UN unable to to respond to the challenges of the 21st century?

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Lawyers urge UN overhaul

<snip>
Among changes he proposed were
*the removal of articles in the charter referring to the outcome of World War II
*an increase in the number of permanent members of the Security Council
*the abrogation of the right of veto for permanent members.
</snip>

Seems that it isn't only just some of us here in the US that feel the UN isn't up to the task. It'll be interesting to see how much if anything gets done in this regard.

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
...also said that it would be a good idea to move UN headquarters from the United States to what he called a neutral country.

Neutral in what sense?



...the removal of articles in the charter referring to the outcome of World War II

I'm not disagreeing, just wondering if there are reasons beside hurt feelings for doing this.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
...also said that it would be a good idea to move UN headquarters from the United States to what he called a neutral country.

Neutral in what sense?



...the removal of articles in the charter referring to the outcome of World War II

I'm not disagreeing, just wondering if there are reasons beside hurt feelings for doing this.

good questions.
I also wonder what their thinking is in regards to the "abrogation of the right of veto" which means to get rid of the veto.

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
CADkindaGUY, I take it your auto lacks a "GO U.N.!" bumper sticker?

Nah, it's right next to the "have you hugged your tree today" sticker. and just to the right of the Rainbow colored one. :p :D

CkG
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
good idea, its better to change what we have into something better instead of giving up and just quitting because it doesnt work the way you want it to
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Lawyers urge UN overhaul

<snip>
Among changes he proposed were
*the removal of articles in the charter referring to the outcome of World War II
*an increase in the number of permanent members of the Security Council
*the abrogation of the right of veto for permanent members.
</snip>

Seems that it isn't only just some of us here in the US that feel the UN isn't up to the task. It'll be interesting to see how much if anything gets done in this regard.

CkG

Sounds like a good idea.....but I doubt the 5 member will be willing to give up veto power. Especially Russia and US who've used them so much.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
the removal of articles in the charter referring to the outcome of World War II
Bad idea b/c imperial aspirations and the tendency to use people as means instead of ends continues to this day.

an increase in the number of permanent members of the Security Council
Absolutely . . . or just revoke permanent member status.

the abrogation of the right of veto for permanent members.
Absolutely . . . Russia and the US have abused it far moreso than China, France, UK . . . but they are all guilty of acting in self interest before the common good.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
but they are all guilty of acting in self interest before the common good.
I understand your point but when it gets down to it, aren't we all guilty of looking after our own needs before others?

Member nations who give priority to their own country's welfare over the globalist's agenda are OK by me. Member nations who screw other nations or don't bother considering external ramifications are not OK.

Sometimes the term "selfish" is miscontrued into a singular, wholly negative term. It's natural to feed yourself before others, for if you die of hunger your ability to help others becomes null. And if your selfishness actually helps others, hey, that's a good thing.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
CADkindaGUY, I take it your auto lacks a "GO U.N.!" bumper sticker?

Nah, it's right next to the "have you hugged your tree today" sticker. and just to the right of the Rainbow colored one. :p :D

CkG

That's funny. I imagined it was just to the left of the "MegaDittos" sticker, to the right of the "Bush/Cheney 2000" and just below the "Jesus Fish." :p
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
CADkindaGUY, I take it your auto lacks a "GO U.N.!" bumper sticker?

Nah, it's right next to the "have you hugged your tree today" sticker. and just to the right of the Rainbow colored one. :p :D

CkG

That's funny. I imagined it was just to the left of the "MegaDittos" sticker, to the right of the "Bush/Cheney 2000" and just below the "Jesus Fish." :p

Nah - Those faded so I got new ones* :D Today I even picked up a anti-SUV one**..you know - the one with the big "SUV" with the cicle and slash on it. I put it on my Tahoe***. ;)

CkG



*I do not put any bumper stickers on my vehicles.
**I did not buy a bumpersticker today
***I do not own an SUV
 

exp

Platinum Member
May 9, 2001
2,150
0
0
It's better than the status quo (then again, what isn't?) but realistically most of those suggestions will never happen. Certainly the idea that *any* of the Perm 5 would agree to forfeit their veto power is laughable.

OTOH, two of the proposals are very doable through unilateral action on the part of the U.S. Personally I would love to see both measures come to pass, and the fact that others *outside* of this country are suggesting it is very encouraging.

move UN headquarters from the United States
This is long overdue...they should never have come here in the first place. Having UNHQ on U.S. soil only creates sympathy (consciously or otherwise) for it among Americans by fostering the illusion that that organization is somehow protective of U.S. interests. Once the HQ moves overseas the alienating effect that distance will have on an American populace already disillusioned by UN impotence and "anti-Americanism" should be quite impressive, especially if the destination country is somewhere like France or China.

an overhaul of UN finances to make the organisation more independent of its members
If this means cutting back the amount financed by larger nations--and specifically the U.S.--then I'm all for it. If it means cutting America's share of The Burden all the way to zero then so much the better. Again, long overdue.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
The UN is an irrelevant debating society. There's no way a Republican administration would every need anything from them.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The UN is an irrelevant debating society. There's no way a Republican administration would every need anything from them.

Neither did a certain Democrat Administration ;)

CkG

Who never claimed the UN was becoming irrelevant :p

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The UN is an irrelevant debating society. There's no way a Republican administration would every need anything from them.

Neither did a certain Democrat Administration ;)

CkG

Who never claimed the UN was becoming irrelevant :p

Yeah, he just ignored it all together;)
Like you always do with the point which certainly isn't Clinton. ;)

CkG

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I understand your point but when it gets down to it, aren't we all guilty of looking after our own needs before others?
This concept fails on two levels:
1) When all of your wants come before the needs of others,
2) When you are appointed to a position of responsibility to look out for the needs of others but typically use that position of power to advance the wants of yourself and your allies.

Every good doctor wants to spend more time with their family but doesn't do so b/c patients need good doctors.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I understand your point but when it gets down to it, aren't we all guilty of looking after our own needs before others?
This concept fails on two levels:
1) When all of your wants come before the needs of others,
2) When you are appointed to a position of responsibility to look out for the needs of others but typically use that position of power to advance the wants of yourself and your allies.

Every good doctor wants to spend more time with their family but doesn't do so b/c patients need good doctors.
I would say it also fails the selfishness test itself because looking out for others is the best form of being selfish. People who care for each other will out compete those who don't evolutionarily.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
The UN shouldn't be "Headquartered" anywhere. In fact they should move current operations to the Country causing the World the most problems at the time. Set up in Iran or North Korea for example. They already had a major operation in Iraq and look what happened to it.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
would say it also fails the selfishness test itself because looking out for others is the best form of being selfish. People who care for each other will out compete those who don't evolutionarily.
Yes but in our world apparently everyone wants to be King, Queen, Emperor, or Chief Administrator.

The UN shouldn't be "Headquartered" anywhere. In fact they should move current operations to the Country causing the World the most problems at the time. Set up in Iran or North Korea for example. They already had a major operation in Iraq and look what happened to it.
Apparently, you have no real understanding of the original UN Charter and subsequent revisions. The collective which is the UN is arguably the most potent single organization acting for the good of all people on the planet . . . in particular, people of all ages, races, nationalities, and religions that are in need.

Despite the fact the UN (including the US) did not liberate Iraqis from Saddam before Bush War 2003; the UN in fact was quite effective in Iraq:
1) UN Food for Oil . . . is the only reason MORE people did not become refugees or lack enough food/water to endure the US invasion. Not to mention all the other major operations going on in Iraq before the war.
2) WHO . . . eradicating polio amongst other afflictions in Iraq.
The outbreak of cholera, a waterborne disease, is a result of poor sanitation, contaminated water supplies, power failures and the impoverishment of the population. I here this has improved dramatically since the Bush Leaguers took over.
rolleye.gif
 

LeadMagnet

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,348
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
...also said that it would be a good idea to move UN headquarters from the United States to what he called a neutral country.

Neutral in what sense?
Maybe they should declaire Ted Turner's Montana ranch neutral soil and move the UN to there.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The UN is an irrelevant debating society. There's no way a Republican administration would every need anything from them.

Neither did a certain Democrat Administration ;)

CkG

Who never claimed the UN was becoming irrelevant :p

Yeah, he just ignored it all together;)
Like you always do with the point which certainly isn't Clinton. ;)

CkG

Putting words in my post are we?:p

But yes the point of my quoting his quote WAS Clinton.

Next?

CkG
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Bush is crawling back to the "irrelevant" UN with his tail between his legs. He thinks the UN will jump in and provide cannon fodder to serve under the US command. The man is a dreamer.