UN for Dummies

[Peaches]

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........

[Mike AI]

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.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 16 2003, 04:11 PM
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?

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 16 2003, 05:11 PM
They have a website Peaches http://www.un.org/

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

[Mike AI]

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.

[sextoyking]

Mike,

good to hear that you trust us liberals!!!

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

[Buff]

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.

[Mike AI]

[JR]

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

[Almighty Colin]

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

[Torone]

"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.

[Almighty Colin]

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.

[JR]

Originally posted by Torone@Mar 17 2003, 04:52 AM

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.

so how was the Hitler Youth Rally?

[RawAlex]

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

[Almighty Colin]

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.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 17 2003, 01:13 PM
Mark this date down in history... the day the first bomb drops in Iraq will be the day the UN ends

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

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 17 2003, 01:13 PM
Getting rid of Saddam is only going to increase the Arab / Muslim world's desire to get at the US and it's allies

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

[Almighty Colin]

Oh, Oman.

[RawAlex]

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

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 17 2003, 01:44 PM
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.

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.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 17 2003, 01:44 PM
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.

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".

[Almighty Colin]

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?

[wig]

[Ironhorse]

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin+Mar 17 2003, 12:24 PM-->

Switch to Linear Mode

Hybrid Mode

Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On

Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Main Board Rebooted The Business Of Porn - Closed For Posting     Legacy Archived Main Board     Vesuvio

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:02 PM..