Let's Try this Again-U.N. is Wasting Our Money & Doing What?

[jbg]

Let's not get into a circle-jerk of how much different screen names dislike other screen names. I have taken out any references to Israel in order to avoid further sidetracking into ugly, very personal attacks.

=====================================================================================

When are we going to say "no" to unnecessary governmental functions that accomplish little but "study" on our dime? There are many hard-working taxpayers that would like to know the answer but can't vocalize the problem, or are afraid to without getting hooted down. A significant amount of the U.N. budget, for example, is funded by Western democracies. In return, those countries get little but derision and criticism by globe-toting diplomats. This is but one example of the expansion of government far beyond its legitimate and intended purpose.

Classically, governments exist for certain legitimate purposes:

1. To maintain public order and accompanying that, to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence;
2. To build public infrastructure in a common-sense manner, so that highways in one state go end-to-end with highways in another, ditto railroads;
3. To provide services they do best at, such as education;
4. To maintain public safety, such as managing air traffic control; and
5. On the liberal side, to guarantee the rights of minorities.

This list is not meant to be all-inclusive.

With the end of WW II governments were larger than they needed to be in order to fulfill those functions so the redundant functionaries had to be put to work. Many of these people would have made a poor fit in the private sector. The public sector ballooned. This happened throughout the world. That was one of the impetuses for the formation of the U.N. I don't for a minute believe that the main motive was Eleanor Roosevelt's starry-eyed idealism. As an aside, note that after WW I an attempt was made to create a League of Nations. The fact that the U.S. wisely begged off helped kill it in its childhood if not in the cradle since the other countries of the world were largely bankrupt.

The U.N. has mushroomed over the years. Formation of such organizations as the IPCC is one of the grotesque symbols of this process.

If the global-warming hoax were better exposed, there would be no work for these functionaries. "Scientists" have similar incentives. If they scoff at the idea for the BS that it was, they'd talk themselves out of research grants so at least the idea must be "studied." If the solutions are as ludicrous as King Canute's solution to tidal fluctuations, so be it. The fact is, Kyoto, Copenhagen or any such treaty is not worth the paper its printed on. No democratic leader or even despot can hope to survive long in office on a platform of deliberately reducing the citizens' standard of living.

This is but one example. Others are U.N. committees that, over the years, have been devoted to various causes, invariably anti-Western. Does the West cause all problems? Are people in Zimbabwe living better than in the former Rhodesia? I'll admit, the jury is still out on South Africa.

Is the U.N. stopping the massacres and alleviating the suffering that is so routine that it is no longer news in Syria, Lebanon and similar situations? To ask these questions is to answer them.

The right question is, how as taxpayers do we say "no?"

Edited February 20, 2014 by jbg

[socialist]

I would hate to live in a world without the UN. I thin k they have some excellent environmental and sustainable development initiatives in place. Let's face reality; we need to create more green space and limit population growth.

[DogOnPorch]

I would hate to live in a world without the UN. I thin k they have some excellent environmental and sustainable development initiatives in place. Let's face reality; we need to create more green space and limit population growth.

It might as well be August 1914 they way the planet is going. Maybe it is...lol.

(scene: New Jersey 1930s)

Young Bystander: Why do you keep calling it WW1?

Grampa Simpson: (pointing prophetically) Oh, you'll see...you'll see....

[eyeball]

The right question is, how as taxpayers do we say "no?"

The only answer is, when we actually can.

If the global-warming hoax were better exposed...

I feel precisely the same way about things like the Five Eyes, the military industrial complex, the PMO, World Bank, IMF etc etc.

The only way to expose the hoax is to expose the hoaxers, with a deep penetrating souveillance that would make Orwell himself blush.. Unfortunately monitoring the government would destroy it - that it sucks to be us is the lesser of two evils, apparently.

Weird eh?

[Moonlight Graham]

jbg you didn't mention any international-focused purposes of government in your list. Governments also exist to maintain the security of its citizens, and while you covered some aspects of domestic security you failed to mentioned government's role in protecting against foreign threats. Governments also seek to advance its country's own national interests, which led to wars among the great powers (mainly European countries) since the very formation of defined country borders with the creation of the sovereign state international system in 1648. From 1648 until 1945 European countries warred with each other frequently. Countries invading each other and annexing and regaining land was frequent. Why? Because the international system is anarchic, meaning there's no over-arching world government to provide or enforce laws among nations. It's every country for themselves, and still is.

After WWI, the League of Nations was proposed to prevent wars amongst the European powers from happening again. It failed, and was one of the factors that allowed WWII to occur. After WWII it was obvious that the world needed an organization that would provide "collective security", a forum for disputes to be resolved without aggression, and to enforce international norms/laws including where no country is allowed to invade another country or annex it's territory. This was designed to help prevent a WWIII from occurring, just as collective security prevented war between European powers for 100 years from 1815-1914

The UN is flawed & needs reform, it doesn't work 100% of the time (states still act unilaterally, and civil war is often beyond its reach to prevent), and while I haven't looked at it's finances very much, I'm sure it has its share of waste. But it's existence is invaluable for maintaining international security. It attempts to provide some semblance or order in an unordered international system that remains in anarchy. From the UN Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[waldo]

If the global-warming hoax were better exposed, there would be no work for these functionaries. "Scientists" have similar incentives. If they scoff at the idea for the BS that it was, they'd talk themselves out of research grants so at least the idea must be "studied." If the solutions are as ludicrous as King Canute's solution to tidal fluctuations, so be it. The fact is, Kyoto, Copenhagen or any such treaty is not worth the paper its printed on. No democratic leader or even despot can hope to survive long in office on a platform of deliberately reducing the citizens' standard of living.

given your initial thread try was locked, with this your thread do-over, you're not following the expressed MLW Moderator recommendation; specifically:

"Be that as it may, anybody who wants to re-start this discussion, feel free to do so but here is my recommendation: try to avoid inflammatory rhetoric and try to avoid inciting inflammatory rhetoric."

[bud]

82% of canada supported kyoto.

ekos research poll for the government of canada

harper and jbg's opinion does not represent the majority of canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

Kyoto was a ratified Canadian FAIL long before PM Harper came along.

[waldo]

Kyoto was a ratified Canadian FAIL long before PM Harper came along.

you've been shown this not to be the case, through multiple threads. As is your trolling way, you continue to come back with the same bullshit comments even though you've had your ass handed to you on this, big time. I will not play to the expressed moderator bias suggesting we just ignore your troll efforts. Let's play... I'll run you ragged. Please proceed, Governor!

[bush_cheney2004]

you've been shown this not to be the case, through multiple threads.

The record is clear....Canada failed the UN treaty miserably...and purposely so. The rest of the usual bluster got old years ago.

[waldo]

The record is clear....Canada failed the UN treaty miserably...and purposely so. The rest of the usual bluster got old years ago.

why have you shape-shifted to emphasize Canada now... your prior post purposely made a distinction to highlight "long before Harper came along". Of course, you and I know exactly why you made the initial comment and why you shifted, right? Yes, that purposeful fail is one that lies directly with Harper Conservatives. They are the party that ignored the Kyoto plan/commitments in favour of what they called "their home grown in Canada" plan. They are the party that pulled out of Kyoto to simply avoid paying a penalty for failing to meet commitments. Yes, that is exactly where the Canadian Kyoto fail rests - with Harper Conservatives.

but you know all this... you've had it detailed for you several times now; detailed with events, dates, timelines, etc. You know all this. And it's exactly why you purposely worded your initial post in the way you did, making a purposeful trolling distinction where you say, "Kyoto was a ratified Canadian FAIL long before PM Harper came along."

[bush_cheney2004]

We're discussing the UN, and member state support of its policies. The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was ratified by Canada in 2002, but Canada never came close to meeting binding targets. My post not only echoes this fact, but correctly associates the FAIL beginning with PMs prior to Harper. Indeed, PM Chretien blamed Martin.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien is blaming his own Liberals in part for Canada's failure to meet the Kyoto targets for cutting greenhouse gases.

During an appearance yesterday at a Liberal conference on foreign policy in Toronto, Chrétien pointedly said "we lost four years" in living up to Kyoto – two of those years including the time Paul Martin succeeded him as prime minister and when Stéphane Dion, now Liberal leader, was environment minister.

http://www.thestar.com/news/2007/12/12/chreacutetien_points_finger_at_martin_over_kyoto.html

The UN is only as strong as its weakest member(s).

[waldo]

no - you've tried this already. That simply reflects on the long-standing Harper-Martin feud. Again, you've been provided with full details/timelines that show exactly what Liberals did during the long period between the signing and ratification... and the plans and budgets and money spent.

but you know all this... you've had it detailed for you several times now; detailed with events, dates, timelines, etc. You know all this. And it's exactly why you purposely worded your initial post in the way you did, making a purposeful trolling distinction where you say, "Kyoto was a ratified Canadian FAIL long before PM Harper came along."

troll on, one trick pony!

[bush_cheney2004]

I say again, with respect to this topic (United Nations), that Canada's epic Kyoto FAIL demonstrated the shortcomings of such an international organization. The reason(s) for Canada's Kyoto FAIL are secondary to this point and off topic.

[waldo]

We're discussing the UN, and member state support of its policies.

no - no 'we' (as in prior thread participants) were not discussing "member state support of its polices". Kyoto (and Canadian support for Kyoto) was mentioned in response to the OPs "global warming hoax" rhetoric, mentioning Kyoto, Copenhagen, etc.

as is your way, when you saw the word Kyoto, you sprung into full-troll mode... the same way you've done exactly the same thing many time over, in many threads. You are the one who has derailed this thread to follow the same Kyoto nonsense you've tried many times over.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada's Kyoto FAIL is only one example of UN treaty limitations, the associated costs, and lost opportunities. The thread is not derailed, except for the usual personal attacks which are a violation of forum rules.

[waldo]

Canada's Kyoto FAIL is only one example of UN treaty limitations, the associated costs, and lost opportunities. The thread is not derailed, except for the usual personal attacks which are a violation of forum rules.

nice continued victim play. Nice upper-case on the FAIL there, hey!

no, "Canada's Kyoto FAIL" is a reflection on the domestic policies of a single country... much like, wait for it... the same "American Kyoto FAIL", where the U.S. signed the treaty, made all kinds of commitments to world nations, effectively shifted the treaty wording/direction (affecting all other countries)... and then walked away from it by choosing not to ratify it within the U.S. Congress. American Kyoto FAIL (upper-case emphasis added, in kind)!

but again, we've danced this several times now, in other threads. Why are you repeating the same things over again... the same things you've written/stated previously... the same things you've been shown to have no foundation/merit? Oh, that's right - you're trolling!

[bush_cheney2004]

nice continued victim play. Nice upper-case on the FAIL there, hey!

Off topic...no mention of the UN at all. Another member brought up Kyoto and Canada. More personal attacks. Please try to stay on topic.

Edited February 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

Let's not get into a circle-jerk of how much different screen names dislike other screen names. I have taken out any references to Israel in order to avoid further sidetracking into ugly, very personal attacks.

=====================================================================================

When are we going to say "no" to unnecessary governmental functions that accomplish little but "study" on our dime? There are many hard-working taxpayers that would like to know the answer but can't vocalize the problem, or are afraid to without getting hooted down. A significant amount of the U.N. budget, for example, is funded by Western democracies. In return, those countries get little but derision and criticism by globe-toting diplomats. This is but one example of the expansion of government far beyond its legitimate and intended purpose.

Classically, governments exist for certain legitimate purposes:

1. To maintain public order and accompanying that, to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence;
2. To build public infrastructure in a common-sense manner, so that highways in one state go end-to-end with highways in another, ditto railroads;
3. To provide services they do best at, such as education;
4. To maintain public safety, such as managing air traffic control; and
5. On the liberal side, to guarantee the rights of minorities.

This list is not meant to be all-inclusive.

With the end of WW II governments were larger than they needed to be in order to fulfill those functions so the redundant functionaries had to be put to work. Many of these people would have made a poor fit in the private sector. The public sector ballooned. This happened throughout the world. That was one of the impetuses for the formation of the U.N. I don't for a minute believe that the main motive was Eleanor Roosevelt's starry-eyed idealism. As an aside, note that after WW I an attempt was made to create a League of Nations. The fact that the U.S. wisely begged off helped kill it in its childhood if not in the cradle since the other countries of the world were largely bankrupt.

The U.N. has mushroomed over the years. Formation of such organizations as the IPCC is one of the grotesque symbols of this process.

If the global-warming hoax were better exposed, there would be no work for these functionaries. "Scientists" have similar incentives. If they scoff at the idea for the BS that it was, they'd talk themselves out of research grants so at least the idea must be "studied." If the solutions are as ludicrous as King Canute's solution to tidal fluctuations, so be it. The fact is, Kyoto, Copenhagen or any such treaty is not worth the paper its printed on. No democratic leader or even despot can hope to survive long in office on a platform of deliberately reducing the citizens' standard of living.

This is but one example. Others are U.N. committees that, over the years, have been devoted to various causes, invariably anti-Western. Does the West cause all problems? Are people in Zimbabwe living better than in the former Rhodesia? I'll admit, the jury is still out on South Africa.

Is the U.N. stopping the massacres and alleviating the suffering that is so routine that it is no longer news in Syria, Lebanon and similar situations? To ask these questions is to answer them.

The right question is, how as taxpayers do we say "no?"

This is all just silly. You appear to have no idea what the UN even is or how it works. Its a forum, that has no real authority to do anything unless its member states can decide something is worth doing.

What youre doing is like blaming the phone when two people talking on it cant come to an agreement on what they should do.

The reason there is no intervention in Syria or Lebanon is because nobody on earth with half a brain thinks its a good idea. Same reason NATO or some adhoc "Coalition of the Willing" hasnt stepped forward.

Now its a fair point that theres a lot of waste in these multilateral institutions... The UN, NATO, G8, G20 etc. THeres no question that the political class loves to treat themselves very very very well at our expense. But any real legitimate critisism is drowned out by all your nonsense, and rendered moot by the fact you dont even have the most basic understanding of how voluntary multilateral instituions work. Is it possible that youre the target of "personal attacks" not because you are supporter of Israel, but because you constantly post this kind of junk?

[waldo]

Off topic...no mention of the UN at all. Another member brought up Kyoto and Canada.

as I said, another member brought up a reference to a poll related to Canadian public support for the Kyoto treaty... that was in response to a quoted highlighting of the OPs reference to his "global warming hoax" rhetoric. None of this had anything to do with the purposeful "Canadian Kyoto FAIL" trolling that you're playing out... the same trolling you've laid down, exactly laid down, in other threads.

referencing the "American Kyoto FAIL" is as much mentioning the UN as is your drawing a reference to the "Canadian Kyoto FAIL".

do you have anything new to add this thread... do you have anything to bring the thread back on track? It's a shame to play your silly-buggar act and, effectively, dismiss the most relevant post that member 'dre' has just put forward. Wouldn't you agree?

[bush_cheney2004]

do you have anything new to add this thread...

Yes, I would add that the USA pays about 22% of the UN's budget. Welcome back to the topic.

[waldo]

Yes, I would add that the USA pays about 22% of the UN's budget. Welcome back to the topic.

welcome back from your trolling, welcome back to the topic. Perhaps you can start by speaking to what relevance the level of a respective country's support payment to the UN has to do with this thread.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

welcome back from your trolling, welcome back to the topic. Perhaps you can start by speaking to what relevance the level of a respective country's support payment to the UN has to do with this thread.

.

See the thread's title and make the logical connection. Or not...your choice. Personal attacks are never relevant here.

[waldo]

See the thread's title and make the logical connection. Or not...your choice. Personal attacks are never relevant here.

you're not being attacked. How could you be? You're the guy who openly flaunted/stated that you purposely troll. How could referencing your acknowledgement be considered an attack?

the thread title reads, "U.N. is Wasting Our Money & Doing What?" What logical connection are you making... you making... by mentioning, "the U.S. pays about 22% of the UN's budget"?

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.N. is wasting member nation dues payments and financial support. The concept is not hard to understand.