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

For the sake of "bible believers", I wanted to post another "possibly interesting" fact regarding the United Nations.

There are 192 soveriegn states in the world today.

1. ONLY ONE has been ostracized in the manner already mentioned in ealier posts. - ISREAL
2. ONLY ONE is NOT a signatory of the UN Charter, and is therefore NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED to abide by it. - The VATICAN

Perhaps it's just me, but I see "biblical undertones" with regard to this WORLD BODY. Of course, fact # 2 says nothing about the UN, but it says plenty about the Vatican, IMHO.

Originally posted by Behold

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?

I too beleive in God, although I have been told not to. I however, would put no faith in any book that was written by mortal men. To assume you should have special privledges because of a book makes as much sense as Toaist's declaring supremacy because of the I ching, or the HIndu's because of the Gita. If God is as you claim to believe, complete, then you would be forced to acknowledge it is greater than our knowledge, and therefor greater than any book. Besides, IMO, God is as close as your heart.

True, no one should have Nukes, but ignorance can sometimes lead to unwanted/unneeded weapons, and while I can't condone the Americans or Russians for developing them at a time of war, I can appeciate the fear there were influenced by. I do condemn all actions from other parties - especially those that claim some moral or ethical superiourity as Israel often does - for following the leader down a hole we know ends with our destruction.

You haven't heard the calls against the US?? Take a trip on these boards and you will see most of the world, despite claims by Americans, are firmly against the new AMerica. The thing is though as someone already pointed out - the UN is now full of diplomates instead of humanitarians.

BTW, I could be wrong but isn't it only because of America that Israel is even there? Now, maybe you guys look at America like the dumb muscle, but without that muscle you'd be forced to be held accountable for your actions like everyone else...

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

Of course; it's always a pleasure to discuss things with you.

However, I feel I need to make a slight correction; you said in an earlier post:

I have read your posts before and while I don't really agree with them...

I fear you have me confused by one of my esteemed colleagues, Mr. AceOfBase or Mr. djohnsto77, since no one ever disagrees with me. Both of these fine gentlemen sometimes think the way I do, but I am much more handsome, brilliant, and modest then either of them.

But to your questions and comments, with my responses.

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?

Absolutely. The UN, given human nature, the world's geopolitical considerations (such as the shortsighted view nations have of peace vis-a-vis national aggrandizement), I would agree that the task is impossible. This, by itself, is a powerful disincentive for continued membership; why pay for the right to fail?

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?

Certainly. But what is that more realistic goal? The old League of Nations had an unrealistic goal (stopping wars by talking) and failed. NATO had a goal of comon defense against the USSR and succeeded admirably, because of the will and commitment of the member states. (Indeed, NATO, in its still-emerging role as peacekeeper, is doing quite well -- again because of the will and commitment of its members).

But I do not see the UN becoming a NATO, because they do not recognize a common adversary (as NATO did) nor are the members willing to invest money and resources to a commonly defined goal -- even if they had one.

So what do you see as a new goal that is simultaneously more realistic, worthwhile, and does not act to cross-purposes with national sovereignty? I certainly can't say!

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.

Well, it depends. If one country provides more support than any other country, both in dues, support to the World Bank, and almost always leads the world in money spent for UN-sponsored humanitarian efforts, I would think that they should have a proportionate say in how that money is spent. This doesn't mean that they should have veto power, of course.

Did you know that Japan and Germany are the second and third largest contributors to the UN -- yet they are constrained from permenant membership on the Security Council? Does that seem fair?

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?

If the Kyoto Accords were everyone agreeing to cut back on pollution, then you'd be right. Unfortunately, the Kyoto Accords set up a mechanism where every nation -- including those with no manufacturing infrastructure to speak of -- are "allowed" a certain amount of industrial pollution. There is also a mechanism in place where these countries can "sell" their pollution credits to industrialized countries.

So the end result would have been that The United States, in order to continue to manufacture stuff, would pay burkina Faso, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Republic of Palau a billion or so dollars for the "right" to manufacture stuff.

Not only that, but "developing" industrialized countries like India and the PRC would be exempt from the pollution standards of the Kyoto Accords, which means they can pollute all they choose to. Not having to buy pollution "rights" from other countries or invest in cleaning up their own noxious and foul environment, these countries would enjoy what amounts to a multi-billion dollar subsidy in their manufacturing and production costs.

The bottom line is that pollution is not ameliorated in the slightest, and the United States has been forced to give other countries gifts of seveal billion dollars, and takes a tremendous hit in the global market when it comes to competitiveness -- at a time wher our existing costs place our exports in jeopardy.

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.

The key here is "almost". If the UN's ability to achieve its stated goal of bringing peace to the world were a realistic one, then the petty bureaucracy wold probably be worth putting up with.

But it's not. As Mr. Behold points out, Israel is regularly outvoted by the Arabist/Islamist bloc and is routinely screwed in trhe UN: as much as i disagree with his approach and theology, I cannot fault Behold for pointing out that obvious fact.

And when you look at the Kyoto Acords and the Law of the Sea you read the protocols and realize that none of those adventures will do what they are claimed to do; instead they take money from the developed countries and give it no undeveloped countries, where it is used to prop up fascists like Robert Mugabe, Sam Nujoma, Islam Karimov, Kurmanbek Bakiyev et. al. who run their countries' economies into the ground and oppress their own citizenry.

And it's the oppresed citizenry of those third-world countries, just as much as the citizens of the United States, who are so ill-served by the UN.

Originally posted by AceOfBaseI'd like to see the US isolate itself and have the rest of the world move on ahead without it.

You don't think that the Union will suffer the same fate as the League? Perhaps in a more drawn out manner?

Do you think that the US will form other, less permanant, multilateral pacts that would overlap with much of what the UN does and that this would lead to conflict (not military conflict,just operational conflict)?

Also, what effect would the US pulling out of the UN have on things like the WHO and what not?

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

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

Of course; it's always a pleasure to discuss things with you.

However, I feel I need to make a slight correction; you said in an earlier post:

I have read your posts before and while I don't really agree with them...

I fear you have me confused by one of my esteemed colleagues, Mr. AceOfBase or Mr. djohnsto77, since no one ever disagrees with me. Both of these fine gentlemen sometimes think the way I do, but I am much more handsome, brilliant, and modest then either of them.

But to your questions and comments, with my responses.

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?

Absolutely. The UN, given human nature, the world's geopolitical considerations (such as the shortsighted view nations have of peace vis-a-vis national aggrandizement), I would agree that the task is impossible. This, by itself, is a powerful disincentive for continued membership; why pay for the right to fail?

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?

Certainly. But what is that more realistic goal? The old League of Nations had an unrealistic goal (stopping wars by talking) and failed. NATO had a goal of comon defense against the USSR and succeeded admirably, because of the will and commitment of the member states. (Indeed, NATO, in its still-emerging role as peacekeeper, is doing quite well -- again because of the will and commitment of its members).

But I do not see the UN becoming a NATO, because they do not recognize a common adversary (as NATO did) nor are the members willing to invest money and resources to a commonly defined goal -- even if they had one.

So what do you see as a new goal that is simultaneously more realistic, worthwhile, and does not act to cross-purposes with national sovereignty? I certainly can't say!

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.

Well, it depends. If one country provides more support than any other country, both in dues, support to the World Bank, and almost always leads the world in money spent for UN-sponsored humanitarian efforts, I would think that they should have a proportionate say in how that money is spent. This doesn't mean that they should have veto power, of course.

Did you know that Japan and Germany are the second and third largest contributors to the UN -- yet they are constrained from permenant membership on the Security Council? Does that seem fair?

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?

If the Kyoto Accords were everyone agreeing to cut back on pollution, then you'd be right. Unfortunately, the Kyoto Accords set up a mechanism where every nation -- including those with no manufacturing infrastructure to speak of -- are "allowed" a certain amount of industrial pollution. There is also a mechanism in place where these countries can "sell" their pollution credits to industrialized countries.

So the end result would have been that The United States, in order to continue to manufacture stuff, would pay burkina Faso, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Republic of Palau a billion or so dollars for the "right" to manufacture stuff.

Not only that, but "developing" industrialized countries like India and the PRC would be exempt from the pollution standards of the Kyoto Accords, which means they can pollute all they choose to. Not having to buy pollution "rights" from other countries or invest in cleaning up their own noxious and foul environment, these countries would enjoy what amounts to a multi-billion dollar subsidy in their manufacturing and production costs.

The bottom line is that pollution is not ameliorated in the slightest, and the United States has been forced to give other countries gifts of seveal billion dollars, and takes a tremendous hit in the global market when it comes to competitiveness -- at a time wher our existing costs place our exports in jeopardy.

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.

The key here is "almost". If the UN's ability to achieve its stated goal of bringing peace to the world were a realistic one, then the petty bureaucracy wold probably be worth putting up with.

But it's not. As Mr. Behold points out, Israel is regularly outvoted by the Arabist/Islamist bloc and is routinely screwed in trhe UN: as much as i disagree with his approach and theology, I cannot fault Behold for pointing out that obvious fact.

And when you look at the Kyoto Acords and the Law of the Sea you read the protocols and realize that none of those adventures will do what they are claimed to do; instead they take money from the developed countries and give it no undeveloped countries, where it is used to prop up fascists like Robert Mugabe, Sam Nujoma, Islam Karimov, Kurmanbek Bakiyev et. al. who run their countries' economies into the ground and oppress their own citizenry.

And it's the oppresed citizenry of those third-world countries, just as much as the citizens of the United States, who are so ill-served by the UN.

As always OTS, it was a great read. I find one comman underlying theme that I would like to ask you about before going on. Lets face it there is a lot to dijest and think about in that last post of yours.

It seems to come down to a money thing for you and others. The thing with the UN seems to be about a balance sheet, the Koyota seems to remind you of a wealth re-distribution package, and the constraints on politution seem to be seem as a competetive disadvantage. Is that fairly accurate?

It seems that your whole outlook is an "us Vs them" mentality, which I am sure serves you well in this hard economic times. I am just not sure on how much value they are in an overall sense. Using an us Vs them, we by definition define ourself to either one side or the other, and as I have witnessed the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

Do I have that idea from your post or am I misunderstanding you my friend?

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

Well, we already gave them the finger by choosing a rep that has publicly stated his rather harsh opinion of the UN...

Might as well give them the finger with the other hand, eh Mr. Bush?