Canada calls out the UN

[StinkyPinky]

The UN is ok for certain logistical stuff like organizing aid to poor countries etc.

However for diplomacy it is a complete joke. The problem is that it tries to be too equal and hence these rogue states get treated seriously when they should be shunned and treated with contempt.

 

[Imp]

Woohoo. I'm sure everyone else will miss us. That exhausted 100k strong army and the rented tanks we sold/returned already.

 

[OlafSicky]

Go CANADA GO !!!!
Wow they don't want to be hypocrits thier politicians must not be real politicians could be the maple syrup screwing with their heads Canadian bacon with maple skyrup

 

[nonlnear]

I find such a thing to be pretty crazy and outrageous

Glad we got that out of the way.

but no more so than seeing the lobbyist or vice president of some industry appointed for donations to the government regulatory position in charge of that industry, selling out the public interest - which greatly increased under Bush without a peep from the right who complains about it with the UN.

While the two are in some ways analogous I have to wonder at how salient you think this point really is.

Sometimes there are bureaucratic and political 'nicities' that lead to such things, but I'd ask anyone who is complaining about it, beyond the superficial outrageousness, how is the disarmament project actually harmed by that - and who is worse for the project, North Korea's temporary role, or that person and people like them who want to destroy the UN?

The UN is primarily a talking shop. That function is severely impaired by having a chair such as NK preside over disarmament talks. It would be like having Monsanto drafting the regulations for organic foods in the FDA. Not a mere inconvenience but a complete travesty, possibly setting the process back by decades.

As for the UN being a Democratic institution - it's not what it should be, in part because of these critics. They cripple it - and then criticize it for not being better. These sort of the people are the ones who cause dictators to be in power - and you see many of them praise a 'benevolent dictator' over democracy. As bad as they are, they seem to have some understanding they can't be trusted to elect a good leader.

Who are these "many" you speak of? I have a short list of frequently used weasel words, and it tells me that "many people" is one of the standard go-to reference groups for people making completely unfounded assertions.

So, let's improve the UN - but it's a hell of a lot better than not having that place with the efforts for global communication, for the respect of each nation to some voice, where the general assembly can vote on things even if the Security Council has to buy off five powerful members with a veto for themselves and their friends that cripples it.

The discussion should be not so much about the UN now - though it does a lot of good - than about the need for a better UN protecting global political stability instead of the race for each nation and region getting more power at the expense of others, rather than the ongoing wars that conflict has caused.

I'm surprised to read that you are a fan of "protecting global security". Before I accuse you of being a closet neo-con, what exactly do you mean by this? (Mostly kidding about the closet neo-con thing, but you can see some clarification would help...)

The critics here are simpletons who know only to demand the right to try to get more power by any means, however violent, framing every alternative to that as 'surrender'.

It's nothing new - early in the nuclear age, there was a group of Americans and military leaders who though it was imperative we launch a first-strike nuclear war against the USSR and China. We need the people with more of a clue to run things, as they generally have.

Well let's think about that for a second. It's not implausible that a lot of deaths might have been prevented by wiping out Stalin and Mao (along with the cities they were in at the strike). I don't think a plausible moral case could have been made for such strikes at the time, but in hindsight, the body counts and political legacies make me wonder... Craig, you have convinced me to be MUCH more hawkish. Another post like that and you might push me firmly into the cock-stroking big military wing of the GOP.

 

[Craig234]

Glad we got that out of the way.

The notion of such countries determining policies in those areas is crazy and outrageous. But that's not what they're doing.

The idea of their being at the table on those issue where they can be confronted instead of isolated not having to defend their policies - point for the UN.

While the two are in some ways analogous I have to wonder at how salient you think this point really is.

Fact is, the Bush appointments are worse. As I said above, having North Korea as a temporary chair over disarmament might at worst be one bad vote on the committee.

And a chance for dialogue and challenging them.

But the Bush appointments were actually corrupt appointments that could gut enforcement of important protections, unilaterally.

The UN is primarily a talking shop. That function is severely impaired by having a chair such as NK preside over disarmament talks. It would be like having Monsanto drafting the regulations for organic foods in the FDA. Not a mere inconvenience but a complete travesty, possibly setting the process back by decades.

IMO, you are making up a story based on ideology, not on any facts.

I didn't ask you to post a bunch of made up allegations and pretend they're accurate, I asked you to point to actual damage.

You say this temporary appointment makes the committee 'severely impaired'. Prove it. Show me the facts of that happening.

You pick a funny example of Monsanto writing bills, because special interests like them in many cases literally did write bills that Congressmen did introduce.

Remember that big deal at the time of the 'new Republican contract with America' of the Republican platform for the 2010 elections if they were returned to power?

It was found it had been written on a lobbyist's computer. There's a pretty close connection there.

Who are these "many" you speak of? I have a short list of frequently used weasel words, and it tells me that "many people" is one of the standard go-to reference groups for people making completely unfounded assertions.

Not you are bordering on obnoxious with that. I've run across a good number who say they 'prefer a benevolent dictator'.

I guess you are saying 'many people' use it as a weasel word. Makes you a weasel? Actually, I agree with you, many do, but that was obnoxious.

I should leave it at that, but I'll post a few examples where people in this forum have said it:

I used to think you were crazy advocated benevolent dictatorships/monarchy..maybe not so much anymore.

Benevolent dictatorships are the most efficient and effective type of government!

This country would be so much better if we could have a libertarian like Ron Paul become a dictator for 4 years...

(That was not Anarchist420)

Sure a benevolent dictator is best, but he (or she) is as real as the tooth fairy or santa claus.

IMO, a benevolent, long-looking dictator is the best type of government.

I agree, and that's why I'm for benevolent dictators.

At least some of the people then admit they 'don't exist' or have other issues.

I'm surprised to read that you are a fan of "protecting global security". Before I accuse you of being a closet neo-con, what exactly do you mean by this? (Mostly kidding about the closet neo-con thing, but you can see some clarification would help...)

I said stability, you said security (careful with those double quotes).

Neocons are for in effect the conquering of the world by one country - one country having a military monopoly, forcing its interests on everyone else, hegemony.

What I'm talking about it the UN being able to protect power being spread amongst different powers, without any one dominating the planet, which without such a body who can do that, seems will almost inevitably lead to some for of 'one world government' eventually as long as nations compete, always after more power in the world.

We're not there today with the UN, either in its ability to stop something like the US invasion of Iraq, nor in its setup allowing for addressing behavior by the 'big five'.

It currently lacks the effective power to deal with a lot of situations - the only time it tried a larger conflict that comes to mind was the Korean war.

Oh wait, both sides in that conflict - the US and China - have veto power. Not going to help address the conflict.

Frankly, it's a question whether the UN can do what it should - powerful countries are not too willing to cooperate with limiting their use of power.

There's a reason it was set up with such weakness in enforcing anything against the 'big five'.

Well let's think about that for a second. It's not implausible that a lot of deaths might have been prevented by wiping out Stalin and Mao (along with the cities they were in at the strike). I don't think a plausible moral case could have been made for such strikes at the time, but in hindsight, the body counts and political legacies make me wonder... Craig, you have convinced me to be MUCH more hawkish. Another post like that and you might push me firmly into the cock-stroking big military wing of the GOP.

The only nuclear plans at the time were for 'all out' use of nuclear weapons against every medium sized and larger city in both countries, wiping out hundreds of millions.

Some military were actively pushing the agenda of a first strike at times - JFK walked out of a meeting with them midway in disgust, saying 'and we call ourselves the human race.'

If you are attracted to evil, not much can be done about it.

 

[nonlnear]

The notion of such countries determining policies in those areas is crazy and outrageous. But that's not what they're doing.

The idea of their being at the table on those issue where they can be confronted instead of isolated not having to defend their policies - point for the UN.

Fact is, the Bush appointments are worse. As I said above, having North Korea as a temporary chair over disarmament might at worst be one bad vote on the committee.

And a chance for dialogue and challenging them.

But the Bush appointments were actually corrupt appointments that could gut enforcement of important protections, unilaterally.

How do you feel about Obama's appointments? Or are Republicans the only ones who make self-serving appointments?

IMO, you are making up a story based on ideology, not on any facts.

Well it's a good thing I was clearly drawing an analogy, and not claiming it to be factual.

I didn't ask you to post a bunch of made up allegations and pretend they're accurate, I asked you to point to actual damage.

Given that I don't believe the UN accomplishes much good, I can't point to substantial damage, other than to its reputation.

You say this temporary appointment makes the committee 'severely impaired'. Prove it. Show me the facts of that happening.

Well there are some knowledgeable peopel representing fairly credible countries who apparently believe it. I am deferring to their expertise. That's a winning argument in your books.

You pick a funny example of Monsanto writing bills, because special interests like them in many cases literally did write bills that Congressmen did introduce.

Remember that big deal at the time of the 'new Republican contract with America' of the Republican platform for the 2010 elections if they were returned to power?

It was found it had been written on a lobbyist's computer. There's a pretty close connection there.

Yes. Pretty much every large piece of legislation these days is handed to legislators by lobbyists. Even the large pieces "written" by the Democrats.

Not you are bordering on obnoxious with that. I've run across a good number who say they 'prefer a benevolent dictator'.

I guess you are saying 'many people' use it as a weasel word. Makes you a weasel?

Now I know you didn't mean obnoxious as an insult, because you exemplify it so well!

Actually, I agree with you, many do, but that was obnoxious.

I should leave it at that, but I'll post a few examples where people in this forum have said it:

(That was not Anarchist420)

I believe that you found these quotes somewhere (for the sake of argument let's say they were from here). However reading these I don't believe that these are all meant to be taken at face value. In your better moments you would admit the same. There is something called hyperbole. It is a rhetorical device often used to emphasize a point. There are even posts of yours where I could swear there are occasional hints of it...

At least some of the people then admit they 'don't exist' or have other issues.

I said stability, you said security (careful with those double quotes).

I am truly sorry for the misquote. However the point still stands even with the corrected verbiage. What do you mean by "stability"? Why is it an a priori good, given the number of horrible governments there are in the world?

Neocons are for in effect the conquering of the world by one country - one country having a military monopoly, forcing its interests on everyone else, hegemony.

What I'm talking about it the UN being able to protect power being spread amongst different powers, without any one dominating the planet, which without such a body who can do that, seems will almost inevitably lead to some for of 'one world government' eventually as long as nations compete, always after more power in the world.

We're not there today with the UN, either in its ability to stop something like the US invasion of Iraq, nor in its setup allowing for addressing behavior by the 'big five'.

It currently lacks the effective power to deal with a lot of situations - the only time it tried a larger conflict that comes to mind was the Korean war.

Oh wait, both sides in that conflict - the US and China - have veto power. Not going to help address the conflict.

Frankly, it's a question whether the UN can do what it should - powerful countries are not too willing to cooperate with limiting their use of power.

There's a reason it was set up with such weakness in enforcing anything against the 'big five'.

Yes, the reason is that the institution was designed for the cold war. It is now badly outdated and rather a poor match for the geopolitical reality of today. Then again, most of our treaty structures make no sense any more either, e.g. NATO.

The only nuclear plans at the time were for 'all out' use of nuclear weapons against every medium sized and larger city in both countries, wiping out hundreds of millions.

Now you have encyclopedic knowledge of all the top secret strategic plans ever made since the end of WWII? You might be right, but you put a huge burden of proof on yourself with that statement. I'm content to remain agnostic on the issue unless you can point me to some high up figures saying that the only nuclear strategies ever conceived were for total annihilation. Perhaps after the escalation made MAD the only endgame, but this wasn't the case through the 50s.

Some military were actively pushing the agenda of a first strike at times - JFK walked out of a meeting with them midway in disgust, saying 'and we call ourselves the human race.'

If you are attracted to evil, not much can be done about it.

On the contrary, I am attracted to the prospect of preventing a net evil. That's so thoroughly pragmatic I don't know how you could object!

 

[Craig234]

nonlnear, your response to the issue where I said you had gotten obnoxious led to me deciding to abort the reply I was writing and not bother.

But one statement I ran across I will comment ont.

Now you have encyclopedic knowledge of all the top secret strategic plans ever made since the end of WWII? You might be right, but you put a huge burden of proof on yourself with that statement. I'm content to remain agnostic on the issue unless you can point me to some high up figures saying that the only nuclear strategies ever conceived were for total annihilation. Perhaps after the escalation made MAD the only endgame, but this wasn't the case through the 50s.

I'm referring to a period in the 50's and early 60's - a situation JFK reversed.

I've researched various things on the issue and much has been declassified, but I'll just mention one source.

I listened to Robert McNamara explain what he found our nuclear war plans were when he became Secretary of Defense.

Before he took office, the plans were a closely held secret 'owned' by the air force (Curtis LeMay).

As the new Secretary of Defense, he wanted to review the plans and told the Air Force to provide them to him.

They said no.

McNamara had to go to the President and have him order them to show him the plans.

He was shocked by what he found. There had been a 'hair trigger' policy that to cut military costs, conventional forces were reduced, and the only military response to basically any aggression by the Soviets in Europe - where Berlin was an ongoing crisis, with the Soviets effectively threatening war again after the previous airlift - was massive nuclear retaliation.

McNamara and Kennedy naturally found this to be an insanely dangerous policy, in need of creating lesser responses than extinguishing the human race over a miscalculation.

In fact, you might say Kennedy was pretty obsessed by the issue. Kruschev did.

Kennedy remembered Khrushchev yelling [at their summit]:
Miscalculation! Miscalculation! Miscalculation! All I ever hear from your people and your news correspondents and your friends in Europe and every-place else is that damned word, miscalculation! You ought to take that word and bury it in cold storage and never use it again! I am sick of it!

This was a major strategic issue for the country at the time.

You can listen to the talk I did, in a recording:

http://www.archive.org/details/WorldAffairsCouncilofNorthernCalifornia_2

I think McNamara qualifies for the 'burden of proof' about the nuclear war plan history.

 

[Broheim]

The UN is ok for certain logistical stuff like organizing aid to poor countries etc.

However for diplomacy it is a complete joke. The problem is that it tries to be too equal and hence these rogue states get treated seriously when they should be shunned and treated with contempt.

it's better to engage them in phony political talks that in reality means diddly, than have them sitting behind their borders stewing in their own crazy, eventually working up the nerve for war.

 

[waggy]

I think the idea of the UN is great. to bad in reality its far from what it could and should be.

but i don't think the answer is to pull out. I think in life all men have learned pulling out never works and is feels worse in the end.

 

[Lithium381]

They need to look no further than to these sorts of people who are clueless.


This is a downside of democracy, that it's drug down by its worst people.

ah, so the criminals and lazy who refuse to better themselves and live on the backs of others..... voting to raise taxes on everyone who has more than they because they benefit without expending ANYTHING? Wait a second, sounds like liberals