Ignoring for a moment the fact that the president you hold so dear totally ignores UN criticism when it's thrown his way, and the fact that you fully support him in ignoring any UN resolutions or opinions that don't match your own, who gets the right to decide who belongs to this "new" UN you're proposing?

And, given that the United States has ignored any criticism, condemnation or directives issued by the UN, what makes you think a "new" UN would want the US as a prominent member, since it not only goes to war with who it feels like, when it feels like it, but ignores UN directives while whining incessently about countries like Iran that have also defied the UN?

Not saying Iran is right to defy the UN either - but why is it so damn important Iran is brought to task over it, while the US' flagrant breaches are totally ignored?

Maybe we do need a new UN. Maybe the US should only be a minor member until it learns that it's not above the rules of the organisation!

Hey good one! As long as we're imagining what it could be like...when we restart, (after burying those bodies shot at dawn) we could create a new U.N. dedicated to what did you write? "start again, this time only inviting decent, free nations to participate". Adding one part I think you may have forgotten, "who completely agree with the United States of America at all times. If you disagree or do not find our activities sincere then you are not worthy of being considered a "free nation" and disbarred in traitorous contempt.

Sounds Cool.

Maybe we do need a new UN. Maybe the US should only be a minor member until it learns that it's not above the rules of the organisation!

Wolfie, you're not American, are you? Have you ever looked at the entire makeup of the U.N.? I suggest you do, and then compare the ratio of democratic to non-democratic members. The majority of U.N. resolutions are against Israel/U.S.A.

Just who would you support putting on the U.N. Security Counci, and who would you propose as permanent members.

Folks, the comments of Wofie and raper are those of two people who hate/blame America for what's wrong in this world. Unfortunately, we have plenty of trolls here who feel the same way. I can't really find fault with our Canadian trolls for doing this; I'd be envious too if my country was so wussified, and had to rely on it's neighbors for it's own security.

Sorry, typos are abundant today. I meant "Wolfie" and "raker." I don't want to accuse raker of something he's incapable of...

Your story about the UN is a rather confusing one.
In some posts - it justifies actions because "we have a UN Mandate!" and and others they are deplorable and illegitimate. Its not perfect - but its the best we have for any sort of international review. The duplicity which you show isn't even original - when they do something you agree with then everyone has to follow their law - but if you disagree with it than you are free to ignore and even mock them.. Classic

I dare raker, ww and kblack to come up with FIVE GOOD THINGS the UN has accomplished this year or last year.

There is only one purpose to the UN (besides stealing millions of dollars in a barely covered Food for Oil scandal) and that is to restrain the US from doing what the world body cannot find the COURAGE to do. Why did France, Germany, China and Russia oppose our going into Iraq? Gee, you think it's because they all had their hands in Saddam's pockets?

And the human rights committee is hardly laughable, it's outrageous. It's been hijacked, presently and in the past, by some of the biggest human rights abusers ... and the left still cheers it on. Bravo!

I dare raker, ww and kblack to come up with FIVE GOOD THINGS the UN has accomplished this year or last year.

Five, kimberly? How 'bout one? Well, two--I'm sure they've accomplished at least one...

I have no problem with pulling our funds from the U.N. as long as we set up a charitable organization with the same money. Focusing on oversight of where the money goes, and we could do a lot of good in the world. If we did start a new League of nations, this one should require a country to be a Democracy to join, and no Russia does not count. The voting power should be directly proportional to how much a nation pays into the U.N.

Well, I did say they can combine this first quarter of 2007 with all of last year ... Perhaps I should give them 2005 as well.

Shall we bet on how long it takes them to come up with five? :-)

your right about one thing Kimberly -- the governments of France and Russia did vote against the US because of Oil contracts. Unfortunately - like most governments - they act on their own best interests rather than those of the general population.

I really implore you to think critically about what you are saying about the UN though. You would think that when there is near universal international condemnation of an action that would give you at least pause to question the wisdom and motivations behind an action. But rather than that you would seek to claim that everyone else in the world are cowards, or terrorists, or ...

just take a look
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions06.htm

at the resolutions that were passed in 2006. Certainly more than 5.

kimberly, did you ask for resolutions passed or good that the U.N. has done?

Exactly, Keefer. They can sit around all day long and pass resolutions. But what good are they? Rogue nations, including Iraq under Saddam, ignore them completely. Is that the main responsibility of the UN ... to pass useless resolutions? It's a waste of my taxes.

Wonder if kblack took the time to read the resolution passed on the "situation in Iraq"? Seems to me they are all in "near universal international" agreement that Iraq is progressing and should be entitled to live as a free nation.

Or how abut the resolution passed in 2007 about the "situation in the middle east"? If that one isn't biased against Israel as Mark stated in his post, I don't know what is.

Slowly I'm getting it.

(Pointing finger, stern face)

Bad U.N. Bad.

Bad A.C.L.U. Bad.

(Petting...)

Good P.N.A.C. Good.

Funny I don't see a list of the good things they have accomplished by the libs.

I fully acknowledge I'm no computer expert or a web type guy...

but if you're interested in finding out just how "good" the United Nations is in regards to the Human Rights... just check out the UN Watch, the non-governmental, non-profit organization based in Europe that judges the United Nations on how it lives up to it's own Charter.

Check it out... if the response of the President of the UN Human Rights Council doesn't show exactly what's wrong with the United Nations (at minimum on Human Rights) than you've got blinders on.

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch

"Mr. President,
Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?

Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.

It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.

So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions against Israel in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.

They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.

Thank you, Mr. President."

Raker, et al.

You lefties are just too blinded by hatred...you make nasty presumptions all the time, without any of you saying: "hey, Mark, so what would a successor organization look like?".

I'll nutshell it:

Only nations which have had three consecutive, democratic transfers of power are eligible for full membership. Nations which have had democratic elections, but not three successive, democratic transfers, are allowed to be non-voting, candidate members; a transfer of power is when the Executive is subjected to a free and fair election with multi-party candidates and no candidate for the executive was prevented from mounting a campaign.

The body will be bicameral - a General Assembly with representation based on population (I'm thinking one representative per 50 million people, with the minimum representation being one); the representatives are placed in the General Assembly by whatever means the member States wish, though democratic elections are urged. A Senate made up of one representative from each State, once again chosen by whatever means the States prefer.

The Senate nominates, and the General Aseembly approves or rejects, a Security Council and a President, all to serve a three year term. The Council will have seven members. No matter comes before the Assembly unless proposed by the President and approved by majority vote in the Council. No action may be taken by the organization unless approved by a 2/3 vote in the General Assembly.

Member States would provide a fixed amount of military force to be at the disposal of the organization - the amount to be determined in negotiation, and taking into account population and GDP. Failure to provide the required force will result in expulsion from the organization. The goal is to have a balanced force with ground, naval, air and auxiliary forces sufficient to intervene in any trouble spot around the world within 72 hours.

Funding for the organization is to be determined by a 3/4 vote of the General Assembly and Senate for a five year period, and the amount necessary to be charged to the member States based upon GDP (ie, if one State makes up 10% of the total GDP of the organization, it will provide 10% of the funds required for that five year period).

Disputes between members which cannot be solved via bi-lateral negotiations will be settled by the organization. First stop is the Security Council - but that would require a unanimous vote; if a unanimous decision is not reached, then International Court of Settlements is invoked, which is to be made up of 11 Justices, each selected at random from the judiciary of 11 member States, with staggered terms of 3 years each.

Pretty cool, huh? And, yes, it is a blueprint for a world government.

In the term of his Presidency George W. Bush has done huge harm to the image of the United States of America as a beacon of human rights world wide.

Open your eyes buffoons. The rest of the world is scoffing at us. Human Rights on his watch? Please, corporate interests on his watch.

I pray a statesman will lead the United States of America back to the respect and admiration among our neighbors. You will find a leader out there, and he won't be affiliated with the GOP.

Quoting Keefer:

Folks, the comments of Wofie and raper are those of two people who hate/blame America for what's wrong in this world.

Yes, this is ALWAYS your right wing whine, isn't it? People criticise Bush or his policies so they obviously must HATE and LOATH America...

Well, like so much else right wing, it simply isn't true. I don't hate America. Or Iraq. Or Iran. Or North Korea come to that. I think the POLICIES of some of these countries suck, and I think there should definately be regime change in at least one of these countries (yes, America) - but that doesn't mean I hate the country, or the people.

America was mighty in the world. She could be again. But to do that, Bush and his cronies have got to go. Because right now most of the rest of the world perceives 9/11 as a Bushco inside job, and sees America UNDER BUSH as an aggressor that is a threat to peace the world over, a country that UNDER BUSH supports torture (Gitmo being a prime example) and a country that UNDER BUSH is corrupt and, in some cases, seen as evil... but the key words here are UNDER BUSH. Get rid of Bush and the problem stands every chance of going away.

It's a sad, broken refrain where any criticism of Bush is taken as hating the US. Why don't you get an actual opinion instead of worshipping Bush all the time, then YOU might actually get some respect as well!

I think that voting here in the US should be available ONLT to veterans.

"In the term of his Presidency George W. Bush has done huge harm to the image of the United States of America as a beacon of human rights world wide." (raker13)

Harm only in the eyes of those hate human rights and attempt to force violence and hatred on other countries. I didn't say Iran, Al Qaeda, or Hugo Chavez. But that's a beginning...

"America was mighty in the world."

Still is, raker. Where have you been hiding in a cave with bin Laden?

"and sees (Muslim countries) under (fascist dictators) as an aggressor that is a threat to peace the world over, countries that under (Islamic fascism) support torture (Iran being a prime example) and countries that (enslave their peoples) (and are) corrupt and, in some cases, (represent overwhelming) evil.." (whisperwolf)

Wolf, old man, I've paraphrased your comments for truth. See Iran or Saddam.

As for the subject of the post, the UN Commission, you will know that it has voted for sharia. No country on earth, according to its dictates, may in the future legitimately permit ATTACKS ON Islam.

'It makes no mention of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism or any other religion besides ISLAM, but urges countries "to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."' (AP,30Mar, Dow Jones site)

Were governments to take this at face value they could start arresting all of us. Instead I suggest they acknowledge that the description above perfectly fits the violent, terrorist thugs that use Islam. Who threaten the whole world and live on the blood of their own people.

Mark: "Pretty cool, huh? And, yes, it is a blueprint for a world government."

Your idea bears some significant similarities to the EU - with some NATO mixed in. At any rate, I'd be in favor of it, at least in principle. Although I'd suggest that contributions be based on per capita GDP, not GDP without reference to population. Also, since elections are often gamed in many countries, I'd suggest that all full members and non-voting members allow their elections to be monitored and certified by the body at large. I'm sure Russia would love that.

Raker
You've got it totally wrong. The world isn't scoffing at us at all. The rest of the world has awoken to a President that actually does what he says....and follows thru with actions..not just words. Kinda like Slick in his eight years, it was all talk.

Ya see, in those eight years, a whole lotta terrorism and WMDs were being produced, plotted and planned for, and to put it as simply as possible, the rest of the world is now scared of what a "real" US President will do next.

Thank God we have GW in the WH!

You on the left call it insanity, we conservatives call it "finally doing something about it", and just because you hear an outcry from a very small minority of Bush haters arond the wolrd, it doesn't mean that the majority is listening...because we're not.

Isn't it funny how the rest of the civilized world is adopting our anti-terrorism philosophy and the majority of those countries look to the US for answers when it comes to self preservation? It shouldn't be to awful difficult to understand that even though the kook left insists that GW is a terrible President, the rest of the world actually praises hime for his actions unbder their breath, but publicly denounce his actions. Makes ya wonder just a bit now doesn't it Raker? Maybe the world is more receptive of a strong Pres than one thinks.

Ricorun,

It is open for debate and development...but Russia would not be a full member at this point anyways...and given the way Putin is heading, they would probably lose their candidate membership pretty soon.

There are, as you point out, elements of EU and NATO, but also, of course, a large element of American constitutional theory (upper house not based on population, super-majorities required for action, etc). The genesis of the idea is actually from Winston Churchill, who proposed a Union of the English Speaking Peoples...a sort of super British Empire, as it were, but the concept was very good.

The excluded nations are the important part: China, Cuba, all of the Moslem nations except Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey (Turkey would have full membership), almost all of Africa, large parts of South America, almost all of mainland Asia. As I envision that there would be complete free trade among members but high tarrifs against non-members, the desire to join would be rather high...and thus democratising in influence.

Because right now most of the rest of the world perceives 9/11 as a Bushco inside job,

No, WW, the truth is right now only kooks such as yourself and Elsie O'Donnell perceive 9/11 as an inside job. As for the rest of your post--b/s talking points from a b/s moron.

I asked you before, and I'll ask you again: are you American? My guess is no; you appear to be another smug, uninformed Canadian. Answer the question, dickweed...