Should the Western Democracies be Paying for this Garbage (the U.N.)

[wyly]

The silence isn't deafening, it's approving. A few posters have challenged the OP, this is a discussion board after all, so how about you take up the challenge?

If it is a big pile of BS, then it should be easy enough to refute, except maybe for those "twisted" grains of truth. You have to watch those of course, because they might come back and provide the thin edge of the wedge.

However, that really isn't the point. The point is the impression that America has in some parts of the world and the moral equivalency that goes along with it. That is a more interesting discussion because, even if the concepts are somewhat inflated, to refute them, one has to face and acknowledge those little grains of truth. And even that might be worthy for some people to become aware of.

the best I can describe this oft repeated thought(ban the UN) is it's a meme...it's parroted from one person to another and accepted as proven fact, but when asked to explain/back up/justify the statement they have nothing"to say...the best explanation offered is "well it's obvious so not worthy of explaining" really? on a debate forum?

[Bob]

Yes Bob, we know you are prejudiced against all "Arabs/Muslims" and take any opportunity to display it.

Now tell me exactly what is it in Iran's message you disagree with and why?

Anybody?

Anybody find anything in there that is untrue?

Jbg?

Well, of course you will engage int he typical slander by labeling me as bigoted or prejudiced, when I am nothing at all like that. It would be a complete waste of time to dissect all the absurdities of Ahmadinejad's speeches at the UN and subsequent interviews with leftist media and academic rats (Columbia University, Fareed Zakaria, etc), but clearly your request for refutations is a roundabout way for you to tell the entire forum that you accept the narrative of the enemy, staying true to form as a committed communist.

Your apparently sincere request for challenges from us the the rhetoric espouses from Ahmadinejad tells us all we need to know about you. You're literally the enemy within.

[Bob]

Why the plural "guys"? There was just one person in this thread who engaged in personal attacks & foul language. Not the first time that poster has engaged in such lowly methods of discourse, either.

I noticed this as soon as Charles Anthony made this post, but I didn't want to say anything. Bud was clearly the only one engaging in hysterics and personal insults, as he normally does. It's alright, it certainly doesn't bother me. I don't expect anything more from him.

[Oleg Bach]

Well, of course you will engage int he typical slander by labeling me as bigoted or prejudiced, when I am nothing at all like that. It would be a complete waste of time to dissect all the absurdities of Ahmadinejad's speeches at the UN and subsequent interviews with leftist media and academic rats (Columbia University, Fareed Zakaria, etc), but clearly your request for refutations is a roundabout way for you to tell the entire forum that you accept the narrative of the enemy, staying true to form as a committed communist.

Your apparently sincere request for challenges from us the the rhetoric espouses from Ahmadinejad tells us all we need to know about you. You're literally the enemy within.

Hey Bob - what would you and your type do if there was suddenly world peace and harmony............

[wyly]

Hey Bob - what would you and your type do if there was suddenly world peace and harmony............

bob and his type are doing their best to make sure that never happens...

[jbg]

bob and his type are doing their best to make sure that never happens...

Kassam rockets = peace signs?

[Shakeyhands]

The part that gives Iran an equal vote with the U.S. Let's start with that.

And how much of the U.N.'s budget does Iran contribute?

Iran is up to date, however the US is $1.3B (I think) in arrears to the UN, and they have a veto...

Good point though....

[jacee]

their silence is deafening

Ya ... still ...

Come on guys ... surely you can come up with better arguments against Iran's position than "the slaves sold themselves"

You can review it here ...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19524&view=findpost&p=711579

So "Iran gets an equal vote" was one point raised, but of course the US has a veto ...

We're not getting any real arguments aGAINST THE Un are we? Just knee jerk reactionary lazy thinking imo.

If it moves differently ... SMASH IT WITH A CLUB.

Not exactly words to live by. Not exactly a path to peace and harmony.

Is smashing the UN with a club the answer?

Frankly, I think better thinkers need to step up.

Running around smashing things with clubs before you know whether they can help you or not is kinda outdated ... Actually, never was effective ... even for cave men.

Edited October 8, 2011 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

The ideas I've heard against the UN this thread that stick out in my mind are:

1. We shouldn't have a UN because members express views we find abhorrent and that we disagree with.

2. The US should have more say in the UN (presumably more than their security council veto) because they pay more for the UN than some countries.

How would these principles if we applied them to the House of Commons or Congress ?

The UN has very little power other than to make pronouncements, and broker deals. If we want to reform it, then we would have to make it a real world government. Is that what we want ? Or do we want to get rid of it entirely ?

We've had discussions on the latter option, but no one has explained how we would cover the humanitarian work that the UN does in the interim. I asked the question but no one had an answer, as I recall.

[jacee]

Good points Michael.

And how would we forge universal agreements such as the UN Convention on the Crimes and Punishment of Genocide (1948), War Crimes, etc.

Full list here:

http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/resins.htm

[Shady]

Good points Michael.

And how would we forge universal agreements such as the UN Convention on the Crimes and Punishment of Genocide (1948), War Crimes, etc.

Full list here:

http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/resins.htm

By country to country agreements and negotiations. But you're right in one sense. Nobody does a better job than the UN at commg up with universal declarations and agreements that nobody follows. It looks great on paper though!

[TimG]

The ideas I've heard against the UN this thread that stick out in my mind are:

The real issue with the UN is it, like most unaccountable bureaucracies, constantly trying to expand its power. Many people like myself can live with the UN as a forum for international collaboration where sovereignty rests with the individual states. It is the endless attempts to expand its power (e.g. the UNCCC) that are worrysome and make me feel that getting rid of the UN is the only way to stop this bureaucratic over reach. Edited October 8, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The real issue with the UN is it, like most unaccountable bureaucracies, constantly trying to expand its power. Many people like myself can live with the UN as a forum for international collaboration where sovereignty rests with the individual states. It is the endless attempts to expand its power (e.g. the UNCCC) that are worrysome and make me feel that getting rid of the UN is the only way to stop this bureaucratic over reach.

Likewise, many feel that getting rid of government is the only way to stop it from growing.

The alternative is too difficult, too mundane and too real for the public (what it is) to consider: a careful review of services and a complete rebuilding of the bureaucracy.

[TimG]

Likewise, many feel that getting rid of government is the only way to stop it from growing.

The difference is society can function without the UN. No government at all would be more of a challenge unless you see Somalia as a beacon of freedom. Edited October 8, 2011 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

..2. The US should have more say in the UN (presumably more than their security council veto) because they pay more for the UN than some countries.

For the record, the US provides more of the annual UN budget than any other country.

[Shady]

For the record, the US provides more of the annual UN budget than any other country.

In fact, isn't it more than every other country combined?

[wyly]

The ideas I've heard against the UN this thread that stick out in my mind are:

1. We shouldn't have a UN because members express views we find abhorrent and that we disagree with.

2. The US should have more say in the UN (presumably more than their security council veto) because they pay more for the UN than some countries.

How would these principles if we applied them to the House of Commons or Congress ?

The UN has very little power other than to make pronouncements, and broker deals. If we want to reform it, then we would have to make it a real world government. Is that what we want ? Or do we want to get rid of it entirely ?

We've had discussions on the latter option, but no one has explained how we would cover the humanitarian work that the UN does in the interim. I asked the question but no one had an answer, as I recall.

in other words no one can come up with a single justifiable reason why the UN should be dissolved...lot's of rednecks and racists foaming at the mouth about an organization that they can't control or comprehend... Edited October 8, 2011 by wyly

[wyly]

The Assembly has established the principle that the UN should not be overly dependent on any one member to finance its operations. Thus, there is a 'ceiling' rate, setting the maximum amount any member is assessed for the regular budget. In December 2000, the Assembly revised the scale of assessments to reflect current global circumstances. As part of that revision, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25% to 22%. For the least developed countries (LDCs), a ceiling rate of 0.01% is applied.[59] In addition to the ceiling rates, the minimum amount assessed to any member nation (or 'floor' rate) is set at 0.001% of the UN budget.

[TimG]

an organization that they can't control or comprehend.

People can comprehend it. They simply reject the principles it stands for. Why do you arrogantly assume that anyone who does not share your views must be "rednecks and racists"? Says more about your own irrational prejudices than anything else. Edited October 8, 2011 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

In fact, isn't it more than every other country combined?

I sure hope not....last time I checked it was about 22% of the total for 193 member nations.

[jacee]

By country to country agreements and negotiations. But you're right in one sense. Nobody does a better job than the UN at commg up with universal declarations and agreements that nobody follows. It looks great on paper though!

These things do still happen it's true, but I don't know if you are aware of all the work the UN does ... in peacekeeping, in transitional justice following conflicts and in the international courts.

The people who truly want to get rid of the UN are dictators and corporatist regimes that want to get away with human rights violations and atrocities against their own or other people.

Canada's mining industry for example, is involved in human rights abuses in other countries where the regimes kill people en masse who stand in the way of plunder for profits not shared with the people.

Nonetheless, recent accusations that the Canadian mining company Pacific Rim played a role in the death squad killings of anti-mining activists in El Salvador has brought this reputation into question, while further investigation into the Canadian government’s regulation reveals that the government has mandated no true restrictions on its industry’s mining practices abroad. Left to its own accord, the Canadian mining industry has no problem destroying landscapes, uprooting communities, and even resorting to violence to promote its interests; for this reason, only government regulation can affect true change. A recent move by the Peruvian government to protect citizens near the city of Puno demonstrates that Latin American governments may finally be willing and able to regulate Canadian mining companies operating within their nations.

[jacee]

By country to country agreements and negotiations. But you're right in one sense. Nobody does a better job than the UN at commg up with universal declarations and agreements that nobody follows. It looks great on paper though!

These things do still happen it's true, but I don't know if you are aware of all the work the UN does ... in peacekeeping, in transitional justice following conflicts and in the international courts.

The people who truly want to get rid of the UN are dictators and corporatist regimes that want to get away with human rights violations and atrocities against their own or other people.

Canada's mining industry for example, has been implicated in human rights abuses in other countries.

Debate kicked up in 2002 after a United Nations report called on the Canadian government to investigate the actions of seven Canadian companies accused of llegally exploiting resources from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has been in a state of civil war since 1996. The Canadian government didn't nvestigate. Then in 2004 came reports of bloodshed. From Africa: Where the UN says 73 people were killed in Kilwa, a fishing town in the Congo. Killed, according to a UN report, by the Congolese military, which used vehicles, supplies, pilots and drivers from a Canadian-Australian mining company to transport them to the site of the massacre.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/canada/article/729147

Edited October 9, 2011 by jacee

[jbg]

These things do still happen it's true, but I don't know if you are aware of all the work the UN does ... in peacekeeping, in transitional justice following conflicts and in the international courts.

*******************

Canada's mining industry for example, has been implicated in human rights abuses in other countries.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/canada/article/729147

Why do we need an ICC for that? And further, as much as you may dislike Harper or Bush, do you really think that a leader of a country with functioning Courts and legistlatures should be subject to arrest at some whim and caprice?

[Bob]

The ideas I've heard against the UN this thread that stick out in my mind are:

1. We shouldn't have a UN because members express views we find abhorrent and that we disagree with.

2. The US should have more say in the UN (presumably more than their security council veto) because they pay more for the UN than some countries.

How would these principles if we applied them to the House of Commons or Congress ?

Except for the fact that House of Commons and Congress are both political bodies whose representatives are democratically elected. The UN, on the other hand, is certainly not composed of democratically elected members, and don't represent countries, societies, or cultures that adhere to basic standards of modern civilization. Another fantastically stupid comment from our embarrassment of a "forum facilitator".

The UN has very little power other than to make pronouncements, and broker deals. If we want to reform it, then we would have to make it a real world government. Is that what we want ? Or do we want to get rid of it entirely ?

Excuse me? The UN's power is effective insofar as rat politicians are willing to subjugate their sovereignty to the will of third-world trash and Islamist filth societies. Case in point, Jean Chretien's very public statements that he would follow the UN's will regarding whether or not Canada would participate militarily or otherwise in the Iraq War. It's frightening and sickening at the same time, and revealing of just how oblivious you are regarding international affairs, that you would so nonchalantly speak of "world government" as if it's a good idea.

We've had discussions on the latter option, but no one has explained how we would cover the humanitarian work that the UN does in the interim. I asked the question but no one had an answer, as I recall.

No, that's just you rewriting the history of discussions in these forums. We already specifically addressed your fake concerns about starving Somalians. "Humanitarian aid" programs from the UN exacerbate problems, and do not make them better. Aside from emergency aid, which certainly doesn't need UN coordination since only a handful of nations actually contribute, "humanitarian aid" programs worsen poverty, disease, and war. Abolition of the UN would only reap benefits for the very people you claim to care about.

[Bob]

Why do we need an ICC for that? And further, as much as you may dislike Harper or Bush, do you really think that a leader of a country with functioning Courts and legistlatures should be subject to arrest at some whim and caprice?

"Transitional justice"