enough about what? North Korea? What can they do outside of sanctions?

They have no army. The sanctions would only hurt the people who are already starving in the country and not the people who are in charge. All they can do is try to broker a peace agreement between all sides and try to help the citizens of the country.


----------



## Dante (Jul 9, 2010)

who likes the u.n.?

---

The people they have kept from dying in some civilian and military conflicts, the people who have gotten basic medical care and have lived to tell about it, the people who have not starved to death because of UN aid, the people....


The Un is a flawed institution. So is the US Army.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 9, 2010)

The United Nations is the worst use of money, time, and energy that mankind has ever come up with.  It is a den of thieves, liars, and con artists who do nothing to promote peace and harmony in the world.  They should tear the building down and construct a park where it now stands so at least the land it is on would get some sort of reasonable use.  Everybody that is in the building should be immediately sent back home on the next available flight and told to stay there.


----------



## The T (Jul 9, 2010)

The U.N.

"*The He-Man despots and dictators America-Haters club.*"

'Nuff said.


----------



## daveman (Jul 9, 2010)

The US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.  It's utterly useless.


----------



## washamericom (Jul 9, 2010)

they do feed people and are there for refugees, and they do tremendous good, it's just that perhaps they are in the wrong business of political diplomacy. is it cost efficient anymore... is it corrupt as some suggest.? what about the overall vibe of the place. standing ovations for al-khadafi, chavez and ahmadinijad, they are not good people. what about that? as our friend bebe netyanyahu "have you no decency?" do they show decency ? what is the point ?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 9, 2010)

Is the UN perfect?

Far from it...it is still a political body. However, what alternative do you have for resolving international issues. By the way, it was the UN that stopped N Korea in the first place


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 9, 2010)

THE UN IS WORTHLESS.

Worse it is a bad force in the world. It just put Iran on the Woman's rights commission. Even as they prepare to stone a woman to death for alleged Adultery. It is nothing but a tool to legitimize all kinds of despotic regimes around the world and Bash the US and Israel.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 9, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Is the UN perfect?
> 
> Faar from it...it is still a political body. However, what alternative do you have for resolving international issues. By the way, it was the UN that stopped N Korea in the first place



When has the UN ever resolved a international Issue? I am not being a dick. I really want to know what international Issue you think the UN has ever solved.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 9, 2010)

The UN is totally corrupt and rotten to the core.  It should be removed from the USA and moved to Bezerkistan or Insanitistan.  It does absolutely nothing and is nothing more than a bottomless money pit.


----------



## The T (Jul 9, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> THE UN IS WORTHLESS.
> 
> Worse it is a bad force in the world. *It just put Iran on the Woman's rights commission. Even as they prepare to stone a woman to death for alleged Adultery.* It is nothing but a tool to legitimize all kinds of despotic regimes around the world and Bash the US and Israel.


 
*


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 9, 2010)

Dante said:


> who likes the u.n.?
> 
> ---
> 
> ...



What an idiotic statement.  The US Army and the USA have done far more to help people in this world than the UN ever thought of helping.  You really need to read a history book.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 9, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Is the UN perfect?
> 
> Far from it...it is still a political body. However, what alternative do you have for resolving international issues. By the way, it was the UN that stopped N Korea in the first place



Bullshit.  It was the USA that stopped N. Korea.  Do you moonbats ever read a history book?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 9, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Is the UN perfect?
> ...



They have solved tens of thousands of international issues. Not all have been earth shattering by your standards but many involve health issues, food production, sharing of resources, education, child welfare, international custody....


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 9, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Is the UN perfect?
> ...



It was the US along with a coalition of the willing


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 9, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Is the UN perfect?
> ...




LOL it was a UN action that the US had to fight to get to happen, BUT the vast bulk of combat forces were US, and the US provides Well over half the UN budget every year. Something we never get credit for when people are talking about us not giving enough as far as direct government charity in the world. We also provide most of the INF funds that get handed around as well. Plus Charity from Private US citizens is almost equal to that of every other person on earth combined, and we adopt as many kids as the rest of the world combined. Yet we are stingy according to many.

Pretty funny


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 9, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Now that's funny stuff.  The USA provides medicine, food, resources, education, child welfare, etc and etc much more than the UN ever thought of.  It is very ignorant to give the UN credit for doing far less than the USA has done for others over the history of our nation.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 9, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Bullshit.  The USA told China to stop or we were going to use the atomic bomb on them.  You're full of shit.  Find a forum with children to debate with.  You're out of your league.


----------



## washamericom (Jul 9, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> THE UN IS WORTHLESS.
> 
> Worse it is a bad force in the world. It just put Iran on the Woman's rights commission. Even as they prepare to stone a woman to death for alleged Adultery. It is nothing but a tool to legitimize all kinds of despotic regimes around the world and Bash the US and Israel.




this is what i'm talking about. has the organized world gone mad? it's like the rock and roll hall of fame, it's not really connected to the people


----------



## daveman (Jul 9, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Is this what the UN considers child welfare?


----------



## sparky (Jul 9, 2010)

maybe they should change their name

the *United Nations of Arms Dealers *

~S~


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 9, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Do you understand what international issues are? It does not involve handing out CARE packages. The UN is involved in ensuring international cooperation in sharing medical breakthroughs, health initiatives, sharing farming technologies.
There are a billion starving people in the world and the UN has a key role in removing international impediments to feeding the masses

No wonder the Conservatives want to shut it down


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 9, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



The Korean War Coalition of the Willing

Republic of Korea 
Australia 
Belgium 
Canada 
Colombia 
Ethiopia 
France 
Greece 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
New Zealand 
Philippines 
South Africa 
Thailand 
Turkey 
United Kingdom 
United States


----------



## Apollo (Jul 9, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



sure, but don't play dense.  that war was won/stalemated because of american military might, not because the u.n. became involved.  most of the other nations provided little more than moral legitimacy and a handful of troops to the war effort.

96% of the u.n. combatants were either south korean or american, and all of them were under the unified command of the united states as per security council resolution 84.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

washamericom said:


> boy that u.n. is a heavy hitter. they came to the conclusion that they might be thinking about maybe having some deep (not too deep) reservations about north korea blowing up that south korean ship killing 41. that's a searing decree.... searing. like a steer branding on the loins of the world's sunburned ass.



I don't hate the U.N.

I do recognize that they
a. seem to be UNFAIR towards the U.S. far too often
b. seem to be very weak and ineffectual


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

The UN is trying for peace.  That's better than some people.


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The UN is trying for peace.  That's better than some people.



Oh really?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU]YouTube - Banned Speech: The UN Council That Created the Goldstone Report[/ame]


----------



## daveman (Jul 9, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You left out one of their other activities:  Raping children.


----------



## daveman (Jul 9, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


They all contributed, and deserve gratitude.  But who did the heavy lifting?


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 9, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Oh bullshit.  The nations can do all of that without the UN.  The USA can remove international impediments quicker and easier than the UN can and it can do it without allowing a platform for the dictators of the world to spew their venomous bullshit on our shores.  That's why conservativees want to shut it down.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 9, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



300,000 soldiers of which 260,000 were American.  Kinda like today in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We threatened China with the atomic bomb.  Do you deny that?  I didn't think so.  I warned ya.  You're in over your head.  I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 9, 2010)

Last year the world witnessed state-sanctioned violence  against protesters in Iran and China. Yet the United Nations was instead  focused on Israel, due to unprecedented hearings held by a UN inquiry  into the Gaza conflict of six months earlier. This was precisely the goal of  the body that organized the inquiry, the discredited UN Human Rights  Council.

The UN is always willing to condemn Israel, while people are being beaten and killed for their political views in other countries, can anyone say, Iran election of 2009? 




> *Consider the council's sense of  "proportionality": More than three-quarters of all its condemnatory  resolutions have been against one country -- Israel -- as well as five  out of its nine emergency sessions on country situations. As a permanent  feature of every regular session, it has one agenda item for violations  around the world, and another specifically on Israel. Except for a  handful of censures of North Korea and Burma, the world body has  virtually ignored the UN's 191 other member states.*


A case study in UN hypocrisy - UN Watch


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 9, 2010)

Apollo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



That wouldn't be the UN Security council would it?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 9, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



Like I said...It was a "Coalition of the willing"

Do those coalitions only count when they are claimed by Republicans?

MacArthur threatened the Chinese with the A Bomb.....it didn't work, did it?


----------



## Apollo (Jul 9, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Apollo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



yay for an extraneous comment.

we and the south koreans were going to fight regardless of the council's resolution--a security council at that point sans China and the USSR.  the resolution simply made it a multilateral effort in the name of global policing.


----------



## Dutch (Jul 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Is the UN perfect?
> 
> Far from it...it is still a political body. However, what alternative do you have for resolving international issues. By the way, it was the UN that stopped N Korea in the first place



Why we go in with guns blazing.  Darfur and Rawanda are perfect examples.  Wait, they had no natural resources, forget them.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The UN is trying for peace.  That's better than some people.




LOL bullshit


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Wait wait wait. are you guys using Korea as an example of a problem the UN solved? Never mind that it was almost all US troops and US money. THE PROBLEM WAS NOT SOLVED.

HELLO!!!

My god you fuckers are DUMB!


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 10, 2010)

I like the UN. I also don't think they're doing enough, though.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Jul 10, 2010)

I don't like the UN, it's a Useless organization,unless your a member of their 'club'.

*


			A Miasma of Corruption:
The United Nations at 50
		
Click to expand...

*A Miasmia of Corruption: The United Nations at 50


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2010)

rikules said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> > boy that u.n. is a heavy hitter. they came to the conclusion that they might be thinking about maybe having some deep (not too deep) reservations about north korea blowing up that south korean ship killing 41. that's a searing decree.... searing. like a steer branding on the loins of the world's sunburned ass.
> ...



The UN is weak and innefectual because the US would not have joined otherwise. We were not willing to subjugate ourselves to an all powerful international body. Therefore, when a nation acts beligerantly (Iraq, N Korea, Iran) the UN does not have the military power to force compliance.
For that, they have to rely on the worlds economic and military superpower to step in.
Does that mean the UN is useless.....No.....It means they have the limited international enforcement powers we intended them to have


----------



## editec (Jul 10, 2010)

The best way to deal with a nation gone mad is to let it collapse under its own weight.

Meanwhile, keeping its government at bay is the best response to its provocations.

Sucks, I'll admit, but that is the best solution.

S Korea definitely seems to understand that.

Meanwhile our _good friend and close trade partner_, China, keeps propping up NK.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2010)

editec said:


> The best way to deal with a nation gone mad is to let it collapse under its own weight.
> 
> Meanwhile, keeping its government at bay is the best response to its provocations.
> 
> ...



Good point

N Korea is more of a nuisance than a threat. They have collapsed economically and are no longer capable of sustaining a war without outside help. S Korea understands they do not have to go to war to win this war


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The best way to deal with a nation gone mad is to let it collapse under its own weight.
> ...



Yeah those pesky nukes are no "threat" at all.

LOL

You people are so dense. A country that has economically collapsed and has Nukes. IS DEFINITELY a threat.


----------



## The T (Jul 10, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


 
Yep.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Is the UN perfect?
> 
> Far from it...it is still a political body. However, what alternative do you have for resolving international issues. By the way, it was the UN that stopped N Korea in the first place



It was the US with UN backing, gained only because at the time the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN. Learn and understand a little history.


----------



## daveman (Jul 10, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Is the UN perfect?
> ...



History conflicts with leftism.  Can't have that.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2010)

The T said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They have nukes but are afraid to use them offensively. They know if they were to fire a first strike attack they would be obliterated in response. Their nukes are for defensive purposes...."if you attack us we will use our nukes as a last resort"

S Korea knows and your map of the electrical power grid shows that N Korea is collapsing under its own economic futility. If left to their own devices, they will collapse much like the USSR did


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



They do not have the nuclear arsenal to destroy S Korea. If they were to use them they would be attacked to the point they would cease to exist.
What do they gain by firing nukes? They lack the economic and military strength to follow up on a nuclear attack. Once you nuke, you have to be able to go in and take and hild the territory you have attacked. N Korea can't do that


----------



## The T (Jul 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


 
That is until that pajama-clad moron that runs the show throws a fit and coerces others to give him money under threat of launches as he has in the past?

Ummm-hmmmm...Riiiiight.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2010)

The T said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Really?

Do you realize how much money is required to fix that fucked up country?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 10, 2010)

- The UN is weak and has little power because its made up of states, and states do not want it to infringe on their sovereignty and so cede very little territory to it. This is why it is an INTERNATIONAL organization, not a SUPRANATIONAL one. 

- I don't get the heat about an anti-US bias in the UN. The UN was formed by the US. The US has veto power. Anything the UN does is at the very least implicitly accepted by the United States. A lot of funding is from the US. Much of its staff is from the US. It is _in_ the US. Up until the 70's it was more or less a rubber stamp for American power projection (except for those pesky Russian vetoes) until poor decolonized countries started outnumbering the US-led West. If the US decides to do something that the UN doesn't agree with it... Well, it does so anyway (as do the rest of the P5 members) and it's not like the UN can do a thing about it. The only anti-US things that occur are from General Assembly resolutions with are non-binding and don't mean virtually anything. It's as though you people expect the US position to be worshiped and accepted by everybody in the Universe as god-given instructions. Part of proper functioning in any community (i.e. the world) is accepting that people aren't going to agree with you all the time. 

- Speaking of the GA, I find it amusing that many here do a lot of posturing indignation about those "evil dictators" at the UN, considering that through most of its history, half of those dictators were American puppets regimes, funded, supported, and backed by American diplomacy and dollars. 

- The Entire UN budget is remarkably tiny. The UN itself counts with less than *$2 billion* dollars operating budget. This is _less than the Tokyo fire department_. And the ENTIRE UN system, all the agencies, all humanitarian aid, all peacekeeping forces, everything, runs about *$15 billion*, which is close to the NYC Board of Education's budget. Not to mention that, yeah, the US provides most funding because its so huge, but every member state has to contribute, and many contribute more in relation to GDP (i.e. Japan and Germany, the second and third largest contributors).

- A number of UN specialized agencies have been absolutely crucial in post-war reconstruction, humanitarian aid, and refugee care over the past 50 years. The WHO, WFP, and UNICEF have been some of the most successful organizations in their fields, _ever_, and have helped countless of millions of people both directly through their services, and indirectly through the generation of expertise and knowledge. 

Yet, in spite of ALL this, I agree many that the UN is corrupt and ineffective. That's why the UN needs reform, desperately. It needs much more accountability, it needs transparency, it needs structural reform. The GA needs to be made relevant, and the Security Council updated to reflect the realities of a changing world. The Economic and Social Council is a joke, and it is necessary to make it a serious player if duplication is to be avoided among the many agencies. In short, there's a lot to be done and its not perfect (nor is it every going to be), but it can be better. But if its a thorn on your side you better get used to it, cuz it's not going anywhere.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The point is a collapsing Nation is unpredictable. A collapsing nation with Nukes might use them, or Sell them to the highest bidder. I can not believe you guys think there would be no danger if NK fell completely apart and the Government lost all control, from their nukes. wasn't it you guys that argued against invading Iraq partly by saying if they have MWD's they would be more likely to use them when they were faced with ceasing to exist as a government. hmmm

To funny.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 10, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



What you say is absolutely true.

So what do you want to do about it? Will you vote for the guy who promises to invade North Korea in the next election?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



No question they are a wild card. But what would happen once N Korea starts to economically implode?
Will S Korea seize the opportunity and invade?

Or will the N Korean population revolt and throw the country into a power struggle?

Those nukes are of no use against an internal revolution


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Nope but they sure could be of use on the black market to say fund your revolution  Plus dont put it past old Kim to Fire one off as he is being over run by mobs of the angry people. He is after all an irrational person. They do not think about consequences in the same way we do. Besides he might think he has a chance to get away with one. Fry Tokyo or something, and the west decides not to respond because he has been over thrown. lol

you never know.


----------



## The T (Jul 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
But yet he has enough funds for his Military endeavours, while his people starve?

And he won't bat an eye of using his military unless the rest of the world gives in...He has done it before.

And what of that South Korean ship his forces sunk?

The mans need to be deposed by his own people a-la Louis XIV/Matrie Antoinette.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Pessimistic prospects for either case. South Korea is not going to invade North Korea. Even this boat incident, the people in SK just don't want to hear about it or look into it. It might be surprising to the American mindset, but they just don't think it's worth it going to war over it. And SK even by itself could kick the North's ass straight up. But it'd still be a brutal, brutal fighting and would likely cost a 100,000 South Koreans or more (and the possible nuke attack?). I'm pretty sure everyone in SK is hoping for the second scenario. Most of all, the South is smart - it knows that an invasion would empower the regime more than anything. It would justify what the leadership has been saying for 50 years; it would finally be their time in the sun to tell the millions of brainwashed masses "the moment has come, the imperialists are invading." Much better to sit back and watch it fall apart by itself. 

The second scenario is likely but it will take time, with the possibility that it just won't happen. How the North Korean people have not rebelled despite the total failure of the government and its brutal repression is a testament to how good those two fuckers have been at the Indoctrination Game. It nevertheless has been going very badly lately, and the transfer of power is going to depend on the Heir. Will he be a dunce? Or some kind of conniving political intrigue machine? Nobody knows (I lean to the former). This latest move of devaluing the currency pretty much wiped out the life savings of millions of North Koreans and many people are starting to get pretty fed up. Unless the heir is some kind of genius, it's likely the house is gonna fall apart. But it will likely have to wait until Kim Jong-Il dies, and unless there's some sort of coup or something. 

If I were the North Korean leadership, once Jong-Il dies, I'd cut my losses, open the country and flee to China. And pray.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 10, 2010)

Epsilon Delta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



I highly doubt they will do that. Ideologues tend to not be all that rational. In a country ruled by fear for Decades it would be all to easy for the next power mad asshole to take over and scare the people enough to shut the fuck up again.

As far as the nukes, and people thinking they would not use them in a civil war, or would never use them for fear of a response.

Ask yourself this simple question. If Hitler had had some nukes at the end. Would he really have killed himself before using every last damn one of them, even on Germany itself? Personally I think he would have.


----------



## The T (Jul 10, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
Just as when Castro finally kicks the proverbial bucket? His bro RAOUL...will keep the grip.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Jul 10, 2010)

I like the UN. But I think way too many people have higher expectations of what they are supposed to be, including the UN itself.

It's an international debating society, with the only outcome possible in the debates is a consensus or majority consensus among member nations. Thats it. In that regard, they play a valuable role in providing a central, recognized location and form for nations to air their grievances, and to sway other nations to their point of view. Anything more than that? They are pretty useless.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 10, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> I highly doubt they will do that.



Hence why I said "IF I WERE..." That part of my post was an afterthought more than anything.

The Crux of the matter is that nobody's going to invade. SK does not want invasion. The US is not gonna put the troops for it (especially with SK not wanting war). Nobody's going to put the troops for it. And without doing anything about it, what do people expect the UN to do? Yeah, so their statement was ball-less. But remember the Secretary General himself is South Korean; and even the SK government's not going berserk over it. 

The only thing to do is wait for an internal leadership change and that might not even be great for North Koreans if it's just one of Kim's generals or leadership. A popular revolt against the regime still looks unlikely in the near future despite everything.

It's just a pain in the ass.


----------



## The T (Jul 10, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> I like the UN. But I think way too many people have higher expectations of what they are supposed to be, including the UN itself.
> 
> It's an international debating society, with the only outcome possible in the debates is a consensus or majority consensus among member nations. Thats it. In that regard, they play a valuable role in providing a central, recognized location and form for nations to air their grievances, and to sway other nations to their point of view. Anything more than that? They are pretty useless.


 
Honesty.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 10, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> I like the UN. But I think way too many people have higher expectations of what they are supposed to be, including the UN itself.
> 
> It's an international debating society, with the only outcome possible in the debates is a consensus or majority consensus among member nations. Thats it. In that regard, *they play a valuable role in providing a central, recognized location and form for nations to air their grievances, and to sway other nations to their point of view*. Anything more than that? They are pretty useless.



I agree with the part in bold. Though, again, what's described here seems more of the General Assembly, than the UN as a whole.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Jul 10, 2010)

The T said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > I like the UN. But I think way too many people have higher expectations of what they are supposed to be, including the UN itself.
> ...



Thanks.

But I still think that the role they play can be valuable. I do not agree with the "get the US out of the UN" camp.

I do think that since we're giving up a prime piece of NY real estate, other nations should cough up more financially for its upkeep than they actually do.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Jul 10, 2010)

Epsilon Delta said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > I like the UN. But I think way too many people have higher expectations of what they are supposed to be, including the UN itself.
> ...



Nah, I'm thinking of the various subcommittees for ending left handed purple people starvation as well. The UN can shine a spotlight on a problem and bring it to the world's attention. But actually fixing the problem? Waaay overestimating their ability, which they do themselves.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 10, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Believe it or not, many do...



> Top 10 Member States in assessment for the UN regular budget, 2005
> Assessment rates/amount
> Country	(per cent)	($millions)
> United States	22.00	362.7
> ...



Remember though, Japan's got roughly a third of the population of the US, and Germany roughly a quarter. France and the UK roughly a fifth each.



> Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005
> 
> Country	($amount)
> Luxembourg	3.49
> ...



http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/index.asp?id=150


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 10, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Nah, I'm thinking of the various subcommittees for ending left handed purple people starvation as well. The UN can shine a spotlight on a problem and bring it to the world's attention. But actually fixing the problem? Waaay overestimating their ability, which they do themselves.



Well, I mean, it all very much depends. If you're talking about the things that happen at the ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council) then you're absolutely right. But if you include the various specialized agencies, it's more of a mixed bag. There's of course the WHO, UNICEF on one hand the World Food Programme, but then you've got crap like UNESCO on the other. The important ones (the three I mentioned), though, have done *a world* of good. 

(Ahaha... get it? OASIdhAPOsdiHAdspoAIdshAPSoiAD)


----------



## RadiomanATL (Jul 10, 2010)

Epsilon Delta said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Yeah, but we still pay for 22% of their budget, AND give them prime real estate. Which is way to much IMO.

China, a permanent member, contributes only a little over 2%? Bullshit I say. I would like to see where the 5 permanent members of the UNSC pay for between 5-10% each, and the rest of it the others need to start ponying up.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 10, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Oh c'mon. The UN is basically on a platform on the East River. AOSIdhPSOaIDHpODsi. And why do you think the UN is in New York? It wasn't so that you could collect rent, it's so that the US could keep a close eye on it. Not only that, but New Yorkers don't mind it; its a good generator of jobs and consumer of services. It's pretty profitable for business to have hundreds if not thousands of well-paid people flying in and out. I'll try to find a study on it, there must be one somewhere.  

Besides, Japan pays *19%* of their budget and they're not even in the Security Council. Again, with only a third of the US population. A Swiss pays three times more than an American, they don't got a SC seat either. 

Just saying, it's really not as expensive as one would think. Though I agree the Chinese contribution should definitely be going up in the near future. Though, again, the average Chinese has like 1/20th of the income of an average American.


----------



## The T (Jul 10, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


 
Yep. And since they hold alot of our debt...and besides have ganged up on us with Russia>?

-Go Figure-


----------



## RadiomanATL (Jul 10, 2010)

Epsilon Delta said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



I don't think Japan needs to be paying as much either. But paying 22% of their operating budget is not a very good ROI IMO.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



We insisted the UN be in New York

We have three times the GDP of Japan and over twice the population and yet pay only 3% more and they aren't even on the Security council


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 10, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> I don't think Japan needs to be paying as much either. But paying 22% of their operating budget is not a very good ROI IMO.



Well, could be... But I like to pose it a different way :

Are four quarters and a nickel a year a good ROI, for you, in exchange for the whole if obviously imperfect international system? 

You can't even buy a can of soda with that!


----------



## RadiomanATL (Jul 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



I already agree that Japan pays too much as well.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 11, 2010)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Umm no. Once a nation has nukes a conventional Invasion is pretty much impossible. Containment is the best option now. That is why we need to stop other nations like Iran from joining the list of those we have to contain. 

What we should do about NK if it begins to collapse. Well I never claimed to have that answer I was simply responding to people who are claiming NKs nukes are no threat cause the nation is imploding.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 11, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



I can agree with that, and I understand. I don't think anybody has the answer. I was just sort of putting that out there. It doesn't mean that NOTHING can be done. But sometimes people get carried away when they start jumpin' up and down about North Korea, like oh Bush isn't doing enough or now Obama isn't doing enough or in this thread the UN can't do anything about North Korea so they're useless. I mean, neither of those is completely true. The fact of the matter is that there really isn't almost anything to do about North Korea. It's too fucked up. We're just going to have to hope that North Koreans wake up to this sooner rather than later. 

It's up to the patient at this point.

EDIT: On a last note, the fall of the regime from the inside will probably be the only peaceful way to disarm North Korea. When the regime falls, almost any kind of government that emerges is going to de-nuclearize itself a la post-Apartheid South Africa (most likely).


----------



## hipeter924 (Jul 11, 2010)

Any organization is as corrupt or as foul as its members, considering most of its members are dictatorships like North Korea and China as well as religious theocracies like Iran that want to wipe Israel off the map it's not a surprise that the UN is the mess that is it is. 

In my opinion the US or any democracy with some kind of moral decency would leave the UN to its mess and found a new organization where only democracies with some degree of support for human rights are allowed to enter, as the UN has been hijacked by the kinds of people in the left that support the destruction of free speech to help Islamic theocracies oppress their people better.


----------



## daveman (Jul 11, 2010)

hipeter924 said:


> Any organization is as corrupt or as foul as its members, considering most of its members are dictatorships like North Korea and China as well as religious theocracies like Iran that want to wipe Israel off the map it's not a surprise that the UN is the mess that is it is.
> 
> In my opinion the US or any democracy with some kind of moral decency would leave the UN to its mess and found a new organization where only democracies with some degree of support for human rights are allowed to enter, as the UN has been hijacked by the kinds of people in the left that support the destruction of free speech to help Islamic theocracies oppress their people better.


----------



## washamericom (Jul 11, 2010)

i think   hipeter924  k  has it just right


----------

