U.S. in a Post-U.N. World

[bigfatron]

Sounds like ken Scott is on a mission from all the postings!

Your description of the UN is full of flawed generalisations - rather like some posters descriptions of republican americans! - let's just consider a few:

'massive one world government beaurocracy':
The total UN budget - that's peacekeeping, health, refugee relief, disaster relief, education, trade, telecomms, industrial development, womens' rights, labour, atomic energy, agriculture, etc - for all activities is $10bn; in comparison total UK government spending is about $1 trillion, so the UN spending is about 1% of the size of the UK - hardly a 'massive one world government'!

'drain on the economy' - US dues for regular activities are $363 million last year. I bet the US govt spent more on paperclips. The US is the only country in the world that gets a rebate on its contributions, and is also the largest overdue debtor on both regular and peacekeeping payments.

'ignoring felonies and crimes committed by individuals such as Kofi Annan who have diplomatic immunity' - didn't Paul Volker chair the committee which found Annan had committed no felony or crime? Do you think your ex fed reserve chief was lying? I mean, Volker was chosen specifically under US pressure to ensure a 100% credible investigation; it would be ludicrous not to accept the judge's decision after having chosen the judge!

'allow un-united nations' - presumably meaning it allows non-democratic nations to be members. Unsurprisingly, given its genesis in 1945, the US wrote the membership rules and set the standard - ALL nations were to be represented, bar none. How else would you run it - have the US choose who joins? Yeah right, like every other country should trust the US to behave fairly! Dream on....

Ayn Rand's racist diatribe does her no credit and disqualifies her opinion in every respect - anybody stupid or blind enough to claim that countries are motivated in their actions by 'hatred of the United States and the pleasure of spitting in our face' is just blowing smoke.

By all means dislike the UN, just try some factual analysis that doesn't rely on semi-facist nationalistic posturing for support.

 

[CurtSibling]

Whatever is said here in a bulletin board, the UN plays a role
that too many world (including the USA) politicians find useful.

It will be around for some time to come. For good or ill.

PS
Fine posting, Ron!


.

 

[Aleph-Null]

'massive one world government beaurocracy':
The total UN budget - that's peacekeeping, health, refugee relief, disaster relief, education, trade, telecomms, industrial development, womens' rights, labour, atomic energy, agriculture, etc - for all activities is $10bn; in comparison total UK government spending is about $1 trillion, so the UN spending is about 1% of the size of the UK - hardly a 'massive one world government'!

The U.N. possesses a massive beauracracy present even in this forum, a media apparatus dedicated to its memetic transmission across all national bounderies as part of a 1960's U.S. Government plan designed by John F. Kennedy himself in a formerly top secret document available through the Freedom of Information Act referred to as "Freedom From War"

'drain on the economy' - US dues for regular activities are $363 million last year. I bet the US govt spent more on paperclips. The US is the only country in the world that gets a rebate on its contributions, and is also the largest overdue debtor on both regular and peacekeeping payments.

Money which could be better spent elsewhere. The U.N. does not have a monopoly on this act nor does its "reputation" allow its "stamp of approval" to 'legitimize' any peacekeeping operation.

'ignoring felonies and crimes committed by individuals such as Kofi Annan who have diplomatic immunity' - didn't Paul Volker chair the committee which found Annan had committed no felony or crime? Do you think your ex fed reserve chief was lying? I mean, Volker was chosen specifically under US pressure to ensure a 100% credible investigation; it would be ludicrous not to accept the judge's decision after having chosen the judge!

A crime committed by someone with Diplomatic Immunity? Does anyone here detect an oxymoron? Anyone other than someone like Kofi would be in the slammer for the next 20-50 years.

'allow un-united nations' - presumably meaning it allows non-democratic nations to be members. Unsurprisingly, given its genesis in 1945, the US wrote the membership rules and set the standard - ALL nations were to be represented, bar none. How else would you run it - have the US choose who joins? Yeah right, like every other country should trust the US to behave fairly! Dream on....

Ayn Rand's racist diatribe does her no credit and disqualifies her opinion in every respect - anybody stupid or blind enough to claim that countries are motivated in their actions by 'hatred of the United States and the pleasure of spitting in our face' is just blowing smoke.

By all means dislike the UN, just try some factual analysis that doesn't rely on semi-facist nationalistic posturing for support.

This obviously shows how you've misread your history. The United Nations was not founded in 1945, its Charter was written in 1945. The United Nations is the term which was used to the describe the Allied Powers during World War 2. This alliance was then forged into an organizational beauracracy founded by the Charter. And through the admittance of nation's which are not "allied" you allow non-allied nations into the organization which attempt to undermine it. Of course, the U.N. would fail as it has, it was afterall designed by a Democrat. Now, as we have all learned from the 1990-2003 Iraq/Saddam War, the U.N. failed in preventing war. It turns out, that the United Nations is nothing more than a "rhetoric megaphone" which in my opinion will and does make war more likely as opposed to less likely. In that it is nothing more than a place for the world's biggest egos to bump heads.

 

[Princeps]

1990-2003 Iraq/Saddam War, the U.N. failed in preventing war

Don't even dare to make the persian gulf war and the operation iraqi freedom the same conflict! 1990 conflict was a conflict where every one agreed that iraq should be pushed away from Kuwait.

In the operation Iraqi freedom it was US (with UK, of course) who was too impentious to attack and had get in that mess and now want's others assistance!

 

[Aleph-Null]

naziassbandit, you can work your historical revisionism all you want. The fact of the matter is if you can't differentiate between "escalation of a current war" from "initiation of a new war" then you're a seriously confused individual.

What everyone agreed to was that Saddam must implement a cease-fire in order for the war to end. There was more than "just kicking out of kuwait" involved in those resolutions. Iraq existed in a state of war throughout the whole 90s, being spared only through our mercy. Perhaps he should have appreciated that before glorifying terrorists. Perhaps you should read those resolutions again.

 

[CurtSibling]

Actually you are right, but Saddam had some alarming ties to the Western powers too.

That is a cold fact we must face.

.......

 

[Colonel]

Wow ultra right winger here arent we Ken, need I remind you that the UN has not olny averted a massive gloabal nuclear war, as well as bringing an end to the Korean War, granted it was only a cease fire, still better then nothing. As for the idea to create a new organization to replace it with basically a more pro US motto would be seen by many European and Asian Allies as American Imperialism at its worst.

 

[Rik Meleet]

It wouldn't have anything to do with the US not wanting to pay their bills, now, would it ?

The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $10 billion each year, or about $1.70 for each of the world's inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is just a tiny fraction of the world's military spending. Yet for over a decade, the UN has faced a debilitating financial crisis and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN's voluntary funds. As of December 31, 2004, members arrears to the Regular Budget topped $357 million, of which the United States alone owed $241 million (68% of the regular budget).

 

[storealex]

UN is regulations, and regulations are not funny for the guy with the fast car.

But one day, China will have the fastest car, and US will begin to like UN again.

 

[JohnRM]

There is no margin for error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression. The expulsion of a charter member, the Republic of China [Taiwan]—an action forbidden by the U.N.'s own Charter—was a 'moment of truth,' a naked display of the United Nations' soul.

What was Red China's qualification for membership in the U.N.? The fact that her government seized power by force, and has maintained it for twenty-two years by terror. What disqualified Nationalist China [Taiwan]? The fact that she was a friend of the United States. It was against the United States that all those beneficiaries of our foreign aid were voting at the U.N. It was hatred of the United States and the pleasure of spitting in our face that they were celebrating, as well as their liberation from morality—with savages, appropriately, doing jungle dances in the aisles.

 

[bigfatron]

The U.N. possesses a massive beauracracy present even in this forum, a media apparatus dedicated to its memetic transmission across all national bounderies as part of a 1960's U.S. Government plan designed by John F. Kennedy himself in a formerly top secret document available through the Freedom of Information Act referred to as "Freedom From War".

You've ignored my point, presumably because you have no meaningful answer - the UN beaurocracy is relatively small in both number and cost. It is totally inadequate as a proto-world government, and no-one but conspiracy theorist wackos even considers this possibility.

Money which could be better spent elsewhere. The U.N. does not have a monopoly on this act nor does its "reputation" allow its "stamp of approval" to 'legitimize' any peacekeeping operation.

On what objective basis do you conclude it could be spent better elsewhere? Do you have a sensible opinion on the effectiveness of UNHCR or UNWRA programmes? How about the efficacy of the UN peacekeeping operations - are they relatively good value? Or do you object to them in principle? Provide some meat to your dish of complaints or pipe down.

And the UN does have the monopoly on the use of legal violent intervention - the charter, drafted by Truman's adminstration, enshrines this monopoly. Learn to live with it...

A crime committed by someone with Diplomatic Immunity? Does anyone here detect an oxymoron? Anyone other than someone like Kofi would be in the slammer for the next 20-50 years.

What utter tripe. Firstly diplomatic immunity protects you from trial and punishment - diplomats of all nations can and do commit crimes (as can overseas servicemen), but they are exempt from domestic prosecution. Thus your dripping sarcasm and attempt to display superior understanding falls at the first hurdle - there is no oxymoron, as you would understand if you thought it through.

Besides which, Volker's enquiry found Annan guilty of no wrongdoing, no offence. Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with that fact. It's just a red herring used to try to avoid the real issue.

Answer the question instead of dodging it - do you think Volker is lying, or do you agree with his findings? If you disagree with the findings, on what basis do you do so? The simple fact of the verdict not supporting your personal bias is not enough justification to reject it....

This obviously shows how you've misread your history. The United Nations was not founded in 1945, its Charter was written in 1945. The United Nations is the term which was used to the describe the Allied Powers during World War 2. This alliance was then forged into an organizational beauracracy founded by the Charter. And through the admittance of nation's which are not "allied" you allow non-allied nations into the organization which attempt to undermine it. Of course, the U.N. would fail as it has, it was afterall designed by a Democrat. Now, as we have all learned from the 1990-2003 Iraq/Saddam War, the U.N. failed in preventing war. It turns out, that the United Nations is nothing more than a "rhetoric megaphone" which in my opinion will and does make war more likely as opposed to less likely. In that it is nothing more than a place for the world's biggest egos to bump heads.

Sophistry. Trying to distinguish between the foundation of an organisation and the writing of its charter is like arguing over how many angels can fit on a pinhead - totally pointless.

True the UN failed to prevent a war that the US was determined to start, as it has failed to pervent wars that other great powers - the Soviet Union, China - have been determined to start or turn a blind eye to. That is hardly a reason to propose adopting a system whereby the same US is the arbiter of which countries are 'good' or 'bad'.

Precisely because it is not a world government, the UN is only as strong as the determination of its strongest members to abide by the Charter - sadly today this US administration lacks the vision and moral courage to adhere to the Charter a wiser and infinitely more impressive administration created.

 

[blackheart]

Most of America is apathetic towards the U.N.o. that apathy will be the nail in its coffin... and not a moment too soon. In the final analysis, the U.N.o. is merely another theater of war and thus worthless to mankind. What is needed is an institution like the U.S. which advances the cause of peace and freedom. The U.S. is perhaps humanities best hope.

When I saw the part I bolded, I laughed my ass off. kenScott, you really are funny.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the UN isn't a world government, you point it out yourself. Would a world government let a war happen without its consent (Iraqi Freedom)? Would a world government face all of this criticism from its member states? The UN can barely do anything without funding from member nations, it is relatively weak for a so-called worl government.

 

[Double Barrel]

Hey, in the UN, Libya has been elected chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission!!

Wow, that's great!

Let's take a look at the country in charge of international supervision of human rights abuses from the left leaning Amnesty International (a friend of the UN if there ever was one!)

What next, Saudi Arabia as chairman of the UN Women's Rights Commission?!

What a crock!

 

[Yom]

Of course, the U.N. would fail as it has, it was afterall designed by a Democrat.

The moment I saw this line, I knew there was no reasoning with him.

 

[Babbler]

The moment I saw this line, I knew there was no reasoning with him.

I knew that the moment he quote Ayn Rand.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I think having a national community is important, but the UN is now outdated like the League of Nations. The UN was designed for the Cold War era, and is obsolete with the fall of the Soviet Union. It either needs to be revamped, or scraped to make way for a new modern organization.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

A beauracracy which proposes 'reforms' will eventually 'reform' itself into a governing authority once it reaches a certain level of authority. Furthermore, as you said, the U.N. is obviously not required to maintain peace or perform charitable activities. It is essentially useless. Therefore, it is a drain on tax dollars and it is our obligation to cut wasteful government spending, especially on an organization which is considered to be nothing more than a theater of bridge-burning war to nation's like France, Germany, Iran, Saddam's Iraq, etc.

Now, what does the U.N. do, the U.N. creates an 'alternate' authority. When Kofi Annan says something is "illegal" or "legal" he is assuming a certain authority, on what does he possess the authority to do so, his fanatical and radical delusions of manifest destiny.

I doubt that the UN will ever be in a position to gain any level of authority. In fact, in many ways, its authority has devolved over time, because the Security Council has become an object of division, rather than unity. The Security Council originally consisted of the victors of WW2, so it was thought that they would have convergent interests and would work together. However, that has been far from the case, as history has demonstrated. I'm not optimistic that reform will bring this back in line, because that would require sacrifices on nearly every member state.

I agree that the UN needs to be sacrificed for its own good. However, right now, the world mood is such that the US cannot abandon it outright, lest it seem imperialist. Instead, the UN has to be allowed to demonstrate its obsolescence more and more, until its irrelevance is obvious to everyone. While it is possible that a new, more relevant organization can emerge, I don't see anyone taking charge of that anywhere.

 

[FriendlyFire]

ight now, the world mood is such that the US cannot abandon it outright, lest it seem imperialist.

The Creation of the UN was only possible due to the catastrophic and deverstating second world war. Mankinds desire for peace and optomisstic ideolism was what created the UN organisation.

 

[BasketCase]

I agree that the UN needs to be sacrificed for its own good. However, right now, the world mood is such that the US cannot abandon it outright, lest it seem imperialist. Instead, the UN has to be allowed to demonstrate its obsolescence more and more, until its irrelevance is obvious to everyone. While it is possible that a new, more relevant organization can emerge, I don't see anyone taking charge of that anywhere.

I define imperialism strictly and simply as trying to dominate everybody else (i.e. conquer them and plant your flag on their soil); to me, abandoning the UN isn't imperialism, it's simply one nation going its own separate way. Fact is, a lot of nations are doing this--they simply pay lip service to the UN so they don't get yelled at for being out of lockstep.

Any organization that takes the place of the UN (if that happens) will have the same problem with authority that then UN currently does: everybody will want to be the top dog. Giving a world-government body any kind of authority works against that purpose, for everybody except the strongest nation on the planet.

 

[FredLC]

Precisely because it is not a world government, the UN is only as strong as the determination of its strongest members to abide by the Charter - sadly today this US administration lacks the vision and moral courage to adhere to the Charter a wiser and infinitely more impressive administration created.

While youre entire participation in this thread is worthy of commending, Ron, this particular paragraph deserves a visual thumbs up, so here it goes:




Regards .