Question to those that dislike the UN.

bluelight

I posted the post below as an answer elsewhere.....then i figured it was enough for as topic of its own.

The people here and elsewhere on boards now that opposes to the UN are noremally Americans with few exceptions.

All of them usually explains that the UN is worthless as an idea and does not work.

None of then EVER say what they want instread.

Why?

Well i know the answer to that but im not gonna write further at the moment.
Ill leave with the post i wrote initially....

and ask


What d you want instead of the UN??

The world directed by YOU? Or do you have a tremendously brilliant idea of something that could replave the UN in which all memebers states are respected for their will??

If so......

Why not see to it that the UN works better??


Bluelight




-----------------------------------------




Ok......In reply to Jeff and Smoothdrive..

Well then lets do it like this then........

Tear down the UN.

All the world gets to pay tax to Usa to pay for military spendings....and security.

Then we in Sweden and the rest of the world send your 18 year olds to a internatinal "pool" of military. ..directed by American officers h direct orders from the politicians Americans vote in place to suit the needs of Americans



Will that suit you?

It would give the type of securioty you are asking for ....And you would not anymore have to whine about
you paying.
No mare paying to the UN and total control for you.




It is a fairly simple and easy layout that would forever rid us of the UN problem.


Those that refuse can be enemies against who wars can be fought until everybody understands what is best for them...or?


Bluelight

Nqstv

I'm not opposed to the UN as a concept. One world body based on Democratic representation from all self governing countries.

However, the current iteration of the UN has definitely become stagnant and insufficient for the needs of the world. The biggest issue that I see with the UN as it exists now is the inability or lack of purpose to uphold it's own articles and/or resolutions.

The biggest mistake the UN made was providing 1 vote veto power to the 16 major powers. I could understand weighted votes being applied, but 1 vote veto was a little over the top.

This coming from a staunch conservative.

Nqstv

digitalwanderer

Agreed, but they HAD to include that provision to get the 16 major powers to agree to the UN in the first place.

I think a lot of people have forgotten just what a radical concept the UN was when it was first introduced and sort of take it for granted. It's STILL one of the most radical concepts in the world, and I think it is REAL important to get it or something like it WORKING!

One more time:

One planet, one people; deal with it!

Smoothdrive

I am not against the basic concept of the UN.

I am against the UN because of the dictorial Veto system and the lack of posibilities for countries other than these 5 veto'ers.

It is useless having an organisation like the UN when one country can stop the show..it shoudl be more democratic, majority of votes should decide..without one country having the power to stop it.

Who has Veto's anyway ?

US
Russia
China
UK
France

I'm not even gonna start on why some countries have veto right..

Tell me this..what major decision can ever be made without one of these 5 being against ? sure they can decide on some small "who cares anyway" issues. But as soon as there are real decisions to be made there is allways a veto by one of these countries.

How does this leave the rest of the world anyhow ? It's just these 5 that will decide in the end no matter how you put it.

UN sucks as it is.

Set it up so that 3 smaller countries get one combined vote and bigger countries get maybe 2 or 3 votes . In the end every vote of every UN member should count for something instead of just playing along for fun waiting for what the 5 will decide.

bluelight

And how are you gonna make Wolfwitz,Rumsfeld and Cheney accept that you would not have the possibility to over rule the entire world by a veto?


Bluelight

bluelight

'



Howe do Smooth persuade the conservative right curently in rule in Usa that they dont need a veto?

And.....what is your suggestion? UN or not.

If not what else?

As it is now....WE are in reality talking.....Un...or Usa.

Those are the two options since Usa in fact IS the most significant nation economically and military.




Bluelight

Nqstv

Luckily, Bluelight, I don't have to worry about it. Politics at that level are never going to be influenced or impacted by me. You asked for an opinion, and I provided one.

But, I think I said something about weighted votes. I do believe that the major powers have a greater say in world leadership. No one power, though, should have ultimate say (Yes or No) in the governance of the entire world. Hence, as my forefathers knew on a smaller scale, the constitution of the United States of America.

It's all about checks and balances. Sometimes, unpopular decisions have to be made by people who are much more knowledgeable about the decision then you or I will ever be. These decisions must have a form of checks and balances to validate to the best of it's ability that the decision is made correctly.


BTW, the power to Veto in the UN has nothing to do with conservative right or liberal left. It has to do with power.


Nqstv

eyeguy616

The UN isn't anything new. We must remember the failed League of Nations in order to come up with an answer. After WWI the LoN was created so that order could be kept in Europe after Germany's rampage. The USA refused to enter into the LoN (which US President Wilson actually proposed after the war) on the basis that the Senate was still majorly filled with nationalists (people who wanted the US to be isolated in worldly affairs). There might be more reasons but I'm pulling this from my college history textbook, so I might be brainwashed. It goes on to say a nice line: "The [LoN] treaty [...] was killed by its friends and not its enemies." Could WWII have been prevented had the US joined the LoN? Probably not. Japan woud still invade China and Germany would want to rise up and become a sovereign nation again (which, if you remember, Germany had been put down tremendously after WWI).
The UN was created after WWII to try to prevent such a thing (the horrible beat down of Germany after WWI as well as her rampage in WWII) from happening, and of course the US had to join when it showed the world that it was a super power (A-bomb). The one veto power is very necessary: ie. ALL countries in the UN must agree in order to do possible regretable actions. If I remember from my history class, the UN DID allow the US to intervein several times in other countries affairs becuase Russia and China didn't show up to veto! The UN is a very good concept in theory, as was the LoN, but its execution is lacking somewhat. France and Russia threatened with veto becuase of some underlying ties with Iraq, like illegal oil shipments to either country (big one) and probably some other under-the-table deals. The US sorely wanted action, but if it really followed the UN it would have taken many more months or years before such a thing was even considered again.
Back after Desert Shield/Storm, Iraq (Hussian) signed an agreement to disarm. The UN tried to uphold this agreement with inspectors to make sure Iraq disarmed, but they were cut off in '98. Inspectors were not allowed into the country. What did the UN do? They waited. And waited. The US wanted to uphold that agreement that was signed by Hussain, but couldn't for a while longer. When Iraq finally produced their giant inventory listing last year and allowed the UN inspectors back in, the US was not satisfied, since Iraq broke their signed agreement suddenly to possibly (maybe wrong here) do some covering up. Many things lead up to the US decision to invade Iraq, but the possibility of waiting any longer was just not acceptable.

My solution for this.... I can't think of one. The UN is a great concept: nations join together to make a vast oligarchy where noone has the better of the other. I'm all for it as we need something to unify this broken and isolated population we have. But, and a big but at that, people will always be people. People by definition will always have alterior motives and act alone or with a friend to do what they think is right. It's ALWAYS for self gain. THERE IS NO SOLID DEFINITION OF WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG! (ahem, sorry) These are continuously being recreated in the minds of people as noone defines what is Right or Wrong the same each and every time. This is the great delemma of Mankind. Once we can all agree to a concept of Right or Wrong (whatever it may be), we will then be able to achieve any and all goals that fall along those lines. Once we can get over material possessions and make a worldly government FOR its people and FROM its people, we will have achieved a peace like none other.
But that is all fantasy. It will never happen, at least not in my lifetime. We will always want more and better. People will always be people.......
.....but.....
There is one way. It's not a good way, or a Right way, but it can work. It can cast forth what is Right and what is Wrong! It can also achieve any goal set forth by the governed and governers. It can achieve full support of the people on anything that is Right. It is available now thanks to technological advancements. No country has yet to use it to its fullest extent, but one came very close: Germany. Hopefully ya'lls Government class goes over this concept, as mine has gone over it in strong detail. Every type of government we have exists because it is positive. If you can, for a minute, put away any hostilities instilled by what is shown on TV, forget the negatives you have been taught, and even put away any reference you might have to how it has been portrayed up to this point, I think you might agree with me on this. Totalitarianism. In order for this to work in the best possible way, the public MUST participate, as it is a system of involvement. The Government must care about what its people think and present values that have no opposition so that there's no logic for any opposition to exist.

One problem, one solution.
~eyeguy616
-Hope I didn't just hijack this thread, but this is the extent of my inference on this subject.

JavaFox

When England returned India back to the Indians, it also partitioned off Pakistan as a Muslim state. Despite initial settling problems, and an ongoing conflict over Kashmir, the two countries are relatively peaceful. Both Muslims and Hindus have independent states, and you don't often hear about other Asian nations rallying to "Free Pakistan!"

Yet examine Israel. When the British Mandate expired, and Israel was established, there were promises to create an independent Palestinian state. Yet today, there is no such state. The two areas are in constant conflict, there is no peace, and Arab nations around the world rally to "Free Palestine"?

What's the difference? The role of the UN. The UN didn't handle the partition of India; they handled the partition of Palestine.

This one example exemplifies how clumsy the UN is. It can't handle things as well as a single nation sometimes can. You see this time and time again throughout history.

Am I opposed to the UN? No. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention are two great things that came out of that organization. But the UN needs to revitalize itself. They need to re-read their own Charter and get back to the basics. Stop the bickering over things that are clearly supported by the Charter of the UN (war with Iraq, air campaign against Kosovo). The UN should really be fighting against the international drug trade, piracy, international terrorism, and other global concerns that no one nation can handle by itself.

bluelight

Yes you are right....It doesnt matter if there is a veto or not for your government.

They do not like the UN anywhichway.They have other plans.


Qoute

"It's all about checks and balances. Sometimes, unpopular decisions have to be made by people who are much more knowledgeable about the decision then you or I will ever be."


Answer Bluelight.

Im sorry.I dont subscribe to the idea that there are leaders that take decisions an´d are more"knowledgeable"
about issues and decisions than you and i.

That way of thinking is for sheep and is practiced in dictatorships.

Bluelight

bluelight

I see nothing here that differs from what the role of the UN is today.So what is the problem other than stepping off from petty selfsefving?As practiced by many?


And.....You cant claim India and Pakistan ...is a peaceful solution...no no...Not that it would have been better if the UN had done the division but peaceful...no..every second year they threat each other with nuclear arms...and there is an evr ongoing war between the in Kashmir.

I dont have any illusions about the UN being able to create a fully peaceful world...but IF it were given the resourses needed without the major powers constantly blocking its work for reasons that serve themselves...


I read somewhere that the European union..subsidiases each cow..in the Union..with the same amount of money....that currently feeds half of the worlds population....

Anyone claiming...that there isnt enough money in the western world..to maintain an organisation that develop the world...is out of touch with both reality and humanism.

Bluelight

Bluelight

Nqstv

bluelight,

Just want to be clear. Please no bating. I stated "Knowledgeable", I didn't say more intelligent. The senior officials of every country in the world have access to state information gathering and report out. There are things known by these officials that you will never know and I will never know. This puts them in a better position to make educated decisions based on data and fact. In our case, they are elected to do just that. You are not in that position and neither am I.

And as far as a Veto or not. I believe I stated that I don't believe any country has the right to an all encompassing Veto.

I think the US does like the UN. I believe that it is a valuable organization. However, just as any country, the United States has to place the wellfare of it's people, which, by the way, believe in Freedom for all humans on this planet, above the politics of a defunct pseudo-world government.

I stated in my first post that I am a staunch conservative. I base this on one simple fact. I believe in personal responsibility for my actions and believe that all others should do the same. In order to take this responsibility and not let it slip from my grasp, I must maintain the freedom to do so. Just as the United States as a governed country by the people and for the people must do the same.

The United Nations gave up this responsibility when it let Saddam Hussein destroy the lives of 26,000,000 Iraqis. You want to see how bad it really was and also why you never heard about it. Take a look at this link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/op...partner=GOOGLE

And by the way, please don't twist my words and imply that I am a sheep. This discussion forum is for debate, not personal attack.

Nqstv

Falstaff

Despite its corruption, bias, indolence and waste, the U.N. retains so much moral authority that former President Bush felt he had to appeal to the U.N. in order to get Democrats to authorize the Gulf war in 1991. And today, George W. Bush had to punch his ticket in Manhattan before being able to count on support from a number of U.S. allies abroad, as well as the same Democrats in the U.S. Congress his father had to worry about. (It's worth pausing to note that the current President Bush struck just the right note at the U.N., challenging the institution to enforce its own resolutions.)
The United Nations, like the League of Nations before it that crumbled at the first challenge from armed thugs, is an exercise in utopianism. It embodies the hope that the nations of the world can cooperate to eliminate scourges like dysentery and river blindness, and settle their differences over polished conference tables rather than with machetes and M-16s. The U.N. can boast some modest success in battling disease and poverty, but its record on peace and reconciliation is abysmal.
Though blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeeping forces have been deployed around the globe, they have proved highly vulnerable to political manipulation — in other words, they've been useless. In 1967, U.N. forces were summarily ejected from the Sinai Desert — where they were theoretically keeping the peace between Egypt and Israel — when President Gamal Abdel Nasser waved them off with a flick of his wrist. In 1991, when the Croats counterattacked against the Serbs, the blue helmets were left standing impotently in the dust as tanks and APCs rolled through.
The fantasies of the U.N.'s founders were limitless. Franklin Roosevelt's secretary of state, Cordell Hull, imagined the U.N. would rid the world of "spheres of influence, alliances, balance of power, or any of the other special arrangements through which, in the unhappy past, the nations strove to safeguard their security or to promote their interests."
It isn't the fault of the U.N. per se that the unrealistic hopes pinned on it have been punctured. The U.N. reflects its membership. Before the end of the Cold War, the great blocs that held sway there consisted of communists and a variety of other criminals, potentates and presidents for life. In those days, the Commission on Human Rights was always looking into the situation in Puerto Rico and Tel Aviv, but never in Havana or Moscow.
Even today, when more of the world's nations are free and democratic than ever before in history, China still holds a seat on the Security Council and the Arab nations still comprise the largest bloc vote. Israel has been condemned countless times (though Israel is not, as callers to talk radio and C-SPAN constantly assert, in violation of Resolutions 242 and 338), but the Security Council has never once condemned Arab terrorists, far less the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the massacre in Rwanda, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, Russian conduct in Chechnya or Serbian acts in Bosnia.
And yet, most Americans and an overwhelming majority of Europeans believe the moral imprimatur of the United Nations is necessary before any military action can be contemplated. When people tell pollsters what high regard they have for the U.N., they are forgetting about the "Zionism is racism" resolution; the orgy of America and Israel-bashing at the Durban conference on racism; the instant pronouncements by U.N. personnel that Israel had committed an "atrocity" in Jenin (only to be contradicted by the facts later); and so on. They are engaged in the same sort of utopianism that motivated the U.N.'s founders.
But the world does not and probably never will run on cooperation, peaceful dispute resolution and friendship. Peace is maintained today as it always was, by armed force and balance of power. We are fortunate to live in a time — most unusual in human history — when the good guys also have the biggest guns. That is the source of our security and the world's hope, not the fond figment on the East River.
Now we are faced with the IRAQI question, can the U.N. remain viable in a climate of unrest that challenges even the powerful forces of the Coalition. Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush will declare victory until we know that we have the last vestiges of Husseins regime under our guns or locked away until a trial in the Hague or perhaps by fire in the desert. Now Coalition forces might have to run a quantlet of hungry IRAQI looters and expatriated militia, attempting to establish their own control within the borders of the conquered nation..

bluelight

Ill return to your post later let me just say..."sheep" was not meant against you.Sorry..not at all.

It was meant as a way to describe a way of accepting decisions "from above" without questioning.

Not meant against you personally.

I promise.




Early here i i just woke up..be back for the rest of the post later.

Bluey



Nqstv Qoute

And by the way, please don't twist my words and imply that I am a sheep. This discussion forum is for debate, not personal attack.

Falstaff

Just counting them, ha ha.....like a good shepherd..

Smoothdrive

hmm where did that funny looking sheep with the wolf-tail come from ??

BWX

Any important decision involving a major county and military power renders the current UN impotent. It has been proven. Veto power by an even remotely involved country (France, Russia, etc.... in this case) creates a conflict of interest and since the UN has no military power in and of it's own (and it shouldn't) it becomes irrelivant by design. It was built that way because otherwise we would truely have a 1 world government which at the present stage in history is unacceptable.

And bluelight I did not read that on a website somewhere like you seem to get your information. If the UN works why did the US have to take control and get Saddam out? Why couldn't the UN do it bluelight?

bluelight

I suggest you read the first post of this thread.It seerms you didnt understand my questiion.

I am asking what.....the alternative to the UN is?? Im not asking what the US did or did not.

Í know what they want....question is...will you stadyup and admitt it...




The Us did not..............."take control of the un"....

The declared war against Iraq themselves.'

This is not the same thing...

The UN said "forget it" ..to the proposals of your government.

You do not control the UN.

But as i said...i wanna know what you want instead..

You controlling the world or the world controlling itself togehter.


Bluelight

Falstaff

suggest you read the first post of this thread.It seerms you didnt understand my questiion.

I am asking what.....the alternative to the UN is?? Im not asking what the US did or did not.

Í know what they want....question is...will you stadyup and admitt it...

The Us did not..............."take control of the un"....

The declared war against Iraq themselves.'

This is not the same thing...

The UN said "forget it" ..to the proposals of your government.

You do not control the UN.

But as i said...i wanna know what you want instead..

You controlling the world or the world controlling itself togehter.



The good guys have all the big guns man. If the U.S. was weaker politically or militarily, there would have been a different outcome...but we are not...We can will affect world policy, hopefully for the best...regardless of the role of the U.N. they will have to be more decisive, more successful, and more patient...The world however isn't patient..

BWX

Oh, I want the US to drop a big MOAB on the UN, sorry, forgot to say that--

Smoothdrive

I think its the other way around..the guys with the big guns allways turn into "good guys" after they won.