Un Powers In The New World

Locke · September 30, 2003

The UN has become truely ineffective. I hate to believe it, but it becomes more and more clear. The UN has turned pretty much like the royalty in Brittan. The only reason it is still in effect is so the US can ask for troops from multiple countries at once. What good is the UN if it has no athority? It has been reduced to a meer figurehead, so as to give people the idea that the world is not ruled by the United States. Back in reality though, the US has all the power in the world. But, back on track, without any power, the UN is no more effective than the League of Nations that was there before it. So what can we do, now that the UN has no control over anything?

nova_satori · September 30, 2003

ah a craig follower. Do away with the best humanitarian organization in the world, we don't care if millions die from starvation in the process, we demand change no matter what!

Craig Read · September 30, 2003

Nova you are an idiot. Answer Locke's post, not with your typical drivel but with something intelligent.

Ok ok i know you can't add anything intelligent but TRY.

If you can't get lost.

The UNO suffers from a myriad of problems - overlapping agencies, 50.000 staff, too many offices [which receiving countries pay for], IMF and World Bank fiascos, corruption in the Security Council, the rape of Iraq during the 1990s [made a nice $21 billion of off Hussein], Jamborees that denounce Israel [another anti-Jew statement was issued last week], Anti-Americanism [though the US pays the bills], and the support of 3rd world despots and tyrants.

Care to elaborate on WHY the UN is so useful ?

I did not even mention idiotic ideas like Global Cooling or Warming or whatever it is today.

FastNed · September 30, 2003

Hello Locke, welcome to the Forum.

May I suggest that you are just acknowledging reality. The "UN" is a voluntary association of Nations - some good, some bad - that have gathered together seeking some common purpose or good. This is rarely achieved.

There has been a myth promulgated that somehow the "UN" is a 'source' of International Law while nothing could be further from the truth. A majority of the membership can hardly be called 'Democratic" as they are dictatorships - see Libya. Saddam's Iraq. Assad's Syria, and I could go on and on. Would you wish to live under the rule of these people, or the Chinese, or how about Burma/Myamar?

At the core of the American revolution is the belief that all power rests in the people; that government has only those powers granted to it by the people and that the consent of the governed is the only grant of legitimacy to any government. How then can anyone who holds such beliefs consider the "UN" as a source of Law?

I differ from Nova in the belief that the UN is the "best" humanitarian organization in the World. Witness its performance in Kossovo and Africa. Witness the political motivation of its flight from Iraq. It is a bumbling bureaucracy which often operates in the self-interest of its bureaucratic masters and, despite itself, sometimes does a great deal of good work.

Craig Read · September 30, 2003

Locke and Ned, many papers and books have been written about UN reform. A very good read is from McMaster Univ. by Culpeper. You can find this on line. UN reform is so glaringly obvious that only the most ardent Marxist or nescient utopian believes that the current structure is financially, economically and morally useful.

Frankly, the UN has devolved into a racist anti-Western, anti-Jew fraternity bent on job hiring minorities and expanding its purview to every facet of modern life.

Witness Kyoto.

Either it reforms itself or it will become irrelevant. Only someone as marginally tuned in to reality as Chevy Nova, would disagree with that.

Craig Read · October 1, 2003

Another example and a good one of UN toothlessness and irrelevance is UNESCO.

The US just rejoined after 19yrs. This agency is so blatantly anti-US, anti-modern and hateful that Reagan pulled the plug.

Why did the US rejoin - finally some reforms were made.

"Unesco boss Koichiro Matsuura closed nearly a third of the field offices and cut in half the number of higher-echelon posts, getting threatened and sued by previously pampered staff in the process. The General Accounting Office -- whose damning 1984 report persuaded Ronald Reagan to pull the plug -- has given the agency a clean bill of managerial health. That goes to show what U.S. pressure can accomplish at a multilateral organization heavily dependent on its support."

Without nation state pressure and withholding of support and $ the UNO will never change and will be hostage to NGOs and leftists.

the$%mexican · October 27, 2003

the United Nations is fundamentaly flawed with its design due to the fact it was created after world war two and molded to work to the U.S proof that the U.N is now a like a toothless dog the fact the U.N could do nothing to stop the U.S from invading iraq. im not saying the U.N is completley ussless but more or less it is only good for humanitarian aid such as with the U.N sending supplies to the congo for the first time in four years and the U.N convoys were met with cheers. but when it comes to stopping nations it has no power thats why the U.S created nato even though its unnsesacry and they object to the EU building somthing simliar of course that would mean less power for them) but here I am getting off track. neways i think it is time to relize that times have changed and a new form of a united community should be created. but as long as the U.S is the only super power in the world that wont happen because the U.N suits the U.S just fine

righturnonred · October 27, 2003

I believe the UN more closely resembles the Leauge of Nations created after WW2 to function as a debating society. An organization that cannot or will not enforce its own resolutions is nothing more than this. The only remaining capacity in which the UN remains useful is providing humanitarian assitance.

FastNed · October 27, 2003

Hello, Mexican, welcome to the Forum.

You apparently wish Nirvana - some supra-national organization which will dictate what can and can not be done around this World. How do you suggest this be accomplished?

No organization has more power than that ceded to it by its members or more strength than the collective of its membership. Even if every Nation of the World were to join in an organization against America, they would lack the physical strength to dictate action for America. And you surely can not mean to claim the likes of Syria, NoKorea, Burma and so forth can speak with some sort of moral authority which would convince Americans to follow their suggestions/dictates?

We Americans are the first to admit we are not perfect, we made many mistakes during the Fifty year period of the Cold War and much that was done was Hobbs Choice - the lesser of two evils, or so we thought at the time. We will tell you that there are problems in our form of government and that we have had many failures attempting to live up to our stated principles. But we will also tell you that of the many imperfect forms of government, we believe ours to be the best of a bad lot.

NATO was a military alliance between America and Free Europe which successfully prevented the Soviet Union from sweeping across all of Europe as they did to Eastern Europe. When we speak of closing it down and bringing our troops home, Europe begins to scream: "Oh no, don't do that!". The military strength of Europe is such that they can either live up to their commitment to NATO or have a Euro-force - they lack the forces to have both. Our position is simple, one or the other but not both!

America will not now or ever allow any outside group to dictate its response to an armed attack against it. If you kill Americans, you will pay the Ferryman's Fee. It is as simple as that.

SirRiff · October 27, 2003

with the way the world operations, no nation can be considered completely sovereign anymore. there are unavoidable interactions between any major event and the rest of the world.

there will then obviously need to be some sort of international community for debate and posturing to take place. without it, its far more likely nations would respond by war. the complexity of such a community will always make it inefficient, owing to the large number of self interested parties that must be included.

the alternative is to force a smaller group of like minded nations that specifically defend thier own interests at the STATED EXPENSE of all others.

thus you could have the Strategic Treaty of United Democratic States (STUDS). made up of all democratic (whatever that means) states, and have a minimum contribution capability, like a 5% military budget minimum and a standing deployable troop force. of course this would require the other nations to form thier own federation for protection, like the Eastern Vegatarian of International Latittudes.

now the question is, which one makes you safer?

its no good to dismantle the UN if a nuclear war results 5 years later and incinerates, you, your family, your house, your neighborhood, yoru state, your nation, and most of your hemisphere.

you cannot win the game if you are nuked.

so what exactly would make the world safer?

including rouge regimes in internation policies?

attacking rouge regimes 1 by 1?

forming small military federations of nations?

SirRiff

righturnonred · October 28, 2003

I don't think anyone suggests disolving the UN, after all they do still serve a role in the global community. It's just that the organization's role is far less significant and gradiose than it's members fantisize. The United States is trying to provide leadership to the rest of the world, leadership that is bocked at by the international community for reasons of pride, ego, and fading memories of their once great empires. My perspecticve is that the United States is more or less benevolent toward the rest of the world ans as long as other nations are willing to live in peace, so are we. Unfortunately, this is not the case as we are forced to defend ourselves from groups and nations who wish our destruction on the basis of cultural and religious differences.

Ender · October 28, 2003

The U.S. is being the cop that the world needs, but the world doesn't need the U.S. to patroll there backs. What needs to be done is the U.N. needs a heck of a lot more power, which will of course never happen. The U.S. also needs to stop beliving that they're all sent by god to protect the world and that they don't need the help of foreign nations.

KrustyKidd · October 28, 2003

And what needs to happen is that the third world nations have to get rid of this notion that they can have access to modern means of detsruction while not adopting modern thological respect for life. Pre Medival Power Mongers have no place in a world that seeks humanity. That, my friend is why they must be shut down. US, UN or thier own good graces, the stakes are too high now.

If you think the US is sent by God or they think they are, you are wrong. They are only dealing with common sense. It is the radical that is sent by God. You can stop them I am sure by e mailing some protests. OBL may get them by camelback a few months from now but I'm sure he is listening.