U.N. Socialist Rule

[betsy]

geoffrey:

When had the 'police' ever worked in this situation.

I don't know much about UN police actions or peacekeeping, but that was an analogy. I believe that they were used in Cyprus, beginning about 40 years ago.

The UN 40 years ago is quite different from the UN now!

[betsy]

I agree the UN should be abolished.

Obstacles that stand in the way of achieiving this global government are nationalism and religion. Both of which are constantly being eroded.

I don't say that to defend nationalism or religion I am just stating a fact that globally, the UN is working to centralize its power.

The father of the Kyoto Accord, our own Maurice Strong, stated that our only hope for the planet is that industrialized civilizations collapse and it is our responsibility to bring that about. Sound like good government?

What are you saying, then? While I agree, the UN has flaws, at is, as I understand, undergoing 'reform' - it does not change the fact that an institution like the United Nations is required in the world, if only a place to broker disputes between nations in a forum that is as public as possible.

Religion and nationalism - pick your poison.

Both of these ideas are detrimental to the advances of a global human civilization - one that stops spending on gigantic nuclear place-annihilators and starts the science down the long path of colonizing space. Spreading our eggs to many baskets - if you will - seems the natural destiny of the human race, for what are people if not explorers?

We don't even have a national space program. Oh yeah, we have that robotic arm thingy. Yay. Meanwhile, the International Space Station begins to mothball, and the United States is using a space-plane designed and built in the 60s using solid state electronics. Was it really surprising that there was a critical failure?

Most space based programs are satellites designed to aid a military system of one form or another. The irony.

"Broker disputes"....with some or most leaders' decisions based not for what is right and just....but on "what do I (or the motherland) have to gain from this." So you see countries siding with and backing dangerous despotic dictators.

[Montgomery Burns]

Betsy:

WHAT COUNTRY provides the MOST FINANCIAL AID?

The US, by a country mile.

Quick and organized response in cases of emergencies?

Who was the first to arrive at the scene with aid after the tsunami in Indonesia? Australia and the US. The UN arrived a week later and seemed more concerned about finding a 5 star hotel first.

The UN also turned tail and ran from Iraq when they were attacked by a suicide bomber.

What was Kofi Annan's reply when he was asked if he should step down after the Oil For Food scandal: "Hell no!"

[Machinations]

"Broker disputes"....with some or most leaders' decisions based not for what is right and just....but on "what do I (or the motherland) have to gain from this." So you see countries siding with and backing dangerous despotic dictators.

Whats the alternative that you propose? No dialogue, or dialogue only on our terms? How will that help resolve anything? I still don't see how excluding nations whose politcal systems we don't like - or whose government we disagree with - does anything.

It's easy to take potshots at the UN, being that it is, as a large organization, inheriently dysfunctional, to some extent. Its a lot better than the League of Nations - its predecessor. If we don't have a public forum, this stuff just goes on behind closed doors - completely, instead of countries being engaged in open debate.

About Fox - look, truth is NOT subjective. There is'nt a conservative way of looking at the truth and a 'liberal' way of looking at the truth. There is simply the truth - and this fallacy we have come to believe, that all news is somehow political in nature and deserves multiple viewpoints.

In other words, I'm a 'Just the facts, Ma'am.' kinda guy. That's the role of the press. Try to paint Media Matters as biased or partisan - at least they do their research, unlike O'Reilly, who is made to look a buffoon nearly everytime he speaks. Was'nt the War on Christmas O'Reillys invention? Olbermann, who is'nt even a particularly good anchor, skewers him regularly.

Also, could you guys provide a cite there on your US aid reference? Because from what I know, the US is the single biggest debtor to the UN, owing something over 1.3$ billion US in fiscal 2005. Here's a link to an article at the conservative (you should be happy) Cato Institute.

From the article:

The question of arrears, then, becomes a dispute involving the United Nations and the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government. As Bolton points out, "The decision on whether and what amounts the U.S. should pay" to the United Nations is ultimately a political decision for Congress. He adds, "It does not follow inevitably that because the U.S. is not legally obligated to pay, it should not pay. Instead, the correct conclusion is that the U.S. should meet its commitments when it is in its interests to do so."

In the United States interest. What, pray tell, happens when the interest of the world, or that of Canada for that matter, diverges from that of the United States?

[Michael Hardner]

Monty:

Michael Hardner:

QUOTE

So because it is PERCEIVED as a failure, it is a failure?

Read the post from Geoffrey that I was commenting on. He said something like 'their failures are more well known than their successes'. What should one infer from such a sentence ? Hence my question.

You've got to be kidding. These are the clowns who issued a report concluding that there is no genocide going on in Sudan. They refused to enforce 17 of their own binding resolutions and Kofi Annan is on the record saying Operation Iraqi Freedom is illegal. They threw the US off their Human Rights Commission and stacked it with Cuba, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, etal. Their Human Rights Commission is literally a rogues gallery of human rights abusers. It seems that they dole out non-binding resolutions every week condemning Israel for some PERCEIVED offense, but have little to say about the displaced Arab death cult.

I'm not going to dispute that the UN needs reform. Most of all, the fact that five nations can veto anything that comes out of the UN means it's not truly an assembly of nations.

But if you're going to advocate eliminating it with nothing at all to replace it, then you need to support your argument with some evidence and informed opinion. That, I will read.

An organization that only allows democracies comes to mind, i.e., if it is essential that it has to be replaced with something else.

Should we include the aforementioned Libya - now that the US is extending full diplomatic relations ? Pakistan ? Egypt ? Iran ? Morocco is one of the Islamic countries that is more friendly with the west, as is Kuwait and Saudi but they are all dictatorial monarchies. Should they be excluded ?

The idea that we're all fighting for democracy sounds good, but that isn't what is happening in the world.

I'm unsure what you mean. AP6 was launched January 12/2006, and as far as I know, buying and selling credits is not a part of AP6. Are we talking about the same thing? Please clarify.

There was some discussion of a credit buying program in a previous post.

I read a lot of criticism about the credit program in Kyoto because it sounds unworkable. It's counterintuitive that such a plan would work, yet it did. This is an example of why we have experts in the world. Economists who have Phds tend to know more than those of us who don't. Just because a layman like me thinks it sounds strange, doesn't mean we should shout down such a plan as if we know as much as anyone.

I'm as anti-intellectual as the next guy but sometimes the eggheads have it right.

[Montgomery Burns]

1) With its credibility lying in tatters, I don't see how anyone couldn't see that the UN is a failure.

2) I agree. The UN issued 17 Chapter VII resolutions, which are binding resolutions, to Iraq. They ignored or broke every single one. Then when it came time to enforce them (remember what the last resolutions said), because Russia, France, and China had armed Iraq, and were owed billions of dollars by Iraq, they vetoed the enforcement of int'l law. I understand that they were looking out for their own interests (all countries do), but then what was the point of all those resolutions?

3) I said democracies. None of the countries you mentioned (not sure about Morocco) are democracies.

4) Why do you think the buying and selling of credits is working? Russia has done nothing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (their plants are old and big polluters), but that Russian guy (I forget his name) on the FNC's Global Warming special on Sunday, said they stand to make $12 billion in the next 3 to 4 years just by selling credits because vast areas of the country are virtually uninhabited (eg, Siberia) and produce little emissions, Kyoto gave them lower goals because they aren't a 1st world country. Ergo, they don't go above the Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions Kyoto standard, and simply sell credits. No wonder that guy from Russia said it was a great deal for Russia - economically.

[Black Dog]

Anyone else catch the fact that the story which prompted this thread came from the loony conspiracy rag Canada Free Press (who's publisher apparently believes 9/11 was a Mafia plot)?

Don't believe everything you read, kids.

[Michael Hardner]

4) Why do you think the buying and selling of credits is working? Russia has done nothing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (their plants are old and big polluters), but that Russian guy (I forget his name) on the FNC's Global Warming special on Sunday, said they stand to make $12 billion in the next 3 to 4 years just by selling credits because vast areas of the country are virtually uninhabited (eg, Siberia) and produce little emissions, Kyoto gave them lower goals because they aren't a 1st world country. Ergo, they don't go above the Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions Kyoto standard, and simply sell credits. No wonder that guy from Russia said it was a great deal for Russia - economically.

I said that the original model worked. The idea is that countries will have a financial incentive now to improve emissions.

[Montgomery Burns]

Anyone else catch the fact that the story which prompted this thread came from the loony conspiracy rag Canada Free Press (who's publisher apparently believes 9/11 was a Mafia plot)?

Don't believe everything you read, kids.

Link, please.

[betsy]

Whats the alternative that you propose? No dialogue, or dialogue only on our terms? How will that help resolve anything? I still don't see how excluding nations whose politcal systems we don't like - or whose government we disagree with - does anything.

It's easy to take potshots at the UN, being that it is, as a large organization, inheriently dysfunctional, to some extent. Its a lot better than the League of Nations - its predecessor. If we don't have a public forum, this stuff just goes on behind closed doors - completely, instead of countries being engaged in open debate.

Think of the word alternative, if what you are going to scrap and replace is something that is effective and useful. The UN is not.

The leftists hang on to it like a security blanket that will ward off evil. As Michael Hardner pointed out, "lawlessness happens." And I must add, "So does war." Whether you have the UN or not. Actually with the UN seemingly "brokering disputes"...war and strife besiege so many parts of the world right now.

Speaking of the League of Nations. How ironic that you should mention it....when a few years back, a few editorials had compared the dysfunctional UN to that old organization...and suggested that just like its predecessor, it's time that the UN gets dismantled.

[betsy]

Betsy:

WHAT COUNTRY provides the MOST FINANCIAL AID?

The US, by a country mile.

Quick and organized response in cases of emergencies?

Who was the first to arrive at the scene with aid after the tsunami in Indonesia? Australia and the US. The UN arrived a week later and seemed more concerned about finding a 5 star hotel first.

And what was the UN's reply towards the US about the Tsunami aid? MORE MONEY PLEASE.

And the Leftists" response towards the US? MORE CRITICISMS. "Oh, they're so rich that they can easily afford to give more."

And while the UN was scrambling to get its act together to bring aid to the tsunami victims....the US was already doing DAILY FLIGHTS bringing relief and assistance!

The UN is all a bunch of bureacratic talks and hardly any action! It's like the cliche' potrayal of cops in movies....they always arrive late on the scene. They do more harm than good in a lot of cases...since most probably other rich countries would've just done what the US did: Move with their own initiative in providing assistance. Instead, they get caught up in all these talks...and gets bogged down. No one wants to make a move without the UN's go-ahead signal.

And correct me if I'm wrong, the promised full pledges of monetary assistance have not YET reached the tsunami victims...a year and a half later since the tragedy struck!

Well, it's some sort of a "pack-mentality" among nations. I guess the leftists needs to "feel-good" about something...even if it's just an illusion.

[Rue]

The United Nations certainly has problems. There is indeed internal coruption both financially and morally, reflecting the human beings who work for it and who represent many ideologies. I think it is stretching it to refer to the UN as socialist or influenced by socialists or Euro-socialists.

The UN has always been quite frankly devoid of any political ideology. That is precisely its problem. It has never been able to advocate let alone inunciate a vision of what it stands for.

The only thing consistent about the UN is that like any corupt organization it is full of people fueled by greed and self-interest and the many agendas of nations spying on one another and competing for industrial and technological secrets or strategic advantage in international trade.

I particularly blame the UN's current failures on;

1-The U.S.'s lack of financial responsibility in paying its dues;

2-its current Commissioner who has been able to stay in power as long as he has because no one wants to run the risk of appearing racist criticizing his corupt behaviour and lack of vision

3-the lack of moral integrity and vision in the foreign policy of the member nations particularly Japan, India, China, the United States, Russia, France, and Britain

4-the influence fundamentalist Islamic ideology has on the third world countries foreign policy as reflected in many councils and agencies at the UN

5-coruption of third world leaders

6-the negative impact multi-national companies and the International Monetary Fund have had on trying to achieve a global vision.

[Black Dog]

Link, please.

With pleasure:

9-11 and the mob

A redux conclusion: It is even possible that this is not mob related?

If this is mob, did the mob know of the impending attack on 9/11? The terrorist-piloted plane hit Cantor Fitzgerald directly–one floor below where they were located. This would be the worst possible spot because the flames would go up and engulf everything. Could this really be only sheer coincidence? No suicide jockey flying a plane for the first time coincidentally hit right where the mob knew they would hit.

What are the odds of a six-member executive team surviving the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center while almost 800 of their employees burned or jumped 103 stories to their death?

The plane had to be aimed very carefully which implies GPS and targeting not a nut flying for the first time.

Do you buy the story that they found Mohammed Atta’s suicide note and luggage, including a will but not two black boxes?

Canada Free Press did.

Not anymore.

You're reading it right: according to Canada Free Press, 9-11 was a mob hit.

[August1991]

Does anyone else find this scary, giving the U.N. that kind money - just imagine what they would do with it really.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/lamb020606.htm

Given the source, and the spin the source, I find this claim humourous rather than scary. (What is it with the word "scary" and Canadians? Are Canadians scared easily?

At the heart of the program is a global pollution permit trading scheme, that would produce $3.64 trillion, according to the U.N. This is a glorified version of the emissions trading scheme envisioned in the Kyoto Protocol.

This scheme is eminently sensible and is the only feasible way to deal with certain emissions. I am convinced that we will have such a trading scheme by the end of this century.

Unfortunately, the UN (like Kyoto) is proposing to use one solution to solve two "problems". Environmental protection and poverty are two different problems. They should not be linked.

Last point. Why is this thread in Federal Politics?

[Michael Hardner]

Think of the word alternative, if what you are going to scrap and replace is something that is effective and useful. The UN is not.

The leftists hang on to it like a security blanket that will ward off evil. As Michael Hardner pointed out, "lawlessness happens." And I must add, "So does war." Whether you have the UN or not. Actually with the UN seemingly "brokering disputes"...war and strife besiege so many parts of the world right now.

Speaking of the League of Nations. How ironic that you should mention it....when a few years back, a few editorials had compared the dysfunctional UN to that old organization...and suggested that just like its predecessor, it's time that the UN gets dismantled.

Betsy, you haven't responded to what I posted. Instead, you merely repeat that it should be disbanded. At least the League of Nations was eventually replaced with something, but you seem to be saying nothing at all is needed.

[betsy]

Betsy, you haven't responded to what I posted. Instead, you merely repeat that it should be disbanded. At least the League of Nations was eventually replaced with something, but you seem to be saying nothing at all is needed.

That is what I'm saying. With the way the UN is performing....it's like there's nothing at all anyway.