Is the United Nations legitimate or not??

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: IamDavid

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Legitimate? Depends on definition. Useful? Of course. You are most likely alive today due in part to the UN.

WTF????

Cuban Missile Crisis

Actually that was JFK. I'm a VERY conservative republican and he ranks with the top presidents of all time with HIS response, not the fing UN.

EDITED: To further my point i added this...
It was JFKs idea to do the blockade and embarrass the USSR in the world's view. The only thing the UN provided was that a USSR ambassidor was at the UN. if thats the best you can come up with than WOW thats worth the BILLIONS of dollars our government wastes on the UN.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yes, but without the US it has no means of enforcement of it resolutions. It is a world debate club without any power.

Typically it is the target of the UN resolution which determines whether or not the US participates . . . violation by Israel (US plays deaf) . . . violation by an unfriendly state like Syria, Iraq (US raises a ruckus). UN peacekeepers would not be necessary in say East Timor . . . if the US had not sold weapons to Indonesia . . . that we knew were intended to suppress democratic revolt against dictatorial regimes.

You can bitch and moan about the UN not having enough mustard to reign in despots when the US has armed the despots. One of the greatest travesties is the tendency for the US to intermittently sell weapons to combatants and flog the UN to impose an embargo on arms sales.

Ultimately, the UN's greatest handicap is not the fickle nature of political debate but the presence of superpower regimes (US currently but US/USSR) in the past that favor self interest (or client-state interests) over the common good. North Korea is an exception but they are a superpower of sorts b/c they have the ability to greatly harm at least two neighbors.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: IamDavid

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Legitimate? Depends on definition. Useful? Of course. You are most likely alive today due in part to the UN.

WTF????

Cuban Missile Crisis

Actually that was JFK. I'm a republican and he ranks with the top presidents of all time with HIS response, not the fing UN.

You misunderstand. JFK did not conduct policy by yelling out the Oval Office window to the Russians. He did it by a variety of channels, and not alone. Stevenson pressured the Russians at the UN. In fact he really stuck it to them, enough to cause them to stop short. This in turn gave Bobby Kennedy the chance to conduct some spiffy back door diplomacy. Most of the key diplomats involved though were aware of each other professionally because of the forum the UN provided. That is the importance of it in the narrow, easy to understand way. Some things are more subtle, but I wont go into it. I will put it this way. EVERY President has had the chance to kick the UN out. Both Bushes, Clinton, Ronnie R. Everyone. No one has. Why? Because the UN is THE forum for dialogue and diplomacy, regardless of the fact that a given administration may not have liked it.


Edit- now I see your edit and understand you have less of a knowlege of events than I thought. Do you really believe it was the blockade and public bluster that prevented disaster? Both sides were pooping golden twinkies. An escalation of events happened that threatened destroy both sides. Did the Russian fear us? Yep, and Kennedy was just as scared as well he should have been. I am telling you that the players in the UN make it possible to avert nuclear disaster. Disbelieve it if you feel the need, but it doesnt make it less true. There have been many other occasions where the mere existance of the UN as a body of diplomats has diffused other less dramatic but serious situations, but I think you are all about balls and guns.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Yes, but without the US it has no means of enforcement of it resolutions. It is a world debate club without any power.

Typically it is the target of the UN resolution which determines whether or not the US participates . . . violation by Israel (US plays deaf) . . . violation by an unfriendly state like Syria, Iraq (US raises a ruckus). UN peacekeepers would not be necessary in say East Timor . . . if the US had not sold weapons to Indonesia . . . that we knew were intended to suppress democratic revolt against dictatorial regimes.

You can bitch and moan about the UN not having enough mustard to reign in despots when the US has armed the despots. One of the greatest travesties is the tendency for the US to intermittently sell weapons to combatants and flog the UN to impose an embargo on arms sales.

Ultimately, the UN's greatest handicap is not the fickle nature of political debate but the presence of superpower regimes (US currently but US/USSR) in the past that favor self interest (or client-state interests) over the common good. North Korea is an exception but they are a superpower of sorts b/c they have the ability to greatly harm at least two neighbors.

That is why the UN has not enforcement capabality. The UN relies on the US for doing any enforcement. This enforcement rests on if the US is interested or not.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MinorityReport

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: MinorityReport

Once Europe resembles the US, as a single Nation, Europe is going to be an economic powerhouse, Social Spending or not.

Yes this is a possbility that is very much on the horizon.

The GDP of Germany, UK, France, Italy, Sweden, Spain, and smaller others is more than US GDP.

Next 10 years, watch China and India as well. China is world #2 now and India #4 in GDP PPP. Their growth rates are 8.25% and 6.75% respectvely. In 10 years, 2 of them will have a GDP more than US and EU.

And the emerging middle class there numbers 500,000,000 ..more than US and EU productive population combined.

US is set for a stiff competition from both Asia and Europe.

IF Europe is consolidated as a united country under single currency, law, business activity and military buildup, they can match US easily.

BTW, Russia and Turkey are not included ..yet.


With current economic conditions, security threats, over spending, bad corrupt governance in US, the long term downfall is never too far. No civilization or empire lasts forever .. they rise and fall. So the cycle will continue.

China's GDP is around $1.3 trillion. US is $10.3 trillion. EU is $9.5 trillion. Assuming these countries continue to grow at their current pace (EU is highly unlikely because more countries are becoming members), in about a decade the US will still be the global leader with twice as much GDP ($20 trillion). China would've only grown to what Japan is at today (around $5 trillion). China and the EU are growing but they won't threaten US dominance until they reform their financial (and in china's case, political) institutions.

And, oh yea, the UN is a paper tiger with no teeth. Only the US makes it legitimate.

EDIT: The EU is a very loose union. Union many laws become synchronized and agencies become federated, its policies will never be synonymous.

Where do you get your figures from >>>> are you the same person who did not know the difference between Palestine and Pakistan ?

Lets see some real figures from a US agency called CIA > CIA World Fact Guide 2003

CIA ranks these nations on their GDP ::::

#1 USA GDP PPP is $10.7 trillion
USA facts

#2 CHINA's GDP PPP is $5.56 trillion
China Facts

#3 Japan GDP PPP at $3.45 trillion
Japan Data

#4 India GDP PPP at $2.5 trillion
India GDP PPP

#5 Germany GDP PP at $2.17 trillion
Germany Data


Add India china and add 5-7% average growth rate and tell me in 10 years, which will be higher > US with 0.3% growth rate at $10 trillon or India China with 5-7% ?

Actually last years weak US economy grew at 3%. There is also talk of china economic growth not being the 8% that is claimed. But there is lots of room for growth in both India and China.

First off, I know the difference between Palestine and Pakistan. Pakistan never helped the arab countries in their war against Israel. Get your facts straight or show me proof.
Second of all, that info on the CIA site is absolutely wrong about the total GDP of China being $5.6 trillion. That number is wrong. If it was, China would have the second largest economy on the globe, which it doesn't. That figure goes to Japan, at over $4 trillion.

Here is a link from the China's People's Daily. In case you didn't know, that's a chinese publication. Get your damn facts straight.

EDIT: I also got that figure from The Economist's World In 2003, page 30, article "Burgernomics."

 

[MinorityReport]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MinorityReport

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: MinorityReport

Once Europe resembles the US, as a single Nation, Europe is going to be an economic powerhouse, Social Spending or not.

Yes this is a possbility that is very much on the horizon.

The GDP of Germany, UK, France, Italy, Sweden, Spain, and smaller others is more than US GDP.

Next 10 years, watch China and India as well. China is world #2 now and India #4 in GDP PPP. Their growth rates are 8.25% and 6.75% respectvely. In 10 years, 2 of them will have a GDP more than US and EU.

And the emerging middle class there numbers 500,000,000 ..more than US and EU productive population combined.

US is set for a stiff competition from both Asia and Europe.

IF Europe is consolidated as a united country under single currency, law, business activity and military buildup, they can match US easily.

BTW, Russia and Turkey are not included ..yet.


With current economic conditions, security threats, over spending, bad corrupt governance in US, the long term downfall is never too far. No civilization or empire lasts forever .. they rise and fall. So the cycle will continue.

China's GDP is around $1.3 trillion. US is $10.3 trillion. EU is $9.5 trillion. Assuming these countries continue to grow at their current pace (EU is highly unlikely because more countries are becoming members), in about a decade the US will still be the global leader with twice as much GDP ($20 trillion). China would've only grown to what Japan is at today (around $5 trillion). China and the EU are growing but they won't threaten US dominance until they reform their financial (and in china's case, political) institutions.

And, oh yea, the UN is a paper tiger with no teeth. Only the US makes it legitimate.

EDIT: The EU is a very loose union. Union many laws become synchronized and agencies become federated, its policies will never be synonymous.

Where do you get your figures from >>>> are you the same person who did not know the difference between Palestine and Pakistan ?

Lets see some real figures from a US agency called CIA > CIA World Fact Guide 2003

CIA ranks these nations on their GDP ::::

#1 USA GDP PPP is $10.7 trillion
USA facts

#2 CHINA's GDP PPP is $5.56 trillion
China Facts

#3 Japan GDP PPP at $3.45 trillion
Japan Data

#4 India GDP PPP at $2.5 trillion
India GDP PPP

#5 Germany GDP PP at $2.17 trillion
Germany Data


Add India china and add 5-7% average growth rate and tell me in 10 years, which will be higher > US with 0.3% growth rate at $10 trillon or India China with 5-7% ?

Actually last years weak US economy grew at 3%. There is also talk of china economic growth not being the 8% that is claimed. But there is lots of room for growth in both India and China.

First off, I know the difference between Palestine and Pakistan. Pakistan never helped the arab countries in their war against Israel. Get your facts straight or show me proof.
Second of all, that info on the CIA site is absolutely wrong about the total GDP of China being $5.6 trillion. That number is wrong. If it was, China would have the second largest economy on the globe, which it doesn't. That figure goes to Japan, at over $4 trillion.

Here is a link from the China's People's Daily. In case you didn't know, that's a chinese publication. Get your damn facts straight.

EDIT: I also got that figure from The Economist's World In 2003, page 30, article "Burgernomics."

Now you really proving to be dumber than I though you were.

First we talking about GDP Purchasing Power Parity ..your figures show GDP cap

GDP PPP >>> see that ? China is #2 at $5.7 trillion

CIA fact is from World Bank and IMF. Hence those are most trustable names in economic data. If you doubt this, you need medical treament fast.

Now point #2
Some proof to show your troll mind how much pakistan was involved in Arab Israeli Conflict ::

Here is a Pakistani website showing PAF or Pakistani Air Force kils in Arab Israeli War.
REad with eyes open

Here is more :

Over Golan

Info from Pakdef ..see teh Arab Israei War section


And more :

Info on PAF pilots involvd in Arab Israeli war


Go to any search engine and serach for "arab israeli war pakistan air force"

Come back and post here what you saw.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Yes, but without the US it has no means of enforcement of it resolutions. It is a world debate club without any power.

Typically it is the target of the UN resolution which determines whether or not the US participates . . . violation by Israel (US plays deaf) . . . violation by an unfriendly state like Syria, Iraq (US raises a ruckus). UN peacekeepers would not be necessary in say East Timor . . . if the US had not sold weapons to Indonesia . . . that we knew were intended to suppress democratic revolt against dictatorial regimes.

You can bitch and moan about the UN not having enough mustard to reign in despots when the US has armed the despots. One of the greatest travesties is the tendency for the US to intermittently sell weapons to combatants and flog the UN to impose an embargo on arms sales.

Ultimately, the UN's greatest handicap is not the fickle nature of political debate but the presence of superpower regimes (US currently but US/USSR) in the past that favor self interest (or client-state interests) over the common good. North Korea is an exception but they are a superpower of sorts b/c they have the ability to greatly harm at least two neighbors.

That is why the UN has not enforcement capabality. The UN relies on the US for doing any enforcement. This enforcement rests on if the US is interested or not.

For certain actions the UN requires US participation, for others(such as most Peace Keeping missions) it does not. The UN does a lot more than Military actions though, don't discount the importance of those.

 

[alphatarget1]

It's pretty pathetic how many members on this board thinks that the UN sucks just because it doesn't always follow America's policy. Hello? You're not living alone and there are other people on the planet who has a second/third opinion, WE DON'T OWN THE WORLD. The general attitude on ATOT is that we can go to war with anyone we don't like and we can tell other people to shove it.

Having said that, UN needs to be reformed IMO. UN was created on the basis that every country can contribute something to the world but UN has little or no authority or even reluctant to correct the wrongdoings of other countries.

the idea of UN is from Woodrow Wilson (well not quite, it was the league of nations but he started the idea) and its purpose is a bridge for countries to work out problems. The very fact that countries like France, abusing its power and manipulating UN under its own interest and America (or Americans in general) thinks we can do whatever we want is basically making UN a joke. (OK correct me if i'm wrong on the facts)

*puts flame suit on*

EDIT: some typos

 

[SnapIT]

The UN isn't perfect, but it's as close to a world coalition that we're going to get...

The US, no matter what you think isn't the only country in the world...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: kenleung
I's pretty pathetic how many members on this board thinks that the UN sucks just because it doesn't always follow America's policy. Hello? You're not living alone and there are other people on the planet who has a second/third opinion, WE DON'T OWN THE WORLD. The general attitude on ATOT is that we can go to war with anyone we don't like and we can tell other people to shove it.

Having said that, UN needs to be reformed IMO. UN was created on the basis that every country can contribute something to the world but UN has little or no authority or even reluctant to correct the wrongdoings of other countries.

the idea of UN is from Woodrow Wilson (well not quite, it was the league of nations but he started the idea) and its purpose is a bridge for countries to work out problems. The very fact that countries like France, abusing its power and manipulating UN under its own interest and America (or Americans in general) thinks we can do whatever we want is basically making UN a joke. (OK correct me if i'm wrong on the facts)

*puts flame suit on*

OMFG... someone agrees with me...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
UN sux donkey balls.

WOW, tat wus like intellent and stuf...

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
The UN isn't perfect, but it's as close to a world coalition that we're going to get...

The US, no matter what you think isn't the only country in the world...

UN will never be perfect unless there are strict rules EVERY country has to follow no matter how powerful/weak they are. If one country isn't following the guidelines, PUNISH THEM! Sudan, Syria, Pakistan, India, whatever country you can put on the list has to follow UN's rules and regulations. Why doesn't India and Pakistan gets minimal punishment from the UN when they develop nuclear weapons? Why doesn't the UN do something about Terrorist countries? Why are other countries reluctant to commit to the UN? Again, different governments have their own interests and they'll act upon what they'll benefit the most from. If UN is going to get more power, isn't the concepts of "nation" lost since everyone has to follow some sort of rules?

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Let me tell you why I dislike the UN. I lived in Bosnia before coming to America. The U.N. sent in troops to stop the "ethnic cleaning". It still continued long after they came. They were a joke. They didn't care. If you turned you back you would be killed and they would not care. The fighting for the most part stopped when United States got involved. Not only that the US give me the opptunity to leave and come to the US. This why many nations in eastern europe support the US in reguards to the war with Iraq. The US has earned our respect, the UN has not.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: charrison
I will gladly take our better more expensive healthcare. Free, you get what you pay for. You can also thank the US for indirectly subsidizing healthcare because we spend more on medical RnD than the rest of the world.

Better, eh?

Life-expectancy :

US

Males: 74.1 years
Females: 79.5 years

Finland

Males: 74.6 years
Females: 81.5 years

Sources:

Finland
USA

Infant mortality:

1. Finland: 3.79
2. Singapore: 3.8
3. Sweden: 3.9
4. Japan: 4.05
5. Switzerland: 4.83
6. Norway: 4.91
7. Luxemborg: 4.93
8. Australia: 4.97
9. Austria: 5.04
10. Denmark: 5.05
11. Netherlands: 5.05
12. Germany: 5.08
13. Iceland: 5.17
14. Liechtenstein: 5.18
15. Slovenia: 5.22
16. San Moreno: 5.35
17. Canada: 5.36
18. France 5.56
19. Taiwan: 5.67
20. United Kingdom: 5.7
21. Ireland: 5.84
22. Italy: 6.1
23. Belgium: 6.07
24. New Zealand: 6.07
25. Spain: 6.31
26. Monaco: 6.34
27. Czech Republic: 6.56
28. United States: 6.67

Source

Gee Charrison, it seems that the inferior socialistic health-care is whipping your collective ass!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: charrison
I will gladly take our better more expensive healthcare. Free, you get what you pay for. You can also thank the US for indirectly subsidizing healthcare because we spend more on medical RnD than the rest of the world.

Better, eh?

.
.
.
blah blah blah statistics blah blah blah
.
.
.

Gee Charrison, it seems that the inferior socialistic health-care is whipping your collective ass!

Or perhaps those other countries have legislated bad habits out of existence. I'll take freedom, thanks.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Or perhaps those other countries have legislated bad habits out of existence. I'll take freedom, thanks.

Huh? Finns are heavy drinkers. And to top it all off, we are suicidal. And they do sell tobacco in here. It seems we have all the liberties you have, and still we whip your ass. But I guess how your way of thinking goes. You claim US has the best health-care. When faced with hard facts that prove otherwise, you just ignore them by saying "oh, those don't matter. It's because we are free while you are not. Yes, that's it"

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: charrison
I will gladly take our better more expensive healthcare. Free, you get what you pay for. You can also thank the US for indirectly subsidizing healthcare because we spend more on medical RnD than the rest of the world.

Better, eh?

Life-expectancy :

US

Males: 74.1 years
Females: 79.5 years

Finland

Males: 74.6 years
Females: 81.5 years

Sources:

Finland
USA

Infant mortality:

1. Finland: 3.79
2. Singapore: 3.8
3. Sweden: 3.9
4. Japan: 4.05
5. Switzerland: 4.83
6. Norway: 4.91
7. Luxemborg: 4.93
8. Australia: 4.97
9. Austria: 5.04
10. Denmark: 5.05
11. Netherlands: 5.05
12. Germany: 5.08
13. Iceland: 5.17
14. Liechtenstein: 5.18
15. Slovenia: 5.22
16. San Moreno: 5.35
17. Canada: 5.36
18. France 5.56
19. Taiwan: 5.67
20. United Kingdom: 5.7
21. Ireland: 5.84
22. Italy: 6.1
23. Belgium: 6.07
24. New Zealand: 6.07
25. Spain: 6.31
26. Monaco: 6.34
27. Czech Republic: 6.56
28. United States: 6.67

Source

Gee Charrison, it seems that the inferior socialistic health-care is whipping your collective ass!

i'd put birthrate numbers beside those for some context. eu countries birthrate is getting pathetic.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i'd put birthrate numbers beside those for some context. eu countries birthrate is getting pathetic.

Those are deaths per 1000 population so I fail to see how birth-rates would change that. Birth-rate info would be needed if we talked about absolute numbers, but we are not.

 

[exp]

Oh goody, just what we need...yet another My Country Is Better Than Your Country Thread.

Wake me up when it has degenerated past the annoying "Let's compare penis sizes" stage and reached the amusing "You're a doodiehead. Am not! You're a poopoo face" stage.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i'd put birthrate numbers beside those for some context. eu countries birthrate is getting pathetic.

Those are deaths per 1000 population so I fail to see how birth-rates would change that. Birth-rate info would be needed if we talked about absolute numbers, but we are not.

i still don't see the point. many of those countries have homogenous populations. once you throw in high numbers immigrants the number inevitably goes up. we pay the price of diversity, they don't.

 

[ElFenix]

the life expectancy difference is due to the murder rate. deaths/1000 births is likely due to recent immigrants.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i still don't see the point. many of those countries have homogenous populations. once you throw in high numbers immigrants the number inevitably goes up. we pay the price of diversity, they don't.

How exactly does "diversity" increase infant mortality 😕? And how about Australia? Canada? Sweden (Sweden has ALOT of refugees coming in to the country from places like Somalia and the like), France (large arab minority), Germany (alot of people from eastern Europe and Turkey), United Kingdom (alot of people from Asia, India, Africa etc.)... I really fail to see your point.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the life expectancy difference is due to the murder rate. deaths/1000 births is likely due to recent immigrants.

Finns are suicidal (in fact, most suicidal in the world, together with the japanese), and heavy drinkers, yet we have higher life-expectancy. Other countries have immigration and large ethnic minorities (read my previous post), so I fail to see your point.

 

[ElFenix]

nope, i was wrong, has more to do with black people mis-trusting doctors than anything else

the suicide rate in the US is 10.3/1000 deaths, what is it in finland?

 

[Gaard]

Murder...homogenous population...blacks mistrusting doctors...damnit, I'll think of something. There has to be a reason other than a better healthcare system. 😉