United Nations

[keithisco]

Why are so many U.S.Citizens against the United Nations (if this forum is representative).

As the ONLY platform for nations, great and small, to voice opinions and to be heard on the global stage, shouldn’t it be welcomed rather more openly, and respected for its intent?

It performs a great deal of good humanitarian work through its various agencies and to some country’s citizens is almost their only hope of survival.

It has no military teeth, that is true, but then that was written into its charter which was approved by ALL founding nations. I believe that was the correct thing to do.

The U.S.A. was one of the founders, has a permanent seat on the Security Council, yet reneges every year on making its apportionment of membership fees to its continued operation. Why is this?

I am interested to hear everyones opinions, and whether other nationalities have specific complaints about how it operates, importantly, what would make it operate more "efficiently" as a mouthpiece of moderation in the world.

Edited January 26, 2008 by keithisco

[greggK]

You are Spanish, no?

[keithisco]

You are Spanish, no?

No,

I'm a Brit. who became disenchanted with the direction his own country was moving, so left permanently to live in Madrid. There were many dynamics involved in this decision, but have never once regretted the move.

Edited January 26, 2008 by keithisco

[questionmark]

The U.S.A. was one of the founders, has a permanent seat on the Security Council, yet reneges every year on making its apportionment of membership fees to its continued operation. Why is this?

True, but they kind of wanted a different United Nations, you know, the kind that makes rules as they say, which apply to everybody, except themselves.

Have you noticed how many international initiatives have been started by the US and then were reneged on when it went to be international law, i.e. Kyoto, The international court of Justice to mention only the most notable recently making the news ?

[keithisco]

True, but they kind of wanted a different United Nations, you know, the kind that makes rules as they say, which apply to everybody, except themselves.

Have you noticed how many international initiatives have been started by the US and then were reneged on when it went to be international law, i.e. Kyoto, The international court of Justice to mention only the most notable recently making the news ?

Yes, I know they bring many initiatives to the floor of the UN, and equally do not follow them through. I just dont fully understand why? If the behaviour is as you say then the government is acting like a spoiled child, cant get its own way so goes off sulking.

I dont understand why so many US Citizens also feel this way though, is through propogandising a negative approach to the UN or are there other, deep - seated reasons. We know, and all US folk I speak to agree, that there is little or no reporting on World events, so could it be just lack of knowledge of the outside world making the UN appear irrelevant?

I dont want this thread to become an anti-US thread because I am not anti US - mostly anti US Govt (presently) but not anti-US citizens

[questionmark]

Yes, I know they bring many initiatives to the floor of the UN, and equally do not follow them through. I just dont fully understand why? If the behaviour is as you say then the government is acting like a spoiled child, cant get its own way so goes off sulking.

I dont understand why so many US Citizens also feel this way though, is through propogandising a negative approach to the UN or are there other, deep - seated reasons. We know, and all US folk I speak to agree, that there is little or no reporting on World events, so could it be just lack of knowledge of the outside world making the UN appear irrelevant?

I dont want this thread to become an anti-US thread because I am not anti US - mostly anti US Govt (presently) but not anti-US citizens

Americans have the tendency to call everybody who says something factual about the US that they don't want to hear, Anti-American. When I was younger I used to think that too... but that was more a sign of an inferiority complex than of not knowing what the other one is saying is true.

[Caesar]

I think the role of the U.N. when is was created was to set basic rules for nations to follow as if it was one nation. my problem is that I think its involved in everything fine tunning everything it can get its hands on everything from "Hate Crimes" to Global Warming.

Lets look at the Darfur conflict and the claim by U.N. Secretary General on how global warming is to blame

"U.N. leader: Darfur slaughter triggered by global warming

More violent conflict on horizon due to climate change, he says"

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon ~ Source

But if you did some research on the history of that lands, it was once much dryier then it is today

" 22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.

10,500 to 9,000 years ago: Monsoon rains begin sweeping into the Sahara, transforming the region into a habitable area swiftly settled by Nile Valley dwellers.

9,000 to 7,300 years ago: Continued rains, vegetation growth, and animal migrations lead to well established human settlements, including the introduction of domesticated livestock such as sheep and goats.

7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society."

Source Livescience.com

This is just one small example

[questionmark]

I think the role of the U.N. when is was created was to set basic rules for nations to follow as if it was one nation. my problem is that I think its involved in everything fine tunning everything it can get its hands on everything from "Hate Crimes" to Global Warming.

Lets look at the Darfur conflict and the claim by U.N. Secretary General on how global warming is to blame

"U.N. leader: Darfur slaughter triggered by global warming

Most of those jokers, especially the last five Secretary General, were the candidates supported by the US. Could there be a more complicated issue at stake... like when the UN leaders get elected they are only responsible to the UN and not the USA and therefore don't act i.a.w. US wishes?

[Lt_Ripley]

True, but they kind of wanted a different United Nations, you know, the kind that makes rules as they say, which apply to everybody, except themselves.

Have you noticed how many international initiatives have been started by the US and then were reneged on when it went to be international law, i.e. Kyoto, The international court of Justice to mention only the most notable recently making the news ?

exactly. Remember Bush wanted no part of the UN when it came to decisions like Iraq ( but did crawl on his hands and knees when he found he was over his head) - and now that is costing us

War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President George W. Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote.

"It keeps going up, up and away," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said of the money spent in Iraq since U.S. troops invaded in 2003.

"We're seeing the war costs continue to spiral upward. It is the additional troops plus additional costs per troop plus the over-reliance on private contractors, which also explodes the costs," said Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who opposed the war.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Congress has written checks for $691 billion to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and such related activities as Iraq reconstruction, the CBO said.

There are around 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 27,000 in Afghanistan.

$11 Billion a Month

Of the total, the CBO estimated that $440 billion had been spent on fighting in Iraq launched with the goal of ousting President Saddam Hussein from power and securing weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012608A.shtml

greed is killing the USA - as is stupidity

Edited January 26, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[Caesar]

Most of those jokers, especially the last five Secretary General, were the candidates supported by the US. Could there be a more complicated issue at stake... like when the UN leaders get elected they are only responsible to the UN and not the USA and therefore don't act i.a.w. US wishes?

I dissagree, maybe the last five Secretary General supported liberal ideas of liberals in America

[Caesar]

exactly. Remember Bush wanted no part of the UN when it came to decisions like Iraq ( but did crawl on his hands and knees when he found he was over his head) - and now that is costing us

I think your right on that statement, I think Bush thought it was going to be a cakewalk

[questionmark]

I dissagree, maybe the last five Secretary General supported liberal ideas of liberals in America

Aha... isn't this kind of what I was saying a few posts above?

[keithisco]

I dissagree, maybe the last five Secretary General supported liberal ideas of liberals in America

I think it is almost a given that to be a successful Secretary General you MUST be liberally minded. You must be responsive and fair to all parties, and they must be given a fair hearing. To be conservative and inward looking would be pointless, because you would then have someone simply following his own agenda.

Worse still, if the SG was seen as being heavily biased to the wishes of one nation on all important issues, then the accusation would be one of corruption.

[Caesar]

I think it is almost a given that to be a successful Secretary General you MUST be liberally minded. You must be responsive and fair to all parties, and they must be given a fair hearing. To be conservative and inward looking would be pointless, because you would then have someone simply following his own agenda.

I think a successful Secretary General should be openminded and not be influenced by politics

[questionmark]

I think a successful Secretary General should be openminded and not be influenced by politics

Politics starts every morning when you choose the place to get your morning coffee... diplomats are politicians.

[keithisco]

I think a successful Secretary General should be openminded and not be influenced by politics

Absolutely agree with that, that is why I spelled liberal with a small "L". I would also say that the SG has no voting or veto rights

[questionmark]

Absolutely agree with that, that is why I spelled liberal with a small "L". I would also say that the SG has no voting or veto rights

Which is what most Americans who are against the UN don't understand. The decision coming out of there will always be a compromise between the positions of all if highly disputed and a decision depending on a veto or the decision of the majority if it is the general assembly.

The UN was not founded to serve the interest of one group or one country but to find a peaceful resolution to conflicts.

[Caesar]

Absolutely agree with that, that is why I spelled liberal with a small "L". I would also say that the SG has no voting or veto rights

But thats what I view the U.N. as right now. it seems to be this New World Order pushing these far left views on nations. I think Turkey is a good example.

[keithisco]

But thats what I view the U.N. as right now. it seems to be this New World Order pushing these far left views on nations. I think Turkey is a good example.

But the UN does not have the power to push any views on any nation. It can only reflect consensus opinion. Not sure I follow your comment re: Turkey.

[Caesar]

But the UN does not have the power to push any views on any nation. It can only reflect consensus opinion. Not sure I follow your comment re: Turkey.

I think it does have that power, just look at Global Warming. sorry about my Turkey connection, I got the U.N. and E.U. mixed up thier. lol

[keithisco]

I think it does have that power, just look at Global Warming. sorry about my Turkey connection, I got the U.N. and E.U. mixed up thier. lol

The investigation into causes of GW will probably be the most remarkable achievement of the UN since its inception, IMO. I do not think that any member nation now discredits the findings of the IPCC, including, finally, the USA. Again, the released reports are under national review prior to publishing, and are not per se UN instruments. No nation has to act on the findings, or to accept them.

(I dont think Turkey will ever become a part of the EU, well.... I hope not)

[questionmark]

(I dont think Turkey will ever become a part of the EU, well.... I hope not)

I hope they do if they come through with the promised reforms. After all the EU is promising them membership since 1968 if they reform. It would not suit the EU well to be negotiating with somebody for 40 years and then tell them to get lost after accepting their conditions.

[Guardsman Bass]

There's been a long-standing suspicion by the American Conservatives of the UN or any other such international organizations that could be seen to constrain America's power and actions. It originally derived from a strong pro-isolationist stance (like that of Henry Cabot Lodge and other Republicans after WWI) that was against anything like "foreign entanglements", but it has morphed into a kind of neo-militarism stance.

[keithisco]

I hope they do if they come through with the promised reforms. After all the EU is promising them membership since 1968 if they reform. It would not suit the EU well to be negotiating with somebody for 40 years and then tell them to get lost after accepting their conditions.

With the caveat of reforming then it could happen. At the moment they seem a bit too gung-ho, and too fragile as a democracy. However exactly the same could have been said of Spain 25 years ago.

[Atheist God]

The U.N. was designed to evolve... While people call it merely a platform they seek to pass global taxes, control the vast oceans and in many nations their national parks and land marks as well.