So We need the U.N?

[rightwinger]

Let them try presenting their views in their home countries, where they will find themselves disappeared if they break the party line.

Doesn't mean they should not be allowed to present them to the world. Whether you agree with them or not, they have a right to be heard

They have a right to put their money where their big fat mouths are too. Why should the USA pay 25% of the bill. DUmmie.

Totally irrelevant to the need for a UN or the right of all nations to be allowed to speak

So I assume your point is that we pay the most money so other nations should say what we want to hear

 

[WillowTree]

I am reading a book called Inside the Asylum about the U.N. He lays out the case that the UN is corrupt and ineffective. Aside from a few programs (eradicating malaria) the UN has utterly failed in its mission.
Is it time for the U.S. to withdraw and make a new organization of democratic countries committed to individual rights?

You're a moron, and I'll tell you why. The U.N. has been under attack for decades from the far right wing of American politics, lead initially by the John Birch Society. Suggesting a new organizations of democratic countries committed to individual rights might not include the United States.
Consider the outrage of the RW and the populist pols in the state of Arizona who passed 1070, or efforts by the Republican Party to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for Democratic candidates, and efforts to pass ex post facto laws revoking the citizenship of constitutionally defined Americans.
Now, as to why your a moron. You regulary post talking points, this one is decades old and has been a halmark of the far, far rigtht. And you want to establish a bloc of nations, defined as democratic. and exclude nations you believe are not.
Even if the U.N. is ineffective, setting up a singular agency as you suggest is stupid, and only a moron would not be able to foresee the consequences of such stupidity.

You're a moron, And, I'll tell you why. The question was. "Do We Kneed the UN?" the answere is Fuck No we do not KNEED the UN.. MORON>

 

[The Rabbi]

Time for the U.S. to "make a new organization of democratic countries committed to individual rights?" Where to start...

How about the U.S. needs to get its own house in order in the arena of individual rights? We have a lot of nanny laws on the books to get rid of first, mah friend.

How about the arrogance that presumes the U.S. should "make" a nation of "democratic" countries? What's a "democratic" country? Who decides? You? Me?

I don't recommend throwing the baby out with the bath water. In a shrinking global society, we need to start doing a better job of coexisting with our neighbors. An organization that restricts membership to only a select group of nations cannot legitimately be said to be a global organization.

Do you really want to compare U.S. laws with, say Libya? Are you actually making that comparison?
And if you cannot tell the difference between a democratic country and a non free one, do you have any moral compass at all?

You are aware that the US has about 1000x more power in the UN than Libya does, right?

Not in the General Assembly. But nice try for an irrelevant point.
You push closer to Iggy with every post.

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't mean they should not be allowed to present them to the world. Whether you agree with them or not, they have a right to be heard

They have a right to put their money where their big fat mouths are too. Why should the USA pay 25% of the bill. DUmmie.

Totally irrelevant to the need for a UN or the right of all nations to be allowed to speak

It is not irrelevant if you are positing that the UN is necessary for free speech.
SInce when do countries have a right of free speech anyway? That is a right granted only in our Constitution.

 

[WillowTree]

Doesn't mean they should not be allowed to present them to the world. Whether you agree with them or not, they have a right to be heard

They have a right to put their money where their big fat mouths are too. Why should the USA pay 25% of the bill. DUmmie.

Totally irrelevant to the need for a UN or the right of all nations to be allowed to speak

If we are stuck with 25% of the bill it's clear they need us a lot more than we need them. We should get the hell outta there or demand they pay more.

 

[strollingbones]

try not to let them become all about israel...okay....

as far as the un..the un peace keeping missions...where un troops are deployed are a joke...they cannot act without permission or respond....without direct commands...which results in them being ineffective in many situations...

the un has been very heavy handed in their treatment of countries...look at the resolutions condemning this and that..see what countries are being talked about

now here is what really pisses me off....the veto power of certian key nations to stop actions...

Things did not begin to change until the end of the Iraq-Iran conflict and the influx into Turkey in September 1988 of refugees fleeing a new chemical weapons offensive. On 7 September France issued a communiqué in which President Mitterrand expressed concern at information received about the use of chemical weapons and other means of repression against the Kurdish population in Iraq. He added that he had no wish to interfere in Iraq’s internal affairs, but the bonds of friendship between Iraq and France were even more reason to make his feelings known. In America, a resolution urging sanctions against Iraq was tabled by Senator Claiborne D. Pell and passed by both Houses of Congress. It was vetoed by President Bush. The White House even granted Baghdad a further loan of a billion dollars.

It was not until Iraq occupied the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait in August 1990 that Saddam Hussein became America’s bogeyman, referred to by George Bush as a new Hitler. Still useful, however, he survived the Gulf war. American troops did nothing to overturn the Iraqi dictator. And they stood idly by in the spring of 1991 while his presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular uprising for which the United States’ president had himself called.

When our "friend" Saddam was gassing the Kurds - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

saddam knew the un wouldnt do anything to him...he took full advantage of it...and gassed the kurds...and was right..nothing happened....

its like having a doberman with no teeth....no really much good when trouble hits....

 

[WillowTree]

They have a right to put their money where their big fat mouths are too. Why should the USA pay 25% of the bill. DUmmie.

Totally irrelevant to the need for a UN or the right of all nations to be allowed to speak

It is not irrelevant if you are positing that the UN is necessary for free speech.
SInce when do countries have a right of free speech anyway? That is a right granted only in our Constitution.

Not to mention their speach ain't free if we the people are paying for it.

 

[Nik]

But it is still an unprecidented forum for international discussion of critical issues.

I agree, thats what makes it valuable.

The internet is an unprecedented forum for discussion. And it is not ruled over by petty dictators and thugs.
What good has the UN accomplished in the last 20 years to justify its existence?

How exactly is the UN "ruled over" by petty dictators and thugs? Yes some have a presence in the UN, but it is rather a huge jump to go from them existing in the organization to them ruling it.

As for accomplishments, its hard to judge a preventative program. Because when it prevents a problem you never see it, since it is by definition nonexistant. However, that being said, there are numerous examples of UN successes to anyone honest enough to spend a minute looking for them. If you want just a quick few examples see UN operations in Kashmir, Cyprus, and Lebanon.

And no...just because the UN doesn't solve everything doesn't mean an operation isn't a success.

 

[Oddball]

America should get out and kick them out of America.

We already have all the grossly expensive, ineffective and unaccountable gubmint we need within our own national boundaries.

 

[strollingbones]

United States and the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.[15]

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.[citation needed]

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.[citation needed]

Under Helms-Biden, the U.S. paid $100 million in arrears to the UN in December 1999; release of the next $582 million awaits a legislative revision to Helms-Biden, necessary because the benchmark requiring a 25 percent peacekeeping assessment rate ceiling was not quite achieved. The U.S. also seeks elimination of the legislated 25 percent cap on U.S. peacekeeping payments in effect since 1995, which continues to generate additional UN arrears. Of the final $244 million under Helms-Biden, $30 million is payable to the UN and $214 million to other international organizations.[citation n

 

[Oddball]

Phooey...Let the red bastards fund their own political slush funds.

 

[Nik]

Do you really want to compare U.S. laws with, say Libya? Are you actually making that comparison?
And if you cannot tell the difference between a democratic country and a non free one, do you have any moral compass at all?

You are aware that the US has about 1000x more power in the UN than Libya does, right?

Not in the General Assembly. But nice try for an irrelevant point.
You push closer to Iggy with every post.

God you are embarassing.

The GA is non-binding. The SC, where the US holds a huge amount of power, IS binding.

 

[2Parties]

If the US "left" the UN there would not be a UN. The UN is a mouthpiece of the US...

 

[Wry Catcher]

I am reading a book called Inside the Asylum about the U.N. He lays out the case that the UN is corrupt and ineffective. Aside from a few programs (eradicating malaria) the UN has utterly failed in its mission.
Is it time for the U.S. to withdraw and make a new organization of democratic countries committed to individual rights?

You're a moron, and I'll tell you why. The U.N. has been under attack for decades from the far right wing of American politics, lead initially by the John Birch Society. Suggesting a new organizations of democratic countries committed to individual rights might not include the United States.
Consider the outrage of the RW and the populist pols in the state of Arizona who passed 1070, or efforts by the Republican Party to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for Democratic candidates, and efforts to pass ex post facto laws revoking the citizenship of constitutionally defined Americans.
Now, as to why your a moron. You regulary post talking points, this one is decades old and has been a halmark of the far, far rigtht. And you want to establish a bloc of nations, defined as democratic. and exclude nations you believe are not.
Even if the U.N. is ineffective, setting up a singular agency as you suggest is stupid, and only a moron would not be able to foresee the consequences of such stupidity.

The UN has proven itself to be inept and corrupt.
And if you can't tell the difference between North Korea and the U.S. then your moral compass is gone. Like we didnt know that.

You're, as usual, full of shit. Even you acknowledge the U.N. has had a positve impact on Malaria, and one might add dozens of other programs including peace keeping. In any large organization some corruption exists - Enron ring a bell?
So, in your world, it's better to isolate N. Korea and further alienate an insane leader risking a continuaton of the Korean War - and the possibility of Nuclear Weapons being used - rather then intermediate steps?
Of course if war resumes on the Korean Peninsula you won't march into harms way, but I'm sure you'll be happy to send my sons and others peoples kids. You're not only stupid, you're a stupid asshole.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree, thats what makes it valuable.

The internet is an unprecedented forum for discussion. And it is not ruled over by petty dictators and thugs.
What good has the UN accomplished in the last 20 years to justify its existence?

How exactly is the UN "ruled over" by petty dictators and thugs? Yes some have a presence in the UN, but it is rather a huge jump to go from them existing in the organization to them ruling it.

As for accomplishments, its hard to judge a preventative program. Because when it prevents a problem you never see it, since it is by definition nonexistant. However, that being said, there are numerous examples of UN successes to anyone honest enough to spend a minute looking for them. If you want just a quick few examples see UN operations in Kashmir, Cyprus, and Lebanon.

And no...just because the UN doesn't solve everything doesn't mean an operation isn't a success.

Kashmir. This has been going on since 1948 and the UN has done nothing.
Kashmir And The United Nations By Wajahat Ahmad
India and Pakistan are still waging at least cold war.
Lebanon? Now a wholly owned subsidiary of Syria
Cyprus is ancient history as well.
Nice try, major fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're a moron, and I'll tell you why. The U.N. has been under attack for decades from the far right wing of American politics, lead initially by the John Birch Society. Suggesting a new organizations of democratic countries committed to individual rights might not include the United States.
Consider the outrage of the RW and the populist pols in the state of Arizona who passed 1070, or efforts by the Republican Party to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for Democratic candidates, and efforts to pass ex post facto laws revoking the citizenship of constitutionally defined Americans.
Now, as to why your a moron. You regulary post talking points, this one is decades old and has been a halmark of the far, far rigtht. And you want to establish a bloc of nations, defined as democratic. and exclude nations you believe are not.
Even if the U.N. is ineffective, setting up a singular agency as you suggest is stupid, and only a moron would not be able to foresee the consequences of such stupidity.

The UN has proven itself to be inept and corrupt.
And if you can't tell the difference between North Korea and the U.S. then your moral compass is gone. Like we didnt know that.

You're, as usual, full of shit. Even you acknowledge the U.N. has had a positve impact on Malaria, and one might add dozens of other programs including peace keeping. In any large organization some corruption - Enron ring a bell?
So, in your world, it's better to isolate N. Korea and further alienate an insane leader risking a continuaton of the Korean War - and the possibility of Nuclear Weapons being used - rather then intermediate steps?
Of course if war resumes on the Korean Peninsula you won't march into harms way, but I'm sure you'll be happy to send my sons and others peoples kids. You're not only stupid, you're a stupid asshole.

The UN's peace keeping missions are a joke. The mission in Israel has become simply a base for terrorists to launch attacks against Israel.
They have one or two decent programs that could probably be done better by someone else. That does not justify the cost or the problems with the organization, which are both intractable.
And if I recall the Korean War was fought under UN mandate. Or did you forget that?

 

[Nik]

Let them try presenting their views in their home countries, where they will find themselves disappeared if they break the party line.

Doesn't mean they should not be allowed to present them to the world. Whether you agree with them or not, they have a right to be heard

Who is preventing them from being heard? Are we obligated to provide millions of dollars for this?
This is where lefties get it wrong. Having a right does not mean the rest of us need to cough up so you can exercise it. If that were the case I'd want my own newspaper.

Actually its hugely important that there is a global forum where countries go to hash out differences. It means that if countries have a problem with each other, they oftentimes take it to the UN (or the ICJ) as opposed to starting a war. No, the UN doesn't solve every problem out there, but its done a damn good job in a lot of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't mean they should not be allowed to present them to the world. Whether you agree with them or not, they have a right to be heard

Who is preventing them from being heard? Are we obligated to provide millions of dollars for this?
This is where lefties get it wrong. Having a right does not mean the rest of us need to cough up so you can exercise it. If that were the case I'd want my own newspaper.

Actually its hugely important that there is a global forum where countries go to hash out differences. It means that if countries have a problem with each other, they oftentimes take it to the UN (or the ICJ) as opposed to starting a war. No, the UN doesn't solve every problem out there, but its done a damn good job in a lot of them.

Really?
Did they prevent the Iraq war? Did they prevent the Gulf War? Did they prevent the Russian incursion into Chechnya? Did they prevent the war i the Balkans? Did they prevent the genocide in Rwanda?
Please name a war they have prevented in the last 25 years by talking.

 

[Nik]

The internet is an unprecedented forum for discussion. And it is not ruled over by petty dictators and thugs.
What good has the UN accomplished in the last 20 years to justify its existence?

How exactly is the UN "ruled over" by petty dictators and thugs? Yes some have a presence in the UN, but it is rather a huge jump to go from them existing in the organization to them ruling it.

As for accomplishments, its hard to judge a preventative program. Because when it prevents a problem you never see it, since it is by definition nonexistant. However, that being said, there are numerous examples of UN successes to anyone honest enough to spend a minute looking for them. If you want just a quick few examples see UN operations in Kashmir, Cyprus, and Lebanon.

And no...just because the UN doesn't solve everything doesn't mean an operation isn't a success.

Kashmir. This has been going on since 1948 and the UN has done nothing.
Kashmir And The United Nations By Wajahat Ahmad
India and Pakistan are still waging at least cold war.
Lebanon? Now a wholly owned subsidiary of Syria
Cyprus is ancient history as well.
Nice try, major fail.

Are you really this fucking stupid?

Those were peacekeeping operations. Those are successes because of the noted lack of WAR and the lives that the UN saved.

Exactly what do you expect the UN to do in those cases? Seriously. If you want to criticize them for acting poorly in those individual cases, how do you think they should have acted?

 

[Nik]

Who is preventing them from being heard? Are we obligated to provide millions of dollars for this?
This is where lefties get it wrong. Having a right does not mean the rest of us need to cough up so you can exercise it. If that were the case I'd want my own newspaper.

Actually its hugely important that there is a global forum where countries go to hash out differences. It means that if countries have a problem with each other, they oftentimes take it to the UN (or the ICJ) as opposed to starting a war. No, the UN doesn't solve every problem out there, but its done a damn good job in a lot of them.

Really?
Did they prevent the Iraq war? Did they prevent the Gulf War? Did they prevent the Russian incursion into Chechnya? Did they prevent the war i the Balkans? Did they prevent the genocide in Rwanda?
Please name a war they have prevented in the last 25 years by talking.

Wars that don't exist usually aren't named.

Fuck but you are stupid.