Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on June 02, 2004, 03:05:40 PM
-
...Worth Our Time? Or are our security and trade interests better served by regional treaties and alliances?
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
...Worth Our Time? Or are our security and trade interests better served by regional treaties and alliances?
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
The UN will become even more important as the population gets bigger. It does need to be revamped a little bit though.
-
Im just gonna go ahead and disagree with Stabby because we never agree on anything except boobies.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
...Worth Our Time?
Only if they do what we want.
-
Waste of time - we should have pulled out years ago.
-
It's great for parties and schmoozing.
It's pretty much worthless for actually getting anything done.
-
right..cause the US will just veto it.
-
...or Russia will veto it or Great Britain will veto it or France or...
third world dictatorships with appalling human rights records wind up the U.N.'s human rights committees...or refuse to curb human rights violations in countries like Chad or Sudan...
-
Originally posted by Pongo
right..cause the US will just veto it.
Only if it's silly.
Having given this thread some thought, I'm still trying to find some kind of advantage to UN membership. It seems like an investment that hasn't/isn't really paying off. Alot of debating and squabbling, but not alot of action...more like some kind of international en-vogue social club.
-
Interesting considering that the UN was a US idea and a key part of US foreign policy during and immediatelly after the war.
-
I once was a 24 year old youngster who enlisted and idealistically thought the U.N. and its peacekeeping made a difference. Back then, I would have agreed with some here who think it has relevance. During almost another 35 years of life experience (including 17 serving my country), I watched while the U.N. stood-by during mass genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda, plus appointed several dictatorships to the Human Rights Commission, including the Sudan who support slavery. I think its proved as worthless as the old League of Nations. It's currently nothing more then chest pounding podium for self indulgent, under achieving EU and Arab countries.
Regards,
Badger
-
US out from UN ?
Sounds good; you've been fkcing with UN long enough :)
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html
-
Can't complain about a club that you don't pay your dues to.
-
Badger, do your homework. See who made the call to pull outta Rwanda.
I'm sad you served that long while thinking that way. No wonder our military needs a major overhaul, starting with soldiers like you. You shoulda left long ago then.
-
Originally posted by airbumba
Badger, do your homework. See who made the call to pull outta Rwanda. I'm sad you served that long while thinking that way. No wonder our military needs a major overhaul, starting with soldiers like you. You shoulda left long ago then.
Well my young friend, I did more then my homework and have the tee-shirts as well .... ;)
I'll take feedback from someone who lived it, not another liberal apologist who's idea of service is posting behind the anonimity of a bulletin board. ;)
800,000 Rwandans killed in 100 days (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/)[/url]
April 21, 1994
The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously to withdraw most of the UNAMIR troops, cutting the force from 2,500 to 270. The International Red Cross estimates that tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Rwandans are now dead.
For anyone really interested in assessing the U.N. in Africa, try reading "Shake Hands with the Devil", The Rwandan Autobiography of Lt. General Romeo Dallaire. Never before has such a first hand detailed depiction of the U.N. inaction and resulting genocide been written.
Regards,
Badger
-
The UN is like most city councils... long on words, loaded with corruption, and short on action...
The UN is worthless other than a vocal point for the EU and 3rd world tyrants and petty dictatorships.
-
Originally posted by airbumba
Can't complain about a club that you don't pay your dues to.
Maybe if we stopped funding all that "UN" food and military aid, we could afford to pay our "dues"
-
Originally posted by Pei
Interesting considering that the UN was a US idea and a key part of US foreign policy during and immediatelly after the war.
You have an interesting point. I guess it's an example of an idea that just didn't quite pan out.
-
Originally posted by Staga
US out from UN ?
Sounds good; you've been fkcing with UN long enough :)
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html
Glad to know we see eye to eye.
-
Originally posted by airbumba
Can't complain about a club that you don't pay your dues to.
No complaints here personally...just don't really see the "point" of continued participation.
-
How much does the UN currently owe the US in reimbursement of expenses for peacekeeping operations?
-
The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear the words "United Nations" is...
FOOD FIGHT.... :rofl
-
Who paid for the UN action in the first Gulf war? Did all member states cover that bill or did they just approve of the action.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Approve action. GW1 was not a UN peacekeeping mission.
That's my point....they approve, yet do nothing as usual. They sit on the sidelines. Why would they not offer troops and money? They write the resolutions, the US does the work.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Your point is showing off your ignorance. The US and the other coalition members asked the UN to approve the liberation of Kuwait by drafting a resolution. The resolution was passed and the coalition was given a UN mandate to do the job they asked to be allowed to do. It has nothing to do with UN funding or peacekeeping operations, which are UN funded. If you ask your boss if you can run down to the store and he approves, his going to be mighty pissed if you also demand he pay for it.
LOL
So the UN would have done nothing about Iraq invading Kuwait unless the US asked them to? What good is the UN? What UN action did the UN pull off on it's own that helped anyone?
The UN is a bag of hot air. They wrote resolutions demanding Iraq pull out of Kuwait, yet what did they do to actually make Iraq pull out of Kuwait?
The UN also wrote some resolutions requiring Iraq to comply with all the previos UN resolutions, yet what did the UN do to enforce them?
I'm glad I live in a country that does not rely on the UN for it's freedom.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Showing your ignorance again. Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that the UN is not a separate entity? The US is a part of the UN and a part of the UN's will and body. A rather large part actually. Every UN resolution demanding Iraq withdraw from Kuwait was drafted or supported by the US in the UNSC. The UN is and does what its member nations want ... or rather can agree on, which is the point: Not to do anything unless most member nations agree on it. I'm not expecting you to agree with this or even understand it, but there it is.
So why does the UN not help pay for the first Gulf war? You tried to make a point that the US owes the UN "dues" and even argue that the UN is not a seperate entity, but you will not explain why the UN does not help pay the costs of Gulf War One. Which is it?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
They write the resolutions, the US does the work.
Amen.The UN now as it stands talks the talk and the US walks the walk.Its been that way for some time.If the world waited on the UN for anything more than a resolution,The issue would be over before they made a decision.
-
Originally posted by VOR
You have an interesting point. I guess it's an example of an idea that just didn't quite pan out.
Hmmm... Gulf War 1 was a perfect example of how it does pan out. FWIW, the current occupation of Iraq is another.
-
Bodhi.your a traitor at heart anyway.What do you care?
-
JK:D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nothing. The UN funds peacekeeping operations with the money paid by each member state ... the payments you are behind on.
There's been an argument here in our Congress over that:
Three agencies of the government have looked at these costs, the CRS, Congressional Research Service; GAO, the Government Accounting Office; and the Pentagon.
They have all reached essentially the same conclusions, that we have spent about $19 billion on peacekeeping activities since 1992. Now, we have been credited with $1.8 billion of that against U.N. dues, so a precedent has already been made, that if we spend money on an authorized U.N. peacekeeping activity that those monies that we have spent there are in lieu of dues; that is, they could replace dues. They only did that, though, with $1.8 billion. There is about another $17 billion that is still out there that we have received no credit for.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, September 18, 2000, if you want to track it down.
-
Bartkett,,LMAO:rofl
-
The US is no better than the other SC countries armed with a veto. It blackmails other countries just as well China, France etc when it wants something.
A good start would be to get rid of the veto
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
The US is no better than the other SC countries armed with a veto. It blackmails other countries just as well China, France etc when it wants something.
A good start would be to get rid of the veto
Tronsky
A great start would be for the US to be out of the UN, let the UN make the world safe and ideal.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
A great start would be for the US to be out of the UN, let the UN make the world safe and ideal.
Yeah... but as long as we're involved with the UNSC, we probably won't be identified as a threat to world peace. :)
-
so long as we can control it and not pay dues I say stay... if the other pissant countries get an equal vote then we should leave.
lazs
-
Originally posted by airbumba
Badger, do your homework. See who made the call to pull outta Rwanda.
I'm sad you served that long while thinking that way. No wonder our military needs a major overhaul, starting with soldiers like you. You shoulda left long ago then.
Bumba you just mad cause we wont let you cross the border...
Last time they stopped you with dryer Lint
IKON
-
http://www.investors.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Title: "U.N.? No Thanks "
Author:
Section: Issues & Insights Date: 6/1/2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq: As the endgame draws near, world leaders have joined to call for more involvement and control by the United Nations. What a mistake that would be.
The maneuvering by the U.N. and its most vocal supporters has grown intense. Not only do they want the global organization to name Iraq's interim government. They also want it to command U.S. troops.
This would be a recipe for disaster - both politically and militarily.
History has shown the U.N. to be ill-equipped and inept when it comes to military operations. And recent events show that humanitarian and other programs are prone to corruption and scandal.
Last week, for instance, U.N. peacekeeping troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo were accused of forcing starving teenage refugees to exchange sex for food. Few doubt the charges are true. In American jurisprudence, we have a word for that: Rape.
Meanwhile, the U.N.'s top official in Kosovo was forced to quit after a series of riots that left 19 people dead and hundreds injured.
Let's see: The U.N. has controlled Kosovo since 1999, and it still hasn't established security or handed over authority to local Kosovars. Yet it now demands the U.S. to do so in Iraq, right away.
That's the way the U.N. works, as its record in the Mideast shows.
For more than 50 years, the U.N. has controlled Palestinian refugee camps. The "camps" - they're in fact towns - have become breeding grounds for terrorists. To live there is to know only despair and misery. Four of five residents live on less than $2.10 a day.
Is that what we want for Iraq? Of course we don't. Nor do Iraqis. Because as unpopular as we keep hearing the U.S. occupation is, handing control to U.N. bureaucrats is even less so.
Iraqis know that U.N. officials - possibly including Secretary General Kofi Annan's top aide, Benon Sevan - have been implicated in the oil-for-food scandal. Saddam Hussein was able to bribe key officials at the U.N. and elsewhere to break U.N. sanctions.
Why aren't we surprised? After all, it was Annan who said of Saddam back in 1998, "I think I can do business with him."
That's the U.N.'s problem. It has 191 members, but just 80 or so are democracies, according to Freedom House. So it will often "do business" with unsavory, abusive regimes as a matter of course.
This won't do. Iraqis deserve better. So does the rest of the world.
President Bush has a sensible, five-step timetable that potentially will bring stability and peace to Iraq. But seeing it through will require political will and military might - both of which the U.N. lacks.
-
Even though the UN is a crappy organization and has all the flaws in the world it would be worse for world security if a nation as powerful as the USA would leave the UN, I think it would encourage much more violence around the world rather that deter it .
I could be wrong of course, but I think being pissed in the shorterm with the beurocracy corruption of the UN and pulling out entirely from the UN on the long term would not be good for US (your's and mine) security and the world.
-
Last I heard the US was in arrears to the UN but Bush paid the outstanding dues owing.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
The US is no better than the other SC countries armed with a veto. It blackmails other countries just as well China, France etc when it wants something.
A good start would be to get rid of the veto
Tronsky
Amazing... So not only is the U.S. the one that has to backup what the U.N. FINALLY figures out what to do, you think that the U.S. shouldn't be able to say "No"?
Nice try pal, go hijack someone elses country. If we're gonna flip the bill and spill the blood, we're gonna have a say in when and where.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
Amazing... So not only is the U.S. the one that has to backup what the U.N. FINALLY figures out what to do, you think that the U.S. shouldn't be able to say "No"?
Nice try pal, go hijack someone elses country. If we're gonna flip the bill and spill the blood, we're gonna have a say in when and where.
Not a very valid point IMO... What was the last action taken by america and the UN that america did not rally for? I mean to ask when was the last time america took action with the UN that america did not want to be there or lead the cause of being there??
dude
AoM
-
Glasses,
Although I dont think the UN is a "Crappy" organization...has its flaws...YES....
I agree with everything else you said....you hit the nail on the head my man!
Regards
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
I mean to ask when was the last time america took action with the UN that america did not want to be there or lead the cause of being there??
Any number of them, if you mean the general populace. If you mean the politicians the number would be less.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Not a very valid point IMO... What was the last action taken by america and the UN that america did not rally for? I mean to ask when was the last time america took action with the UN that america did not want to be there or lead the cause of being there??
dude
AoM
If the U.S. didn't want to be there, they veto'd it. That's the point.
Maybe I'm reading your question wrong... are you asking "Whens the last time the U.S. took action that the U.N. supported but the U.S. didn't ?"
Why would america give the veto power away and give unconditional support to U.N. resolutions they don't support?
-
The UN do far more than peace-keeping operations and drafting resolutions about invasions and wars.
Have a look at their organisational chart (http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html) .
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Any number of them, if you mean the general populace. If you mean the politicians the number would be less.
Any number of them could not possibly be correct in either situation.. Too vague.. If politicians, the number would be less than any number? Again, too vague..
How about this.. What was the last action the US took with the UN that american politicians did not want us there??
dude
AoM
-
Originally posted by mosgood
If the U.S. didn't want to be there, they veto'd it. That's the point.
Maybe I'm reading your question wrong... are you asking "Whens the last time the U.S. took action that the U.N. supported but the U.S. didn't ?"
Why would america give the veto power away and give unconditional support to U.N. resolutions they don't support?
I believe maybe that was what I meant to ask.
I also guess I meant to say that america has never took action that america didnt want to be there. So when one says that america backs up the UN when the UN finally decieds what to do is a true statement because at that point and time the UN would be doing what america wanted it to do..
I dont think I will try to read that again.. lol
Withdrawal from a world organization will not solve our ills.. The UN is america's puppet anyway.. Withdrawal would only serve to unite the rest of the world with out us or against us..
im not very coherent this morning I dont think.. lol late night 8)
dude
AoM
-
Review the entire Bosnian operation. Clinton kept saying he wouldn't send troops.
-
The UN is much more than just a security force or war management body.
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership for development
Those bastages!!!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The UN is much more than just a security force or war management body.
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership for development
Those bastages!!!
Anyone have info on how much the U.S. pays for all that stuff?
-
Originally posted by ravells
The UN do far more than peace-keeping operations and drafting resolutions about invasions and wars.
Ravs
Ya they steal money, food and medicine, from the Iraqi children.:aok
-
Originally posted by JBA
Ya they steal money, food and medicine, from the Iraqi children.:aok
LOL!!!
Ravs