I'll admit I may not have paid much (any?) attention during school during most classes. Now that I'm old(er), and I WANT to know what the heck's going on, most of the articles I read are geared towards those that have a rudimentary understanding equal to a 10th grade education regarding these things. 10th grade was then I discovered boys and booze. Needless to say it was downhill after that. :(

Could someone give me the Cliff Notes/UN for Blondes/Reader's Digest Condensed Version of what the UN is, who started it, what it does, and what the future may or may not be for it?

From what I gather (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong), it's basically there to keep countries from going out and blowing each other up on their own. A "gentleman's agreement" before a war is started, so to speak. If I'm correct, and I'm sure if I am, I'm oversimplifying it, is it really anything more than a facade? What keeps a country from doing whatever it darned well pleases? Is it more of a "Time Out" corner for countries where they can present their cases and hopefully cool down before they nuke someone?

I'm a little confused as it LOOKS to the uneducated as huge cluster fuck........ :blink:

They have a website Peaches http://www.un.org/

Thing is, the UN has been a failure for the most part. They cause more problems then anything else. It is becoming a useless post World War II relic. Nothing more then a debating society.

The scary thing is that 21% of Americans actually beleive the UN should be reponsible for OUR security and freedom. I attribute this high number to poor education in our public schools.

What don't you blame on the poor education in our public schools? :unsure:

Interesting website - many thanks! Of course, the first link is wanting me to buy a book for $13, lol! But it does have a lot of info. I'm glad I was CLOSE to what it was and not so blonde I thought it was some sort of sporting event :headwall:

PD because I am dealing with morons who are "public school graduates"


PD are you one of the 21% that beleive that US security should be managed by the United Nations?

Only thing I can attribute this 21% to is ignorance, poor education, propoganda of those who beleive in world governemnt, etc....

I might have issues with Democrats, and American Liberals - but I trust them infinately more then any non-Americans when it comes to US security interests.

Mike,

good to hear that you trust us liberals!!! :rokk:

I like the UN for many reasons, but I don't belive any org. or anyone should be responsiable for our security, we take care of ourselves...

That said, the UN has done alot of good over the years. Peace keeping troops, lots of help with Hunger programs, Aids, etc, etc.

Don't be a hater, keep the UN strong!!

LOL

I love the UN. Get all the socialists, communists, dictators, and thugs in one place and out in the open, you know? It's better than letting them sneak around in the stealthy cover of obscurity.

i dont think that its fair to call it a clusterfuck.

http://www.unsystem.org/
this gives a list of the programs that operate under the UN. The UN does a lot more than people realize or consider. They do a lot of good.

its important to make the distinction between all the other functions of the UN and conflict resolution/Security council actions.

The UN also is responsible for peace keeping operations all over the world, for massive humanitarian efforts including education, distributing food and medicine, education and training, environmental issues, trade relations and development, economic development of poor countries, World Bank/International Monetary Fund financing, fighting for basic human rights issues... to the establishment of international courts - namely those for war crimes and the list continues.

today, it seems to be more of a humanitarian organization than it is a security organization.

When it comes to conflict resolution, i agree it’s sorely lacking in effectiveness.

The UN was formed right after WWII to make sure that WW3 does not happen. It has since become a shining example of how the democratic process can be completely ineffective and how decisions through consensus of its members when its members have such diverse interests will always lead either to the lowest common denominator or inaction and often both. Resolution 1441 regarding Iraq is a good example. The 4th or 5th "final warning" in a string of 17 Resolutions. Though the language is clear in that he must comply "fully, immediately and unconditionally" and all parties agree that he has not... few countries have the will, ability or intention to go further than sabre rattling on the world stage.

To fulfill its original mission, they had to bring everyone into the fold and make them a part of the UN and a part of the processes the UN represents. Though it seems fair, kind, compassionate and democratic on the surface, the reality was that they had more than a few rogue dictators, terrorists and terrorist states as well as members with massive and wide array of irreconcilable ideological, religious, cultural differences and economic and political interests. It’s a little like having a political system with almost 200 different parties. 200 different political parties all fighting for something different cannot ever represent the majority opinion in a democratic process.

I think people should be careful to separate the “UN” and all of its effective and helpful functions and the Security Council.

The “UN” itself is not ineffective as a whole. It does a lot of good either directly or indirectly through organizations working with or under the UN.

The Security Council can probably be said to be ineffective… as should be expected to be when you throw Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, decaying and weak, Middle Eastern Monarchies, African basket case countries and places no ones ever heard of together in a room and expect them to reach a common consensus on a course of action. They cannot even reach a common consensus or agreement on the problem.

For small countries, the UN is a lot like a company website. Just as the Internet can level the playing field by allowing anyone to look like a big company... the UN gives every backwards religious fundanmentalist, brutal dictator, terrorist or country with the GDP the size of that of the State of Arkansas an equal voice on the world political stage. Most use it as such... as their one chance to assert its limited influence in global politics to make a statement.

The UN historically has a horrible track record of appeasing murderers, dictators and terrorists. Arafat is a shining example where right after the group Black September (under his leadership) took 11 hostages in the 1972 Olympics where they were all killed. After walked later walked into a UN session without invitation or right to be there, making veiled threats to the rest of the world in an inpromtu speech.. he was rewarded with “observer status” Palestin in the UN. UN Message to the world: "terrorism pays off"

Syria sits on the UN Security Council right now and they are classified as a terrorist state by the US. The list is long... and the general idea of modifying the behavior of countries by bringing them into the fold seems to often be obstructed by those same people who were given political credibility, yet have horrible intentions, histories and track records.

I think that the UN Security Council is a necessary evil. I only believe that because there is nothing to take its place and provide a system of checks and balances on international military powers... though i understand it can be argued that it does that poorly to begin with.

The Iraqi issue has taught me one thing above all others...

That true leadership cannot happen through the consensus of a wide range of interests. It never will.



Last edited by JR at Mar 17 2003, 01:41 AM

I'm pro-UN. Still. Nothing about this situation has caused me to waver on that. The US should and will protect it's interests and itself outside of the UN if necessary. Countries have. Countries will. We have not surrendered our sovereignty to the UN, nor should we ever.

Situations like we are witnessing today have happened in the UN before. The US/USSR rift in 1962. Wasn't it the start of the Vietnam conflict that the Chinese and Russian representatives didn't even show up at the UN the day of the invasion? I don't think the USSR had a UN resolution to invade Afghanistan. ;-) Clinton had to break with the UN and go with NATO in Kosovo. So I think this is all really business as usual. How did the UN ever survive the Cold War with the US and USSR as permanent members?

The United Nations cannot be all things but it can be some things. Let's consider how WELL it performed in 1991. The UN is a good forum to discuss these things and sometimes everyone is in agreement. Sometimes not.

If we are serious about nonproliferation, we will need a body that is serious about it with no exceptions. The difficulty is that there is always some country that has a vested interest IN the country that is developing them. For this reason it will not be possible for a body to stop nonproliferation unless all countries place nonproliferation as their number one priority in the world .. and they certainly don't. The risk is great on each side. I have always thought force should have been threatened against all countries developing nuclear weapons right from the beginning. We can't possibly live in a world where dozens of countries have nuclear weapons and have a hope of averting another world war indefinitely. Tough choices to make. Build that missile defense system.



Last edited by Colin at Mar 17 2003, 05:35 AM

"That said, the UN has done alot of good over the years. Peace keeping troops, lots of help with Hunger programs, Aids, etc, etc."

Er, uh, what about the Tutsi's? The were practically wiped out by the Hutu's right in front of the U.N. peacekeepers. That's not the only case, either. I remember someone by the name of Idi Amin...

As for the other 'good' things they get credit for, one should look at the source(s) of funds for those things. We provide the money, they get the credit.

The US can't disband the UN, it can only pull out. In my opinion, that would leave the US less influential in the world, not more.

so how was the Hitler Youth Rally?

Mark this date down in history... the day the first bomb drops in Iraq will be the day the UN ends... if the largest countries in the world don't feel bound by the UN and it's processes, then the little countries will certainly ignore it completely.

Just another step to another world war, I am afraid. Getting rid of Saddam is only going to increase the Arab / Muslim world's desire to get at the US and it's allies... I suspect a 10-15 year window is about what it will take...

No need to learn about the UN, unless you are a student of history. It's done.

Alex

Alex,

Sometimes you baffle me.

Why is this any different than any of the other dozen or so times when one of the five permanent members did what they needed to do without the UN? In the past, measures were introduced against one of the security members to withdraw from a foreign country and the member just vetoed it. In this case, no one has introduced a resolution against the US. In that respect, this is by far not the most serious test the UN has faced. Not even close.

Let me tell you how wrong you are. Later this year the UN will have their hands all over the rebuilding of Iraq.

The Arab world leadership is behind this. The following countries have allowed the US base rights, headquarters rights, etc. The ones that come to mind quickly are ...

Jordan
Qatar
UAE
Kuwait
Bahrain
Saudi Arabia

Oh, Oman.

Colin, it is different because the large members stopped agreeing along the standard lines (east west) and started to disagree for other reasons. There is no longer any reason for the US to consult the UN on any issue anymore... Bush will show today that the UN is impotant, unimportant, and a waste of good real estate in New York.

This is the most important test ever of the UN, because the major powers attempted to use the UN for what it was suppose to be for, and it failed completely. It might continue to exist, but never again will you see it used as was attempted this time around.

You put up a laundry list of nations that with very little effort would be on the other side of the fence... Saudi Arabia needs only for a minor uprising to occur to blow the royal family off their thrones, and the US will be out on it's ear faster than fast. After they fall, the rest are just dominoes in the chain. Kuwait was so weak that Saddam overthrew it, and needed the big buddies from the west to be saved... otherwise the other arab nations would have let it go. The other countries listed are mostly smaller, and have strong ties to more radical factions in the area.

It won't take much for this to happen, go look at the political structures of the countries you listed, most are dictatorship, monarchy, or puppet democracies. Each of those is changable very easily.

Don't think it will happen? Why are there no US troops operating from Turkey? They don't want to piss people off that will come for them when the time comes.

Alex

But this has happened quite a few times since the UN was formed. In fact, this is typical, not atypical.

Consider ...
UN failed to resolve Korean conflict.
UN failed to resolve Hungary
Un failed to resolve Afghanistan.

Which is worse?

A. The security council asking a permanent member to withdraw troops and that member ignoring it.

OR ...

B. A security council member asking for assistance in affecting a regime change and not getting the vote.

A is much worse. In one case, a security council member is ordered to do something and ignores it (vetoes it actually). In the other, a security council member asks for help in doing something and is denied. A is USSR/Hungary. B is US/UK/Iraq

Everything always gets blown out of proportion because everyone has short memories. A few hot words that will blow over just like every other time - just in time for everyone to get in on the rebuilding Iraq thing.

The UN has NEVER been very good at conflict resolution. It still isn't. It is more effective in other capacities and we can be sure it will continue on in those capacities. Most notably, the UN will be all over the rebuilding of Iraq. Russia says they want to be involved. France says they want to be involved.

You can't hold it to a standard it has never had in practice.

I presented a list of supporting countries - countries that are currently permitting the US bases, headquarters, fly-over right, intelligence centers, and more.

You are presenting a series of hypotheticals, a chain of "what-ifs". if .. if .. then ... if .. dominoes .. more if's.

You don't see a difference?

I can make Kuwait defeat China with enough "if's".

And on that note, don't you think it interesting that the majority of Arab states support the US against Iraq in this -- they support it so much they are willing to let us use their country's facilities?

The Arab world leadership is behind this. The following countries have allowed the US base rights, headquarters rights, etc. The ones that come to mind quickly are ...

Jordan
Qatar
UAE
Kuwait
Bahrain
Saudi Arabia[/b][/quote]
Although the Arab leadership is behind this, the common people are very much aligned against it, and for the most part they are not very happy with their governments either. This presents the potential threat that someone like al-Quida could stage an organized rebellion spanning the entire region or allow for a domino effect that engulfs (no pun intended) the whole region in war.

Under this scenario, things could change dramatically..

As I said, "The Arab world leadership is behind this".

Now if you want to try and come up with a bunch of silly chains-of-events scenarios and present that as LIKELY scenarios I won't stop ya. You guys and your dominoes.

Yeah, it was. A good one too. :-)

Nahhh. They're holding off to the last second so they don't get pre-emptively attacked by announcing their intentions. Shhhhh. ;-)

Now THAT is fucking funny....

there is absolutely nothing wrong with what is happening today. France is against everything (they were even waivering on repelling Iraq from Kuwait) - the UN Security Council cannot agree to act on or enforce their own decisions.

even a cursury review of the last 50 years and the UN will show that todays events are completely consistent with history and nothing new.

http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/america_sucks.jpg



Last edited by JR at Mar 17 2003, 01:01 PM

What can I say? Iran use to love the US... then they had a "what if" change in power, and suddenly there were hostages held for more than a year and half...

I spend a month here reading people saying "the UN is useless" and "fuck the UN"... and then as soon as I suggest the UN is going to be basically done as a result of this upcoming war, well, suddenly I am chicken little?

WHATEVER...

End of political discussion. Already getting silly fast.

Alex

because Jimmy Carter was a pacifist. simple fact. because like you and France, he thought that everything could and should be resolved through dialog and he lacked the will, resolve and spine to make the tough decision to take action.

you did not "suggest" anything. you stated specifically that the UN would be over. thats not likely. no one has suggested that could happen from any country. i think that you dont even know what the UN is or does. The Security Council is about .05% of its total function.

your remarks are just your usual ultra left hysteria... not backed up with any facts but with your own personal brand of "theoretical, paranoid logic"

some 14 year old cheerleaders from the 80's called... they asked that you stop saying that.

you have very little to say unless it is about:

1) America
2) Republicans/Bush/Ashcroft/Cheney
3) how both of the above are bringing about the end of the world as we know it.

rule #1 of humor.

"something is funny because it is either true... or the opposite of the truth"

http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/america_sucks.jpg

JR, thanks for explaining all that. Now I understand that I have everything wrong. I have misunderstood everything in the world. I bow down to your all knowing, all seeing self. I am in total awe of your complete understanding of everything.

Alex

:lol:

Who said Alex couldn't piss!!??
Make way in the Oprano pissing Dream Team Fella's !!



Last edited by HoneyBlond at Mar 18 2003, 06:30 PM

no prob... and thanks!
:okthumb:

its my "complete understanding of everything" that has helped me to develop the patience to tollerate people like you and keep my sense of humor. how am i doing so far? i noticed that out of the two of us... only one has not made the threat of simultaneously "hurting" family, partners, business and Oprano with a lawsuit.

i would like to also thank you for your constant doom and gloom... and for sharing your over emotional, paranoid and shortsighted views which cannot be supported by fact. its a viewpoint. granted its one that can usually only be heard through the medicated ramblings of pyschiatric patients chained to a bed... but its a viewpoint none the less and we (many of those who tollerate you) live in a free country where we believe you have the right to express those views.

thanks for taking every chance to express your views, while denouncing those of others with flawed logic and bad arguements while painting yourself into a corner with a flurry of sloppy and poorly supported points - only to declare in the end that the discussion is beneath you so you can scamper away with a false sense of "french-like" superiority for winning a battle your never had the balls to fight by telling yourself that unconditional surrender and just running away has been a great diplomatic triumph.

thanks for taking every possible opportunity to let the USA know every small thing that is wrong with it. we are not the Great Socialist Utopia that many are striving to be... but on the whole, the US is doing ok.

thanks for taking the time to continually express your ultra-liberal democratic and arguably delusional views about the US Government, its adminstration and how they are always working towards the demise of the free world... whether through taking away peoples rights, stealing elections, violating the constitution etc.

Thanks for never offering similar criticism or any criticism of Canada and i thank other Americans for not responding with similar childish and derrogatory remarks about your country as you do the US. i apologize for my remark that your medical system is largely funded by lotteries which are nothing more than a tax on poor people who cant add. that was wrong. the reality is that even if your odds are 1:20,000,000 of winning... the odds are also exponentially higher if you dont play. my bad. i just did not do the math.

Thanks for all the nice things you say about the USA. Thanks for calling the US is a "big bully next door", our President a moron, Americans brainwashed and incapable of thinking for themselves and for letting us know in a not so subtle way in a previous thread that that our opinions dont matter and that we are controlled by government propoganda.

Thanks for once saying that "most Americans could not find Canada on a map".

Thanks for never making those same remarks about Canada or Canadians... or even once offering any criticizing of Canada. I am sure your fellow Canadians would not appreciate it.

Thank you for just being you, Alex. it helps me to better define everything i dont want to be. Just as two atheletes make each other better through competition. You make me a better by scaring me with the possibility (albeit unlikely) that i could end up like you... afraid, paranoid and scared... an eternal slave to the right hemispere of your brain, abstract reasoning, poor logic driven by deep rooted fear and paranoia, caused by an impaired and limited ability for deductive reasoning.

thanks again Alex. thanks for giving me a road map to being a better person. i dont want to be like you. doomed to live my entire life with the belief that things have never been worse... and never understanding that things have never been any different.

thanks more than anything for being afraid. its because of people like you and your heightened sense of insecurity, fear and paronia that i can relax. you have an important role in society. just as frogs are referred to as a "sentinal species" which often warn of environmental changes because they easily develop physical defects... you are similar... with phychological deformations caused by perceived changes in the political environment.

BTW where is your avatar?

http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/america_sucks.jpg



Last edited by JR at Mar 18 2003, 01:08 AM

We need an Oprano UN!

hahahahahahahahaha

C'mon JR stop beating about the bush and let us know whats really on your mind... c'mon now spit it out :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

:wnw: :wnw: :wnw: :wnw: :wnw: :wnw: :wnw: :wnw:

Alex,

There are people here that are anti-UN. There are people that are pro-UN. There are people that think the UN is still relevant. There are people that think the UN is not. There are people that think you are Chicken Little. There are people that don't.

I am pro-UN, I think the UN is as relevant as it ever has been and I think you display a remarkable resemblance to Chicken Little.

I am sure the "UN is useless" camp is hoping you are right, though some won't think you are.

I personally believe that in many of its rolls the UN is still a very relevant and vital organisation. However I also believe that the Security Council, which makes up only a small part of the UN is an archaic and farcical entity that needs disbanding or giving at least a fucking good shake.

As long as RawAlex is not a permanent member with Veto power of an Oprano UN. I could just imagine he and French webmasters would take this.

First, he would certainly push for a resultion to surrender to Netpond, then GFY and call himself a diplomat who has successfully avoided conflict and "unnecessary pissing".

Then he would pass resolution after resolution to ban people who dont agree with him or can simply make a better argument... because he seems to believe that he can say anything no matter how offensive and it is just "conversation", yet when people flip him shit about his views its completely out of line.

Next, he would propose supplemental funding for less successful boards so that they are just as profitable no matter who posts there and how many page views it has.

Then of course would push for a resolution for universal "cradle to grave" medical care for all registered messageboard users.

Then he would have to turn messageboards into a place with a $150.00 a month "usage tax" to pay for it.

People would then abandone messageboards all together

Ultimately, he would resign his post because everyone else "just doesn't get it" and because his single and correct vision for adult messageboards could not be realized due to the stupidity and arrogance of Republicans.

http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/america_sucks.jpg



Last edited by JR at Mar 18 2003, 01:58 AM

Can I be the UK representative and will I have the power of Veto? :yowsa: