UN wants more respect from US

[wrag]

Originally posted by Thud
The lack of nuance dispayed by many board members here when the U.N. comes up in a discussion shows that many here are all but short-sighted isolationists. The distrust and downright slander towards the U.N. do reflect more on the feeling of superiority and not having to answer to anyone than any substantiated criticism towards the U.N.

It may be a cumbersome burocratic moloch but as Nilsen said, we haven't got a better alternative right now. When objectively judging the past decades one can only conclude that the positive achievements outweigh its disadvantages.

Hmmm...........  lets SEE here.........

Went into the Congo during a civil? war there back in the 50's.

Disarmed the population ( of hmm  think it was Freetown) that had been succesfully defending themselves from ATTACK.

Pulled out and took the weapons with em.

Result?  Bunch of people got SLAUGHTERED!

Did this same thing in several countires on the African continient (think I need a good speel chekker?).

Kosavo?  Bosnia Hertsavagonia?... ethnic cleansing situation, Kinda the same thing.

I could go on but I'd only be repeating myself.

Then there is the food for oil thing.

Then the food for SEX thing (many of their victoms were reported as being UNDERAGED).

Then the U.N. Troops using the SEX SLAVE (many of those SLAVES were reported as being UNDERAGED) brothels etc. in Bosnia Hertsavagoina?

If this is the best we have .....  we may be in for some REAL TROUBLE later.

And now they want to lock everyone into treaties that will EFFECTAVILY disarm (it's that new small arms treaty thing they're pushing) everyone but
the countries governments and them?

NO RESPECT from me until they EARN IT!

They have A LOT of EARNING to do!

[Hajo]

Ya....like we should be worried about the UNs view of the United States.

UN.......conglomerate of Countries with different views on how World Problems should be handled.  No Consensus on problem solving usually and any action taken by the UN as a whole in peacekeeping situations are usually highly ineffective.

Gee....that oughta score high on the Success-O-Meter.

Sorta like our Congress...only on a larger scale.

[Hangtime]

I want the UN out of my city. I want them out of my country. I want them out of our national affairs.

NOW.

[Mighty1]

Originally posted by Momus--
Over the last 150 years the US has demonstrated a capacity for foreign entanglements far in excess of its involvement with the UN and irrespective of Washington's warnings, so I'm not sure what your point is really.

Anyway, it  strikes me how pitifully transparent this upsurge in anti-UN sentiments is, coinciding as it did with the refusal of the UNSC to endorse George and Dick's bogus Iraqi adventure back in 2003 and the resultant new-right propganda/disinfo onslaught. Seeing that the anti-war camp at the UN has largely been proven right, you detractors should be real men about it and admit that they were right and you were wrong. Yeah, fat chance, I know.

If the UN is so irrelevant, why did Bush, Powell et al frame a large part of their argument for attacking Iraq in terms of non-compliance with UN resolutions? Anyone?

If the UN is so irrelevant, why did Bush appeal for UN assistance in the Iraq reconstruction effort? Answer?

If the UN is so irrelevant, then why hasn't the US quit already? Because being in it allows you to stop it actually acomplishing anything contrary to your own interests, while simultaeneously providing a straw man for far-right talking heads and the mouth-breathers that parrot them to rail against.

I take a stab at it.

Some people think the UN is actually going to do the right thing from time to time so Bush and Co. tried to show they are willing to give them a shot. Guess what? The UN once again proved they are worthless and corrupt.

Was it because they wouldn't help with Saddam? Yes and No.

It was the WHY they wouldn't help that proves they are worthless.

Most people believed the intel but most of the UN would not go along with the invasion because they were either bought by SH or they were rooting for him to win so he and countries like his could continue to try and destroy the west.

As for the "why" we haven't left the UN is really quite simple.

Liberal idiots.

People who think that countries like France are better than us so if they say something it must be true.

They remind me of an abused wife. They keep getting smacked around but take all the blame thinking that they must have done something to deserve it. France and countries like them really love us and only mistreat us for our own good.

" Seeing that the anti-war camp at the UN has largely been proven right, you detractors should be real men about it and admit that they were right and you were wrong. Yeah, fat chance, I know."


What a load of crap!

They didn't find WMD in Iraq big deal! There is proof they were moved before the war but don't let that fact get in your way.

So what were they right about?

[Yeager]

Seeing that the anti-war camp at the UN has largely been proven right
====
how so?

[Shuckins]

An organization with 150 member nations gets 60% of its annual budgetary funds from only five of those nations.  If the U.S., Japan, Germany, France, and Italy pull out the U.N. is screwed.


Yet, I feel the criticism of the U.N. is largely unwarranted.  After all, they've done such a bang-up job of protecting minority ethnic groups around the world from repression, rape, and ethnic cleansing.

[lazs2]

I think that another good thing that Bush did for America was to make Bolton our represenitve to the UN.

Bolton said that the comments by what is in effect a civil servant were outrageous.

I am with Hang..  I want the UN out of the US...  let em set up shop in ice bear country or some other little socialist mecca and they can all circle jerk each other without us.

lazs

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Send them all to Brussels. The EU wants them, and loves them. Let the EU buy the land, build them a building, and tolerate their B.S.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Mighty1
They didn't find WMD in Iraq big deal! There is proof they were moved before the war but don't let that fact get in your way.

So what were they right about?

Well, can you link me to the proof?


I'd sure like to examine it.

Thanks.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Mighty1

Most people believed the intel but most of the UN would not go along with the invasion because they were either bought by SH or they were rooting for him to win so he and countries like his could continue to try and destroy the west.

Saddam was bribing most of the constituent governments of the UN? Source? (This should be good).

As for the "why" we haven't left the UN is really quite simple.

Liberal idiots.

People who think that countries like France are better than us so if they say something it must be true.

They remind me of an abused wife. They keep getting smacked around but take all the blame thinking that they must have done something to deserve it. France and countries like them really love us and only mistreat us for our own good.

Is that the best you can do? Disregard countless reasons of diplomacy and geopolitical expediency for some lame metaphor about abused women and tired "lets blame the libruhls"? Ooookay.

What a load of crap!

They didn't find WMD in Iraq big deal! There is proof they were moved before the war but don't let that fact get in your way.

Put down the kool aid. There's no proof for that assertion at all other than the same type of conjecture from "informants" that told you those WMD even existed in the first place.

So what were they right about?

They were right about the WMD.

They were right about an invasion actually making global terrorism issues worse not better.

They were right about the region being destablised, as evidenced by your complete inability to now deal with the consequent nuclear proliferation issue in Iran.

They were right about increased radicalisation of the local population.

They were right about the complete absence of an Al-Qaeda-Ba'ath party linkage.

They were right about Iraq not presenting the threat to the US that Bush, Cheney et al claimed.

They were right when they warned that removing a secular and unifying regime risked opening the door to an Iraqi government dominated by Islamicists at precisely the time that you are supposed to be engaged in a "war" against radical islamic terrorism

Did I miss anything?

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Hangtime
I want the UN out of my city. I want them out of my country. I want them out of our national affairs.

NOW.

I agree, the US would be better off by building regional relationships as needed rather then working within the UN. Even the 'humanitarian' aspects of the UN could be better handled through private organizations.

[Skuzzy]

If it is accepted as this is the best we can do, then we are doomed to always have a mediocre implementation of what is the U.N.

I have never been a big supporter of mediocrity.  But that is just me.

I wish we could get a national vote on it.  There are so many more things we could spend the money on and the property would be a good place for a sports stadium.

[lukster]

Let's see, complain about US free speech to many who already feel the UN is corrupt and next to useless. That'll make us respect 'em alright. It's not too difficult to understand how "they", many of those without the freedoms and liberties we enjoy,  believe it possible for the US government to exercise more control over public opinion. The time for that isn't yet ripe, they are showing their hand too early.

[lazs2]

Yep... it really is time for the people of the U.S. to get to vote on staying in the UN or not... we are supporting it more and more and getting less and less out of it.  the whole thing is another kyoto "get the rich" scheme.

Bolton was the best thing we have done so far as the UN is concerned in years.   He has a healthy disrespect for the scum that run the UN.

lazs

[Rooster]

Momus,  your hindsight is 20/20. amazing

Care to enumerate the things that they were wrong about?