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

[anarres]

Well, the U.N. and the U.S. both seem to be in need of reform. There is much empirical data to back this up.

The U.N. has announced it's intention to restructure and to try and resolve some of these issues.

The U.S. is currently deciding who to invade next.




kenScott, I can only assume you are a 'usual' CFC poster with a troll nick. No-one can actually believe Ann Rand. Can they???

 

[CurtSibling]

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.

That last line more or less sold the arguemnt from Ron's side to me!



EDIT:
Noticed Fred also cited this one - Good show!

 

[Aleph-Null]

Why should the U.S. adhere to a Charter where its own members have lost sight of its meaning? Nor should the U.S. lower itself to adhering to something that is outdated and antiquated. Nor will China eclipse the U.S. anytime within the next 50 years. Accussing the U.S. of "starting a war" is sure signs that these member nations are confused when the reality and the facts clearly testify that Operation Iraqi Freedom is called such in order to "end a war"

Now, seeing how I am Mr. Popularity, I will take a moment to read and reply to the flood of ignorant responses I have received from you teenagers.

 

[Aleph-Null]

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.

U.S. funds should go towards promoting U.S. interests and only U.S. interests. As for avertin massive global nuclear war, this is merely lip service. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. did that all by themselves.

 

[Aleph-Null]

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.

bigfatron, hey what's up? Been playing Halo2 lately? Could've sworn I played against someone yesterday using your nickname. Yeah, if so, and if that was you, I was on the team that beat your ass. The U.N. beauracracy isn't small at all, it is supported by a broad alliance of school systems, and news organizations, all around the world dedicated to promoting the organization as a valuable entity in the world today while it distributes American aid around the world at less than admirable levels of efficiency.

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.

On what objective basis do you conclude that the U.N. provides a competitive relief program in comparison to other organizations? Why should the U.S. send forces to assist in the peacekeeping of nations like Kosovo?

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...

The ability to define legal & illegal? Gee, and here I was thinking you said the U.N. wasn't a governing body.

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.

Of course, diplomatic immunity has everything to do with the fact. And no, Volker is simply being what is right and wrong "legally" he isn't going to make a 'moral' judgment. Legally, Kofi Annan has diplomatic immunity. This shows how following the law can often times be a crime against humanity. How a diplomat can abuse his immunity to commit white-collar crimes against humanity and get away with it.

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.

You f'd up and now you're trying to cover your butt with further sophistry, how pathetic.

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'.

You are obviously not an ally of the U.S., the U.N. failed to prevent a war that a minor state like Iraq started, the U.S. ended that war, we could have ended it in the name of the U.N. but other countries lack the moral vision.

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.

Gee, and there you were a few paragraphs ago saying that the U.N. is the basis upon which global conflicts are "legal" or "illegal"

What a crock of crap.

 

[anarres]

Why should the U.S. adhere to a Charter where its own members have lost sight of its meaning? Nor should the U.S. lower itself to adhering to something that is outdated and antiquated. Nor will China eclipse the U.S. anytime within the next 50 years. Accussing the U.S. of "starting a war" is sure signs that these member nations are confused when the reality and the facts clearly testify that Operation Iraqi Freedom is called such in order to "end a war"

Now, seeing how I am Mr. Popularity, I will take a moment to read and reply to the flood of ignorant responses I have received from you teenagers.

I am 28, but FYI most of the teenagers here are right-wing americans.

Edit: I just read your last pile of BS and it's drivel. Not a single accusation have you responded to. Not a single request for links to back up your nonsense claims.

You're worse than a troll: You're an ignorant troll.

 

[FriendlyFire]

outdated and antiquated.

I would haved used the words ineffective and devisive.
Why discared a quater a century of work and establishment of such an organisation ?

Would you disband the entire US intelligence organistaion over its continual failure ?
Or since you have need of it. reform it ?
To me its seems stupid and reckless to so end the UN.

 

[Aleph-Null]

I would haved used the words ineffective and devisive.
Why discared a quater a century of work and establishment of such an organisation ?

Would you disband the entire US intelligence organistaion over its continual failure ?
Or since you have need of it. reform it ?
To me its seems stupid and reckless to so end the UN.

The strategy here is to establish a Global Organization of Democracies that would render the U.N. an object of the history and the immediate aftermath of WW2. A period which we can now declare to be over. A Global Organization of Democracies would include North & South America, India, Japan, and other democracies of the world. These nations would fund this organization as opposed to the U.N. and in effect increase its esteem and importance. Membership in the U.N. would be unimportant. Membership in the G.O.O.D. would be where a nation would want to have its voice heard. Membership in the G.O.O.D. however would require each U.N. member to meet certain benchmarks proving its "goodness" as a democracy. Adhering to the Natural Law of human rights, etc.

Save this, all current U.S. funding of the U.N. should be redistributed towards other fine organizations like the O.A.S. which could be used to replace the U.N. as it concerns our hemisphere.

 

[Aleph-Null]

I am 28, but FYI most of the teenagers here are right-wing americans.

Edit: I just read your last pile of BS and it's drivel. Not a single accusation have you responded to. Not a single request for links to back up your nonsense claims.

You're worse than a troll: You're an ignorant troll.

A simple google search should be sufficient to find "U.N. Resolutions Iraq-Kuwait Situation" I'm not here to do your homework for you.

 

[CurtSibling]

Why should the U.S. adhere to a Charter where its own members have lost sight of its meaning? Nor should the U.S. lower itself to adhering to something that is outdated and antiquated. Nor will China eclipse the U.S. anytime within the next 50 years. Accussing the U.S. of "starting a war" is sure signs that these member nations are confused when the reality and the facts clearly testify that Operation Iraqi Freedom is called such in order to "end a war"

Now, seeing how I am Mr. Popularity, I will take a moment to read and reply to the flood of ignorant responses I have received from you teenagers.

Amusing.

The only one sounding like a sentimental teen here is yourself!

 

[CurtSibling]

A simple google search should be sufficient to find "U.N. Resolutions Iraq-Kuwait Situation" I'm not here to do your homework for you.

It is customary 'around these parts' to back up huge claims with some sort of proof.

I should mention that some things you say are sensible but others are not.

I would recommend answering Ron's requests for answers, as he is a respected poster and a fair player.

The debate experience will be beneficial for you.

.....

 

[IglooDame]

Why should the U.S. adhere to a Charter where its own members have lost sight of its meaning? Nor should the U.S. lower itself to adhering to something that is outdated and antiquated. Nor will China eclipse the U.S. anytime within the next 50 years. Accussing the U.S. of "starting a war" is sure signs that these member nations are confused when the reality and the facts clearly testify that Operation Iraqi Freedom is called such in order to "end a war"

I don't think anyone with a good perspective on history would make any predictions 50 years out. In 1760 no one would have predicted the colonials' independence within 20 years. In 1900 no one would have predicted the US' accession to uncontested superpower within 50 years, or Japan's rise and fall, or... And the cycle of history is speeding up.

Now, seeing how I am Mr. Popularity, I will take a moment to read and reply to the flood of ignorant responses I have received from you teenagers.

How bout from us 30-somethings with political science degrees?

 

[anarres]

...Membership in the U.N. would be unimportant. Membership in the G.O.O.D. would be where a nation would want to have its voice heard. Membership in the G.O.O.D. however would require each U.N. member to meet certain benchmarks proving its "goodness" as a democracy. Adhering to the Natural Law of human rights, etc.

Stop seeing the US as a beacon of "goodness and democracy" as that is pure propaganda BS.

Since when does a country that uses torture qualify as valuing human rights? What about a country that executes people, do they care about the right to life? Maybe you think those on death row deserve to die because they didn't respect the right to life of somone else, but then you (the state) becomes no better than those you execute. Or maybe you think a murderer isn't a human anymore and therefore forfeits their right to life?

Whichever way you break it the US has appauling human rights (to your own kind, and much worse to non-US'ians), and to see a nationalist such as yourself actually USE this as an argument for your country to impose it's beliefs on other nations is either willfully ignorant of the most basic of facts, or, mentally ********. You take your pick.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

It was actually FDR's pipedream. He may have possibly been the only person on the face of the earth at the time who actually believed Stalin was a good guy.

 

[bigfatron]

bigfatron, hey what's up? Been playing Halo2 lately? Could've sworn I played against someone yesterday using your nickname. Yeah, if so, and if that was you, I was on the team that beat your ass. The U.N. beauracracy isn't small at all, it is supported by a broad alliance of school systems, and news organizations, all around the world dedicated to promoting the organization as a valuable entity in the world today while it distributes American aid around the world at less than admirable levels of efficiency.

I don't play games - it's more interesting to achieve something in real life ....

You seriously believe a beaurocracy around 1% the size or less of the UK central government can govern the world? No point arguing with you...

On what objective basis do you conclude that the U.N. provides a competitive relief program in comparison to other organizations? Why should the U.S. send forces to assist in the peacekeeping of nations like Kosovo?

It's not for me to justify the programmes relative to other similar programmes - you are the one who has said they are bad value. I'm challenging you to substantiate your assertion or withdraw it. Let me know how you get on.

As regards Kosovo, your government chose to take part in the peacekeeping mission. Perhaps the military powers of Europe forced them into it! Or are they not on the SC anymore? Guess the US veto must have been removed when I was watching the game....

The ability to define legal & illegal? Gee, and here I was thinking you said the U.N. wasn't a governing body.

The UN has the authority that the nations of the world, in signing the Charter, have vested in it. In this case, to authorise military action against a member state. Any professional body sets rules that its members agree to follow and is a governing body, but is the Association of Dental Professionals a government?

Of course, diplomatic immunity has everything to do with the fact. And no, Volker is simply being what is right and wrong "legally" he isn't going to make a 'moral' judgment. Legally, Kofi Annan has diplomatic immunity. This shows how following the law can often times be a crime against humanity. How a diplomat can abuse his immunity to commit white-collar crimes against humanity and get away with it.

Crime against humanity?! You seriously calling Annan a war criminal?
And you acknowledge that Volker has concluded that legally Annan did nothing wrong. That's the definition of a crime in my book.
To paraphrase, you think that legally Annan is innocent but morally he's a war criminal? Again, some evidence to support the contention would be nice....

You f'd up and now you're trying to cover your butt with further sophistry, how pathetic.

I think I'll let others reading this thread judge...

You are obviously not an ally of the U.S., the U.N. failed to prevent a war that a minor state like Iraq started, the U.S. ended that war, we could have ended it in the name of the U.N. but other countries lack the moral vision.

I'm a friend of the US people, my country is an ally, that doesn't mean I have to slavishly agree with factually incorrect and proto-fascist ramblings.

Moral vision is an uncertain thing - all sorts of unsavoury characters in history have been motivated and guided by a very strong sense of moral vision, from the Inquisition to the gas chambers. The quality of your moral vision depends on the integrity and honesty of your morals - I am not sanguine about Mr Bush in this regard.

Gee, and there you were a few paragraphs ago saying that the U.N. is the basis upon which global conflicts are "legal" or "illegal"

What a crock of crap.

Sorry you failed to understand my point, I'll try again. A body that has power delegated to it by its members is not and cannot be a government. This is obvious, since in such a case withdrawal of the delegated power immediately removes legitimacy, whereas a government remains legitimate unless and until it is replaced by due process.

Sadly, I really feel like I am wasting my time here....

 

[bigfatron]

The strategy here is to establish a Global Organization of Democracies that would render the U.N. an object of the history and the immediate aftermath of WW2. A period which we can now declare to be over. A Global Organization of Democracies would include North & South America, India, Japan, and other democracies of the world. These nations would fund this organization as opposed to the U.N. and in effect increase its esteem and importance. Membership in the U.N. would be unimportant. Membership in the G.O.O.D. would be where a nation would want to have its voice heard. Membership in the G.O.O.D. however would require each U.N. member to meet certain benchmarks proving its "goodness" as a democracy. Adhering to the Natural Law of human rights, etc.

Save this, all current U.S. funding of the U.N. should be redistributed towards other fine organizations like the O.A.S. which could be used to replace the U.N. as it concerns our hemisphere.

So, no more Guantanomo or death sentences for the US then. Your G.O.O.D. might just have some value after all!

 

[bigfatron]

That last line more or less sold the arguemnt from Ron's side to me!



EDIT:
Noticed Fred also cited this one - Good show!

thanks Fred, Curt - scary day, though, when we three agree!

 

[IglooDame]

Sorry you failed to understand my point, I'll try again. A body that has power delegated to it by its members is not and cannot be a government. This is obvious, since in such a case withdrawal of the delegated power immediately removes legitimacy, whereas a government remains legitimate unless and until it is replaced by due process.

I disagree with this point, myself; I think you're raising an artificial barrier. A democracy is essentially the people delegating power to a government. Should a majority of the people decide to withdraw the delegated power (in an election, for example), the government becomes illegitimate. The US Federal government was essentially called into being and granted power by the individual colonies ratifying the US Constitution. Prior to that there was a weaker federal government created by the Articles of Confederation, which I think is similar in some ways (notably sovereignty of the member states) to the United Nations organization. The United Nations IS a government, just a very weak one.

 

[punkbass2000]

thanks Fred, Curt - scary day, though, when we three agree!

Nothing unites like a common enemy

 

[Rik Meleet]

I disagree with this point, myself; I think you're raising an artificial barrier. A democracy is essentially the people delegating power to a government. Should a majority of the people decide to withdraw the delegated power (in an election, for example), the government becomes illegitimate. (..)

Not sure if I agree with you on this. Democracy is the people deciding who to appoint to make decisions for them. If the government makes a wrong decision in their eyes, they have to live with it and appoint someone else next chance they get.
It is not exactly the same as the elected official doing what the voters want. If that was the case, it wouldn't be a democracy, it would be a huge government (all voters). And then, why elect someone to make the decisions if after all you wanted to make the decisions yourself ?

Igloo: are we saying the same thing or not ?