The U.N. is basically useless and totally incapable of dealing with real world problems, so what better for an anti-American organization like the U.N. to do but keep attacking the U.S.! They can't deal with Iran, North Korea, the Middle East or any other problem. When their headquarters in Iraq was bombed, they blamed the U.S., loaded up their belongings, and turned tail and ran. One of their do nothing "observer" posts was hit in Lebanon, and they are loading up and leaving there too. But then, what were they observing there anyway -- Hezbollah loading and firing rockets into Israel? Now that Israel has for the moment taken care of those near the border, the U.N. doesn't have anything to "observe"!

The U.N. is good, however, at spending our money and asking for more. The U.N. can't even deal with their own corruption, bribery, sex abuse, and scandals, so why not divert their attention to attacking Israel and the U.S. Our libbies think that John Bolton is too "strong" for the U.N. -- I think he may be a little too weak!!!

The U.S. should cut back our support to the very minimum and stop sending our troops or support to help with any of the U.N.'s mediocre public relations "shows". We need to start forming our own coalition of nations friendly to the U.S.!

We do need to keep our seat on the Security Council though until the U.N. is finally disbanded. We need that seat for ONE REASON, and one reason only -- VETO, NYET -- to make sure the U.N. doesn't "legally" attack us, Israel, or any of those nations friendly to us.

AAR

Do the citizens of DC pay taxes? If so, they should be represented.

Mark, a good way to avoid paying your debt to the UN would be to eliminate it. Sounds like a plan to me.

I agree. Let us get the he!! out of the UN! They do nothing for us and we do too much for them.

What a waste of prime New York City real estate. I wonder if the City of New York could exercise the right of eminent domain and confiscate the UN Building on the grounds that it would yield more tax revenue if it were turned into condos. The Supreme Court has already upheld the concept.

Canadian:
I agree they deserve a seat in Congress...HOWEVER, the problem is the Federal Government controls the budget process (per the Constitution)...so the question Congress has is how can they be represented in Congress and then have the ENTIRE CONGRESS act as a budgetary and oversight committee of the City Council...

The original formula for the city was the Federal Government took care of it entirely and it was to be done through the military... hence the military governor/commander of the District of Columbia.

They pay taxes and should get a seat in Congress...but then does that mean a place that's 10 miles by 10 miles should get two senators too?

But then again... how Representative is your Parliament when one whole chamber isn't even elected.... I think the UN should get right on that! OR perhaps, maybe they should tackle Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Cuba, Haiti, the Sudan, (or any other places where people are dying because they are being killed because they have terrorist governments or terrorists living amongst them as human shields.

C.O.

Well said from a country whose annual assessment is on 2.57% of the annual budget. Think you Canadians can afford that?

As has been stated, the U.N. has bigger concerns than to worry about whether the District of Columbia has representation. This has truly become an ineffective organization and it's time for the U.S. to consider pulling out.

Leave it to a Canadian to have the only sane response. The US is all for the UN when they want fair voting in other countries, sanctions or trials for war crimminals, but when the UN wants to inspect our nation, conservatives think the UN is a waste of money. Sorry people, can't have it both ways.

Get US out, burn the building down, sow the ground with salt, imprison anyone who ever advocates us rejoining it...

Mark, didn't you just scold everyone for being hateful and uncivil? If this isn't exhibit A then it surely is intended to be provacative and eventually the discussion becomes zingers. But that is for another time.......

The right wingers are always harping on the imagined lack of alternatives and general negativity of liberals. Let's toss the ball in the other court:

If you want to eliminate the UN (burn it to the ground, per Bolton the Iron, what can you offer in the way of a constructive plan? What kind of international organization would be effective? Or do you not want to play unless we are the Boss of the World?

Kahn? Mark? Any winger?

C.O.

Congress takes care of D.C. pretty well!

The citizens of D.C. knew the rules when they chose to live there! There is nothing stopping them from moving to Maryland, Virginia, or any other state if they choose to do so. There are plenty more people who do want to live there who will buy their property.

The U.N. has no business meddling in the United States, except for the fact that they are an anti-American organization and are impotent, worthless, and incapable of dealing with the REAL WORLD and the REAL PROBLEMS around them!!!

Go bother Russia, China, Cuba, the Arab countries in the Middle East, Venezuela, Canada, etc., etc., etc. Let Canada provide more money and troops to offset the U.S. reduction!

But... we will keep our VETO so we can block their silly and useless resolutions just like China, Russia, and France!

And yes, there has already been talk about turning their headquarters into condominiums. At least New York City would get something worthwhile in return!

AAR

Has it been forgotten that this is the same organization who appointed Khadafi(sp?)on the commitee to oversee "Human Rights" And you have the audacity to bring up hatefullness and uncivility?!
Sheeeesh, shakes heads.

Has it been forgotten that this is the same organization who appointed Khadafi(sp?)on the commitee to oversee "Human Rights" And you have the audacity to bring up hatefullness and uncivility?!
Sheeeesh, shakes heads.

Wonder how much property tax NYC could get if that area was redeveloped. That alone is enough to get rid of those scumbags.

Hey Canadian Observer, you all have plenty of room up there, why not arrange a move for us, just between neighbors ya know.

Mark, didn't you just scold everyone for being hateful and uncivil?

Ash, I can't speak for Mark, but I'm guessing this is just a "little" hyperbole.

what can you offer in the way of a constructive plan? What kind of international organization would be effective?

For starters, any new organization would, IMO, have to be made up of free, democratic countries. It would also have to have it's own military force so that any resolutions involving military force would have an enforcement mechanism other than the U.S. and Britain.

How about you, Ash; what are some of your ideas for, either making the existing UN for effective or creating an entirely new organization?

Oh and Ash, if you like the UN just the way it is, tell us what specifically you like about it.

Hey, how much Tamiflu does it take to save a Blue state from pandemic bird flu death? WHO CARES!!! Gawd that's fully stuff.

Ok, so if the UN sees stuff inconsistent with international law, they should just shut up after asking Bolton if it's something that really matters or not, right? And after having spent the sum total of decades hashing around what's wrong with the world, this is virtually the ONLY thing they've come up with? Sheesh, how ineffective.

Besides, imagine the horror when all those poor black people who actually live in D.C. send someone to Congress. Our Republican studly men don't stand a chance, 'cause those poor black folks just don't understand the white man's gift of benevolent godsmanship the Almighty has granted to those of European descent, so that they can take care of those poor, poor bastards who haven't had power long enough to know how to put it to good use, like getting cheap tennis shoes from the Marianas and trading military contracts for groovy yachts. You KNOW they'd want something stupid like healthcare. I mean, how's Kobe gonna make it if he's gotta pay minimum wage to all those factory trolls, huh? Huh? Tell me that.

I must say I'm confused about Iran beheading those lesbians, though. I thought we hated homos and blame them for the destruction of civlilization, but if Iran thinks that, well, then, has our position changed on that one?

Man, it's not easy being a new Republican.

"Castro has thousands in his dungeons, Iran beheads homosexuals, China is occupying Tibet, Chavez is fomenting socialist revolutions in South America, North Koreans are eating tree bark...."

--Lets see here, I believe we have our own dungeons in Cuba.

Up until recently we were executing the retarded.

China occupies Tibet, yet they are a favored trading partner, and even invited to our little war-games.

We were fomenting authoritarian revolts/coups, training death squad leaders, and our companies were using their clout to bilk billions of dollars from the poorest nations in the world because of pennies on the dollar oil tax contracts, which enriched only the elite cronies in these S. American hell-holes.

We smiled and patted ourselves on the back as 500,000 children starved to death at the hands of our collective punishment of Iraqi citizens due to sanctions; All the while our companies played ball with Saddam, and two administrations ignored the fraud.

Keep pretending that we are the victims to some sort of world-wide Anti-American agenda. We are reaping the corruption we have sown, and instead of stepping-up, admitting that the slacked in our responsibility to be the shining-light of freedom we had once so proudly projected, we are just another greedy mafia boss, looking for his pound of flesh...we just have better PR people working for us.

If you want to divorce us from the UN, then fine, get your do-nothing critter to start the process of removing us, but if you feel like I do, that the generation preceeding us has a damn good idea that the world doesn't belong to those with the most power, but to those with the least; That nations should be rewarded for making peace, and not war; Keeping our promises to our world neighbors, and ensuring that those with the least are treated as fairly as those with the most, then I want Bush tomorrow to be standing in front of US media to give an honest assessment of the problems and the strengths of this once-great institution, and make the rehabilitation a national priority, make it so that the media has no recourse but to cover the story of the rise and fall of the UN, to make it a hot-button issue, instead of a right-wing punching bag, so that their faithful have something besides the utter failure of their preemptive-war policy to blame for why we have lost the respect we once garnered in the world...we didn't lose our standing as the greatest nation in the world overnight, and it won't be brought back by childish tantrums, and shirking of responsibilities.

How about you, Ash; what are some of your ideas for, either making the existing UN for effective or creating an entirely new organization?

Five'll get you ten that any "ideas" forthcoming will involve the US (the evil is silent) mending its ways, yadda yadda ... and so on.

There is no hope for fixing the UN now or ever. There is no use in having a "forum" which is nothing more than a corrupt organization (no shock there) that cannot and will not do anything but talk, and finds every fault in the world to be somehow traceable to the US, Israel, or freedom. It should follow its worthless predecessor into the annals of failed ideas. It solves nothing, does more harm than good. I have yet to see any rational explanation why ANY "international forum" needs to be established.

And that does not mean we have to rule the world, nor does it mean shoot first and ask questions later. The UN causes problems, inhibits solutions, and gets people killed. We don't need it.

Senior Citizen brain fart, sorry. That should have said make the existing UN more effective.

"It would also have to have it's own military force so that any resolutions involving military force would have an enforcement mechanism other than the U.S. and Britain."

Retired Spook

Just to clarify: Would the military force be drafted from the democratic countries making up this new organization or would this be a volunteer army?

Imagine this:

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress direct jurisdiction for Washington, D.C. While Congress has delegated various amounts of this authority to local government, from time to time, Congress still intervenes in local affairs relating to schools, gun control policy, and other issues. Citizens of the District lack elected voting representation in Congress, though they have three electoral votes in the Presidential elections, giving it more electoral votes per capita than 49 states. Citizens of Washington are represented in the House of Representatives by a non-voting delegate (currently Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC At-Large)) who sits on committees and participates in debate but cannot vote. D.C. does not have representation in the Senate. Attempts to change this situation, including the proposed District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, have been unsuccessful.

Citizens of Washington, D.C. are not unique in having diminished representation in their federal legislature, although they are unique in having no voting representation at all. Other nations that have built capital cities from scratch, including Australia and Nigeria, have diminished representation for a federal district. Washington's situation can also be compared to the historical status of U.S. territories, which had only non-voting delegates to the House.

So why aren't the UN clowns after Australia and Nigeria?

The UN has never been a proud great institution, TEO. It has fomented stife and misery everywhere it has been. It takes the easy way out or ignores the obvious and coddles dictators and terrorist nations.

So climb down from your America hating horse and see the way the world is, not through DNC talking points, its boring.

Ash,

No one said anything about turning the U.N. building into a useless pile of ash!

That's prime and valuable real estate property. The plans are to convert it into condominiums and offices -- that sell for big bucks and pay lots of taxes!

We don't need no (any) "constructive plan". The U.N. is a lost cause and useless drain pipe for American dollars. It has been for years. The alternative plan is a new U.N. -- headed by the United States! The United States as "boss of the world"? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Do you think nations like Russia, China, or your beloved liberal France or Canada are going to allow the U.N. to boss them or tell them what to do? Absolutely not! The U.N. can't even get North Korea, Iran, or terrorists to listen to them. Oh, I forgot. The U.N. doesn't refer to Hezbollah, Hammas, al Qaeda and others as terrorists. They are "alleged militants" in the warped and P.C. liberal mind of the U.N.

Why does the U.N. spend so much time trying to tell the U.S. what it should do rather than working on important issues? Why, because the United States is infested with liberals who "eat that stuff up", who would like nothing more than to have the U.N. tell us what to do, and who would like to see the U.S. kicked down to the level of a third rate nation! The liberals can't stand the fact that the U.S. is the only remaining superpower until China and India -- without liberals to weaken them -- take over.

Ash, you misunderstand, Conservatives ARE BEING POSITIVE about the U.N. We are POSITIVE we want the United States OUT OF THE U.N. -- except for that all important VETO which China, Russia, and France use to stop any actions against threats like Iran or North Korea.

If you want to hear support for your liberal position, go post to the "Kettle of S..." blog, or perhaps a French or Canadian one!

AAR

I have a few ideas on how to make the UN slightly more effective.

1.) Make human rights a prerequisite for inclusion on any committee.

2.) Make the UN focus on things like Darfur instead of DC not being able to vote in Federal Elections (though they don't have to pay federal taxes(?)).

3.) Make the UN actually enforce its resolutions...

This would probably help a good bit.

--Lets see here, I believe we have our own dungeons in Cuba.

TEO, you've obviously never heard a Cuban refugee describe Castro's dungeons. GITMO is Club Med by comparison, but I suspect you knew that.

Just to clarify: Would the military force be drafted from the democratic countries making up this new organization or would this be a volunteer army?

CO, I would expect it to be made up exclusively of Canadian draftees. Just kidding.

It would depend on whether it was a "kick a$$/take names force or a candy a$$ force like they have now. IMO, a kick a$$ force would have no problem getting volunteers from member countries, especially if the pay scale was high enough.

Third Eye Open, I take your term "our own dungeons in Cuba" as hyperbole. Those detainees down there are fed three squares a day, given prayer rugs and Korans at US taxpayer expense, and are protected from maltreatment by an expansion of the definition of the word "torture" to encompass situations which involve even the tiniest amount of stress. And that's even though every one of them is a religious bigot who would kill you and me just for not being muslim. (Yes, I believe the term "bigot" is appropriate here and I use it with zero moral reservation.) Does Castro make any such provision for the people in his prisons?

You talk about the sanctions against Iraq as if they are America's doing, when in fact they were imposed the UN. (So much for the multilateralism that Bush's critics think was so necessary for going to war.) You also leave out the fact that the sanctions included an "oil-for-food" program that was supposed to provide for the people of Iraq, but which Saddam siphoned off money to build palaces and buy weapons, and which became rife with corruption. You're right to point out the 500,000 who died under the sanctions, but you're pointing your finger in the wrong direction. Saddam could have saved himself, his people, and his country a whole lot of grief by simply cooperating and fulfilling the ceasefire agreement that he signed in 1991.

Congressive, I don't think we hate "homos", or blame them for the end of civilization. As far as I know, we don't kill them just for being gay, so I think we're quite different from Iran on this one. Come to think of it, I know of another nation that kills people for being gay: Cuba.

TEO,

"Lets see here, I believe we have our own dungeons in Cuba."

Lie. I happen to know the individual who was the "jailor" at GITMO several years back. He said that the detainees had better living conditions than they had living in a cave in Afghanistan (not in a dungeon), were fed ethnically appropriate meals, had regular exercise periods, and received medical care. And how did they show their appreciation? But throwing urine and feces at the guards every chance they could. They are the worst of the worst terrorists.

"Up until recently we were executing the retarded."

Proof? Sounds like a tycical "TEO" outrageous lie.

"our companies were using their clout to bilk billions of dollars from the poorest nations in the world because of pennies on the dollar oil tax contracts"

WTF? Explaination and proof please.

"We smiled and patted ourselves on the back as 500,000 children starved to death at the hands of our collective punishment of Iraqi citizens due to sanctions"

Dead wrong. The blood of the dead Iraqis are on the hands of Saddam. Not the US. The sanctions were not in place to "punish" the Iraqi citiaens. It was the corrupt UN, that was neck deep in the bribes and kickbacks from the "Oil-for-Food" program, that was responsible for ensure the Iraqis were receiveing food and medicine. They failed. The US solved the problem by liberating Iraq.

"we didn't lose our standing as the greatest nation in the world overnight"

We haven't. Only in your blind eyes.

HA!

Mark, this is too funny. All the examples you give are issues the UN is deeply involved in (socialist leaning democracies aside), but the US is doing nothing productive about.

And do you honestly believe that it is just for DC to have no representation? DC has a higher population than Wyoming, which has two Senators and a Congressman. It is simply inconsistent with the principles of a republic to have unrepresented citizenry.

RS: I read an article in the Washingtom Times this week that that reported on an analysis of GITMO. It stated that the prison was a model for all prisons world wide. It stated that even those prisioners that were hunger striking gained weight amongst other things.

Regarding DC, Most people tend to forget that DC was once part of Maryland and is now treated like a US Possession. Same as Guam, Virgin Islands and some others.

Truth be told, it was bounced around some years ago as a solution to the voting problem that areas except downtown would be ceded back to Maryland. Maryland wanted no part of it.

"Get US out, burn the building down, sow the ground with salt..."-MN

Good idea! How about next Tuesday?

RS: I read an article in the Washingtom Times this week that that reported on an analysis of GITMO. It stated that the prison was a model for all prisons world wide. It stated that even those prisioners that were hunger striking gained weight amongst other things.

Regarding DC, Most people tend to forget that DC was once part of Maryland and is now treated like a US Possession. Same as Guam, Virgin Islands and some others.

Truth be told, it was bounced around some years ago as a solution to the voting problem that areas except downtown would be ceded back to Maryland. Maryland wanted no part of it.

WH: Population has nothing to do with it, it has to do with the US beng a federal republic. Did you fail US History too? DC is NOT a state, hence it does not enjoy the rights and obligations of such, period. Want to solve the problem, make it a state.

If people were that worked up about it, why do so many live there?

Porter,

Of course. It's a structural problem we should fix. What's your point?

Mark, while I actually agree with you (the US should be removed from the un, but in general I want the UN dismissed), I also agree with most of the comments you gave on countries like china and cuba, but chavez? What has he done? He has won election after election, involved the people in his decisions, and in general given the people what they want, why should the un care about him? (other than praising him for giving his people true freedom).

Porer,

"It has fomented stife and misery everywhere it has been. It takes the easy way out or ignores the obvious and coddles dictators and terrorist nations."

--The UN was the leader is getting nuclear powers to step back from the brink, and agree to not only test bans and nuclear free zones, but has led the way in countless peace-keeping missions.

We have personally overseen many UN missions. Would you consider Desert Storm, which was a UN mandated mission to be fomenting strife wherever they go?

The UN has played integral parts in the peaceful building of nations, such as Namibia, Tajikistan, and East Timor.

What about UNICEF, how about the myriad of international treaties which have enriched our trading and ecology with member nations, what about WHO and the multi-lateral organizations which have all but eliminated smallpox and polio, and the international focus that such an organization can have on world-wide issues such as nuclear proliferation and infant mortality, all these things need an international banner to focus member nations' support in a goal-oriented direction.

The UN has responded in many situations with economic sanctions, infact they have increased their sanctions many fold in the past 20 years, giving their resolutions teeth.

Now you can harp on all the horrible things that have happened under their watch, and admitadly, there has been some serious lack of oversight and goals, but you must understand that the UN was never meant to be the 800-lb gorrilla who steps in to solve everyone's problems, but instead a mechanism for international mediation between sides who have a willingness to stop fighting. When you need to get almost 200 nations to agree on something, it can become a log-jam, much like our own system, but I don't think you advocate trashing our system, and walking away to form a new government.

The UN does a lot of things that aren't capable by just a few nations, just like their are things that our federal government do that just aren't capable by a few states or people. The idea was, and still is a good one; To give every nation a voice to represent the will of their people on the international stage, and this representations has allowed for many wonderful things to be accomplished in the past 60 years.

What does it say about the most powerful nation in the world when they just walk away from the rest of the world because people are picking on them, shouldn't we re-double our efforts to get changes made, such as the ones in '05, or the restructuring of the human rights council, these things take incrimental steps, just like we can't fix all our national problems over night, we can't fix the UN's problems overnight, but if you seriously believe that they have done no good for billions of people in the world, then you're either blind or ignorant.

AAR said:

No one said anything about turning the U.N. building into a useless pile of ash!

BUT Mark said:

Get US out, burn the building down, sow the ground with salt, imprison anyone who ever advocates us rejoining it...

Don't you owe us an apology, AAR? Don't you read Marks posts?

AAR said:

No one said anything about turning the U.N. building into a useless pile of ash!

BUT Mark said:

Get US out, burn the building down, sow the ground with salt, imprison anyone who ever advocates us rejoining it...

Don't you owe us an apology, AAR? Don't you read Marks posts?

Spook,

I don't know exactly how I feel about the U.N. I sincerely tossed the question out there for informative purposes.

A-10,

"They are the worst of the worst terrorists."

--Y'know, except for all those ones that we let go because they WEREN'T terrorists, such as Abdul Rahim and Mamdouh Habib.

"Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies."

http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

Execution of the retarded: "Sounds like a tycical "TEO" outrageous lie."

--"There have been 702 inmates executed nationwide since a Supreme Court-ordered moratorium ended in 1977. Of those, about 35 had showed evidence of mental retardation in tests, said Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center, a group critical of how capital punishment is administered."

http://www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2001/03/27/News/Supreme.Court.To.Decide.Legality.Of.Executing.Mentally.Retarded.Inmates-1409393.shtml?norewrite200607292015&sourcedomain=www.michigandaily.com

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2001/03/20/usdom336.htm

Oil-tax contracts: In countries like Venezuela, until recently, the oil companies paid pennies on the dollar for what comparable tax revenues are gleaned from other OPEC nations, and even non OPEC nations.

"During his weekly television program Alô Presidente, President Chavez announced that oil companies that were paying royalties of between 0% and 1% in the Orinoco Oil Belt for extracting extra heavy crude, would be raised to 16.6%, in accordance with Venezuela’s Hydrocarbons Law of 2001."

http://www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/2576

"Chavez first raised the royalty two years ago on the Orinoco belt companies. The royalty increase from 1% to 16% led to $1.28 billion in revenue last year."

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1961

"The blood of the dead Iraqis are on the hands of Saddam. Not the US. The sanctions were not in place to "punish" the Iraqi citiaens."

--Well whatever their "intentions" were, we gladly participated, and helped to starve hundreds of thousands of children, and unknown numbers of adults.

The OfF fraude was perpetrated by MANY coorporations, including US ones, and the naval shipping lanes which were supposed to be monitored by the UN to avoid that fraud, was headed up by US NAVY, so who was shirking their responsibility?

A-10,

This stupid server issue kept my rebutal from being posted, apparently it thinks it was done outside of type key, it should show up, or i'll resubmit it tonight, with sources and everything none the less

useless drain pipe for American dollars.

Ah, but of course, the bottom line.

The United States as "boss of the world"? Sounds like a good idea to me.

This too is a given. Most conservatives live with an "authoritative" or strict father model of the world. We can never live together in harmony so we may as well be the strict father figure.

Why, because the United States is infested with liberals who "eat that stuff up", who would like nothing more than to have the U.N. tell us what to do, and who would like to see the U.S. kicked down to the level of a third rate nation!

Well as a rebellious liberal, I don't want anyone telling me what to do. Again as a conservative you feel a self righteous indignation when anyone disagrees with your point of view. Man you are a textbook illustration of soc

TEO

Your response to Porter Jervis was excellent. Well done!

TEO: I can turn it around and say what does it say when citizens of the most powerful nation in the world like yourself want to abandon millions is Iraq and Afganistan because of some deluded hated of its President.

Desert Storm was sanctioned by the UN, but was led by the US and Britian. It was also the UN that mandated that we only expel Saddam from Kuwait and not finish him off. No, we had to finish the job for the rest of the world in 2003.

I don't advocate tossing our system of government, it is self correcting every four years. The UN can't make that claim.

Unicef sponsors abortions in the countries it works in.

Porter,

I could quibble with some of your details, but it's beside the point. You didn't address the crux of TEO's post.

You can find faults in any human institution. Does those faults invalidate the good? The United States condoned slavery. We later took the moral high ground and eliminated it. Both part of the same institution.

The UN is certainly sloppier to deal with, because of the nature of an institution representing so many countries. But that doesn't mean the relatively minor edge-case faults can't be fixed. Even Kofi Annan is an ally is that regard. But we need to engage ourselves with the institution to reform it, not belittle it and disrespect traditional and potential allies.

The UN won't work as long as China and Russia have veto power in the Security Council.

Won't "work" in what sense? U.S. control? Are not China and Russia pretty big players on the world stage? Should they not have a voice in an institution whose purpose is to provide a forum for those voices?

This stupid server issue kept my rebutal from being posted, apparently it thinks it was done outside of type key, it should show up, or i'll resubmit it tonight, with sources and everything none the less

I will anxiously await your sources on what you just spewed, for lack of a better term, these are not only very serious allegations you have made but also terribly inflated statements regarding the UN's accomplishments. I am referring to both of your longer posts on this particular thread

The UN is not and never has been a military organization. That's what NATO and the Warsaw Pact were for. The UN is a forum where representatives from all the nation of the world can try to end their differences peacefully, rather than through war.

It came about after a world war, just like the League of Nations, and for the same reason - to prevent another catastrophic war.

All nations, even the little unfree nations, were invited, in order to give everyone a way to make their feelings known without resorting to terrorism. (terrorism against the west didn't start with 9/11, you know).

Have any of you considered that the UN might not be doing what America wants because most countries in the world are opposed to what America wants done right now?

Have any of you considered that your "improved" UN, with all democratic nations and a standing army, may be very short of members - as in two?

Have any of you considered that, without US leadership, the world may impose sanctions on America? I'm sure that Chavez and the mullahs would be willing to help impose an oil embargo, as would the Saudi princes and Russia. America's friends are becoming very few.

Good luck with your plan. I hope it doesn't bite you.

TEO,

It sounds like an unfair playing field by your choice words, but the understanding of the known elements are far from what's happening around the world due to the fiasco of the works of the United Nations.
While the United States of America took upon themselves after almost begging the United Nations to hold Iran, Iraq and other Mid-East Nations to the same principles of Moral behavior, what did the United Nations do? Nothing that's what. The problematic solution was thrown out the United Nations window while blinding themselves to the reality our (U.S.) Leaders saw coming.
So the United States took its commanders, it's men of military might and took the battle to the forefront of the Mid East. (Did countries hate us for it? France, Spain, Germany, of course they did) Why?
Possibly because of the kickbacks in the oil for food program instituted by the governing body.
Possibly because leaders at the UN were bilking millions from this campaign for their own personal use, huh? Sure it was. All the world can see what happen.
Did Our President hide his head in the sand. No he didn't. Why? Because he saw the grave danger these ideological minded people had.
He saw the danger to the American People.
Can the majority of America see that danger?
I don't hardly think so.
We are so engulfed in the luxuries of home, play and work that we seldom take a look at reality.
And of course that's what the liberal left in this country want us to do.
And what happens to a nation that mingles with the bloodied baths that are carried out in the world socities. They become guilty.
Disolve the United Nations?
My friend I just wished you could see the atrocities coming from this one building, one institution called the United Nations.
Only if you could see with your eyes and understand, and hear with your ears, then might you have a different opinion to state hereforth.
If all of America doesn't take a stand against our enemies, and a sure stand we must take, and sometimes that means taking it to their soil, then we will feel defeat and we will endanger the very constitutional rights which we have enjoyed for so many years.
God help America in the coming months.
I thank God for George Bush (even though he's made mistakes-which person hasn't) and his willingness to stand when it seems so many are against him.
I support him in his endeavors, and I think the majority in America support him.
They may not support this war because its nasty, its bloody, its sad, but that's the price we must pay for freedom.
And I love my freedom, I love my country and will stand opposed to those who try to deliberately take that from me and my children.
Any red-blooded person in this Great Country of ours is willing to do the same I believe.
We do not need the United Nations fighting against us.
We do not need the United Nations when they deliberately accuse our allies of murder.
that's a sad, sad shame. Hopefully someone will take the post that Koffi-Annan has now and hopefully this organization can do good in a world of hurt.
(Thoughts by: Jeremiah's father)

When DC was formed, it was carved equally out of Virginia and Maryland. Some years ago, the Virginia portion was returned to Virginia. That is why, for example when people say Washington was attacked on 9/11 they are in error. Arlington, Virginia was attacked. But the feeling was (back in the 1800’s) that a separate district outside the influence of any state was needed. The Congress is constantly getting involved in DC policies. And the Secret Service and the Capital Police have turned the streets around the Mall, Capital Hill, and White House into a crazy maze of blocked streets.

DC is a unique area. With so much of its real estate taken by government, it can’t collect property and business taxes like other cities. Much of its budget is from the Federal Government. It has one non-voting member of Congress. It also has to support lots of Federal activities and very very frequent protest marches and exhibitions on the Mall, and all kinds of crap.

I suggest returning the Maryland side of DC to Maryland. Give them a vote in Congress (or more if their population justifies it). Let them vote for the Maryland Governor and Senate seats (and all the rest). I say this knowing that DC is completely Democrat (and what a Utopia). But the Virginia side was returned. Let DC go back to being part of Maryland.

But…. There is ALSO a law that Departments and Agencies MUST be headquartered in DC. So when the Department of Homeland Security was forming and looking at a large block of office space in Virginia that was cheap, available, close to food and shopping, and good road access – DC made sure that this law made them stay in DC. I say that this law be eliminated and that the greater DC metro area in Virginia and Maryland be opened up to the government. This would both spread the wealth AND the burden.

By the way – that idea is not very popular in DC. They still want lots and lots of Federal money and special status – but ALSO the vote. And Maryland doesn’t really want DC back – because it’s local government is pretty screwed up.

winnowhead. I actually agree with you. The force going into Lebanon should be Russian and Chinese.

"Mark, a good way to avoid paying your debt to the UN would be to eliminate it. Sounds like a plan to me." Canadian Observer

Unwittingly the Canadian observer has made an excellent suggestion. The sooner we eliminate the UN the better.

Get the UN out of the U.S., and get D.C. out of Maryland! We have enough trouble here already, with the liberal we have. Send D.C. to Turtle Bay; the electorate there is already hopelessly blue. Hey-hey, ho-ho, D.C. has got to go!!!

Ash,

No apology owed... no apology given!

In the case of Mark's statement, you've got to learn that what a person says is not always what they mean in a literal sense. You've got to learn to recognize a hyperbole, a facetious statement, an analogy, and other figures of speech, techniques, and methods of making a point!

As for "rebellious liberals", it's about time someone (i.e., Conservatives) start telling them what to do about their destructive behavior, destructive lifestyle, destructive agenda, and destructive religion of liberalism. France or Canada would be a good alternative place for all liberals to congregate!!!

AAR

Keefer and Kahm: Are the three of us neighbors? I live just inside the Beltway near Springfield.

The Simpsons live next door, damn that Homer.

Had a real nice time debating with you all today. Gotta hit the rack, big day at church tomorrow and the daughter comes back from Grandma and Grandpa to.

Gotta get the pizza boxes off the floor.

Sweet Dreams and God Bless!

In the case of Mark's statement, you've got to learn that what a person says is not always what they mean in a literal sense. You've got to learn to recognize a hyperbole, a facetious statement, an analogy, and other figures of speech, techniques, and methods of making a point!

It's always somebody elses fault. Another classic conservative tactic. My request for an apology was hyperbolic so you are guilt of what you charged me of.

As for "rebellious liberals", it's about time someone (i.e., Conservatives) start telling them what to do about their destructive behavior

I know you can't help yourself AAR. You are a classic authoritative conservative who always "knows right" and is not shy about letting everyone know about it. But more often than not, you are wrong. Classic case.

Ash,

I guess it has been for close on 20 years now that I've advocated the creation of the Union of Democratic States as a replacement for the UN. How would this be constituted?

Well, it would have an executive council of 10 memebers who will nominate a President of the Council who will be approved by the General Assembly by 2/3 majority vote. As well as being the chief executive, the President of the Council would cast a tie-breaking vote in the executive council.

The executive council will be filled on a rotational basis among the member States, two of the seats being filled by new members every year (meaning that each member would be on it for five years before being replaced).

The General Assembly would be made up of elected delegates from each State based on each member having at least two members, and an additional member for each population segment in excess of 100 million citizens (so, the US with 300 million people would have 4 seats; India would have 11, Britain 2).

Each member State would provide a percentage of the budget based upon the member's share of the aggregate GDP of the total membership.

Each member State would provide a set quantity of troops and equipment for a joint military force - the amount to be set based on population and GDP.

All actions of the organization would require the approval of the General Assembly by a majority vote - all actions proposed by the organization must originate in the executive council. Only the President of the Council would have veto power.

Membership would be restricted to established democracies - such being defined as States which have had a democratic constituiton in force for at least 25 years and three democratic transfers of power in the national executive. States who have democratic constitutions but don't meet the 25 year and number of transfers requirement can be candidate members with the right to speak, but not to vote or to sit in the executive council.

This organization would take upon itself the right to intervene at will in the affairs of non-democratic, non-member States to ensure the safety and freedom of the member democracies.

AAR,

I really appreciate you!
and pay no attention to ash!

Jeremiah

Let me mull over your thoughts Mark. My eyelids are droopy now. I just finished watching the Italian Job on TV. It starred Charlize Theron- very easy on the eyes!

I find one trouble spot right away. The President of the Council seems to have inordinate power with the only veto. Could you live with the possibility of France having the veto?

China and Russia have been roadblocks to doing anything meaningful with regards to Iran and N. Korea... and don't get me started on human rights...

Jeremiah,

I hope you are doing well.

As you can tell, I still haven't had much time for posting; although, I try to read as many posts as I can.

I see you, Almiranta, and others, including a few new commenters, have more than taken up the slack though.

What we really need is some good, strong conservative leadership to direct and coordinate the various conservative groups and efforts throughout America. I still think we could use some independent or third party Conservatives who can and will speak up more than the Republicans have been. If people do not hear the Conservative message and views, and all they hear is the same incessant, 24/7 liberal lies and propaganda, that's the way they think.

We need some strong generals (figuratively) to mobilize the troops and coordinate our attack!

Catch you later...

AAR

Ash,

Nor did I take your "request" to mean that you literally expected or wanted an apology!

Of course I always know what is "right" -- I'm a Conservative -- just as you being a liberal know what's "left"! ...Right is "right" and left is "wrong"!!!

AAR

Ash,

Part of the risks of having a collective security arrangement - most people forget, that is what the UN was originally established to do: provide the member States with a rock-solid alliance in case of aggression against a member State. If, say, a proposal was approved on a 7-3 vote in the executive council and then passed by a majority in the General Assembly and the President, being French, vetoed the proposal, then that would be that...though even a rather intransigent France would think twice about vetoing such action.

Also, the chances of the President being French aren't all that strong - more than likely, the President would be Indian or, perhaps, American. France would only have two seats in the Assembly. America would have the second largest delegation. India, though, would clearly have the leg up on getting the Presidency because of their large Assembly membership - but, then again, the executive council nominates, and even if India has two votes in the council, they would still need to get at least three other council members to go along - and that just to get a nomination placed before the Assembly.

I left out the term of office for the Presidency because I'm back and forth on that - one year? three years? seven years? What would be best? Not sure.

Remember, also, that the Assembly delegates would be elected - the people of the respective nations would send these people to the Assembly. Its not just a lot of ambassadors talking back and forth at each other, but legitimately elected people who have constituencies to listen to.

By my rough estimate, there would be 77 delegates in the Assembly if we created the organization today - this would substantially expand over the next ten years as eastern Europe starts to each 25 years with democratic consitutions. Missing from the organization right now would be any nations from South America or Africa - though some of them would be members within the decade.

China, Cuba, Russia, Vietnam, North Korea, Iran, etc, would not be members and it would be at least a quarter century before they could become members, and that if they became democracies today.

Ash,

And if all this sounds like a blueprint for an eventual, world-wide federal republic, then you are understanding me fully.

Mark,

Your idea sounds very egalitarian, very metropolitan, in that oh-so revolving EU model kinda way. I like the premise, although I worry for smaller, nascent states.

Not to pick on you or anything, but If I may make some observations:

--I have issues with the wording of "democracy", the point you're talking about requires every S. American and African nation to be thrown in the lurch, you've established a system where by any number of 'true' birth-panging countries such as Congo, or Nimibia, or Nicaragua may be at the mercy of this Federation which may arbitrarily decide to recognize you, with respects to trade, and sovereignty issues, and no mechanism to rebut marauding member nations' whims.

What do we do with the humanitarian responsibilities, do we continue to administer them? Even to non-member states? Wouldn't that allow us to use an economic club, even more un-evenly to bludgeon smaller countries into wholesale industrialisation centers for 25 years, or more, depending on just how docile the government can keep their workers? Does suspension of the constitution for any period of time, require a new 25 year period?--I am talking about countries like Venezuela here.

You punish nations who may have other players, such as Venezuela or Lebanon, where democratic institutions are present, but it is easy to argue the idea of a 'democracy' doesn't exist at one time or another, who decides whether one policy or another which may preclude membership,can infact stop a petition for membership? I wonder how we would define more exactly how much and of what constitutes a democracy.

Sounds like the same old game of reagional bully gets to push around 2nd tier states, while the member states petition their case, leaving a non-member state no voice of their own with which to redress grievances to anyone of importance.

What about a situation such as Kashmir? India has a legal gripe, does it get approval, and cover from this Neo-Delian League, to invade, and re-make disputed territory? Or does Israel get to occupy whatever buffer-zone for however long it takes the Palestinians to shut-up and enjoy democracy for a generation?

Don't you risk alienating those on the outside to form a "counterbalance" a new Indo-Anglo entity?

Do they become our new USSR? What would nuclear Pakistan think of being snubbed from its destiny when India holds all the cards, doesn't that lead us to the real possibility of putting proliferation back on the map of things to worry about on a daily basis?

Mark,

I'm actually surprised by you're comments. Pleasantly, that is. I don't think I've ever heard a conservative call for an international "federal republic," as you say. There are a lot of xenophobic folks among us, fearful of some kind of totalitarian "world government." I share your general sentiment, assuming a limited power vested in the organization (ie, security and human rights).

I don't want to argue with you your points necessarily. But I want to point out two things you mentioned that I disagree with.

First, you said: "most people forget, that is what the UN was originally established to do: provide the member States with a rock-solid alliance in case of aggression against a member State." I think this is a bit historically inaccurate. The UN was never originally meant to maintain security forces, but to provide a forum for international diplomacy - in essence, to prevent another WWII and to promote peace and productive development. NATO is a security alliance... the UN is something different.

Secondly, the UN serves a purpose beyond the interests of democracies. I think it's inevitable that eventually, the more authoritarian regimes around the world will fall and adopt democratic ideals. Nonetheless, in the immediate term world peace and order is being served by having a forum where the, ahem, less free nations (who wield power which can't be ignored) have a forum to converse with the rest of us. The UN serves this purpose. To advocate removing this forum seems pretty counterproductive to me. Given what you stated, I think a much better goal would be to turn the UN into something closer to your ideal of a "Union of Democratic States," than to dismiss it out of hand and state rhetoric such as "Get US out, burn the building down, sow the ground with salt, imprison anyone who ever advocates us rejoining it..."

TEO and Winnow,

I hold that all unfree nations really have no fundamental right to independent existence. It, for me, is just basic Americanism - either governments derive their just powers from tthe governed is a self-evident truth (as we assert in our sublime Declaration of Independence), or its not - and if it is not, then anything determining that freedom is good is wrong. If a government doesn't obtain the consent of the governed - and the only reliable mechanism for doing this is people voting with a secret ballot in regulat elections - then it doesn't have the authority to issue a parking ticket, let alone enter negotiations with a free nation. If we were to, say, make an agreement with Cuba, then what we really would have done is make a deal between 300 million Americans (the deal can't be done, of course, unless the Senate ratifies) and Fidel Castro. That is an absuridity.

I should like there to be some African and South American nations to be full members, but I don't think there are any African or South American nations which meet the 25 years/three transfers of power criteria for membership. In the next decade, though, Chile, Brazil, South Africa, Peru and a few other African and South American nations would be acceptable for membership.

I don't see, TEO, how this could be a bully organization - while India would provide the most manpower for the putative military force, the United States probably makes up 50% of the aggregate GDP of the nations which could be members right now...meaning that the US would be picking up 50% of the tab, rather than the 25% or so right now. The reason for the ability of the organization to intervene at will in non-member States is to ensure peace and the spread of freedom. The world wouldn't have to wait for an over act - which, these days, might end up in the form of a mushroom cloud over Los Angeles or New York - as the world would have the legitimate authority and the raw power to swiftly intervene to either rescue non-bombatants, or join the fight against whichever side is in the wrong.

There is no veto, other than the Presidential (we need to have some mechanism to stop things in their tracks; it is a vital executive power without which an executive is really just the legislature's administrator); the delegates are elected, not appointed by the respective member State government; the organization has an organic military force - not just a peacekeeping force - availbe for immediate use upon the order of the Council President, with the consent of Council and Assembly.

And, Winnow, I think that the UN is destructive - with someone recently pointing out that it got destructive during the 1956 Suez Crisis when the UN - child of internationally agreed-up treaties - allowed Nasser's Egypt to unilaterally tear up the international agreement on the Suez Canal. Be that as it may, the organization can serve no useful purpose as long as a segment of the membership - espcially that senior membership - are capable of blocking all useful action. The current UN, where China, Russia nand France can block things on a whim makes the whole exercise rather futile.

Well, again Mark, I share your general sentiments.

But my general sentiment still stands. The UN is a forum for consensus building. You're evaluating it on terms which is not legitimate - it is a diplomatic institution, not an internation government with military power.

I'm sympathetic to your idea of a "Union of Democratic States," but it's in essence differernt from the UN - it's exclusive instead of inclusive. (Not to mention that you'd have a hell of a time convincing your conservative friends to agree to such an institution.) I'd basically be on board, otherwise. But it still doesn't invalidate the concept of the UN.

And, Winnow, I think that the UN is destructive - with someone recently pointing out that it got destructive during the 1956 Suez Crisis when the UN - child of internationally agreed-up treaties - allowed Nasser's Egypt to unilaterally tear up the international agreement on the Suez Canal.

And is any institution perfect to the point of not doing something similar? I wish I was familiar with this incident. But the fact is democracies also act unsensibly at times. What could make you think otherwise?

Mark,

You still haven't answered how to define, "unfree". Venezuela has been a nation with a constitution for many years now, and Chavez was elected freely, in secret ballot, so was Hamas and Hezbollah.

You still advocate the majority of the world's poulation having no say in the decisions of a few in arbitrarily invading and remaking countries in someone's image, do we remake countries into US-Brand Democracy, or Norwegian, or Brittish?

What happenes when the world rebukes the "urgency" that one nation places on remaking another nation? Does the main group enforce the veto of force with its own military force? Or does the international body just look the other way, shrug its shoulders, and say "Boys will be boys".

Who gives a small portion of the world the right to foment disaster and collective retribution upon a people for a grievance they have no representation of?

TEO,

I'd like to say I agree with you as well. I hope Mark isn't expecting this imaginary world force to wage war on every population that doesn't share his exact values.

That why I believe that if we ever build an international institution that wields real power, it has to be based on human rights (backed by a court to hold abusers to account) and security (if you attack a member directly, be prepared - and not a fairy tale "preemptive stike" like Iraq... hmm, sounds like NATO).

If the nation wants representation, then they can stop beign a dictatorship> If Castro wanted CUba represented in this theoretical organization, then hold free and open elections and the problem is solved. As for Hamas being freely elected. .the HAmas government is a serial human rights abuser. So it would be out for that reason.

And WInnow. .which values to you disagree with? The ones the UN Purports to follow in word but utterly fails to even pretend to approach in practice? Do you object to the principle of people being able to choose their own government? TO you object to the principle of not having terrorist run states? Tell me which of the principles you object to, please.

The absolute MINIMUM thing to make the UN at all meaningful would be to take Russia and France off of permanent Security Council membership and replace them with India and Japan. Next would be to give Israel their full status - if you are going to argue for the inclusion of Cuba, Somalia and the like you can hardly countenance not giving Israel the same rights of membership as every other member state.

Mark, your vision of a "Union of Democratic States" is a roadmap to another Cold War which could even turn into a Hot War. What's keeping the ‘unfree’ states of forming their own Union?

Mark

The world does not need another military organization. Your idea for this new institution sounds elitist at best and I dare not imagine what the worst-case scenario would be.

I think you can come up with a better solution if you try hard enough. Not every problem can be solved by force.

Mark,
We don't need the UN. We don't need that screwy "replacement" you are talking about either. The League of Nations failed miserably and the UN is going down the same path. The EU is a joke. The Warsaw Pact is history. None of these "bodies" has ever proved their worth and as times change they old friends become new enemies and the thing falls apart. That is where the UN is now. Get out, stay out, and spend our resources in protecting and defending America. We can still have alliances with our friends. We don't need to listen to the rantings of our enemies nor do they deserve any kind of vote or veto in what we see a need to do.

But that doesn't mean the relatively minor edge-case faults can't be fixed.

Minor, edge-case faults? Hogwash. Unless the UN is all edges. That place is screwed up from the pilings sunk deep below the building that provide the foundation all the way to that bearded idiot "Goofy" Annan who presides over their lunacy. Edge-case indeed.

Rev,

In your isolationist sentiment, how do you propose that we continue importing oil, since a vast majority of OPEC isn't all that friendly to us? How do you suppose we divorce ourselves from the debt that China owns in the US, since they really aren't all that friendly towards us either...and what are you going to do in the next 10 years while your plan of disengagement happens?

Do you advocate we stop trading with all non-friendly states, and what are you going to do with the innevitable world economic contraction from this action?

You want to know the day the UN officially died? Remember this guy, Yasser Arafat?

Groups under Arafat's direct or indirect command – including Fatah, Black September, Tanzim and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade – were responsible for hundreds of bombings, hijackings, assassinations and other attacks, including the 1972 murder of 11 of Israel's Olympic athletes in Munich, the 1973 murder of the American ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel, and the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruiseship (resulting in the murder of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer).

Nov. 13, 1974 that's when. Arafat, wearing a holster, addresses the U.N. General Assembly. The UN died on that day. Since then it has never been anything but a corrupt, hate-America, hate-freedom chattering club. Arafat, the child-molesting terrorist, had the decency to die of AIDS; UN: take a hint.