PIK Posted September 23, 2011 Report Posted September 23, 2011 Since we pay 400 billion a year , to support a UN that has lost it's way, where most nations were applauding Amadadiddlediddle rant, why are we there? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
mentalfloss Posted September 23, 2011 Report Posted September 23, 2011 Time to create original threads? Quote
wyly Posted September 23, 2011 Report Posted September 23, 2011 Since we pay 400 billion a year , to support a UN that has lost it's way, where most nations were applauding Amadadiddlediddle rant, why are we there? canada pays 400 billion to the UN does it? what part of your arse did you pull that out of...a quick google and I find the UN will spend about 15 billion a year, 10 billion of that goes to humanitarian aid and 5 billion to peace keeping... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Shwa Posted September 23, 2011 Report Posted September 23, 2011 canada pays 400 billion to the UN does it? what part of your arse did you pull that out of... 7 days = 6,000 years. Canada's contribution to the UN = $400 billion. It's the New Math. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted September 23, 2011 Report Posted September 23, 2011 canada pays 400 billion to the UN does it? what part of your arse did you pull that out of... a quick google and I find the UN will spend about 15 billion a year, 10 billion of that goes to humanitarian aid and 5 billion to peace keeping... check that google again and see what proportion of that $10 billlion actually gets to those that need the humanitarian aid. Quote The government should do something.
PIK Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Posted September 23, 2011 LOL My mistake, I was saying 400 m, but no matter what it is,it is time to let the dictators have the UN and time for a new one for the democratic countries. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
eyeball Posted September 23, 2011 Report Posted September 23, 2011 LOL My mistake, I was saying 400 m, but no matter what it is,it is time to let the dictators have the UN and time for a new one for the democratic countries. You basically have that now with the security council and vetoes for the super-duper powers. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Bob Posted September 23, 2011 Report Posted September 23, 2011 PIK - I certainly agree with the general thrust of your post, the UN is a disaster and disgusting association of anti-democratic and and-Western dictatorships, theocracies, and communist regimes. The free world must stop funding this pulpit from which the leaders of the inferior third-world trash societies can espouse their usual rhetoric against us as our supposed "equals". It is also important for the truth of the UN to be made known to ordinary people, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be happening as the usual morons of the leftist media regularly cite the UN or its affiliates/subsidiaries without shame. We need to get to a point in our society where anyone who invokes the UN's proclamations or positions with a straight face is immediately derided as a mouthpiece (useful idiot) for Islamists (55 countries from the UN's 190-ish total states) and third-world trash states (much of Africa). People need to be made embarrassed to support the UN or parrot its declarations and decisions through humiliation. Unfortunately, many people still view the UN in high esteem, and have an ignorant belief in its good intentions and fair structure. This must change. It's expected for verminous journalists to reference the UN without question, as I expect nothing less from them, but when supposedly "conservative" or "right-wing" politicians walk on eggshells and gently question this or that policy of the UN without outright slamming it and calling for its absolute abolition, you know you've got a problem. It doesn't need tweaking, it doesn't need a review, it doesn't need more transparency, it doesn't need more funding, it doesn't need increased oversight, it needs ABOLITION. And before you get abolition, we need mainstream disgust and revulsion with the institution and most of its membership and public humiliation of all those who willfully stand in its defense (typically leftists and other idiots who live in the world of ideas and not reality). At the same time, I agree with mentalfloss - this is not an original subject. There are threads out there, that although perhaps dusty from disuse, you can revive with some new insights. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
August1991 Posted September 23, 2011 Report Posted September 23, 2011 Dump the UN? Absolutely. In English Canada, only the Toronto Star still defends the UN. (In French Canada, La Presse and Le Devoir still do... ) The UN is now, at most, a club that gives credibility to psychopath dictators. IOW, it is no longer a credible institution. It is no longer even a talking shop. ----- In this 21st century, we must make membership relevant. For the moment, NATO is the club that matters. NATO is possibly the single check on US military power. Quote
Bob Posted September 23, 2011 Report Posted September 23, 2011 Dump the UN? Absolutely. In English Canada, only the Toronto Star still defends the UN. (In French Canada, La Presse and Le Devoir still do... ) The UN is now, at most, a club that gives credibility to psychopath dictators. IOW, it is no longer a credible institution. It is no longer even a talking shop. ----- In this 21st century, we must make membership relevant. For the moment, NATO is the club that matters. NATO is possibly the single check on US military power. One major hurdle that needs to be overcome is widespread public opinion of the UN. Most of the public has been fed a narrative from the leftist media of the UN as a dignified and worthwhile institution that operates in good faith and represents "the will of the world" (nevermind that most Canadians are completely oblivious of how inferior most of the world is). Public opinion needs to mobilized towards one of contempt for the UN, where those who work for the UN are reviled, and where the public reflexively opposed the UN in all of its operations and decisions. The concept of "international law" must be equally derided. Hopefully this occurs in the future, but in the meantime I'm still regularly seeing people, ordinary and otherwise, talk about the UN as some sort of esteemed organization whose positions needs to be carefully considered and generally accepted. Turn on CBC and watch that cute little spineless idiot Evan Solomon "retort" to the softest form of a "conservative" opinion with something along the lines of, "...but the UN says" without being instantly ridiculed. We need to get to the point where anyone who would invoke the UN in a positive or even neutral sense is immediately ostracized as the enemy within, or, at best, massively ignorant to the point of being unworthy of serious consideration. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Smallc Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 replace it with what?? Nothing. Most of the world's countries haven't reached the maturity point where something like the UN can really work. Quote
jacee Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 (edited) Imperfect as it may be, the UN is a unique place where countries of the world participate in various committees etc and collaborate and cooperate, learning about each other as they do. I don't think we should be "dumping" it because some countries don't get along. That's the best reason - can think of for keeping it. Any country that feels strongly can leave, but I haven't heard of any complaining to that extent. Edited September 24, 2011 by jacee Quote
Smallc Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 That's the best reason - can think of for keeping it. Oh we could replace parts of the UN, but many parts are unsalvageable. Quote
wyly Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 Oh we could replace parts of the UN, but many parts are unsalvageable. sure, let's start with scraping the veto Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
CitizenX Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 The UN was a great idea but after Rwanda, and the Americans under minding it with their illegal war. I don't know what purpose it has anymore. Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 The UN was a great idea but after Rwanda, and the Americans under minding it with their illegal war. I don't know what purpose it has anymore. Yea....the way that Canada illegally bombed Serbia and kidnapped the democratically elected president of Haiti was just shameful. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wyly Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 the israel, US, canadian right wing love the un when it benefits them and want to do away with it when it doesn't...typical of the right and it's disdain for democratic procedure, it only highlights their hilarious "they hate us for our freedom" mantra or in other words "freedom and democratic procedure only as long as it benefits ourselves"... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 the israel, US, canadian right wing love the un when it benefits them and want to do away with it when it doesn't... Gee....I never thought of PMs Chretien or Martin as right wing..."with the UN if possible, but not necessarily with the UN". Whatever floats your contradicting boat. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 sure, let's start with scraping the veto Sure lets do that. Realistically though, I prefer we work through organizations like the G-7, G-8, G-20 (which should be the G-22 at least - Netherlands and Spain), the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, and if we can ever get it to work right again, NATO. The UN just adds another layer, along with the IMF and the World Bank. Out of all of them, the UN seems to be the most troubled. Quote
wyly Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 Sure lets do that. Realistically though, I prefer we work through organizations like the G-7, G-8, G-20 (which should be the G-22 at least - Netherlands and Spain), the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, and if we can ever get it to work right again, NATO. The UN just adds another layer, along with the IMF and the World Bank. Out of all of them, the UN seems to be the most troubled. where is our cherished democracy? does democracy of nations only apply to our friends and allies and the wealthy?...this exclusive club of nations and it's arrogant behaviour is precisely why we have the palestinian problem and decades of terrorism, that exclusive club of wealthy powerful nations ignored the rights of the powerless and weak...now you want to blame the world/UN's problems at the feet of the weak and poor countries?... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 where is our cherished democracy? does democracy of nations only apply to our friends and allies and the wealthy?... No, but don't pretend that the UN is some bastion of democracy. this exclusive club of nations and it's arrogant behaviour is precisely why we have the palestinian problem and decades of terrorism, that exclusive club of wealthy powerful nations ignored the rights of the powerless and weak...now you want to blame the world/UN's problems at the feet of the weak and poor countries?... The the weak and poor countries, the corrupt ones.....of which there are many in the weak and poor countries. The UN simply doesn't work. Quote
Smallc Posted September 24, 2011 Report Posted September 24, 2011 Oh, and rich and powerful? I think you should maybe look up the countries in the groups that were mainly the former British and French empires. Quote
wyly Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 No, but don't pretend that the UN is some bastion of democracy. The the weak and poor countries, the corrupt ones.....of which there are many in the weak and poor countries. The UN simply doesn't work. democracys don't or shouldn't have veto's, it's not the poor and weak that have a veto in the UN so israel gets a seat in the UN so then it works, now palestine wants a seat so now it doesn't work? who decides which country is corrupt? based on it's past international history the US is very corrupt, the UK was very corrupt every country in the veto group has had a past history of corruption...you can't pick and choose your level of corruption, without the UN there is no opportunity to influence behaviour... maybe you should clarify this vague "the UN doesn't work" actually means... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Bob Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 Yeah, why should the most educated, advanced, richest, and freest countries have more of a say than the inferior, racist, violent, primitive, uneducated and dictatorial countries. Who are we to judge that Canada is a superior country in every dimension when compared to Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, or Kazakhstan? Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.