The House just cut off half our payments to the UN ...

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh

League of Nations didn't stop WWII. UN didn't stop War on Terror (and in fact made it worse, imo). I guess they're good at humane relief, but they've been failing at that too, lately ....

World war 2 - started by a power mad dictator bent on making the world see things his way, and would lie, cheat and steal to make it happen.

War against Terror - Same thing IMO.

The fact that a system of rules doesn't stop people who refuse to acknowledge those rules(As Hitler and Bush have done no?) doesn't mean that the system is wrong. The system we have for laws within North AMerica doesn't stop anyone from killing anyone. It can only provide a punishment for those that chose to break the law. So the real question is whether or not the UN is workable will depend a lot on whether the voters hold those people that broke those UN rules accountable and offer them up for punishment.

If they don't then it is because of a group of people who simply can not play nice with others.

I think my argument was based on the stated purpose for creating both the League of Nations and the UN - to bring peace and stability to the world.

I would agree that the UN doesn't have power to stop someone who is determined to break all the rules. But, believe it or not, that was the intent of those who founded it. It was thought that the debate and discourse within the UN would discourage those who wanted to engage in mad behavior. It also put an organizational entity in place to form the alliances early on that are necessary to stop a major threat to world peace.

Americans widely view the UN as an anti-American organization (rather that view is justified or not), and are thus doubly reluctant to give it any power over US actions. I think the real weakness in the UN right now is that the countries of the whole world are too divided and can't agree enough to cooperate - rational self interest run amok.

It's human nature. But it can sure break down an organization quick.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
I think my argument was based on the stated purpose for creating both the League of Nations and the UN - to bring peace and stability to the world.

I would agree that the UN doesn't have power to stop someone who is determined to break all the rules. But, believe it or not, that was the intent of those who founded it. It was thought that the debate and discourse within the UN would discourage those who wanted to engage in mad behavior. It also put an organizational entity in place to form the alliances early on that are necessary to stop a major threat to world peace.

Americans widely view the UN as an anti-American organization (rather that view is justified or not), and are thus doubly reluctant to give it any power over US actions. I think the real weakness in the UN right now is that the countries of the whole world are too divided and can't agree enough to cooperate - rational self interest run amok.

It's human nature. But it can sure break down an organization quick.

You have to love human nature huh? Have you ever seen such smart animals so hell bent on killing each other? Well, maybe in time we can grow up...

I disagree with what the intent was of either the UN or LoN,, it is not a logical thought to assume that one that wants to be violent wouldn't be violent. However, it is my belief that what was realized was that in most cases violence can be avioded by open communication - this ofcourse assumes that neither party wants to go to war. The LoN and UN was only to facilitate that communication.

When Hitler decided that enough was enough and he was going to war, there wasn't anything anyone could do. When Bush decided to invade Iraq same thing. The only option that was left was for normal peace loving people to turn violent and turn their backs on what so many had been working for for so long. Those are not easy decisions to make for those who hold peace to have some value.

I understand how and why the Americans feel that way about the UN, I am not found of them either, however, it is IMO foolish not to have some international communication forum. It is also a result of my distrust and fear of other humans. I think that is why many people distrust the UN. Some see it as the prelude to the NWO, some see it as interfering with country's business., but in the end both come down to fear of their fellow humans.

I have just decided not to fear my fellow humans(or at least try not to be, and endure the fear in order to learn - a sure fire way of beating fear everytime). I would urge you to get to know everyone from everywhere, if that isn't possible then make the effort to learn about other cultures and such. When you do that you realize they aren't bad people, they aren't evil people, they are just like you and the differences are really just the details.

At least thats how I see it. Pretty easy to have opinions, exceptionally hard to live by them.

An enemy of Israel is an enemy of God.

Here are just two Interesting facts about how the UN relates to Israel:

1. Israel is the only soveriegn state in the world that has never been permitted a seat on the security council.

2. There are more UN resolutions against Israel than there are against any other country.

As for the US, it too has finally turned it's back on Israel, and like the UN, it too will be dealt with.

Originally posted by Behold
An enemy of Israel is an enemy of God.

Here are just two Interesting facts about how the UN relates to Israel:

1. Israel is the only soveriegn state in the world that has never been permitted a seat on the security council.

2. There are more UN resolutions against Israel than there are against any other country.

As for the US, it too has finally turned it's back on Israel, and like the UN, it too will be dealt with.

Going to get the boogey man? Come on this is silly. Israel is a country, it is a people. Stop acting like it is you that is hard done by all the time. As for the resolutions, maybe it is because of the nukes they have and aren't supposed to?

When will we as a race grow up?

Well, that's a start.

Actually there's only two things I don't like about the UN:

1. It's in the US; and
2. The US is in it.

And some of you may remember me saying that I grew up in a UN Trusteeship back in the 1950's (administered by the United States). I have first-hand knowledge of those bozos.

I see no benefit to us being there; indeed our membership is against our national interests.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Well, that's a start.

Actually there's only two things I don't like about the UN:

1. It's in the US; and
2. The US is in it.

And some of you may remember me saying that I grew up in a UN Trusteeship back in the 1950's (administered by the United States). I have first-hand knowledge of those bozos.

I see no benefit to us being there; indeed our membership is against our national interests.

May I ask you why? I have read your posts before and while I don't really agree with them I find them well thought out and reasoned. When I try to think how belonging to a union of countries could be against a single country's best interest it always comes back to some shortsighted, manifest destiny thing.

Behold says:

1. Israel is the only soveriegn state in the world that has never been permitted a seat on the security council.

Rubbish!

Here is a list of all the members elected to the Security Council since the founding of the UN:

www.biography.ms...

Even a quick glance shows that Belize, Guatemala, the Federated States of Micronesia, The Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Papua-New Guinea have never been members of the Security Council.

Either you are deliberately posting falsehoods, or you are blindly accepting something someone else says and you post it without even taking a couple of minutes to verify it -- probably because it supports your agenda.

Whichever it is, you don't appear to have much credibility.

I certainly can't trust what you say.

Originally posted by Behold
An enemy of Israel is an enemy of God.

Here are just two Interesting facts about how the UN relates to Israel:

1. Israel is the only soveriegn state in the world that has never been permitted a seat on the security council.

2. There are more UN resolutions against Israel than there are against any other country.

As for the US, it too has finally turned it's back on Israel, and like the UN, it too will be dealt with.

1. The Bahamas has never been on the security council either. (plus the list by Off the Street)
2. Which of the resolutions listed below do you disagree with?

www.middleeastnews.com...

IMO there should be another resolution against Israel to make them stop flying warplanes over Lebanon. They seem to make at least one or two flyovers every month. They were flying over them again just this week.

[edit on 10-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

May I ask you why? I have read your posts before and while I don't really agree with them I find them well thought out and reasoned. When I try to think how belonging to a union of countries could be against a single country's best interest it always comes back to some shortsighted, manifest destiny thing.

Certainly you may ask. Your question is a fair one.

First, I think you have to examine the very concept of "belonging to a union of countries" as if "unionhood" were, in and of itself, valuable.

There are many countries which did not want to belong to either the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; should we gainsay them? Hardly.

Perhaps if the putative "union" had a good record for doing good things, then belonging to it would make sense. The United Nations' key goal was to stop violence, and its results have been, at best, mixed. Although you can point to the Korean War (which, of course, was a UN war) as "successful" in stopping aggression by the DPRK and the PRC against the ROK, what about all the other military adventures the UN has been involved in, like the Congo?

More importantly, how about all the wars that the UN didn't get involved in , like the present denouement in Sudan, and, prior to that, the murders in Rwanda and Cambodia? As a matter of fact, the only military interventions which so far seem to have worked -- the former Yugoslavia -- were not UN, but NATO, efforts.

So the stated purpose of the UN -- to eliminate wars -- has failed.

Of course, even if the UN were a failure in its goals, surely it wouldn't hurt to stay in it -- as a debating society, if nothing else, right?

Not necessarily.

The UN has turned away from its original goals and has become -- especially in the case of the General Assembly -- a place where each nation has the same vote, and the smaller and poorer nations have the ability to push through "international agreements" such as the Law of the Sea and the Kyoto Accord which hamstring the United States.

I wouldn't have a problem being in a meaningless organization, but it is worse than that. The UN today is simply a cover for a bunch of whining Third-World mendicants who demand that wealthy countries continue to support their financially and morally bankrupt governments and economies -- and insult us for doing so!

Where in the name of God is the benefit to the United States in such a toxic environment as that?

Hyde though totally respected in the House, is playing scare tactics.
But we have to admit the # going on within the U.N. is making the place seem a bit weary.

I thought Ted Turner has already financed the UN to the tune of 10 billion over ten years, about five years ago?

Anyway the U.N. is still an important body for all major World governments.

Dallas

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
If the US doesn't get things done, then why are we handing over $500 some Million dollars to Africa to combat AIDS?

Probably because we invented AIDS, and its really difficult to keep your profits in gold and diamonds if all your slave labor is sick and dying.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
If we don't get things done, why are Bush and Blair sitting around chatting about debt forgiveness?

Sure debt forgiveness for foreign nations, and new laws that don't allow the average American to file bankruptcy and have his/her debt forgiven, go figure that one.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
If we never get anything done, why does almost every test for bird flu get shipped to the CDC - the premier public health organization in the world?

The real questionis why has bird flu and SARS attack only the countries whose economies are raging forwards, directly competing with the United States, and also the only other SuperPower in the world? Doesn't smell right to me.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
If we never get anything done, then why are you in all likelihood typing your posts on an American computer filled with American technology (although granted, now built in Asia since the work has been outsourced overseas)?

Thats CORPORATIONS that made those computers, not the united states government. Now since you mention outsourcing, why has the Bush adminstration allowed tax incentives for company's to outsource. Hell even New Jersey Department of Welfare outsourced their call centers to India, as did the IRS!! Thats right, your taxes are being reviewed and dealt with in India!

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
If we don't get anything done, then why does the world watch American movies and American television?

Actually India's movie industry is bigger than Hollywood's.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Why does the world buy American cars and American goods?

You are kidding right? Go all over the world, tell me what American goods people are buying, and what American cars they are driving? Here's a hint, American company GM is laying off 25,000 this week, tells you that even Americans aren't buying American cars...because they guzzle expensive gasoline like Bush spends money!

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
If all we ever do is start wars, then why did we intervene AT EUROPE'S REQUEST in Kosovo?

Well it didn't open a big fat pipeline of afghani heroin into europe, and then magically Bush invades afghanistan and their heroin market goes from 16th in the world to NUMBER ONE!
2.5 years Global supply in the first harvest.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
I think some here are a bit anti-american.

Don't mistake "Anti-American" for "Anti-America's Government", two different things.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

May I ask you why? I have read your posts before and while I don't really agree with them I find them well thought out and reasoned. When I try to think how belonging to a union of countries could be against a single country's best interest it always comes back to some shortsighted, manifest destiny thing.

Certainly you may ask. Your question is a fair one.

First, I think you have to examine the very concept of "belonging to a union of countries" as if "unionhood" were, in and of itself, valuable.

There are many countries which did not want to belong to either the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; should we gainsay them? Hardly.

Perhaps if the putative "union" had a good record for doing good things, then belonging to it would make sense. The United Nations' key goal was to stop violence, and its results have been, at best, mixed. Although you can point to the Korean War (which, of course, was a UN war) as "successful" in stopping aggression by the DPRK and the PRC against the ROK, what about all the other military adventures the UN has been involved in, like the Congo?

More importantly, how about all the wars that the UN didn't get involved in , like the present denouement in Sudan, and, prior to that, the murders in Rwanda and Cambodia? As a matter of fact, the only military interventions which so far seem to have worked -- the former Yugoslavia -- were not UN, but NATO, efforts.

So the stated purpose of the UN -- to eliminate wars -- has failed.

Of course, even if the UN were a failure in its goals, surely it wouldn't hurt to stay in it -- as a debating society, if nothing else, right?

Not necessarily.

The UN has turned away from its original goals and has become -- especially in the case of the General Assembly -- a place where each nation has the same vote, and the smaller and poorer nations have the ability to push through "international agreements" such as the Law of the Sea and the Kyoto Accord which hamstring the United States.

I wouldn't have a problem being in a meaningless organization, but it is worse than that. The UN today is simply a cover for a bunch of whining Third-World mendicants who demand that wealthy countries continue to support their financially and morally bankrupt governments and economies -- and insult us for doing so!

Where in the name of God is the benefit to the United States in such a toxic environment as

Thank you for your response. As always it was enjoyable to read. If I may continue the inquiry, at your allowance.

Accepting, and I am not sure I do but for the sake of discussion, that the UN's role in stopping violence has failed. Isn't it reasonable to assume it failed because of the glaring impossibilty of the task itself? Couldn't also be discribed as overestimating one groups importance? Call it a case of ego run amuk? Couldn't all of these concerns possibly be dealt with by a restating of a more realistic goal?

The other point about the general runnings of the UN, I must confuse I don't know much about it, seem to go along with my initial thoughts. Piticularily the idea that one country because of some self preceived status thinks their vioce should carry more weight than someone else. Isn't that the very definition of a bully? In such cases as the Koyota accord, a fundimentally flawed plan IMO however, these are things that effect the entire world, not just our small corner of it. The pollution we create travels, the damage we do is felt globally. Isn't it a more democratic solution to hear and count all people as equal when it comes to this?

I see your point about the corruption in the UN - ofcourse every political institution has corruption, that doesn't really mean you turn away from it. Take a look at both our political systems at the moment. Corruption? Man, here the fiberals have the market cornered! But that doesn't mean democracy should be ditched. Rather, IMO, it only serves how important it is that we don't let pety fear mongering and outdated sterotypes destory something that is almost good enough to work.

Anyway, thank you for your responses, if there is something I am missing or am assuming something, or just wish to carry this on it would be fun.

Cheers.


**edited to fix bold fonts **

[edit on 10-6-2005 by Passer By]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
The UN has turned away from its original goals and has become -- especially in the case of the General Assembly -- a place where each nation has the same vote, and the smaller and poorer nations have the ability to push through "international agreements" such as the Law of the Sea and the Kyoto Accord which hamstring the United States.

I can hardly believe what I'm reading. :shk:

We should dump the UN because our vote isn't worth more than smaller poorer nations? We're being hamstrung by being asked to join the rest of the world in reducing greenhouse gases and preserving migratory fish stocks (leave a few fish to get where they're going).

This is wrong on so many levels. It's bigotted, it's elitist, it's incredibly arrogant, and it's the perfect example of why America is viewed as an environmental vandal and the world's biggest spoiled brat.

So, let's dump the UN and form another club where the biggest country always gets it's way. Oh no... we're only number 5.

Well, we'll have a club where the richest country gets it's way. Oh no... we're number 5 again.

You'd think there must be some way to make our vote worth more than the rest of the world, huh? There are plenty of things we're biggest and best at, you just wouldn't like to hear them and you might have trouble getting anyone else to join.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Behold says:

1. Israel is the only soveriegn state in the world that has never been permitted a seat on the security council.

Rubbish!

Here is a list of all the members elected to the Security Council since the founding of the UN:

www.biography.ms...

Even a quick glance shows that Belize, Guatemala, the Federated States of Micronesia, The Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Papua-New Guinea have never been members of the Security Council.

Either you are deliberately posting falsehoods, or you are blindly accepting something someone else says and you post it without even taking a couple of minutes to verify it -- probably because it supports your agenda.

Whichever it is, you don't appear to have much credibility.

I certainly can't trust what you say.

NEVER BEEN PERMITTED != NEVER BEEN VOTED

Israel is the only member that is not eligible to sit on the council.

You don't have to trust me, read it for yourself ...
www.google.com... =i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images

How's my credibilty now?

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by Behold
An enemy of Israel is an enemy of God.

Here are just two Interesting facts about how the UN relates to Israel:

1. Israel is the only soveriegn state in the world that has never been permitted a seat on the security council.

2. There are more UN resolutions against Israel than there are against any other country.

As for the US, it too has finally turned it's back on Israel, and like the UN, it too will be dealt with.

1. The Bahamas has never been on the security council either. (plus the list by Off the Street)
2. Which of the resolutions listed below do you disagree with?

www.middleeastnews.com...

IMO there should be another resolution against Israel to make them stop flying warplanes over Lebanon. They seem to make at least one or two flyovers every month. They were flying over them again just this week.

[edit on 10-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

1. My post (#1448181) confirms that statement 1 is a FACT, not an agenda.
2. My opinion on the resolutions is irrelevant. What is relevant is simply that the UN has an adverserial relationship with Israel. No "bible believer" should think lightly of that.

IMO, point # 2 reveals an agenda AGAINST the State of Israel.

I abstain from commenting on my opinion of the usefullness or uselessness of the UN, however I do fully agree with this guy from the article:

Timothy Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, said withholding funds would prove counterproductive: “The last time the U.S. withheld funds, it led to a huge debt to the U.N. and inhibited our ability to lead within the institution,” Wirth said. “This is like trying to force a bank to renegotiate your home mortgage by refusing to make your monthly payments.”

The biggest problem I see in the UN is it is filled with diplomats and not humanitarians:

Diplomacy = The patriotic art of lying for one's country. --Ambrose Bierce, Devil's Dictionary

Originally posted by Passer By

Originally posted by Behold
An enemy of Israel is an enemy of God.

Here are just two Interesting facts about how the UN relates to Israel:

1. Israel is the only soveriegn state in the world that has never been permitted a seat on the security council.

2. There are more UN resolutions against Israel than there are against any other country.

As for the US, it too has finally turned it's back on Israel, and like the UN, it too will be dealt with.

Going to get the boogey man?

Come on this is silly. Israel is a country, it is a people. Stop acting like it is you that is hard done by all the time. As for the resolutions, maybe it is because of the nukes they have and aren't supposed to?

When will we as a race grow up?

As a "bible believing" person, I don't think there is a boogey man, but I do believe there is a God. He will judge the hearts of men.

As for nukes, nobody is suppose to have them. Some say they should exist as deterrents. So I ask, to deter what? We've had the bomb for more than half a century, but wars continue, just not against those that have nukes. Seems to me their only real value is to "stay on top" of all the little guys. So you say Israel should not have nukes. I ask why? It has deterred the surroundiing Muslim nations from invading her. Sounds like a double-standard to me.

As for resolutions, where is the one condemning the US for invading another soveriegn country without any provocation?

Behold says:

How's my credibilty now?

Still pretty bad.

You quote a blatantly pro-Israel website which has the same credibility and a blatantly anti-Israel website. Would you consider a quote about the "evils" of Israel as "credible" if they came from Dawn, al-Ahram, or al-Jazeera?

And besides, the article you attempted to point me to (which, by the way, didnt work; you just pointed me to a generic Google page) stated that Israel was constrained from joining regional entities until 2000; so even if your source is credible, such a constraint happened five years ago.

The website, by the way, makes this interesting quote:

The automatic majority enjoyed by the Arab-Moslem bloc enables this group to pass any anti-Israel resolution, no matter how one-sided it may be. This same automatic majority blocks the adoption of any resolution that has any hint of criticism against the Palestinians or any Arab state.

This, by the way, is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of the UN. Pure democracy allows the majority to discriminate against the minority. Maybe israel should leave the UN, as I think the US would do. It's obvious the UN isn't acting in Israel's best interests, either.

Now I'm not saying that Israel isn't geetting a rwa deal in the UN; what I am saying is that you're still being a little loose with the truth when you make you claims --- and the only one it ends up hurting is yourself.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Behold says:

How's my credibilty now?

Still pretty bad.

You quote a blatantly pro-Israel website which has the same credibility and a blatantly anti-Israel website. Would you consider a quote about the "evils" of Israel as "credible" if they came from Dawn, al-Ahram, or al-Jazeera?

And besides, the article you attempted to point me to (which, by the way, didnt work; you just pointed me to a generic Google page) stated that Israel was constrained from joining regional entities until 2000; so even if your source is credible, such a constraint happened five years ago.

The website, by the way, makes this interesting quote:

The automatic majority enjoyed by the Arab-Moslem bloc enables this group to pass any anti-Israel resolution, no matter how one-sided it may be. This same automatic majority blocks the adoption of any resolution that has any hint of criticism against the Palestinians or any Arab state.

This, by the way, is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of the UN. Pure democracy allows the majority to discriminate against the minority. Maybe israel should leave the UN, as I think the US would do. It's obvious the UN isn't acting in Israel's best interests, either.

Now I'm not saying that Israel isn't geetting a rwa deal in the UN; what I am saying is that you're still being a little loose with the truth when you make you claims --- and the only one it ends up hurting is yourself.

"The election of member states of the United Nations to the major bodies of the United Nations is determined explicitly on a regional basis. Israel has been refused admission to the Asia geographical region of the United Nations--the only member state of the United Nations that remains outside its appropriate geographical region--and therefore cannot be elected to any major body of the United Nations, is precluded from voting in any United Nations major body, except the General Assembly, and is thus denied full participation in the day-to-day work of the United Nations. According to current United Nations procedures the Bureau of every United Nations conference is comprised of one representative from each geographical region of the United Nations and Israel is therefore denied access to this vital apparatus enjoyed by other United Nations member states.

On May 30, 2000, Israel accepted an invitation to become a temporary member of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations. Israel's membership in the Western European and Others Group is limited and, as such, Israel is not allowed to compete for open seats in the United Nations body and Israeli representatives are not allowed to run for positions in major bodies of the United Nations or United Nations-affiliated agencies, such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Security Council. Israel is only allowed to participate in limited activities of the Western European and Others Group in the New York office of the United Nations, is excluded from discussions and consultations of the Group at the United Nations offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome, and Vienna, and therefore, cannot participate in United Nations conferences on human rights, racism, and a number of other issues handled in these forums."
- www.gop.gov...

My only agenda is to seek truth, wherever that may lead !