Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: culero on December 18, 2006, 12:21:10 PM
-
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/homepage/article_1383704.php
This piece really sums up my feelings toward the UN in general, and Kofi Annon personally:
Excerpt:
"The principles this country should worry about abandoning are constitutional limited government, respect for individual liberty and property rights, and an emphasis on individual responsibility. The Kofi Annans of this world would have us abandon them at an accelerated pace.
Kofi Annan, having made the U.N. even more irrelevant than before he took over, will go on to luxuriant sinecures funded by deluded billionaires. It would be appropriate if he were never heard from again."
culero
-
If that is how you feel, please explain what Annan has done to make the UN "even more irrelevant".
-
Haven't we already had this discussion?
-
Have we?
-
"Farewell, clueless boob!" is the thread title. Skuzzy locked it after a few posts.
-
Never saw that one. Seem like this thread might be more civil though.
-
Originally posted by Viking
If that is how you feel, please explain what Annan has done to make the UN "even more irrelevant".
I can't express it any better than the author of the opinion piece I quoted expressed it. You may read the whole piece by clicking the link I provided.
culero
-
The UN was useful for a time but that time has long passed. What can the UN do that individual countries cannot?
-
Originally posted by culero
I can't express it any better than the author of the opinion piece I quoted expressed it. You may read the whole piece by clicking the link I provided.
culero
The article doesn't answer my question either. Blaming Annan for the failures of the UN is like blaming the White House chief of staff for the failures of your government.
-
I suppose we could move it and start calling it the EN if you guys
want to keep trying. I'm kind of opposed to a world government myself,
especially when alot of it is composed of folks that love to hate the US.
-
The UN isn't a world government.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The article doesn't answer my question either. Blaming Annan for the failures of the UN is like blaming the White House chief of staff for the failures of your government.
So, you then think Annan was a good and righteous leader?
-
Kofi Annon has no business lecturing anyone about anything.
The man went straight into a life-long UN career, directly from his job selling hotdogs. His opinion on world affairs is about as worthless as a box of rocks.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
So, you then think Annan was a good and righteous leader?
See, there you go showing your ignorance again. Annan was an administrator, not a leader of the UN.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Kofi Annon has no business lecturing anyone about anything.
The man went straight into a life-long UN career, directly from his job selling hotdogs. His opinion on world affairs is about as worthless as a box of rocks.
Then why do you care what he lectures?
-
Originally posted by Viking
See, there you go showing your ignorance again. Annan was an administrator, not a leader of the UN.
He was their figurehead. If he wasn't the recognized leader of the UN, who was? Stop quibbling, you seem to be looking for an argument that you are not going to get.
Instead of insulting me, why not just answer the question? It's not a loaded question, I'm trying to ascertain your perspective. I know that I am not gouing to change your opinion, regardless of what it is and I am not going to debate your view... I simply want to know your opinion of Annan.
-
He's not the "figure head" of the UN either. He is/was the chief administrator and have/has no vote on any issues or resolutions in any of the UN councils. He isn’t a leader at all and as such my answer to your question has to be “no”.
-
Fair enough. Let's move on.
Do you think the U.N. handled the Bosnia-Serb situation effectively and did a good job of protecting its' charges?
Regardless of your position on the U.S. and its' presence in Iraq, do you feel Annan's comments directed at the U.S. in his final speech were appropriate? If so, why? If not, why?
-
#1: No, far from it. The UN mission in Bosnia was a complete failure.
#2: I haven't heard/read Annan's speach yet so I cannot coment on it.
-
Originally posted by Viking
He's not the "figure head" of the UN either. He is/was the chief administrator and have/has no vote on any issues or resolutions in any of the UN councils. He isn’t a leader at all and as such my answer to your question has to be “no”.
"The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the head of the Secretariat, one of the principal organs of the United Nations. The Secretary-General acts as the de facto spokesman and leader of the United Nations."
-
THE ROLE OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
Equal parts diplomat and advocate, civil servant and CEO, the Secretary-General is a symbol of United Nations ideals and a spokesman for the interests of the world's peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them. The current Secretary-General, and the seventh occupant of the post, is Mr. Kofi A. Annan of Ghana, who took office on 1 January 1997.
The Charter describes the Secretary-General as "chief administrative officer" of the Organization, who shall act in that capacity and perform "such other functions as are entrusted" to him or her by the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and other United Nations organs. The Charter also empowers the Secretary-General to "bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security". These guidelines both define the powers of the office and grant it considerable scope for action. The Secretary-General would fail if he did not take careful account of the concerns of Member States, but he must also uphold the values and moral authority of the United Nations, and speak and act for peace, even at the risk, from time to time, of challenging or disagreeing with those same Member States.
That creative tension accompanies the Secretary-General through day-to-day work that includes attendance at sessions of United Nations bodies; consultations with world leaders, government officials, and others; and worldwide travel intended to keep him in touch with the peoples of the Organization's Member States and informed about the vast array of issues of international concern that are on the Organization's agenda. Each year, the Secretary-General issues a report on the work of the United Nations that appraises its activities and outlines future priorities. The Secretary-General is also Chairman of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), which brings together the Executive Heads of all UN funds, programmes and specialized agencies twice a year in order to further coordination and cooperation in the entire range of substantive and management issues facing the United Nations System.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Kofi Annon has no business lecturing anyone about anything.
The man went straight into a life-long UN career, directly from his job selling hotdogs. His opinion on world affairs is about as worthless as a box of rocks.
It could have been worse....he could have come from a career selling fake grass :eek:
-
Viking, that would seem to refute your statement "He isn’t a leader at all".
culero
-
Perhaps as much as a chief janitor is a leader I suppose. Ok, a bit more than that, but he is not the "Supreme Ruler of the UN" as some seem to believe.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
It could have been worse....he could have come from a career selling fake grass :eek:
Nothing wrong with starting a successful business and making loads of money doing it, the last I heard.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Perhaps as much as a chief janitor is a leader I suppose. Ok, a bit more than that, but he is not the "Supreme Ruler of the UN" as some seem to believe.
He is the face of the UN. You were and are wrong.
-
Yes he is the face/voice of the UN organisation. So I suppose I was wrong on the "figurehead" part.
-
See Rule #5
-
Stringer, not sure what you meant by the laughing guy. Can you explain?
-
Nuke, this is the way I see it. You've managed to find a way to get people to buy your artificial grass and making money doing it. I think it's brilliant. They just wish they could come up with something so lucritive.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Nuke, this is the way I see it. You've managed to find a way to get people to buy your artificial grass and making money doing it. I think it's brilliant. They just wish they could come up with something so lucritive.
Thanks DiabloTx.
The funny thing is that I'm not a salesperson at all. I would never even think about trying to sell something to somebody who does not want or need my product. I would rather lose money than have someone purchase something they don't need or want to have.
The day I met you last year in Chandler was the day our company was just forming on a shoe-string, operating out of a house. The driver of the truck was my partner.
Since that time, we now have a fleet of trucks, a showroom in Chandler (Sringer, stop on by) and have done over 2 million in business.
In my opinion, America is the reason I have done okay.
-
I will be out there from the 23rd thru the 26th. I look forward to seeing the fleet and the showroom. I don't know if I will be staying in Chandler (small possibility) or in Casa Grande (best possibility).
-
I'm moving to Maricopa in a few days. It's about 15 minutes from Casa Grande.
Our Showroom is @ 3205 N Arizona Avenue, Chandler Az, #7.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Stringer, not sure what you meant by the laughing guy. Can you explain?
Notice the laughing guy is green... that's envy. Stringer can't come up with any entrepeneurial ideas of his own so he has to settle for feeble attempts at belittling others' ideas. Remember Nuke: most of the mindless masses are content punching a clock, having the yoke of authority cast about their neck with their employment hinging on the whim of another, and letting others take the risks. It takes sand to start out on your own.. most people, like Stringer, just don't have what it takes.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
It could have been worse....he could have come from a career selling fake grass :eek:
He'd have held equal qualifications either way. Check that; if he'd run a successful business he'd probably be more qualified to lead.
-
Originally posted by Viking
#1: No, far from it. The UN mission in Bosnia was a complete failure.
#2: I haven't heard/read Annan's speach yet so I cannot coment on it.
Ok, so I'll pose the question again: What is your opinion about Annan? Was he a good and honest figurehead of the UN?
Here's another: Do you consider the UN to be an effective organization based on their declared purposes stated in their charter?
I've printed them below for you, just to save you the time it would take to search for them.
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I'm sure in person he's an OK guy, although his singing is a mix between Leonard Nimoy and a mashed cat.
And back on topic...Annan is a goof also.
Did ya ever hear Nimoy sing that Bilbo Baggins song? Hysterical.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Sounds like a job for Superman, not an over-bloated bureaucratic
organization like the UN
I know there was no way it was even remotely possible, but John Bolton should have got Kofi's job.
The cat amongst the pigeons factor alone would have guaranteed years of entertainment.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The UN was useful for a time but that time has long passed. What can the UN do that individual countries cannot?
Why, the U.N. provides the opportunity for little tinpot dictators to get together and issue condemnations of Israel:aok
-
See Rule #4
-
I am having a hard time figuring out how a spokesman and cheif administrator is different than a leader.
A chief janitor is head of the janitorial staff.
The only government worth anything is one that is severly limited by a strong constitution.. the more we get away from that the worse off we are.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Catalyst
See Rule #4
Grievances? Like the Soviet Union's grievance that the west wouldn't roll over and join them in communism? Like the Islamofacist grievance that we won't turn from our godless evil ways and convert to Islam? I'm ready to help them alright, much like Ronald Reagan helped the Soviets.
-
catalyst.... are you saying that the un has eliminated new countries from getting nukes or resorting to terrorism?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am having a hard time figuring out how a spokesman and cheif administrator is different than a leader.
A chief janitor is head of the janitorial staff.
The only government worth anything is one that is severly limited by a strong constitution.. the more we get away from that the worse off we are.
lazs
Playing devil's advocate here. A leader often set's the direction and sometimes makes the law for his organization. Take the British monarchy for example, well, bad example. The US president is a leader and he has much authority, more when he has the backing of the house and senate. The Secretary-General of the UN has comparatively little authority.
-
so who tells the chief administrator what to do?
bet the people under him feel like he is the leader.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Viking
The UN isn't a world government.
Just because it isn't yet, doesn't mean it doesn't want to be. Just look
at all the morons who say that the Iraq war was "illegal" because the
Security Council didn't give it their stamp of approval.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so who tells the chief administrator what to do?
bet the people under him feel like he is the leader.
lazs
He was certainly in charge of administering the Iraqi Oil for Food program and failed miserably if not criminally.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Just because it isn't yet, doesn't mean it doesn't want to be. Just look
at all the morons who say that the Iraq war was "illegal" because the
Security Council didn't give it their stamp of approval.
Illegal wars have illegal consequences. Iraq is in civil war. The widely advertised freedom is yet to be seen. The WMD so far exist only on paper. Although there is now plentiful of Al Qaeda fighters - I though the goal was to get rid of Saddams Al Qaeda camps, which however were nowhere to be found? The amount of terrorists world wide hasn't dimished either, on the contrary. That alone makes the war illegal, because there are now more terrorists as a result of the war and they are threatening countries that opposed the war.
-
"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.
Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including:
* 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;
* 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
* 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign;"
* 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
* 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and
* At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.
According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south."
Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988.
yeah... things were sooo much better in Iraq before. I bet they get all teary eye'd and nostalgic when they think of the way things used to be.....
Koffi (whom I detest) is personally responsible for the death's of all the children in Iraq by botching the Food for Oil program IMHO. (out of greed I might add)
-
Originally posted by WMLute
yeah... things were sooo much better in Iraq before. I bet they get all teary eye'd and nostalgic when they think of the way things used to be.....
Koffi (whom I detest) is personally responsible for the death's of all the children in Iraq by botching the Food for Oil program IMHO. (out of greed I might add)
Now now...disregard human life under Saddam, the world was lied to by an American president about WMD! Don't you know that being lied to is much more important of an issue than human lives!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Now now...disregard human life under Saddam, the world was lied to by an American president about WMD! Don't you know that being lied to is much more important of an issue than human lives!
Tell that to these poor peoples relatives.
The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988.
I swear some people are total idiots who forget history, even recent history.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Now now...disregard human life under Saddam, the world was lied to by an American president about WMD! Don't you know that being lied to is much more important of an issue than human lives!
I bet a billion dollars that if one of your sons tried to deceived you and then justified it using an equivalent argument, you would last about five second before chuckling to yourself and meting out the appropriate disciplinary action.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I bet a billion dollars that if one of your sons tried to deceived you and then justified it using an equivalent argument, you would last about five second before chuckling to yourself and meting out the appropriate disciplinary action.
Let's say I caught my 17 yr old son smoking Crack a year ago. He goes to rehab, and is supposedly "clean" now. Then I hear from multiple sources that he's smoking pot again. Multiple, reliable sources. Pretty much everybody I ask tells me that yes, he is indeed smoking Crack again. When I search his room, I only find the slightest "trace" of drug paraphanalia. I decide to kick him out of the house. Am I justified?
-
Straw horses are just that, gentlemen, straw horses. The fact remains, the lefties in this world are more concerned with being "political correct" and anti-war because of lack of evidence of WMD than they are concerned with human lives. Its sad, but true.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Straw horses are just that, gentlemen, straw horses.
Do you mean "Straw Men"?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
The fact remains, the lefties in this world are more concerned with being "political correct" and anti-war because of lack of evidence of WMD than they are concerned with human lives.
Cripes, here's another one.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
Its sad, but true.
You might find it sad, just like I might find it sad that all dogs are purple....but it doesn't make it true. Darn, but it's easy to make to make unsupported claims. Not much use though.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Do you mean "Straw Men"?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Cripes, here's another one.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
You might find it sad, just like I might find it sad that all dogs are purple....but it doesn't make it true. Darn, but it's easy to make to make unsupported claims. Not much use though.
Unsupported? Just do a search on "IRAQ" and WMD on this bbs.
-
The widely advertised freedom is yet to be seen.
Falsehood.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Unsupported? Just do a search on "IRAQ" and WMD on this bbs.
The unsupported claim I was referring to was, "The fact remains, the lefties in this world are more concerned with being "political correct" and anti-war because of lack of evidence of WMD than they are concerned with human lives.".
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The unsupported claim I was referring to was, "The fact remains, the lefties in this world are more concerned with being "political correct" and anti-war because of lack of evidence of WMD than they are concerned with human lives.".
Again, do a search of IRAQ and WMD. More are concerned about "being lied to by Bush Admin" than "Ridding the world of a tyrant".
The claim stands. Unfortunately you are one "of them" and frankly I'm not sure how you can sleep at night.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Illegal wars have illegal consequences. Iraq
How come Iraq is the only "illegal" war I have ever heard about? Funny how that is, heh? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Did ya ever hear Nimoy sing that Bilbo Baggins song? Hysterical.
OK...I have to agree with you there!!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Again, do a search of IRAQ and WMD. More are concerned about "being lied to by Bush Admin" than "Ridding the world of a tyrant".
No, unsurprisingly in discourse it is beholden of the person making a claim to actually be able to support it. You didn't qualify your meaning of "lefties". Apparently you were only talking about people on this BBS that you label lefty. Which is a neat rhetorical trick. It means that you can cherry pick with your arbitrary label of "lefty".
The claim stands. Unfortunately you are one "of them" and frankly I'm not sure how you can sleep at night.
See, exactly like that. You wish to dismiss my arguments, so you arbitrarily label me "one of them"...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
...and then go on to wonder how I can sleep at night because you have assigned an arbitrary label to me. Well, the answer to that is, I don't really give a fig about the labels you assign to me. Even if I believed in some Aristotelean essance, I wouldn't label mine "Left". I'm more capitalist than you have ever demonstrated yourself to be, and am quite happy with that.
It's not that your stupid Rip, it's either that you are ignorant of critical thinking and chose to remain so, or that you are purposefully trying to mislead people.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
No, unsurprisingly in discourse it is beholden of the person making a claim to actually be able to support it.
Of course, you could state and quote were Bush lied about Iraq's WMD. That might be a good start. Then you could explain how *you* knew Iraq didn't have WMD.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Of course, you could state and quote were Bush lied about Iraq's WMD. That might be a good start. Then you could explain how *you* knew Iraq didn't have WMD.
Have you ever considered changing your name to ByeByeBye?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Again, do a search of IRAQ and WMD. More are concerned about "being lied to by Bush Admin" than "Ridding the world of a tyrant".
The claim stands. Unfortunately you are one "of them" and frankly I'm not sure how you can sleep at night.
No most were/are concerned with being lied into a war where our sons/daughters/friends etc are being maimed or killed.
-
Originally posted by Silat
No most were/are concerned with being lied into a war where our sons/daughters/friends etc are being maimed or killed.
Silat, the UN, Russia, Italy, Germany, France, Great Britain, and several other countries all said Iraq had WMD's. It had to be a world wide conspiracy if they all lied. Amazing. So exactly who lied about what?
Answer the question.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Ok, so I'll pose the question again: What is your opinion about Annan? Was he a good and honest figurehead of the UN?
I know his son was involved in some scandal, but I’ve not heard anything that suggests Kofi Annan has not been honest. As for “good” I think he has done his job as well as anyone can expect under the circumstances.
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Here's another: Do you consider the UN to be an effective organization based on their declared purposes stated in their charter?
Compared to what? No UN? There is always room for improvement, but I think the UN works as effectively as can be expected with 5 nations having veto rights in the Security Council. It certainly is more efficient then no UN at all.
-
Compared to what?
Compared to its' own mission statement that i provided for you. Not "As can be expected" do you consider it effective in attaining its' own goals?
-
As good as can be expected and certainly better than with no UN. Is that so hard to understand?
100% better than no UN. Is that better?
-
The UN has become nothing but a bloated bureaucracy that is far less than the sum of it's parts. I ask again, of those who think the UN is useful, what can it accomplish that can't be done better by individual countries?
-
Creating a forum for nations to talk and negotiate within a set of rules accepted by most countries in the world.
-
Nations can't talk without the UN? What are embassies for?
-
Like the US embassy in Iran perhaps? Or the Iranian embassy in the US?
Let me ask you this. What specific functions does the UN perform now do you think a single nation could do better?
-
Let me tell you rather that it would serve the interest of the US, and likely many other countries, better to deal directly with whatever other country they would like to influence. A country wants help or better trade relations then they deal with the country they want it from rather than push it before an organization with broadly varying interests.
Iran wouldn't be making the noise it is today if it didn't have the forum of the UN.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Let me ask you this. What specific functions does the UN perform now do you think a single nation could do better?
Umm..... how about enforcing it's resolutions? :lol
The UN is great at making resolutions. The US is the only country that really seems to want to enforce them.
UN funtion: send peace keepers into a battle zone in order to enforce UN resolutions.
US funtion: send a competent military into a battle zone in order to enforce UN resolutions.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Let me tell you rather that it would serve the interest of the US, and likely many other countries, better to deal directly with whatever other country they would like to influence. A country wants help or better trade relations then they deal with the country they want it from rather than push it before an organization with broadly varying interests.
Iran wouldn't be making the noise it is today if it didn't have the forum of the UN.
The UN isn't stopping any nation from directly dealing with other countries. Where do you get this nonsense?
Shouldn't Iran be allowed to "make noise" i.e. communicate with the world?
You may think the UN gives smaller countries too much power because it allows them to talk and unite against bigger ones, I can understand that. The US may leave the UN if it so wishes (not a chance), but that won't change the fact that other countries will still use the UN against you and you will have to deal with them wheter you like it or not.
Now back to my question: What specific functions does the UN perform now do you think a single nation could do better?
-
Originally posted by Viking
The UN isn't stopping any nation from directly dealing with other countries. Where do you get this nonsense?
He never said the UN was preventing nations from directly dealing with each other. The UN is worthless.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The UN isn't stopping any nation from directly dealing with other countries. Where do you get this nonsense?
Shouldn't Iran be allowed to "make noise" i.e. communicate with the world?
You may think the UN gives smaller countries too much power because it allows them to talk and unite against bigger ones, I can understand that. The US may leave the UN if it so wishes (not a chance), but that won't change the fact that other countries will still use the UN against you and you will have to deal with them wheter you like it or not.
Now back to my question: What specific functions does the UN perform now do you think a single nation could do better?
Isn't it obvious? Protect our own interests.
The UN will collapse within 5 years of the US pulling out. So much for your having to deal with pissant countries.
-
Your contribution to the UN is nothing more then a big pile of "I owe you" notes. I'm afraid the US will never pull out of the UN. It's the biggest "pissant" country there. :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Your contribution to the UN is nothing more then a big pile of "I owe you" notes. I'm afraid the US will never pull out of the UN. It's the biggest "pissant" country there. :)
How long can Europeans go before one of them feels they must conquer others? You think the impotent UN will or can do anything to stop it?
When was the last time the UN did anything successfully? Korea is the only thing I can recall. I don't count running away from a fight or raping and murdering a success.
IOUs huh? Care to compare what your nation contributes to the UN vs what the US does? I didn't think so.
-
Originally posted by lukster
How long can Europeans go before one of them feels they must conquer others? You think the impotent UN will or can do anything to stop it?
It is the US that’s the warmonger now and Europe that doesn’t want to get involved. Strange how things work out like that.
The UN can help nations resolve their differences with diplomacy. Once a war has started the UN can only be a forum for nations to decide what to do about it. The UN itself has no army, nor should it have.
Originally posted by lukster
When was the last time the UN did anything successfully? Korea is the only thing I can recall. I don't count running away from a fight or raping and murdering a success.
If you’re only concerned with security matters I guess Liberia in 2005 is the latest UN success. In other fields like health, environment, women’s rights, human rights etc. the successes are numerous, but we never hear about them. It is much more “news worthy” to see you guys or the insurgents blow things up in Iraq.
Originally posted by lukster
IOUs huh? Care to compare what your nation contributes to the UN vs what the US does? I didn't think so.
Sure I’d love to! You dig up the numbers this time. Last time I checked America owed the UN more then half a billion in regular funding, God knows how much in special projects. I’m sure we’re doing much better then that. :)
-
FY2007 Budget Request
The Bush administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget request contains $1.26 billion to finance the United States’ assessed share of mandatory dues to 47 international organizations, including the UN and its specialized agencies. Requested amounts for assessed contributions to UN system organizations include the following: $422.7 million for the UN regular budget; $101.4 million for the World Health Organization (WHO); $89.3 million for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); $83.1 million for the International Atomic [Energy Agency (IAEA), in addition to $50 million requested for voluntary contributions; $69.5 for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); $63.3 million for the International Labor Organization (ILO); and $33.2 million for UN war crimes tribunals.
The request includes $1.13 billion for UN peacekeeping dues, an amount expected to be well below actual US assessments (see below). The United Nations currently has more than 70,000 troops, police, and military observers serving in 15 peacekeeping missions around the world, including operations in Haiti, Sudan, Congo, Liberia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, and Côte d’Ivoire.
The Administration’s FY07 request also includes $289 million for voluntary contributions to UN programs and other multilateral organizations, including the following: $300 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; $123 million for the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF); $94.5 million for the UN Development Program (UNDP); and $10 million for the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF). The Administration again failed to request funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). In each of the last four years the Administration has withheld congressionally-appropriated funding for the agency.
Peacekeeping Arrears
The United States generated $145 million in new UN peacekeeping arrears during the last fiscal year (FY05) and is expected to accrue another $376 million by the end of the current fiscal year on September 30th unless additional funding is provided. This combined level of $521 million in new UN arrears is the result of insufficient White House budget requests for FY05-06 caused by the unanticipated expansion and establishment of several peacekeeping missions (decisions which the US can veto as a permanent member of the Security Council). Adequate funds have not been appropriated to cover the shortfall, although an FY06 emergency spending bill still pending in Congress would provide an additional $129.8 million for a future UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur, Sudan.
In addition to the $521 million funding shortfall for FY05-06, the Administration’s FY07 budget underestimates US financial obligations to UN peacekeeping during the next fiscal year. The Administration assumes mission closures and reductions that are unlikely to occur and does not adequately account for the expected deployment of a large UN operation in Darfur. This is likely to exacerbate the United States’ existing funding shortfall for UN peacekeeping and will lead to the accumulation of substantial new arrears if no corrective action is taken.
Peacekeeping Dues Cap
Current law prohibits the United States from fulfilling its financial obligations to UN peacekeeping by preventing the US from paying more than 25 percent of the organization’s peacekeeping budget. Since the United States is required to pay approximately 27 percent of peacekeeping costs, according to a scale of assessments agreed upon by member states in 2000, the unilateral decision to “cap” US contributions at 25 percent of the budget results in the accumulation of additional US arrears to the organization. The peacekeeping cap has been temporarily adjusted in recent years, allowing the US to pay its peacekeeping dues in full. However, the cap – enacted as part of the FY1994-95 Foreign Relations Act (Public Law 103-236) – reverted to its initial 25 percent level at the start of the current fiscal year. As a result, the United States has been accumulating new arrears since October 1, 2005.
-
Well, that's a nice budget for 2007, but how much did you actually pay in 2006?
-
Originally posted by Viking
As good as can be expected and certainly better than with no UN. Is that so hard to understand?
100% better than no UN. Is that better?
So your answer is no, it's not meeting it's own goals. You lower your own expectations of the UN by adding the caveat "as good as can be expected" Nowhere in their mission statement does it say "as good as can be expected".
Here are your own words regarding the UN: The UN proved it’s impotence by not giving Dutchbatt the ability to defend themselves, let alone the civilians.
So, you freely admitted that the UN is impotent. I think everyone here can agree that you have set your expectations pretty darned low for the UN if you consider "impotent" to be "as good as expected".
By the way, nowhere in the UN charter does it say one of their objectives is to be impotent. So here is another example of them not meeting their goals, by your own words.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
So your answer is no, it's not meeting it's own goals. You lower your own expectations of the UN by adding the caveat "as good as can be expected" Nowhere in their mission statement does it say "as good as can be expected".
The UN can only be as good as its member nations want it to be. Blaming the UN for its failures is like blaming HTC for the O’Club being a mess.
Originally posted by SteveBailey
By the way, nowhere in the UN charter does it say one of their objectives is to be impotent. So here is another example of them not meeting their goals, by your own words.
This simply does not make sense. Show me where in the UN Charter where they state the goal of “not being militarily impotent”. How can they fail to meet a goal that’s not even in their charter?
-
The UN can only be as good as its member nations want it to be. Blaming the UN for its failures is like blaming HTC for the O’Club being a mess.
They are impotent, by your own words. I'm not blaming the UN.. I'm simply agreeing with you. I neither said, nor care, why they are impotent, just that they are, and you agreed.
This simply does not make sense. Show me where in the UN Charter where they state the goal of “not being militarily impotent”. How can they fail to meet a goal that’s not even in their charter
Chapter 7, article 42:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Impossible to perform any of these things if they are impotent. You can continue to be obtuse if you like, I find it rather droll but the bottom line is, article 42 would require the UN to not be impotent and you know it.
Game, set, match. Goodnight.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
They are impotent, by your own words. I'm not blaming the UN.. I'm simply agreeing with you. I neither said, nor care, why they are impotent, just that they are, and you agreed.
And they should be. A UN with weapons is a terrifying prospect.
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Chapter 7, article 42:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Impossible to perform any of these things if they are impotent. You can continue to be obtuse if you like, I find it rather droll but the bottom line is, article 42 would require the UN to not be impotent and you know it.
The Security Council is not the UN, the Security Council is made up of America, UK, France, Russia and China, plus the currently elected non-permanent members. These nations certainly are not militarily impotent and certainly can (and have) taken such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Gulf War I is a good example of that.
-
Please don't feed the trolls Viking. No point arguing with a sociopath (http://70.88.171.249/forums/showthread.php?t=674&page=1&pp=20&highlight=kill) either.
-
Link requires registration Momus.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Let's say I caught my 17 yr old son smoking Crack a year ago. He goes to rehab, and is supposedly "clean" now. Then I hear from multiple sources that he's smoking pot again. Multiple, reliable sources. Pretty much everybody I ask tells me that yes, he is indeed smoking Crack again. When I search his room, I only find the slightest "trace" of drug paraphanalia. I decide to kick him out of the house. Am I justified?
Before you kicked him out 9 out of 10 of these realiable sources told you the way he's being supervised is most likely keeping his drug habit under control - but to make sure they tell you should engage him further, and they'll give you assistance.
But you rebuff them, and decide throwing him out of the house is a far better solution - and he'll be fine out on the street..infact he'll come back begging for help - so you and your only solitary "friend" who agrees with you chuck him out through a window and ransack his room finding only a very old joint, and a broken crack pipe.
Meanwhile your son now "free" comes back and kills your other son, your neighbour and starts destroying your house with his newly found crack dealing friends....are you still asking whether you were still justified?
Originally posted by Viking
The UN can only be as good as its member nations want it to be. Blaming the UN for its failures is like blaming HTC for the O’Club being a mess.
UN missions work - if the needs of the mission aren't exceeded by it's participants own desires...which is half the problem
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Viking
Link requires registration Momus.
http://www.bugmenot.com/
-
what percent of "peacekeeping missunz" of the un does norway pay? Is it something less than the 25% that the US pays?
lazs
-
I didn't look up the numbers but I'd bet Norway has paid less than 10% of what the US has paid to maintain the UN. I can understand small countries wanting to end the Security Council veto giving them a voice much larger than their corresponding contribution to the UN but it just ain't gonna happen.
Ok, Looked up some numbers:
Table 2: Other Notable Contributions to the UN Regular Budget as of June 2006
Nation or Grouping
Assessed Percentage
Amount in US Dollars
United States
22.00
$423,464,855
Japan
19.47
$374,727,900
Germany
8.66
$147,825,532
United Kingdom
6.13
$104,563,268
France
6.03
$102,907,868
Italy
4.89
$83,367,319
Canada
2.81
$48,006,605
Spain
2.52
$43,006,274
China
2.05
$35,036,460
Mexico
1.88
$32,135,243
The G-77
9.64
$185,554,600
The Lowest 128 Contributors
0.966
$18,593,956
http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833
Norway ain't even on the list. 10% was way to generous. Don't give that me BS about how any country pays more per person either. If you're going to start with that then you must consider that in the US far less than 20% of the people pay most of the taxes. This means that those who actually pay the bills are much larger contributors than anyone one person in a socialist/communist country where the contribution is more equitable.
-
The Security Council is not the UN, blah blah blah blah blah blah
Game Set Match. You lose... time to move on to the next subject. :)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Don't give that me BS about how any country pays more per person either. If you're going to start with that then you must consider that in the US far less than 20% of the people pay most of the taxes. This means that those who actually pay the bills are much larger contributors than anyone one person in a socialist/communist country where the contribution is more equitable.
:O ... there seems to something funny in this logic :)
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Game Set Match. You lose... time to move on to the next subject. :)
Wow, I didn't know discourse was so easy...let me try this out...
No! You lose, I win!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Wow, I didn't know discourse was so easy...let me try this out...
No! You lose, I win!
*yawn*
-
Originally posted by BlauK
:O ... there seems to something funny in this logic :)
Perhaps you don't understand my point? The UN has been a topic for discussion in the past and some have claimed that their country contributes more per person than the US. Even though that means virtually nothing they seem to find a moral superiority in it. However, if you compare the amount paid by those who actually pay in any given country I think you will find that the US leads that also.
-
So you are saying that most people do not actually pay taxes in US? (nope, dont think you are trying to say so)
Or are you trying to say that those less than 20% of americans who pay most of the taxes (because they are so stinking rich?) are having so hard time paying... there is so little left for them after paying taxes which then go to UN... (no, u cannot be saying that either)
So I am kind of missing the point in your argument :)
Maybe it could be that if/since there are countries paying more per person, there must be so many poorer people in US that they (the US) should be allowed to pay less per person as total? ... so that they could use that money to help the poor?.. no.. maybe not :) ... so that the rich could be even more stinking rich :aok
Must be something along that line of thinking ;)
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
*yawn*
*yawn* x 2!
-
Originally posted by BlauK
So you are saying that most people do not actually pay taxes in US? (nope, dont think you are trying to say so)
Or are you trying to say that those less than 20% of americans who pay most of the taxes (because they are so stinking rich?) are having so hard time paying... there is so little left for them after paying taxes which then go to UN... (no, u cannot be saying that either)
So I am kind of missing the point in your argument :)
Maybe it could be that if/since there are countries paying more per person, there must be so many poorer people in US that they (the US) should be allowed to pay less per person as total? ... so that they could use that money to help the poor?.. no.. maybe not :) ... so that the rich could be even more stinking rich :aok
Must be something along that line of thinking ;)
I don't have a clue what your point is. I thought I made mine pretty clear.
Your attitude about "allowing" people to pay less to the UN is one of the main reasons I want to see the US out of it. We have no obligation to support the rest of the world and I certainly abhor paying taxes to a world government.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
... so that the rich could be even more stinking rich :aok
stinking rich? what's that?
how is it different from just "regular" rich?
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Game Set Match. You lose... time to move on to the next subject. :)
I accept your feebly disguised surrender. :)
-
Originally posted by lukster
I don't have a clue what your point is. I thought I made mine pretty clear.
Your attitude about "allowing" people to pay less to the UN is one of the main reasons I want to see the US out of it. We have no obligation to support the rest of the world and I certainly abhor paying taxes to a world government.
:rolleyes:
I give up. Some navels are tight enough only for one's neck, not for the hard head. :p
Guess what. The world is not only black or only white, there are several shades of grey. Try getting rid of the "if you are not with us, you are against us" -attitude of your leader and you just might be able to open your eyes.
-
blauk... that was truely a kettle calling the pot black moment you had there.
I believe that they US is less concerned with you and your countries than you are with ours... try to stop being so critical of the US at every opportunity and worry about the problems in your own country. surely you must have a few?
lazs
-
Originally posted by mietla
stinking rich? what's that?
how is it different from just "regular" rich?
Rather revealing wasn't it? Typical among socialists to vilify the rich I suppose.