The UN: Worthwhile organization or Third World debating society?

[solinvictus]

I vote for the latter myself as I can see little tangible benefit of our participation in it.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

1. Why?

[Maple]

2. Worthwhile, vital and necessary

in spite of the fact it doesn't always agree with the US. :D

[Violet_Crumble]

3. I think it's a bit of both...

What tangible benefits do you think the US should be getting out of the UN?

And if you don't think it's a worthwhile organisation, what do you think should replace it?

[solinvictus]

6. Here's my view, in short..

The US pays most of the administrative expenses of the UN so little countries can send representatives and pretend that they really matter in world events. Additionally, I don't believe that the UN should concern us regarding our national security. That said, I disagree entirely with the invasion of Iraq because I really believe Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are at the heart of the terrorist organizations. My gut feeling is that Saudi money and Pakistani intelligence organizations are assisting these terrorists in their actions against us and Europe.
What should we get out of it? Well, I believe we should minimize our involvement in the main UN and stick to the Security Council alone. I just believe that the UN has proven itself corrupt and ineffective.

[Maple]

9. The US hasn't paid it's share

in a very long time. Meanwhile we have other big contributors.

All countries matter in world events. That would be why it's a 'world body'

And in a globalized world...yes, the UN can override your 'national boundaries'

But if you like...you can leave altogether. After all the UN was an American idea, but why worry about that?

The UN has a standing invitation to move to Montreal. And you'll notice that without an American ambassador to the UN, things have run more smoothly of late.

Mind you, I'm sure you'll want the UN to clean up the mess you've made in Iraq.

[solinvictus]

12. Paid it's share???

Of what? UN dues? Geez, we're expected to police the world, write the checks, and then get bitched at when things go wrong? What, in your view, is our share?

[Maple]

16. Yeah, your share

Yeah, UN dues. We all chip in ya know...and you're in arrears.

No one expects you to police the world...in fact we'd all be much happier if you'd stop trying to do so. That's the UN's job, not yours.

[solinvictus]

19. Like in the Congo?

Where, in the early 1960's, the UN allowed avowed Soviet agents to seize control of the nation with a UN peacekeeper force acting out as proxy armies?

[Maple]

25. Perhaps a reading

of the UN charter would help you. At least then you'd know about dues.

Perhaps if you understood that the UN is not an autonomous body, but a committee...and it can't do anything the committee doesn't authorize?

Name the country that's used the veto the most.

Perhaps if you knew the UN peacekeeping force was a volunteer one from a few member nations...like say, Ethiopia, Belgium, Italy, Holland.

No command structure, no common language or ranks or tactics.

And half the time, not enough money for proper weaponry, much less anything else.

Stop criticizing the UN when you know nothing about how it's hamstrung by it's Security Council.

This is why reforms have been pushed for years.

Guess who's preventing them?

The UN was a major player for years in preventing the Cold War from turning into a hot one. But that also restricted what it could do on the world stage.

And there is this...if you're not part of the solution...you're part of the problem.

[solinvictus]

27. Vetoed the most..

I'd say either the US or the old USSR, one of the two.

[Maple]

29. Tis the US

by a country mile I'm afraid

[Stephanie]

4. That's right - George Bush should bomb whoever the hell he wants to bomb

Why should he consult Third World brown-skinned people before doing so?

OMG - did you see that black helicopter hovering overhead? I think it's here to institute One World Government! Don your gasmasks, comrades! It's a fight to the death!

[solinvictus]

8. Well,

in the big scheme of things, does it really matter that the ambassador from Djibouti disagreed with a member of the Security Council? Nope, because his words have as much an effect on the UN as I do by declaring myself the Supreme Emperor of Venus and Mercury. That's my point: we pay for little craphole countries to come to America and play diplomat when they have no real power in the world.

[Stephanie]

14. George Bush is a swell-headed little Emperor -

And he needs some brakes applied before he fucks up the planet irretrievably.

You can post your racist classist elistist bullshit endlessly and it won't erase the fact that if Bush were allowed to do whatever he wanted to do without the constraint of world opinion he would have blown us all to high hell ages ago. There need to be some brakes applied when a world class idiot is put in charge of America's arsenal, and who else to do it but the UN? Despite the fact that some memebers originate from Africa.

I would post my opinion of your opinion but I don't want my post deleted. Yet.

[solinvictus]

17. Racist, classist, etc.

But it's the truth: these little countries don't matter and likely won't matter in world politics for years to come. Myanmar? Nope. Djibouti? Nope. None of them have the economic, political, or military power to register with world opinion. Right now, the only reason we're paying attention to North Korea is because Kim Jong Il has conciously starved his people to achieve WMD and the ability to project force outside the peninsula. Clinton was ready to bomb their facilities, but he let Jimmy Carter talk him out of it.

Yep, the Boy King needs some brakes, but unfortunately, the Korean War effectively allowed the executive branch to abrogate war powers, so that won't work. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we don't need diplomatic relations abroad, but the UN's just not working very effectively.

[Stephanie]

24. "Don't get me wrong" - is always a dead give-away -

If you want to live on a planet ruled by the Chimperor George Bush Junior, who rules without constraint except for the edicts issued by his corporate masters, be my guest. Please enjoy your Iran War, your Syrian War, your Korean War II, which will be forthcoming.

I prefer to live in a world ruled by LAW. Where no lonely insane Chimp gets to make the sole decision. Where he must present his evidence and be judged by others, no matter the color of their African skin. I trust world diplomats appointed by their sovereign governments to have sound judgement in serious matters.

But maybe that's just me.

[solinvictus]

30. Korean War 2..

We're a decade too late for that one since KJI has already made it clear they can split an atom.
My point is this: you can have an appearance of international rule of law, but the world operates on Realpolitik, in which these little countries that comprise the majority of the UN just don't matter. Sure, Myanmar, Djibouti, Madagascar, and Iceland all have diplomats, but for what end? None of these nations have any real economic, military, or political power and therefore, they simply have no role to play in determining world events. If you see a value in having them gather to read their statements and play at being important; fine. I simply call them as I see them.

[Stephanie]

31. Right, that's good.

Maybe you should impose a literacy test before you allow them to vote. Or a poll tax.

You have a criminal President inflicting a criminal war upon the planet. You think that only elite societies can judge the morality of that war? Net worth is the only criterion for determining who gets a decision-making role? Who else should be polled instead? The heads of GM, Alcoa, Exxon?

[solinvictus]

32. Poll all you want..

but please explain to me what good it does? If a nation is ultimately powerless in regional or internation politics, why does their opinion really matter? Sure, again, let them read their little proclamations and edicts at the UN, but what can they do?

[Maple]

33. The whole point

of the UN is that little countries, often raped and exploited, can join with others and make their voices heard.

You want only the big financial types? Try the G8.

[Stephanie]

34. True, and why should my vote count

If my net worth is less than yours? I can't buy your company, so why should I get to vote for President?

[Stephanie]

35. Ironic, your avatar

Is that supposed to be a joke?

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. So, you think the 'little craphole countries' should invade somewhere

to get listened to? They need to build up their miltary power a bit?

How would you feel if someone from California proposed that 'little craphole states like Alabama' should be excluded from the US Senate, on the grounds that they don't have much economic power?

[sandnsea]

5. UNSCOM and the IAEA disarmed Iraq

Seems like a pretty tangible benefit to me.

[solinvictus]

7. Yep...

but we still invaded and Kofi Annan seems to have made some big $$$ from the deal.

[Stephanie]

15. Really?

Do provide some proof.

[solinvictus]

20. Annan's son was in on it..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/29/oil.for.food.kojo.annan/
Kind of like Halliburton with this administration, except in the UN.

[zanne]

38. It sounds like you've swallowed all the RW crap

about the UN. If this weren't DU, I would swear I was reading the opinion of a bitter, disappointed, racist neocon.

[sam sarrha]

11. The IAEA is why Chaney wants to discredit UN, he is dirty........link>>

for being involved in profiteering from distribution of WMS's of a nuclear nature since 1989.

http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/Du/AMERICANJUDAS.pdf

[solinvictus]

13. Ahhh..

So Cheney made some bucks during the sanctions, eh? Not surprised here.

[sam sarrha]

21. lot more than that, could have stopped N Korea and Iran form have'n Nukes

but it seems there was money in them , Rummy got some too aparently, at least indirectly.

[seabeyond]

10. i dont think they have china on our borders of mexico

ready to invade the country like the far right has been claiming for some time. i think there is a lot of corruption, and i dont think they have been productive in their missions. i think we need the orginization. i dont htink we ought to get rid of it. i think we ought ot strive and demand a better and greater orginization. it would help if we were a good partner, but then over four years ago we lost any opportunity with bush as president. he wants u.n. to fail. cooperation isnt going to happen

[freethought]

18. There is not a huge amount of benefit , BUT

The United States should not have monopoly on world opinion. I do believe that other countries should have a forum where their opinions are expressed without having to shout above the U.S. echo chamber.
Also, if the U.S. wants respect it has to BUILD it. Not bully or intimidate other countries into respecting the U.S. That is not respect, that is fear. "They can hate us as long as they fear us", is a poor approach to diplomacy.

The U.N. is far from perfect. The times that the U.N. really could have shined they shrink back or foot drag (Rwanda, Darfur). There are those who are doing good work, I just think that those that do are demonized by the administration. Remember, Hans Blix and Mohammad Al Baradeigh made the administration and the CIA look like fools with the Iraqi nukes and chem/bio weapons.

[Maple]

22. The UN is not an autonomous body

It is a committee, and it can only do what the committee authorizes it to do.

It was not authorized to intervene in Rwanda. Clinton later apologized for this.

It cannot do anything in Darfur without the full agreement of it's Security Council...the committee. Guess who's holding that up?

The UN has no military of it's own. The original plan called for one, but it hasn't been allowed so far.

This means the UN has to rely on countries volunteering their troops. There is no unified force, with a standard command structure, ranks, language or anything else.

So you may get a few troops from Ethiopia, some from Belgium, a bigger group from Italy, and a smaller group from Holland...on any given mission.

And from this mess of refusals, disunity, and lack of tools...the UN is supposed to create world peace??

[freethought]

28. Point taken. Good rebuttal, by the way! n/t

[solinvictus]

23. Hans Blix

Yep, he did refute the assertions, but unfortunately, he wasn't allowed to do his job.

[Maple]

26. Gee, who stopped him?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

37. There's the argument AGAINST your assertion

that the UN is a debating society.