US is a deadbeat donor to the UN

[yllus]

*shrugs* It's a wasteful, annoying institution, but it's better than the alternative (nothing).

In realistic terms the UN is the perfect reflection of the reality of international politics: A few heavy hitters have the ultimate say on all topics of significance, and the rest seethe with resentment and try to needle them to death with pointless speeches and measures. You'll never effectively reform the UN if you don't reform the member nations it represents first.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Bateluer
If the US pulls out of the UN, which we should, then the UN would pretty much collapse.

Yea cause before we had the UN everything was much better. :roll:

The UN has caused more trouble than they are worth.

They did such a wonderful job in Bosnia, and lets not forget what a tremendous job they have been doing handling all the problems in Africa. God bless them. :disgust:

The UN = tits on a boar

There are some unnamed jerks who oppose the UN tooth and nail and cripple it any chance they get, and then criticize it for not being as effective as they'd like.

We should not get out of the UN.

We should increase our commitment to its mission and make it better. A foreign policy resembling Highlander - there can be only one, so pursue limitless power - is bad.

Was it these jerks who kept it from being active in Rwanda? Or currently Darfur? The UN was established for the same reason the League of Nations was established, to prevent World War 3. The resulting weapons coming out of WW2 has more or less prevented that, as well as the embracing of capitalism more or less across the globe.

The UN is an outdated idea.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Man I swear, the "UN is teh devil" crowd really just don't know your heads from your asses...

Why do you think nothing has been done in Darfur? Because the UN itself let it happen? No, it's because China is on the UN Sec Council and has veto power over any binding resolution.

They run the show in Darfur and what is occurring there doesn't displease them in the least.

In a similar manner, we veto any resolution condemning Israel for anything it does.

It's a game for sure, but we set it up that way. It's a pissing content between the members of SecCouncil and oftentimes there's a third world country being ignored or abused as the result.

A friend Sarah and I had this excact conversation a few weeks ago and came to the same conclusions you more or less did.

The UN does far more to push the superpowers towards War with its setup of veto than it does to dissuade them from war.

 

[Genx87]

Perhaps the UN should go find another donor.

 

[deepred98]

Bring back the League of Nations... at least that sounded cooler

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: ayabe

OK so let's amend it, the SecCouncil should be a rotating group of countries with set term limits, say 2 years.

This way everyone has a chance to be heard.

You think that will ever fly? Not a chance - we would never agree. Nor would anyone else.

In fact, we never agree with anything the UN says, we basically do what we want to do and then chastise others for following our example, ie Saddam.

It's only a joke because the American POV is treated as the only one that matters, that's our attitude and it's antithetical to the UN charter.

So if the UN is a dinosaur that needs to be culled, we can't blame anyone but ourselves - not the "old Europe" crowd that are vilified on a daily basis by the usual suspects.

We created the system as it exists, only the end results haven't been what we wanted, namely a world organization with supposed legitimacy to further American policy goals without being too overt about it.

Wait. So you are telling me the people with the power/resources make the rules? Oh my god! Where else have I seen this in life?

Oh yea. In absolutely every damn facet that exists. I dont know what fairy tale world you want to live in, where Laos is going to have the same power as the US, Russia, China, or GB. It isn't going to happen.

Idealistic college student, maybe?

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

Originally posted by: ayabe
Man I swear, the "UN is teh devil" crowd really just don't know your heads from your asses...

Why do you think nothing has been done in Darfur? Because the UN itself let it happen? No, it's because China is on the UN Sec Council and has veto power over any binding resolution.

They run the show in Darfur and what is occurring there doesn't displease them in the least.

In a similar manner, we veto any resolution condemning Israel for anything it does.

It's a game for sure, but we set it up that way. It's a pissing content between the members of SecCouncil and oftentimes there's a third world country being ignored or abused as the result.

In other words, the UN as it exists is an ineffective institution.

OK so let's amend it, the SecCouncil should be a rotating group of countries with set term limits, say 2 years.

This way everyone has a chance to be heard.

You think that will ever fly? Not a chance - we would never agree. Nor would anyone else.

In fact, we never agree with anything the UN says, we basically do what we want to do and then chastise others for following our example, ie Saddam.

It's only a joke because the American POV is treated as the only one that matters, that's our attitude and it's antithetical to the UN charter.

So if the UN is a dinosaur that needs to be culled, we can't blame anyone but ourselves - not the "old Europe" crowd that are vilified on a daily basis by the usual suspects.

We created the system as it exists, only the end results haven't been what we wanted, namely a world organization with supposed legitimacy to further American policy goals without being too overt about it.

You and I are, for the most part, in agreement. You just haven't come to the same realization that many of us have.

One question: In your previous posts, you blame China for the UN's lack of action in Darfur. You also blame all the big countries running the show for the UN's ineffectiveness, yet in your last post you blame the US for all of the UN's failures. Which is it?

 

[Jaskalas]

Democrats here enjoy nothing more than foreigners trashing the United States so we?ll never obtain any substantive objection to being called deadbeats.

 

[Modelworks]

I doubt anyone will lose any sleep over anything the UN does.
They probably will send us a letter to show they mean business !

 

[Starbuck1975]

What is your objection in Bosnia exactly? I've been to the country several times immediately after the war and the PROFOR were armed and everywhere. A friend of mine was actually part of force on the ground, full combat missions and all.

The UN utterly failed in managing the crisis before it became a full scale civil war, pulling in neighboring factions and ultimately leading to genocide.

It wasn't until a large NATO contingent, predominately US forces, hit the ground and enforced the peace...but by the time our troops rolled into Bosnia, the damage was already done.

and you see things getting better without the un?

That is not the point. Is the UN tangibly making things better...if not, then what purpose does it serve?

If you remove the UN from the equation, the status quo remains.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

Originally posted by: ayabe
Man I swear, the "UN is teh devil" crowd really just don't know your heads from your asses...

Why do you think nothing has been done in Darfur? Because the UN itself let it happen? No, it's because China is on the UN Sec Council and has veto power over any binding resolution.

They run the show in Darfur and what is occurring there doesn't displease them in the least.

In a similar manner, we veto any resolution condemning Israel for anything it does.

It's a game for sure, but we set it up that way. It's a pissing content between the members of SecCouncil and oftentimes there's a third world country being ignored or abused as the result.

In other words, the UN as it exists is an ineffective institution.

OK so let's amend it, the SecCouncil should be a rotating group of countries with set term limits, say 2 years.

This way everyone has a chance to be heard.

You think that will ever fly? Not a chance - we would never agree. Nor would anyone else.

In fact, we never agree with anything the UN says, we basically do what we want to do and then chastise others for following our example, ie Saddam.

It's only a joke because the American POV is treated as the only one that matters, that's our attitude and it's antithetical to the UN charter.

So if the UN is a dinosaur that needs to be culled, we can't blame anyone but ourselves - not the "old Europe" crowd that are vilified on a daily basis by the usual suspects.

We created the system as it exists, only the end results haven't been what we wanted, namely a world organization with supposed legitimacy to further American policy goals without being too overt about it.

Maybe other nations should pay the same dues we do then.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Bateluer
If the US pulls out of the UN, which we should, then the UN would pretty much collapse.

Yea cause before we had the UN everything was much better. :roll:

Yea, Canada did such a great job as peace keepers in Rwanda under the UN. Still don't know why we didn't tell the UN to GFYS and start shooting the SOB's.

To much red tape, to much bickering between nations, and little real power. The whole damn thing needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up learning form the UN's mistakes.

 

[sandorski]

The UN is a great organization that has been beneficial for all. It's not perfect, nothing is, but even the US is better off with its' existance. I'd like to see the SC abolished or at least reformed to remove the Permanent Nations. That's where most of the shenanigans happen.