I'm sure it will be a winner in November, run with it

But if you're willing to think about it TEO... is anything Jonathan said incorrect? NO it's not. But again, you're in favor of appearances rather than action. It's better if the world appears safe and secure and claim the bombings and executions just odd blips.

Wouldn't the world be better if it were at ease then head in the sand pretending nothing is wrong and the occasional destruction of people, either by suicide bomber, or poisonous gas, or nuclear bomb simply a better way to live?

The World should have real peace, not a fake one that makes the Democrats feel better... after all, it's easier to thump one's chest then to commit one's life and treasure to the mix.

TEO: If you were alive in 1776, you'd be trying to get to Canada as you have no stomach for any fighting. You're nothing but a pacificist in a world that wishes to do real harm out there.

Some would say you're a word that rhymes with mussy. I simply say you're naive at best, ignorant of the ways of the world at worst.

Yep, let's take our ball and go home.

Ash,

The one issue which always seemed odd to me when the righties get their panties in a bunch about the UN, is that who is going to follow us into our brand-new shiny UN? Obviously everyone with the exception of Israel has a problem with us, what makes you think they would go to this neo-Delian league, where the US has EVEN MORE sway over the organisation?

The United Nations is a useless, ineffective, and worthless anti-American, pro-terrorist organization. It has been for years and continues to get worse than better. The only thing they do well is criticize the United States and Israel, spend our money, take bribes, and cover up their sex crimes, bribery and corruption.

The U.N. investigates "alleged human rights violations" of the United States, but ignores the real ones going before their eyes and under their noses all around the world. They "observe" the Hezbollah rockets cruising over the heads of their observers and then fault Israel for saying enough is enough and deciding to stop Hezbollah from killing their citizens. Terrorists blow up men, women, and children every day without a word from the U.N., but let the United States or Israel accidentally kill civilians while defending themselves, and the U.N. wants to conduct war crime trials!

The U.N. investigates and tries to tell the U.S. what to do with our terrorist prisoners, but ignores terrorists as they take our troops and Iraqi citizens prisoner and slowly carve them up alive. They ignore the treatment and abuse of political prisoners around the world, but worry about the United States. They worry about Washington D.C. having a vote, but ignore the billions around the world who have little or no real vote! The worry about the death penalty in the U.S. and ignore the terrorist killings and those of dictators around the world!

The U.S. should withdraw as much funding and support as possible, down to the absolute minimum. Unfortunately, for now, the U.S. can not afford to withdraw totally from the U.N. -- until it is disbanded and perhaps replaced with a new, more effective, pro-American organization.

The U.S. MUST REMAIN in the U.N. for ONE REASON. The United States must retain the VETO power we have as a permanent member of the Security Council.

That VETO power is the only means we have to stop the U.N. from actually declaring war, or taking other actions against the United States, Israel, or other nations friendly to us and we can't afford to lose that. Look at what happened to North Korea when Russia walked out -- the Korean War!

In the meantime, as we cut our support for the U.N., we need to look at working on another organization or coalition to replace it.

AAR

TEO,

The United States and Israel are an excellent start. Others who want our military protection and trade considerations can join later. Perhaps Japan will want to become a member before they are nuked by North Korea. I'm sure their will be others!

France? We don't want that liberal haven under any circumstances!

Build it and they will come!!!

AAR

You make an excellent point TEO. Who would follow us? If there are others, of course it will facilitate further another "Us versus Them" scenario that our military-industrial complex so profits from.

TEB and Ash, just because the UN supports your current view of the US doesn't make them right, or a worthwhile organization. You may hate Bush, and what he has done, and therefore would vote with the UN to condemn the US, but that is just foolishness.

When UN observers watch the killing of Isreali soldiers by Hezbollah fighters, and the subsequent kidnapping of two more soldiers, they lose all crediblility. When they condemn Gitmo, but say nothing about the beheading of hostages that are videotaped and played on Al Jezeera, they become complicit in the murders. I do not want my tax dollars funding that. Nor do I want them located on US soil. Let countries that seem to think this is ok, say France, host them and provide the primary support. I wonder what would happen if we did withdraw our funding?

The UN is a corrupt, terrorist supporting body. They supported, and were in league with, Saddam, and now they support Hamas and Hezbollooooooo. They SUCK!

KJS,

"TEB and Ash, just because the UN supports your current view of the US doesn't make them right, or a worthwhile organization."

--So what you're saying is that EVERYONE in the world is wrong, except us and Israel...

"When they condemn Gitmo, but say nothing about the beheading of hostages that are videotaped and played on Al Jezeera, they become complicit in the murders"

-- here is an example of Annan condemning beheadings...what other lies do you need straightened out?

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040624/world.htm

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04133/315220.stm

Do you also find it a bit funny that Hezbollah was condemning the beheadings as "Un-Islamic"?

"We Should Withdraw From The U.N."

Damn straight!

France? We don't want that liberal haven under any circumstances!-AAR

France has already surrendered to their Muslim masters. So has the rest of the EU. The EU refuses to label Hezbollah a terrorist group. The EU are the dhimmis of Eurabia.

Build it and they will come!!!-AAR

You're right, AAR!

Make it a shelter for the homeless, at least then it would serve some real purpose!

TEB, and what did the UN observers do when 8 Isreali soldiers were murdered in Isreal, and two others kidnapped, in full view of the observers? Word is, they turned away so as not to see.

I'll bet that all of you Rightwing folks would love the UN if it agreed with your opinion, wouldn't you? If everyone thinks that your poilicy or opinion is wrong, maybe, just maybe, it is. Peace

*Shakes his head*

Okay for a moment let me go with TEO and Ash. I know I know, let me give them a chance her to support their side of things.

Now instead of just quick snipets, which we oh so love to see, I want a good answer and I know you two can give them! So here goes:

Name some good things the UN has done.

That's it, that's all I want to know. What good things has the UN done that makes it an organization worth staying in.

Oh! Lest I forget, I'll make it even more specific. What good things that the UN has done (feel free to still name some) can only be done with the UN. For instance we provide humanitarian aid all the time, no need for the UN there. So as a bonus, name some good things the UN does, that we couldn't do just as the US. Thanks in advance!

*Poises with chin in hand, looking professorly*

Gozer, I'm not necessarily defending the UN. I am saying it would be wrong to just up and quit when things don't go our way, like some spoiled brat. It is hard for a lot of Americans to believe there are other perspectives out there in the big world.

Let me give it some more thought and I will get back to you on this. I have friends from out of town coming and can't offer the quality of answer you deserve.

No worries Ash take your time.

Now it's not like we'd just be quit when things don't go our way like a spoiled child. This has been a long time coming. I honestly have no clue why we're still in the UN since it doesn't seem to provide any real benefits that can't be done on a country to country basis. At least to me, as I said bring up some good reasons to stay in.

Gozer,

Ok, i'll give it a whirl, and we can go from here to discuss the dysfunctions and the merits of the organization.

1) Mediating of nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Who else has the international clout to stand between two super-powers, like cold-war era Russia and US, and get them to agree to at the very least make minor concessions regarding 'Nuclear Free Zones' and the ban on space/atmospheric testing? Seems like a pretty good plan, I don't like nucler fallout, as i'm sure you could do without it as well.

2) International goal setting. Now bear with me here...
There are certain topics, such as AIDS which require a certain element of international cooperation to truly mount a succesful campaign against. Now the NGO system is the backbone of any system which wishes to affect change in a country, but do you think without a system like the WHO, we would have had such a targeted fight against AIDS in the time-frame we did? Can you imagine the pandemic problem we could have had in Africa [as if it isn't now] had the international community, under the banner of the UN, made a concerted effort to raise the awareness about the disease, and garner fiscal support from industrialized nations? How difficult would it have been to convince Americans or the Australians for instance, that this wasn't just an African issue, but that the disease was everyones' problems?

3) Truly effective nation-building. There have been many instances over the past 60 years where the UN's peace-keeping missions were nothing more than half-hearted police forces, who at the first sign of danger, pretty much fell-back, and shrugged their soldiers...it's the age-old problem of getting a soldier to take a bullet for a stranger who speaks another language, and may be a different color; But in cases such as Namibia, Kajikistan, and East Timor, the UN was able to come in, act as the impartial arbiter between two sides who wanted to communicate, and could actually be seen as an entity who had no alterior motive for establishing lines of communication, and eventually political concessions, merely because they were not seen as partial. I don't think the USA, atleast not any time in the near future, could go into a country and NOT be seen as partial, the mere fact that there are national prerogotives would taint the political-air.

The point I want to make is that while the UN has all the problems you would expect from a major beurocratic entity, it has its uses. There is nothing wrong with the UN, that without time and effort, and quite frankly the will, can't be solved by us and our allies. There will always be nations who don't like us for one reason or another, but when we have the support of other countries, it makes it easier to have cover for actions we wish to take, and it helps to legitimize our grievences, while making it possible to marginalize rogue elements so that they cannot attain 'mythical' status. When you have the entire world focused on an issue, then it becomes possible to move mountains.

Gozer.
Once again the thought of reason in the thread trench. You have said it the best with thought!

Here's a samle of the good work of the UN:

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is an international treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968 to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. 188 sovereign states are parties to the treaty, however, two (India and Pakistan) out of seven confirmed nuclear powers (i.e., those that have openly tested nuclear weapons), and one possible nuclear power (Israel) have not ratified the treaty. Another self-proclaimed nuclear power (North Korea) has withdrawn.

Add to that Iran, and we have 5 out of 9 known or suspected possesors (or soon-to-be possessors) of nuclear weapons who have not ratified, refuse to ratify, or have pulled out of the "treaty."

What are the provisions if one violates the "treaty?" None. Nil. Zip. Nada.

And as a clarification, here are one of the terms of the "treaty":

Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice.

Ooooh. The state will have to "give reasons" to leave. Or what? They get a stern look? And adding to the comedy:

NATO states argue that when there is a state of "general war" the treaty no longer applies, effectively the states involved leave the treaty with no notice. This is a necessary argument to support the NATO nuclear weapons sharing policy, but a troubling one for the logic of the treaty. NATO's argument is based on the phrase "the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war" in the treaty preamble, inserted at the behest of U.S. diplomats, arguing that the treaty would at that point have failed to fulfill its function of prohibiting a general war and thus no longer be binding.

Thanks, UN. For nothing.

Now, as for the WHO and the UN, here's an interesting story of one of their efforts to "help" the poor:

TWO OF the world's most powerful medical organisations have been accused of medical malpractice for knowingly promoting useless drugs that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children.

The World Health Organisation and the UN Global Fund, which was set up to buy drugs for poor countries, have allocated millions of dollars to malaria medicines that are no longer effective against the disease, a group of specialists said. They claim negligence by the two organisations contributed to a rising death rate from malaria, which has doubled in a decade in some parts of Africa because of growing resistance to older drugs.

The WHO launched its Roll Back Malaria programme in 1998 with a target to halve the number of deaths by 2010, but six years into the 12-year programme deaths have risen from between 600,000 and 800,000 to over one million annually, of which 90 per cent are in children under five.

Gotta love that UN. At least they meant well.

Thank you for the compliment Burr I try. Though my posts tend not be as fun as everyone elses. ;)

Thank you TEO for getting the ball rolling. I also thank Scara for jumping right in with the first counter-point.

1. Mediation. As Scara points out, being able to talk about something is all fine and dandy, but what good is that paper without anything backing it up? To me, relying on the UN to enforce treaties is like depending on the police to uphold restraining orders. When it gets right down to it they're nothing more than paper shields.

2. I'll give you this one as I'm not really sure how this would go without a "group effort" as it were. Though I do believe this service/idea could work better as it's own seperate entity than to be tied to the UN. Say make the World Health Organization be their own master and not be caught up in the UN's problems. (Leaving them only their own problems to deal with whatever they might be.)

3. I'll agree that US leading any nation building is immediatly considered "partial." Though I think all of the issues the UN has been having when it comes to money and such show that it's not the pure heroes in white hats either. Though I also agree appearances mean quite a bit. I don't know how things are going in those nations so I can't comment further about how well the UN nation builds.

I think we can both agree that the UN is a big mess full of red tape and agendas. What large group isn't? What do you think it'll take to "fix" the UN and make it something we want to stay in? Should it be considered a "stepping stone" to a world government? Should there be a world government?

The UN action in Namibia is interesting for two points: (Text from UN site). First, action by the UN was determined to be necessary:

In 1966, the Assembly declared that South Africa had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Mandate.

Skipping a lot of do-nothing/get nothing done details here that lasted about 12 years, ...we next go to:

In 1978, Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States submitted to the Security Council a proposal for settling the question of Namibia. According to the proposal, elections for a Constituent Assembly would be held under United Nations auspices. Every stage of the electoral process would be conducted to the satisfaction of a Special Representative for Namibia appointed by the Secretary-General. A United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) would be at the disposal of the Special Representative to help him supervise the political process and to ensure that all parties observed all provisions of an agreed solution. The Security Council requested the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative for Namibia and to submit recommendations for implementing the settlement proposal. By resolution 435 (1978), the Council endorsed the United Nations plan for Namibia and decided to establish UNTAG.

In 1980, South Africa accepted the plan proposed by the five Powers and in 1981 participated in a pre-implementation meeting at Geneva. However, South Africa did not agree to proceed towards a ceasefire, one of the conditions set by the United Nations for implementing resolution 435. Negotiations were again stalled when South Africa attached new conditions which the United Nations did not accept, in particular one which linked the independence of Namibia with the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola.

In the following years, the Secretary-General and his Special Representative travelled extensively throughout southern Africa, discussing problems, clarifying positions, exploring new concepts and exchanging views with all parties. Various countries promoted talks on the issue -- among them the five Western sponsors of the 1978 proposal and Zambia. Gradually the unresolved matters yielded to the give and take of negotiations.

The Secretary-General reported in 1987 that all outstanding issues relevant to the United Nations plan, including the choice of an electoral system, had been resolved. Only the condition linking independence to troop withdrawal remained an obstacle. On 22 December 1988, a tripartite agreement among Angola, Cuba and South Africa, mediated by the United States, was signed at United Nations Headquarters. The agreement committed the signatory States of a series of measures to achieve peace in the region, and opened the way to the United Nations independence plan. Under the agreement, South Africa undertook to cooperate with the Secretary-General to ensure Namibia's independence through free and fair elections

Did you happen to catch who the "mediator" was that got Angola and Cuba to remove their troops? The UN? No. The good old USA. After only 21 years of talking, and finally the US steps in and resolves the "obstacle" and Namibia was finally free. Nice job, UN...

I was waiting for my flight in Phoenix yesterday. I caught a little of CNN, which I normally don't watch. They where taking a live poll on basically, "Do you think the UN will make a difference in the Israel Hezbollah conflict?" (I am forgetting the exact question.) 92% of the respondents said NO. 92% of the people who probably watch CNN regularly, I think this says allot. In my opinion the regular viewers who watch CNN regularly are more likely to be liberal. We may just have a majority of Americans that feel that the UN is useless. And personally I think that if this is true Kofi should resign, the UN needs an effective leader that will ensure that the UN will take action and not sit on their hands and make useless resolutions.

Rev,

Since you so eagerly jumped right into the argument, let's talk.

"NATO states argue that when there is a state of "general war" the treaty no longer applies, effectively the states involved leave the treaty with no notice. This is a necessary argument to support the NATO nuclear weapons sharing policy, but a troubling one for the logic of the treaty."

--I agree, a treaty without teeth is not much of a treaty, but the UN was never meant to be a police force, except in extraordinary circumstances.

I personally like the idea of having a central entity, outside of the beuocracy of the UN or another nation-state, which would hold the fissile material in trust, so when some was needed, for experimental or scientific reasons, it could be catalogued, and tracked, I think this is the only REAL way to stop further nuclear proliferation, but it would require a giant leap of faith by everyone, including the US, and I don't think there are enough cool-heads in this country to put their names on the line to advocate we give up our most powerful weapon, even if it means the continuation of the species.

"TWO OF the world's most powerful medical organisations have been accused of medical malpractice for knowingly promoting useless drugs that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children."

--To be quite honest, I hadn't heard about that situation, sounds like a case where blue-heads should roll. But you're holding this up as some sort of reason to trash the entire UN?

How many deaths were attributed to Vioxx? Asbestos? DDT? does this mean we should fold up our tent at the FDA, 2000 people died because of intelligence fowl-ups, should we close down the FBI or CIA? This requires oversight, meaningful oversight.

What about the eradication of smallpox or the all but eradication of polio...don't they get credit for them?

"Did you happen to catch who the "mediator" was that got Angola and Cuba to remove their troops? The UN? No. The good old USA."

--First of all, if the USA was so benevolent, why didn't they step-in 18 years earlier to wave our magic wand...if we are so good at nation building, why not handle the issues as they come instead of waiting two decades to solve it?

Secondly, if you notice, the plan which lead to the elections in 1990, was the UN's doing...if you want to provide a fair view of the situation with regards to our commitment to rebuilding nations, let's explore how much work went into Tajikistan or East Timor by the US...yeah, that would be absolutely NOTHING, and in the case of ET, we actively worked with the Indonesian government to repress the movement towards sovereignty and then colluded with them to massacre rebels in the interim.

Since you so eagerly jumped right into the argument, let's talk.

Buzz off, troll.