Time to "Call it a Day" for the United Nations

August1991 · December 18, 2004

What we all have to realize with this statement is that not all countries want the sort of democracy that the US may have. Many countries have different ideals, ways of living ect... a big problem with the US at times I feel, is that we (yes I am from the US) think our values are the only values and that is arogant.

I am not American. And I agree that Democracy American-Style is not the only way to go.

But I think there should be a way to get rid of absolute idiots.

In America, even in Canada, we think our politicians are idiots. Bush Jnr may be a jerk but foreign dictators are in a class of their own. In any case, Bush Jnr has only four more years. Some countries are stuck with their jerk - until he dies.

Imagine Bush Jnr became Dictator-for-Life. Then, appreciate America.

You Americans helped -major- to make it possible for the rest of us to get rid of idiots. Vickmn, stand up for your country.

caesar · December 18, 2004

But I think there should be a way to get rid of absolute idiots.

How, Bush is still in office. Allow other countries to make their own decisions. Killing divillians wholesale such as has been done in Iraq; is not the way to go. For any permanent change it MUST be lead by the people from that country.

Argus · December 19, 2004

But I think there should be a way to get rid of absolute idiots.

How, Bush is still in office. Allow other countries to make their own decisions. Killing divillians wholesale such as has been done in Iraq; is not the way to go. For any permanent change it MUST be lead by the people from that country.

Bullshit. We have a responsibility to ourselves and to our children to do the utmost to make this world a better place. And if the Americans want to wipe out dictators like Sadaam good on them! I hope they go for those murdering scummy filth in Iran next, line all the mullahs up against a wall and shoot them. Or better yet, bury them to their fuzzy beards and have the population stone them to death.

Go ahead, Caesar, tell us how awful the Americans are compared to the wonderful holy men who rule in Iran.

Unchaste girls executed in Iran

caesar · December 19, 2004

Go ahead, Caesar, tell us how awful the Americans are compared to the wonderful holy men who rule in Iran.

This is not a popularity contest. The Americans are ignoring International laws. The USA has not a great record for its own humanitarian rights. Blacks have only been allowed to vote or go to the same schools for a very short time. The South is full of religious crackpot religion. Perhaps they should clean up[ their own back yard before attacking others.

If the Iranians or Iraqis want democracy; it is their fight to lead; not the "foreign devils". Democracy means "the people" decide not the Americans.

caesar · December 19, 2004

Good post Vickman; I agree with your outlook.

caesar · December 19, 2004

Americans want to wipe out dictators like Sadaam good on them! I hope they go for those murdering scummy filth in Iran next, line all the mullahs up against a wall and shoot them. Or better yet, bury them to their fuzzy beards and have the population stone them to death.

You sound like an angry crackpot; perhaps you should have a course in anger management. Don't criticize a country/culture that seems to resemble your own outlook on affairs.

Argus · December 19, 2004

Americans want to wipe out dictators like Sadaam good on them! I hope they go for those murdering scummy filth in Iran next, line all the mullahs up against a wall and shoot them. Or better yet, bury them to their fuzzy beards and have the population stone them to death.

You sound like an angry crackpot; perhaps you should have a course in anger management. Don't criticize a country/culture that seems to resemble your own outlook on affairs.

You are again demonstrating that you are too immature to seperate the argument from the person who makes it. Am I angry? Yes. In fact, I was angry, having just read that article about the fanatical murders in Iran by those who call themselves men of God. Who wouldn't be angry, except a soulless creature who cares only about their hatred of Americans to have any interest in the world beyond them?

Argus · December 19, 2004

Go ahead, Caesar, tell us how awful the Americans are compared to the wonderful holy men who rule in Iran.

This is not a popularity contest. The Americans are ignoring International laws.

That is the mantra of those with no souls, no imagination, no empathy, no heart. It is the mantra of a lawyer, a creature of rules and regulations, the mantra of a robot. Who cares about "international law" in the face of brutality, mass murder and the extermination of whole peoples?

The USA has not a great record for its own humanitarian rights. Blacks have only been allowed to vote or go to the same schools for a very short time.

That is an infantile comparison. I post a link to the fact Iran is executing 13 year old girls because their brothers raped them and you snivel about the fact Blacks couldn't vote 50 years ago in the United States?!

The South is full of religious crackpot religion. Perhaps they should clean up[ their own back yard before attacking others.

There are religious crackpots the world over, but none so hideous as in the Muslim world. And THERE, they have power. Here, they are mocked.

If the Iranians or Iraqis want democracy; it is their fight to lead; not the "foreign devils". Democracy means "the people" decide not the Americans.

What if it's not possible to overthrow a government? What if the repression is so heavy, government instruments of surveillance on its people so tight, so oppressive, that anyone who even suggests to a couple of friends that he or she is unhappy with the government can find themselves and their families dragged off and shot? How do you organize resistance in a tightly controlled society like that, where torture and omnipresent instruments of state surveillance crush any resistence before it even gets to the point of being organized?

I remind you that the Americans themselves only cast off the British with help from the French military. And that there was no possibilty the German people would have cast out Adolph Hitler without the Allies war efforts. There is zero possibility the people of North Korea can possibly cast out their own mad dictator. Ever. The very best they can hope for is some powerful general with ambition decides to make himself dictator instead, and rule the country more benignly.

Your soulless statement dooms the people living under such repression to a lifetime of misery and dictatorship, and their country to the same for generations to come.

Grantler · February 17, 2005

The United Nations is an organization that declares itself as a necessity in the world.

With this in mind, why are many of its member nations dictatorships and others show low standards of human rights?

Tawasakm · February 17, 2005

This thread is a duplication of existing threads. I suggest you search for them and reply in them instead.

Grantler · February 17, 2005

I did do a search. There is no thread about the overall representation of dictatorships in the UN over the past 30 days. There may be mentions earlier but I intend on discussing the organization as a whole and seeing if it is indeed outdated and ubscure based on its membership by people who come to this forum now, not months ago.

This way it can start fresh.

So, again, I ask people to respond to the earlier questions.

caesar · February 17, 2005

The UN is indeed a necessary and could be an effective tool in keeping world peace. However, many changes need to made to make it a more viable organization. The "Permanent Five and their respective vetoes must go. First the "permanence does not adjust to a changing world with respect to the waxing and waning of countries in importance and influence. Even more important is the fact that these countries use their vetoes irresponsible and do not follow interpreting international law. Perhaps there needs to be a legal justification that stands up to international srutiny before a veto is accepted.

Another change necessary for the UN to be effective is a mechanism whereby they can legally enforce collection of funds for them to perform necessary operations. At the present time; this is merely voluntary and many countries withhold their share of funds. The USA was and is again a "deadbeat nation" One source of funds could be a taxation collectable on all military equipment and supplies.

It may be necessary for the UN to have an international military/ peacekeeping unit that can respond quickly and which would then draw from member countries to expand its numbers during a crisis.

Tawasakm · February 18, 2005

This touches on it a little

record on human rights

The last post is February the 18th.

Also do a search and find all of Stokers posts. He has brought up this issue more then once - of the UN being composed of 'thugs and dictators'.

caesar · February 18, 2005

Yeah, well Bush won't be in office forever

Leafless · June 8, 2006

Article

'Ottawa Citizen'- Titled-'Bolton demand UN apology'- Thurs. June 8/2006- pg.A10.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton rebuked the United Nations second highest ranking official yesterday for delivering a speech asserting U.S officials have undermined the UN by withholding support and failing to defend it from it's harshest critics.

Ambassador John Bolton called on Secretary Kofi Annan to "repudiate" the speech given by his top aide, Deputy Malloch Brown, or live with "adverse" consequences.

" Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim I fear will be the United Nations" Mr Bolton told reporters. He also called the speech a "very, very grave mistake."

Here is fox News take on this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198603,00.html

Looks like the UN is loosing it's credibilty more and more every day.

Black Dog · June 8, 2006

Given Bolton's whole raison d'etre is to undermine and criticize the UN, I would have thought he'd be pleased as punch about this. It shows he's doing a heckuva job.

Anyway, here's a real article on the kurfluffle in lieu of Gibson's wanking: American fury over UN attack

GostHacked · June 8, 2006

Bolton trashed the UN at almost every chance he got. He was sent there to try and reform the UN. I thought the goal was to strengthen the UN no weaken it.

Good job Bolton, you must be proud.

Leafless · June 8, 2006

GostHacked

You wrote:

"Bolton trashed the UN at almost every chance he got. He was sent there to try and reform the UN. I thought the goal was to strengthen the UN no weaken it."

So you are advocating the 'boy scout' approach?

It is already known and acknowledged that " the UN cannot work without U.S. engagement and U.S. leadership."

This can be extended and implied that 'American global leadership' is an absolute basic requirement.

Argus · June 9, 2006

Looks like the UN is loosing it's credibilty more and more every day.

Why? I didn't see anything said as being particularly insulting or improper. Bolton is trying to pick a fight with the UN in the same way the Republicans are trying to pick a fight over same sex marriage - to inspire the masses of dullards who finger their prayer beeds as they donate to the Republican party and then rush off to vote for God's chosen politician - 2006 version.

GostHacked · June 9, 2006

GostHacked
You wrote:

"Bolton trashed the UN at almost every chance he got. He was sent there to try and reform the UN. I thought the goal was to strengthen the UN no weaken it."

So you are advocating the 'boy scout' approach?

It is already known and acknowledged that " the UN cannot work without U.S. engagement and U.S. leadership."

This can be extended and implied that 'American global leadership' is an absolute basic requirement.

Not really advocating anything here. Just pointing out the hypocracy that is Bolton.

Bolton was sent to the UN to try to reform it.

Bolton has CLEARLY voiced his opinion and the US stance on the UN.

Undermined it as much as he could to say that the UN needed reforming.

Bitching about the reform that happened (for these reforms clearly are not in the best interest of the US)

Cake and eat it too. Something about I cannot have both.

Leafless · June 9, 2006

Argus

You wrote:

"Why? I didn't see anything said as being particularly insulting or improper. Bolton is trying to pick a fight with the UN in the same way the Republicans are trying to pick a fight over same sex marriage - to inspire the masses of dullards who finger their prayer beeds as they donate to the Republican party and then rush off to vote for God's chosen politician - 2006 version."

Talk about misguided terminolgy with a preference to support the perverted which of course is your democratic right.

Darth Buddha · June 9, 2006

Looks like the UN is loosing it's credibilty more and more every day.

Why? I didn't see anything said as being particularly insulting or improper. Bolton is trying to pick a fight with the UN in the same way the Republicans are trying to pick a fight over same sex marriage - to inspire the masses of dullards who finger their prayer beeds as they donate to the Republican party and then rush off to vote for God's chosen politician - 2006 version.

Exactly, and even the majority of Americans who know who Bolton IS know it... even the righties are getting tired of getting played it seems.

I'm no fan of U.N. beurocracy, and I think a lot of things could be improved, but Bolton is certainly no agent for change: he's the Jerry Falwell of international politics. Rude, crude, and so's his point of view.

Leafless · June 9, 2006

Darth Budda

You wrote:

"I'm no fan of U.N. beurocracy, and I think a lot of things could be improved, but Bolton is certainly no agent for change: he's the Jerry Falwell of international politics. Rude, crude, and so's his point of view."

Well Darth exactly what changes arte you talking about?

theloniusfleabag · June 9, 2006

Bolton was known to be arrogant and abrasive before he became UN rep. The US knew full well what stance he would take, because he made no secret that he hated the UN and what it stood for. The US gov't (and the businesses it serves) have nothing but disdain for the UN. Not because it is an ineffective beuraocracy, either, but rather because it is a hinderance to the free hand the US wishes it had in international politics.

August1991 · June 9, 2006

Sorry, I didn't realize that we already had a thread on this and I wrongly started a thread elsewhere.

Let me get this straight. The UN deputy Sec-Gen gives a speech blaming the US (specifically a naive US heartland manipulated by the media) for the faults and weaknesses of the UN. Huh?

Then, the US Ambassador gives a press conference in which he asks the UN Sec-Gen to repudiate the speech.

Go read Malloch Brown's speech here and then tell me that the US response is unfair.

This is Malloch Brown's counter reply.

The US government is right to be upset with the way the UN is currently constituted (IMV, this speech itself is a perfect example of much that is wrong with the UN). This does not mean that the US is necessarily against the principle of an international, intergovernmental organization.